Yeah, abused and coerced, exactly what her lawyers told her to say.

What reason did Ted Bundy have to kill anyone?

So in other words you're guessing she's guilty? Not that there's any problem with that in itself, nobody but the accused will ever know exactly what happened. I just don't see how you can be so convinced, or surprised she was found not guilty when so much doubt exists.

I said they needed more than that evidence. Which they didn't have or bungled away. I don't see how anyone can possibly think they should be imprisoned based on that other than for slandering. And she already served her sentence for slander. 

People thinking they're guilty without concrete evidence, is the same thing as those rascist people "thinking" troy davis was guilty. (which I know you thought was dumb).
Thinking she's guilty is fine. But to believe that "thinking is enough evidence to put her in jail or worse; is a different circumstance. In the past this line of thinking has caused witch hunts.

She acts suspicious imo, but that's it. But, she has an explanation that explains it, manufactured or true it makes sense. Which is police coercion, and then not knowing what to do afterward. In the U.S. from my experience they try to get you to say what they want through really annoying, repetive, and condescending questions because the cops think they're right. 

Bundy was weird with the confessions initially and probably never confessed to all of them, nor was that the reason he got put in prison. Evidence was against him. And his reason for killing was that certain values like "thou shall not kill" was merely subjective and he said this.  Thus making him a sociopath. They were not able to prove or come up with sufficient evidence that Amanda Knox was a sociopath. 

I hadn't heard too much about this until yesterday when I read an article about the whole case.

From what I read, I'm neither sure she's innocent nor guilty. It's obvious that Rudy Guede was somehow involved in the murder, but the part of Sollecito and Knox remains mysterious. After reading all the facts etc. on Wikipedia, it seems obvious to me that she was trying to hide something, that she knew more than she wanted to reveal. You don't knowingly blame your completely innocent boss of murder without a reason. But of course that doesn't imply she was involved in the actual murder, I could think of several other reasons why she lied etc.

What?

Yeah, but what is the most probable reason for her lying?

I dont think that they're innocent.

I also dont think there is sufficient evidence to convict so it's right they are free.

The whole story about them being together that night is very suspicious.

The only facts we know about that night in Perugia are.

Knox and Solicetto insist they were together the night of the murder at his flat.

They state they smoked pot / made love / ate pizza / watched a movie and slept.

However to prove this Knox still maintains she called her boyfriend before her arrival that night.

FACT : The mobile phone records that night show no phone call was made to Solicetto from Knox's phone or received by him.

FACT : Solicetto also inisists he spent a number of hours on his computer that night but examination of the computer and cross referencing with his ISP proved it wasnt used all evening.

Like I said they shouldn't be in Jail because there is only circumstantial evidence left but the alleged DNA contamination was so perfect that there only two possible outcomes for me.

1. They are both killers who have literally gotten away with murder. God will be there judge.

2, They are both innocent and the Italian Police conspired to frame them both.

For me there is no middle ground.

To stay out of prison? Doesn't necessarily mean she killed Kercher. Again, you're just guessing