There is nothing irrelevent about the argument about the crediblity of the investigation, prosecution, or outcome of this case; in face, that argument about the credibility is itself a major part of this story.  Whether one chooses to believe it or not, there are a lot of inconsistencies with the method of investigation (enough so that part of Amanda's interrogation was thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court), prosecution (the prosecution admitted that they believed Amanda was guilty early on simply because of her "behavior" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000577-504083.html, the prosecution DID admit to withholding key evidence against Raffale Sollecito (the bra clasp, halting the trial for a month)and the outcome (it is a fact that the judge took cell phone calls and members of the jury fell asleep during the defense portion of the trial.  These are facts.   The purpose of Wikipedia is to tell the entire story, not just the part that is convenient.  People above are correct  this is not the forum to debate the trial, but it IS the forum to define the trial.  The trial definitely has in consistencies and that needs to be narrated.  You don't have to agree to it, but you do have to allow it.  If not, it is the editors here who are using Wikipedia as an incorrect venue to be a forum of pro-guilt only.