"
In my opinion, you're confusing different policies. You say that everything you write there is sourced; for the sake of the argument, I shan't dispute that (even though a very good point is raised there, regarding the difference between sourced and attributed). However, sourcing is required to comply with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Soapboxing, advocating and giving undue weight, on the contrary, are not permitted under Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. So, even if everything you state there is sourced, it still can't be included if it violates WP:NPOV.
It's not a matter of not liking what sources have to say; it's just that they are only opinions. I don't think criticism should be hidden or Amanda's guilt taken for granted. Actually, I don't even know if she did it, because, quite frankly, I never studied the case, but I'm convinced that if a Court of law convicted her, there must have been sufficient evidence to warrant that. Italy's not Soviet Russia... My point is that the article shouldn't mainly revolve around criticism of the trial or attempts at soiling Guede's reputation, by implying that he was a lone killer, as that, primarily, violates WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not there to retry Amanda. As I've said, I agree that criticism should be reported; it is notable and rather easily sourced. However, that should not be the focus of the article. 
Finally, as I wrote on the article's page, technically the trial record is publicly avalaible, but that doesn't mean that it was actually accessed or published (even in Italian, for that matters)...   ''''''  Let's talk 'bout it! "