After watching Netflix's new documentary on the Amanda Knox trial, I couldn't help but wonder if things would've gone differently had her trial actually been in a court room and not in the media.With coined nicknames such as "Foxy Knoxy" how could anyone, much less a non sequestered jury, make an unbiased decision about Ms. Knox's supposed guilt?

On November 2, 2007 the body of Amanda's roommate was discovered in their shared flat in Perugia, Italy, and by that afternoon one of the lead detectives, Marco Chiacchiera, had decided that Amanda was guilty. To him Amanda was "too affectionate with her boyfriend", since they were seen holding each other and giving small kisses outside of the apartment/crime scene.

Ok so, let me get this straight, two people who are in a relationship, and who just found out someone close to them was brutally murdered, are not allowed to comfort one another? Yeah that makes sense.

Another piece of Chiacchiera's "evidence" against Amanda is that she was "acting strangely"--basically he gets to judge whether or not someone is grieving correctly.

And perhaps his most infuriating attack against Amanda, is that she had "many sexual partners". So now a sexually active woman is automatically a sociopath. Misogyny: 1. Intelligence: 0.

Even knowing the final verdict, which only came down last year, I still couldn't help but be completely enraged at how the whole case was handled. Contaminated evidence, biased investigating, brutal interrogations, and media who decided ethics was a four letter word. Amanda Knox never stood a chance.

Thankfully justice prevailed, but at the cost of years of two young peoples' lives and a murderer who is still on the loose.

Amanda Knox a Netflix Original documentary is now streaming.