I'm not informed enough to evaluate all the claims in the article, but statistically innumerate claims like:

The probability that the DNA on the blade did not come from Kercher was found to be one in 300 million billion.

don't inspire me much confidence.

I think it's worth reading this if you think it's some variety of a clear cut case.

It's not worth reading that, unless you're interested in a case study in deceptive reporting.

The case is extremely clear-cut. The major US media often got minor details wrong (especially details having to do with how the Italian legal system works), but seldom did they get the important evidence wrong. Their "one-sided presentation" was accurate.

By contrast, the linked article completely distorts the evidence. It reads like the stuff you read at pro-guilt hate sites. Example:

Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon

"The murder weapon"? The whole dispute is about whether the knife in question is the murder weapon!

– a knife belonging to Sollecito – and Kercher’s was found on the blade. Whether it’s really Kercher’s DNA is hotly contested by Knox supporters, but contamination was ruled out at the latest appeal.

The statement that "contamination was ruled out at the latest appeal" is the kind of willfully ignorant claim that only a cynical propagandist could possibly make. The fact is that contamination is extremely likely, as the court-appointed experts determined at the appeal in 2011. It's true that the more recent appeals court, unlike its predecessor, decided not to listen to this finding. But they didn't commission their own expert review (on this point); they just sided with the prosecution's arguments. You might as well say that contamination was "ruled out" at the first trial.

I'm not going to bother going through the rest of the article; I suggest that anyone curious about the details have a look at the pro-innocence sites (and the pro-guilt sites, if they want to compare).