Actually, you had answered your question yourself.
You wrote:
Basically you wonder *why* does Andrea Vogt not follow the line of most mainstream journalists (petting-the-Knoxes) and why does she report things that sound bad for the defence and good for the prosecution case. It’s a mystery. There may be a kind of conspiracy, a plan, complicate hidden motive. You don’t quite understand why she does that way, given that she does not get financial gain for her work.
You conclude – all by yourself – that she must not be in for the money. So you wonder what else…
You are sure, that she is on no payroll; she is not paid by a big circus; not getting big money from what she does. So what is the reason why she does that?
You are so blinded that you are unable to see the answer, you scan the horizon for the hill while you are on it. Your preliminary consideration may well be just the answer.
You may just invert the causal order.
You said: Vogt is not on a payroll; she is not in for money; she is not paid much for writing stories like those pro-Knox stuff that make networks sell.
So why does she write reports that point out evidence of guilt? - Well actually I’d say, why does she report the truth, instead of CNN-style stories?
Well, think about it, maybe, it’s just because she is not on the payroll; because she is not going after money.
Maybe she writes because she is just a journalist. I mean not one of those rich paid mercenaries from the media show. Maybe she reports and write about these things, not because she is aiming at money or other advanteges or part in the CNN-style infoshow, but instead maybe, just because these things are the truth.
