1. Yes, I agree I confused Prato for Diaz in tesla's post of his email exchange with Nina. I also agree with you that Nina undoubtedly has her own original interview notes with Del Prato as well, since that's what she does: actual journalism.
I disagree with you that she has an obligation to fully publish her work product. It's hers and her employers, their work, their effort, it belongs to them. Although I do agree it could have great value to the public and people interested in trying to follow the best available research, if they chose to share it. (I believe this is a current defect in copyright law, but that's a different thread topic, so lets not go there).
2. I believe you mistake Del Prato's being told by a police woman, with what actually occurred in regard to the matter the police woman was relating. The police woman could have gotten an inaccurate or incomplete story, relayed it to Del Prato, and Del Prato could have repeated that story in complete honesty, yet still have been factually incorrect as to events that she herself did not directly witness.
I believe this issue is called "HEAR-SAY"? Del Prato does not appear to have directly witnessed the events culminating in Rudy's release from police, but she did apparently get told a version by the police lady. The issue would seem to be how to confirm the police lady's version. I think Nina also quoted a police officer from Milan (a man, and by name IIRC) saying Rudy got released after a call with Perugian authorities, and that "these things happen". I think that's a different nuance in the story. I don't feel obligated to accept your conclusions on this point, thanks.
The comparison to Nara is correct, imo. You're using bare testimony itself, as justification for a claim of an unwitnessed fact, without any supporting cooboration, and the presence of conflicting accounts.
3. I remember reading this article from the NY Times, but I don't recall the interpretation you wish to impose. You seem to have some issue with Nina unrelated to her actual writing. I think every writer takes a position on something where the facts lead them to a conclusion. It's a whole other motivation to say someone is fabricating stories (as Michael B suggested with Nina's 'pounds of pasta' account from the nursery school), or altering time lines to provide an intentionally (or unintentionally) misleading understanding of the pattern of fact.
Look, I think you're projecting your own inclinations onto Nina, and everyone else. That's not a knock, I think its common. It takes real care to discount our own prejudices in any situation, Not at all a clear assessment, IUAM. Ok, now go ahead and express your outrage at the mere suggestion.
I don't know which account you're referring to regarding Tremantano, but I'll try to take a look at both. I agree this is relevant, and revealing regarding Rudy, and the police. (IIRC, Napoleone was only recently promoted to head of homicide at the time of the Kercher case, and IIRC it was her first case? - but I may be wrong on this).
but rather a direct report from someone that was there or has the actual transcript or video/audio of the conference.