Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

I don't think this is quite the silver bullet you were looking for.

And as for myself, I made no stand in favour of either statistics or hunches.

How convenient.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes I agree, and had the same problem as you with that part of what he said (since parking in a disabled bay wouldn't get you a criminal record anyway). It might be that he was exaggerating for effect (ANY criminal offence, even a parking ticket!), since he does go on to say that the advantage of the statistic is that the rapist might well already have a criminal record or at least be known to police, which wouldn't be the case for the minor (civil) offence he mentions. The main point he seems to be making is that a rapist will probably have a previous criminal history, just not necessarily for prior sexual offences. Agreed that the disabled parking bit confuses the issue, though.

I agree with you, katy, that the "disabled parking bay" reference was just one he pulled out of the air -- the most minor offense he could think of -- in order to establish a point. The interview is an excellent illustration of how criminals build up to more violent crimes over time.

 

[Mary_H]

There is no evidence they had the slightest interest in Patrick until Amanda told them she witnessed him raping and murdering her roommate.

Which is very puzzling when we consider that he was an accquaintance of Meredith, Amanda's employer, and that the police interviewed almost 90 other people.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is no evidence they had the slightest interest in Patrick until Amanda told them she witnessed him raping and murdering her roommate.

Really? Or could one apply the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" chestnut here too? I assume that since you use the phrase "no evidence", your argument is based on a lack of knowledge of what was actually said and done in that interrogation room. Since there was no tape recording of the interrogation (shame, that). Or did the police ever positively say that Lumumba's name had never come up in the interrogation until AK's "confession"?

If the police DID say something along the lines of what I've just written, then yes, that adds a lot of weight to your argument. But if it's purely a matter of "there's no positive evidence the police had any interest in Lumumba prior to AK's "confession", so one can therefore infer that this position is untenable", then that's clearly poor logic.

During the AK interrogation of the 5/6 Nov, the police discovered AK's "incriminating" text message sent from - and stored on - her cellphone. The stored information contained the sent message and the cellphone number of the recipient. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this discovery took place at 01.00 (although if you have evidence that the discovery took place at, say, 01.44, that would change things somewhat...). It doesn't seem to have taken the police long to "interpret" the meaning of this text message. They quickly came to the conclusion that the message constituted an agreement between the sender (AK) and the recipient to meet up some time on the evening/night of the 1st.

Now, it would appear (correct me if I'm wrong), that you're asking me - and others - to believe a number of subsequent things:

1) That the police didn't quickly come to the conclusion that the meeting they'd concluded had taken place on the night of the 1st (but which AK denied at that time) was suspicious and very possibly linked in some way to the crime.

2) That even if the police found it suspicious that AK denied arranging any sort of meeting that night, they formed no resultant suspicion about the recipient of the text message (who was, in their eyes, the person AK met that night but whom she denied meeting)

3) That the police were then unable to establish the identity of the text recipient, presumably owing to all of the following: AK refused to tell them, and Lumumba's name wasn't linked with his number in AK's cellphone address book, and the police were unable to link the number with Lumumba through their access to cellphone number databases.

4) That, as a result of all of those things, police did not suspect Lumumba (or even the as-yet-unidentified recipient, if (3) is to be believed) of involvement in the murder until the very moment that AK named him in her "confession".

To me, there can't logically be any other scenario, given what is already known, than that Lumumba's name had come up - at the very least - in connection with the crime before AK fatefully opened her mouth to pour forth...

 

[Mary_H]

You omit the most probable part of their thought process:

1. Supply the inconsistencies in their alibis to each Raffaele and Amanda.
2. Tell the other one once one of them refuses to back up the other's alibi.
3. Wait for the inevitable counter-accusation.
4. Bingo. Two compliant suspects.

The police can legally do all this in Italy while they're still witnesses. The problem is that Amanda screwed up #3 for them and instead named her boss as the murderer and said she was there in the cottage at the time.

All the speculation about Patrick presumes that the police interviewers wanted and expected Amanda to name him so they could go roust him out of bed in the wee hours. And this was a part of an elaborate scheme to make Amanda look bad and to ruin Patrick's reputation and his business. Whereupon they just let him go and dropped the charges.

It's quite a stretch of the imagination and it requires the Perugia authorities to be both fiendishly clever and unbelievably stupid at the same time.

No one has argued that the police were motivated by an elaborate plan to ruin Patrick's reputation and business and then let him go. They were looking for a black man to arrest for the crime:

"Italian police investigating the murder of Meredith Kercher are testing blood-smeared hairs found in her hand that could have come from her killer or killers, it emerged today.

The Turin daily La Stampa said that several hairs had been found in the fingers of Ms Kercher's left hand "and now the laboratory examinations will tells us whether these bloody hairs belong to whoever killed her".

"We know that Meredith Kercher, on that evening of November 1, fought back and tried to defend herself," it added."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2862541.ece

Once they arrested Patrick in an unnecessarily dramatic way without additional investigation, they drove a caravan through town to boast of their success in nabbing the perpetrators of the crime. As shown in other citations here, the theory of the crime was already developed and shared with the press the same day the suspects were arrested.

 

[stilicho]

Really? Or could one apply the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" chestnut here too? I assume that since you use the phrase "no evidence", your argument is based on a lack of knowledge of what was actually said and done in that interrogation room. Since there was no tape recording of the interrogation (shame, that). Or did the police ever positively say that Lumumba's name had never come up in the interrogation until AK's "confession"?

Patrick was not questioned before his arrest. He was not mentioned in Amanda's alibi email from 04 NOV 2007. It didn't come up in court although Patrick had representation during the trials of RS and AK. Do you have any evidence they thought he was involved before Amanda named him as Meredith's killer?

During the AK interrogation of the 5/6 Nov, the police discovered AK's "incriminating" text message sent from - and stored on - her cellphone. The stored information contained the sent message and the cellphone number of the recipient. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this discovery took place at 01.00 (although if you have evidence that the discovery took place at, say, 01.44, that would change things somewhat...). It doesn't seem to have taken the police long to "interpret" the meaning of this text message. They quickly came to the conclusion that the message constituted an agreement between the sender (AK) and the recipient to meet up some time on the evening/night of the 1st.

The police had their cell phones by 02 NOV 2007. This was reported in court by either Bartolozzi or Bastitelli. That's almost four full days in which they knew about the messages and yet they saw no reason to interview Patrick.

1) That the police didn't quickly come to the conclusion that the meeting they'd concluded had taken place on the night of the 1st (but which AK denied at that time) was suspicious and very possibly linked in some way to the crime.

They didn't until Amanda told them. Why would they?

2) That even if the police found it suspicious that AK denied arranging any sort of meeting that night, they formed no resultant suspicion about the recipient of the text message (who was, in their eyes, the person AK met that night but whom she denied meeting)

Wasn't that the point of that part of the interview? Wasn't it to find out what Amanda was doing during the time that Raffaele said she wasn't at the flat with him?

3) That the police were then unable to establish the identity of the text recipient, presumably owing to all of the following: AK refused to tell them, and Lumumba's name wasn't linked with his number in AK's cellphone address book, and the police were unable to link the number with Lumumba through their access to cellphone number databases.

Who said they didn't know that AK's phone contained a message to Patrick? None of us know whether they did or didn't or when they found out exactly. The point of the interviews with AK were to find out what she was doing and not what Patrick was doing.

4) That, as a result of all of those things, police did not suspect Lumumba (or even the as-yet-unidentified recipient, if (3) is to be believed) of involvement in the murder until the very moment that AK named him in her "confession".

Jovana Popovic had interacted with Raffaele more than once during the day and the police didn't interview her, either, nor did Raffaele tell them that she murdered Meredith. Yet Amanda took the soonest opportunity to connect the message on her phone to the murder and told the police that Patrick did it. She did it so quickly that the whole thing was declared inadmissible.

To me, there can't logically be any other scenario, given what is already known, than that Lumumba's name had come up - at the very least - in connection with the crime before AK fatefully opened her mouth to pour forth...

This is one of the interesting bits about the whole case. Unlike the taciturn Sollecito, Knox is a veritable geyser of information. We have the vision (to borrow one of her favourite terms) of a frightened young woman surrounded by menacing officers forcing her to talk. Yet she is quite the opposite. It's really hard to get her to shut up. The cops probably found it hard to get a word in edgewise. Even later on 06 NOV 2007--after she had representation--she continued to talk and write to anyone who would listen or read what she had to say. Her alibi email of 04 NOV 2007 is a detailed and rambling account in which the victim is no more or less important than Amanda's lamp. Her testimony is peppered with interjections against those in court who interrupt her or try to get her to focus on the question.

Read her court testimony to get an inkling of how easy it is for Amanda to turn the simplest answer into a long and intricate study of where she was sitting, what she was eating, and so on. It's very enlightening.

 

[Mary_H]

The police had their cell phones by 02 NOV 2007. This was reported in court by either Bartolozzi or Bastitelli. That's almost four full days in which they knew about the messages and yet they saw no reason to interview Patrick.

And stilicho swings dangerously ever closer to the middle.

 

[stilicho]

"Italian police investigating the murder of Meredith Kercher are testing blood-smeared hairs found in her hand that could have come from her killer or killers, it emerged today.

The Turin daily La Stampa said that several hairs had been found in the fingers of Ms Kercher's left hand "and now the laboratory examinations will tells us whether these bloody hairs belong to whoever killed her.

That report is false. They were not looking for a black man.

 

[Mary_H]

That report is false. They were not looking for a black man.

False or hushed up?

 

[stilicho]

False or hushed up?

False.

They were not produced as evidence at any of the trials. Why would Maori and Ghirga hush something up that might help their "lone-wolf" scenario? Are they in on it too?

 

[LondonJohn]

Patrick was not questioned before his arrest. He was not mentioned in Amanda's alibi email from 04 NOV 2007. It didn't come up in court although Patrick had representation during the trials of RS and AK. Do you have any evidence they thought he was involved before Amanda named him as Meredith's killer?

No, I'll admit, I don't have any stonewall evidence of this. But you don't have any evidence that they DIDN'T think he was involved either, by the looks of it. I am basing my conjecture on an interpretation of other pieces of evidence.

The police had their cell phones by 02 NOV 2007. This was reported in court by either Bartolozzi or Bastitelli. That's almost four full days in which they knew about the messages and yet they saw no reason to interview Patrick.

But when you say "had their cellphones by 02 Nov 2007", had the police therefore impounded the cellphones of all the housemates (and, presumably, also those of other related parties including MK's friends) on the very day of the discovery of the body? Or were only AK's and RS's phones impounded? Or are you saying that the police had gone through everybody's phone on 2nd Nov, noted down the calls and texts made/received by each phone on 1st/2nd Nov, and returned the phones to their owners? Or had the police merely asked everyone at that stage who they'd called/texted on the 1st/2nd?

In a previous post, you seemed to suggest that Lumumba's name had barely come up in conversation (if indeed at all) in regard to the murder before AK's "confession". But you seem to suggest here that the police knew about the content of the text and its recipient some days before the interrogation of 5/6 Nov. I'd have no problem believing that the police did indeed know of the text and its association with Lumumba in the way you've described.

What I'm NOT suggesting is that the police were suspicious of Lumumba merely because of the existence of that text message, or its contents. I would instead argue this: If the police thought (from the text message) that AK had arranged to meet Lumumba on the night of the 1st, that information in and of itself threw no suspicion on EITHER AK OR LUMUMBA - UNTIL AK presented the police with her alibi for the 1st that made no mention of a meeting with Lumumba. Since the police now appeared to have two conflicting positions in front of them at that time (AK says she was with RS all night, confirmed by RS, but the text says she had arranged to meet Lumumba), suspicion started to grow. Why would AK not mention this meeting with Lumumba, if it was totally innocent? Or maybe AK had indeed originally made this arrangement to meet Lumumba, but had either forgotten to actually go to the meeting, or had subsequently made other plans. And RS supported AK's alibi at that time, although the police might have started to wonder even then whether his support was self-serving in some way.

Let's suggest (for the sake of argument) that this is the position the police found themselves in by November 5th. In other words, they had a curious text message where AK arranged to meet Lumumba which didn't fit in with AK's alibi (supported by RS), but they couldn't say with any certainty whether it was truly indicative of anything sinister. Things were clearly worthy of further investigation.

The logical next step, before approaching Lumumba, would be to bring RS and AK back for more questioning, to see whether there was some perfectly innocent explanation for the discrepancy (e.g. "Oh God, yeah, I DID arrange to meet Patrick. But I got engrossed with food/movies/sex at Raffaele's flat, and completely forgot to meet up with him"). And that's what the police did. All by-the-book so far.

But when RS changed his story to puncture AK's alibi (and to damage his own credibility into the bargain) at around 11pm on the 5th, the game changed immediately. Suddenly, AK looked suspicious - why else would her own account of her whereabouts suddenly be contradicted by her own boyfriend? The text message now came into even sharper focus. After all, if AK had previously lied about her entire whereabouts on the night of the 1st to the police (as the police now would have believed), then it's immediately reasonable to attach more weight to this text message that indicated an intention to meet up with Lumumba.

So, in comes AK to the interview room at midnight-00.30. After all the formalities, the police ask her to tell them her alibi once more, just so they can be sure of her present story. They also ask for clarification of the text to Patrick. The police are already convinced that the text comprises an arrangement to meet up. So the only "innocent" answer that AK can give to questions about the text is that it is indeed an invitation to a meeting - confirming something that the police think they already know. If she admits that, but then goes on to say that the meeting never happened for one reason or another, then the police can park any further investigation into Lumumba for the time being. But instead, and to their surprise, AK argues vehemently that the text means no such thing, and that there was no arrangement to meet Lumumba.

Alarm bells go off in police minds. If AK is denying that the text message even means what they KNOW it means, then something strange and suspicious is going on. If AK's now clutching at the straw of pretending that the text wasn't a meeting arrangement (as they see it), let alone trying to explain whether this meeting actually did or did not take place, then she's got something major to hide about this whole text business. Why is she trying to throw police off the scent? The police retire for a short conference...

Then they return and they drop the bomb - RS has abandoned her, and they know she was going to meet Patrick that night. Her denial that the text message even signified a meeting has sealed her fate. Otherwise she'd have had an innocent explanation for why she'd arranged to met Patrick, and/or whether that meeting actually took place. And then begins the road to the "confession".

Within all of that scenario (which, admittedly is purely conjecture), I'd argue that police suspicion would have widened to encompass Lumumba at the very point that AK denied that the text message even signified a meeting. My rationale for this argument is as follows: it would have been at this point that the police would have started to believe that the meeting between AK and Lumumba had sinister connotations.After all, if the meeting had been innocent (or indeed if it had been arranged but had never taken place), then AK would have told them this.

So, in very short summary, I believe that one can make a logical argument, supported (or at the very least not contradicted) by the known facts, that the police could have started to consider Lumumba as a suspect (at some level) by, say, 01.00 that night, before AK made the "confession".

 

[Mary_H]

False.

They were not produced as evidence at any of the trials. Why would Maori and Ghirga hush something up that might help their "lone-wolf" scenario? Are they in on it too?

How do you know it's false? Did La Stampa retract it? Why would they print it in the first place?

There could be a number of reasons why the defense didn't use it. The prosecution might have told La Stampa it was false and they'd better stop reporting it, and then withheld the evidence from the defense. Maybe the defense was afraid to use it, or thought it was too inflammatory, given how ready so many people are to accuse others of racism.

It doesn't necessarily support the lone wolf scenario. There is no evidence of Amanda and Raffaele at the crime scene anyway.

 

[LondonJohn]

And now: an amusing "James Bond Vs The Villain in Casino Face-off" spoof from UK comedy show "That Mitchell and Webb Look".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu5kX2hwDgk

This is part two in a recurring series where I attempt to inject humour and levity into this forum, while surreptitiously also asserting the UK's dominance of global comedy

 

[BobTheDonkey]

No, I'll admit, I don't have any stonewall evidence of this. But you don't have any evidence that they DIDN'T think he was involved either, by the looks of it. I am basing my conjecture on an interpretation of other pieces of evidence.



But when you say "had their cellphones by 02 Nov 2007", had the police therefore impounded the cellphones of all the housemates (and, presumably, also those of other related parties including MK's friends) on the very day of the discovery of the body? Or were only AK's and RS's phones impounded? Or are you saying that the police had gone through everybody's phone on 2nd Nov, noted down the calls and texts made/received by each phone on 1st/2nd Nov, and returned the phones to their owners? Or had the police merely asked everyone at that stage who they'd called/texted on the 1st/2nd?

In a previous post, you seemed to suggest that Lumumba's name had barely come up in conversation (if indeed at all) in regard to the murder before AK's "confession". But you seem to suggest here that the police knew about the content of the text and its recipient some days before the interrogation of 5/6 Nov. I'd have no problem believing that the police did indeed know of the text and its association with Lumumba in the way you've described.

What I'm NOT suggesting is that the police were suspicious of Lumumba merely because of the existence of that text message, or its contents. I would instead argue this: If the police thought (from the text message) that AK had arranged to meet Lumumba on the night of the 1st, that information in and of itself threw no suspicion on EITHER AK OR LUMUMBA - UNTIL AK presented the police with her alibi for the 1st that made no mention of a meeting with Lumumba. Since the police now appeared to have two conflicting positions in front of them at that time (AK says she was with RS all night, confirmed by RS, but the text says she had arranged to meet Lumumba), suspicion started to grow. Why would AK not mention this meeting with Lumumba, if it was totally innocent? Or maybe AK had indeed originally made this arrangement to meet Lumumba, but had either forgotten to actually go to the meeting, or had subsequently made other plans. And RS supported AK's alibi at that time, although the police might have started to wonder even then whether his support was self-serving in some way.

Let's suggest (for the sake of argument) that this is the position the police found themselves in by November 5th. In other words, they had a curious text message where AK arranged to meet Lumumba which didn't fit in with AK's alibi (supported by RS), but they couldn't say with any certainty whether it was truly indicative of anything sinister. Things were clearly worthy of further investigation.

The logical next step, before approaching Lumumba, would be to bring RS and AK back for more questioning, to see whether there was some perfectly innocent explanation for the discrepancy (e.g. "Oh God, yeah, I DID arrange to meet Patrick. But I got engrossed with food/movies/sex at Raffaele's flat, and completely forgot to meet up with him"). And that's what the police did. All by-the-book so far.

But when RS changed his story to puncture AK's alibi (and to damage his own credibility into the bargain) at around 11pm on the 5th, the game changed immediately. Suddenly, AK looked suspicious - why else would her own account of her whereabouts suddenly be contradicted by her own boyfriend? The text message now came into even sharper focus. After all, if AK had previously lied about her entire whereabouts on the night of the 1st to the police (as the police now would have believed), then it's immediately reasonable to attach more weight to this text message that indicated an intention to meet up with Lumumba.

So, in comes AK to the interview room at midnight-00.30. After all the formalities, the police ask her to tell them her alibi once more, just so they can be sure of her present story. They also ask for clarification of the text to Patrick. The police are already convinced that the text comprises an arrangement to meet up. So the only "innocent" answer that AK can give to questions about the text is that it is indeed an invitation to a meeting - confirming something that the police think they already know. If she admits that, but then goes on to say that the meeting never happened for one reason or another, then the police can park any further investigation into Lumumba for the time being. But instead, and to their surprise, AK argues vehemently that the text means no such thing, and that there was no arrangement to meet Lumumba.

Alarm bells go off in police minds. If AK is denying that the text message even means what they KNOW it means, then something strange and suspicious is going on. If AK's now clutching at the straw of pretending that the text wasn't a meeting arrangement (as they see it), let alone trying to explain whether this meeting actually did or did not take place, then she's got something major to hide about this whole text business. Why is she trying to throw police off the scent? The police retire for a short conference...

Then they return and they drop the bomb - RS has abandoned her, and they know she was going to meet Patrick that night. Her denial that the text message even signified a meeting has sealed her fate. Otherwise she'd have had an innocent explanation for why she'd arranged to met Patrick, and/or whether that meeting actually took place. And then begins the road to the "confession".

Within all of that scenario (which, admittedly is purely conjecture), I'd argue that police suspicion would have widened to encompass Lumumba at the very point that AK denied that the text message even signified a meeting. My rationale for this argument is as follows: it would have been at this point that the police would have started to believe that the meeting between AK and Lumumba had sinister connotations.After all, if the meeting had been innocent (or indeed if it had been arranged but had never taken place), then AK would have told them this.

So, in very short summary, I believe that one can make a logical argument, supported (or at the very least not contradicted) by the known facts, that the police could have started to consider Lumumba as a suspect (at some level) by, say, 01.00 that night, before AK made the "confession".

Suspect of what?

Suspected of an affair with Amanda?

Suspected of meeting with Amanda and her wanting to hide it does not, automatically, equate to suspected of murder. The Police might have been now developed interest in Patrick, determined they needed to interview him - but that does not require suspicion of murder.

 

[Mary_H]

Suspect of what?

Suspected of an affair with Amanda?

Suspected of meeting with Amanda and her wanting to hide it does not, automatically, equate to suspected of murder. The Police might have been now developed interest in Patrick, determined they needed to interview him - but that does not require suspicion of murder.

And now BobTheDonkey swings dangerously ever closer to the middle!

 

[stilicho]

So, in very short summary, I believe that one can make a logical argument, supported (or at the very least not contradicted) by the known facts, that the police could have started to consider Lumumba as a suspect (at some level) by, say, 01.00 that night, before AK made the "confession".

If they considered him a suspect at some level then why would they need Amanda any longer? The cops were questioning Amanda about her own whereabouts and not about Patrick's.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And now BobTheDonkey swings dangerously ever closer to the middle!

How is that close to the middle? That's what I've been saying for the past few days, Mary.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The logical next step, before approaching Lumumba, would be to bring RS and AK back for more questioning, to see whether there was some perfectly innocent explanation for the discrepancy (e.g. "Oh God, yeah, I DID arrange to meet Patrick. But I got engrossed with food/movies/sex at Raffaele's flat, and completely forgot to meet up with him"). And that's what the police did. All by-the-book so far.

<snip>

I thought that LE only wanted to interview Sollecito on that evening, and that Knox insisted on coming along. Was that not the case?

If it was it would tend to suggest that Knox was not a particular target of interest until Sollecito threw her under the bus. That would be just before the (presumably) unplanned interview that night, minutes before her sudden 'recollection' of Lumumba's complicity.

The scenarios you have constructed are plausible, in the sense that, yes, things could have happened that way. This is not unlike the arguments that, yes, DNA contamination could have occurred, or yes, Rudy could have smashed that window and climbed through without leaving any evidence on the sill or ground below. The question is how likely the scenarios are.

I think that Knox simply panicked, and grasped at the first alternatives that came to mind. Her alibi had just blown her off. Patrick's name was at the forefront at that moment. I think it is interesting that her hazy recollections place her away from view and participation in the crime itself. Someone unschooled in law might not realize that culpability only differs in degree under those circumstances, after having gone days claiming something else entirely different. Someone unschooled in investigative procedure might not fully realize the imperative processes which would be initiated by claiming to be an eye witness to a specific, named individual.

Knox has demonstrated a penchant for weaving elaborate, detailed stories, but not any particular talent for crafting ones which withstand scrutiny. I see the most plausible scenario as one where she simply failed again.

If the police were already aware of all of the details of the text message, including its recipient, and were gunning for Knox and Lumumba, why did they only want to see Sollecito? Was her insistence on inviting herself along just some sort of serendipity that conveniently lent itself to their plans?

 

[LondonJohn]

If they considered him a suspect at some level then why would they need Amanda any longer? The cops were questioning Amanda about her own whereabouts and not about Patrick's.

Because I argue that the police quickly came to the conclusion - at around 01.00 on the 6th - that BOTH AK and Lumumba were involved. Why would they not "need Amanda any longer" if they thought she and Lumumba both had something to do with it? And it was the middle of the night by this point, so the logical thing to do was to continue with questioning of AK, and then to get Lumumba in some time later on the 6th. As it turned out, they even ended up expediting their detention of Lumumba - dragging him out of his house at 6am that same morning.

 

[LondonJohn]

I thought that LE only wanted to interview Sollecito on that evening, and that Knox insisted on coming along. Was that not the case?

If it was it would tend to suggest that Knox was not a particular target of interest until Sollecito threw her under the bus. That would be just before the (presumably) unplanned interview that night, minutes before her sudden 'recollection' of Lumumba's complicity.

The scenarios you have constructed are plausible, in the sense that, yes, things could have happened that way. This is not unlike the arguments that, yes, DNA contamination could have occurred, or yes, Rudy could have smashed that window and climbed through without leaving any evidence on the sill or ground below. The question is how likely the scenarios are.

I think that Knox simply panicked, and grasped at the first alternatives that came to mind. Her alibi had just blown her off. Patrick's name was at the forefront at that moment. I think it is interesting that her hazy recollections place her away from view and participation in the crime itself. Someone unschooled in law might not realize that culpability only differs in degree under those circumstances, after having gone days claiming something else entirely different. Someone unschooled in investigative procedure might not fully realize the imperative processes which would be initiated by claiming to be an eye witness to a specific, named individual.

Knox has demonstrated a penchant for weaving elaborate, detailed stories, but not any particular talent for crafting ones which withstand scrutiny. I see the most plausible scenario as one where she simply failed again.

If the police were already aware of all of the details of the text message, including its recipient, and were gunning for Knox and Lumumba, why did they only want to see Sollecito? Was her insistence on inviting herself along just some sort of serendipity that conveniently lent itself to their plans?

Unfortunately, I think you've partly either mis-read or mis-interpreted my view. I argued EXPLICITLY that the police were NOT "gunning" for AK and Lumumba as of 11pm on the 5th. Instead, I argue that they were no more than concerned about the contradiction between two things: 1) a text message that they interpreted as an arrangement for a meeting between AK and Lumumba on the night of the 1st; and 2) AK's alibi - supported at that time by RS - that placed her at his apartment all that evening/night.

So, I argued, the first thing the police had to do was iron out that seeming contradiction. I believe that the police suspected at that time (i.e. the 5th, up to 11pm) that something might be "not 100% kosher" about AK, given the contradiction. And by extension, they also would have wanted to test RS's alibi for her (and for himself) - since if RS had removed his support for AK's alibi (which he in fact did do), then they'd have had plenty of ammunition to confront AK about not only her own alibi, but also the meaning/significance of the text message (i.e. "Not only were you not at your boyfriend's place, you also made an arrangement to meet Patrick that you've demonstrably lied to us about".

Bear in mind also that the police NEVER seemed to be amenable to the slightest possibility that text message carried no meaning relating to a meeting. They'd already decoded it to their complete satisfaction. So any statement to the contrary from AK was gold dust to them. And they must also have been aware to the possibility that AK might provide what they would consider as a plausible explanation for the text message (e.g. "I did originally text him to arrange a meeting, but then I forgot to turn up to that meeting"). But a failure by AK to even "admit" that a meeting was originally arranged through this text message lit the blue touchpaper for the police. Why would she lie if the meeting had entirely innocent connotations? And I'd go further to suggest that even if - as was suggested - this might be indicative of an affair between AK and Lumumba (which AK might understandably be reticent to talk about), they'd have expected her to own up to it to them - if that indeed was the reason for the arrangement of the meeting.

Finally, remember, in my scenario, all of these major shifts in the police attitudes and theories take place after 11pm, and before 1am, on the night of the 5th/6th.