Kaosium: "She was probably still a little traumatized by the murder and it caused her to think it possible her hash-fogged memories of the night might be incomplete."
This is not at all convincing. You may want to view it this way, but the jury didn't.
Then what does it mean? The prosecution itself had to discard the statement when they found out about the ironclad alibi of the bar owner they were suspicious of. Even if it was in fact true and she mistook Rudy for Patrick Lumumba it hardly means she was involved in the murder. Cowering in another room and covering her ears suggests she was a terrified victim of a break in, not an accomplice. I could accept this possibility, and that a sort of amnesia caused by trauma occurred, memories that she started to recover under questioning by the police. It is rare, but it does happen, and at least it fits with the known physical evidence better than her being in that room and knifing Meredith without leaving any trace.
If that were the case, that she woke up at Raffaeles' and wandered back to her place to get something and just happened to be there when Rudy was killing Meredith, and she covered her ears and hid, is she really guilty of anything other than being a terrified girl hiding from an intruder? Does she need to go to prison for that?
"they made the dubious assumption it had to be staged"
Not dubious at all, quite plausible and in line with the evidence.
The "dubious" part was the assumption that it
had to be staged. More evidence should have been collected, more pictures taken, and more reasoning should have gone into it to prove something as counter-intuitive. After all, the door was left open, there was little reason to 'stage' a break-in. There's precious little evidence anyway, and one vital piece strikes many as absurd.
Not in this case. Most people viewing this picture remain in total disbelief that this is possible.
Unfortunately to me that just speaks to the credulity of the people you surveyed. They've never seen someone do a pull-up?
Once again, in order to believe in Ms. Knox's innocence, we have to believe in the most far-fetched scenarios, believe that the police were lying, that everyone connected with the prosecution was corrupt, that her lawyers were incompetent, that she was telling the truth only in those comments that fitted in with a truly unbelievable construction of events.
Nah!! Don't buy it.
Damn! That strawman is on fire! Someone get a hose!
That's not my theory at any rate, and as I recall Amanda herself thought her lawyers did a fine job. At least she was quoted as saying that, maybe she was just being polite. I have read many who when reading the actions of the police and prosecutors came to believe they were all corrupt, but I am not one of them. I think instead they gathered evidence to prove their theory and thus their actions should be looked upon with that in mind. Kinda like if they proceeded like Hercule Poirot who always made fun of the detectives on their knees searching for clues, and who instead solved his crimes by divining the 'psychology' of the killer. The problem was they came up with a truly unbelievable sequence of events, as opposed to the obvious answer they could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt of a break-in by a petty crook becoming an unintended murder.
I don't think they proved their theory, even though they pushed the edge of the envelope in the attempt. However the smear campaign worked and the jurors, having heard tabloid trash depictions of Amanda added to 'we have DNA evidence too!' convicted even though on closer examination the holes in the prosecution's logic and the poor quality of the DNA evidence become apparent. There's probably a reason a third of these cases in Italy get overturned on appeal. The prosecution has shot its wad, there's no more cards to play, and with time the absurdities of their theory and the lack of evidence of Amanda and Raffaele's involvement become more and more obvious. For example, you and the people who think climbing into that window is impossible will wane in number as it is shown how easily it can be done by some, and no one who already knows this will change their mind. DNA science improves, not regresses, and trying that stunt with the LCN sample will probably become a cautionary tale in the field.
The funny thing is, the Italian police got the real killer, and in fairly short order, even after he fled the country. They are obviously not completely incompetent. What makes this case notable is the prosecutor decided on a bizarre conspiracy instead of the obvious answer, which is why this has become an international issue.
