I disagree. Without the context available perhaps I'm misreading it, but I get the impression it is suggesting that it was all an act to pretend to victim status to misdirect them so they'd let her out of there. Then she continues the act in her note trying to keep her options open? Something like that?
Then why didn't she give them a believable story? What they have in those statements is gibberish, useless to police (in reality) yet who actually said it corroborated what they knew about the crime. I think there's a gross misunderstanding by some of the power relationship in that room, Little Miss Cartwheels wasn't running the show! The police have to be satisfied with what they get, it has to be believable to them. They're assuming she's lied before, they're going to be on the lookout for more 'lies,' unless they get what they think is a plausible explanation of events they're not going to go away. Especially if the plan is to arrest her and Raffaele, then race right out and drag Patrick away while he's feeding his baby, work him over nice-n-pretty, get virtually nothing from him--then parade through Perugia in an ostentatious display and announce 'case closed.'
There had to be something in those statements that compelled them to believe her. The 'staged break-in' goes entirely unmentioned, the moment of the murder is a blank, outside the text message there's nothing connecting it with a timeline, she doesn't even 'hear' the scream, they have to dodge that with her suggestion she must have had her ears covered. 'Fine. We'll write that down. Fine.' Nothing corroborates except if they thought Patrick was the murderer for reasons previously discussed here and the thread in the Conspiracy section.
Now, I also think it possible that Amanda never totally believed the entire suggestion that were trying to implant in her mind, that she met Patrick, went to the house, covered her ears etc, however in the stress and confusion of the moment they convinced her it must have, or that saying she thought it probably happened was her only way out of an impossible situation. My interpretation of the testimony is that all she really got were some 'flashes' of imagination that at some point she thought were possibly real memories, which was the only way at that moment to square what the cops were telling her about Raffaele and the 'hard evidence' with reality. Then they walked her through it and she balked at just about everything which is why they ended up with so little of value--but they had the part they wanted and figured they'd find 'proof' of the rest with the forensics.
Only Amanda knows for sure, and considering her ordeal and what she endured it would be churlish to assign blame to her. For those that might, they should ask themselves if they're currently claiming to be 'afraid' of posting on a heavily moderated thread because a dozen people might pounce on their posts and assemble characters in formation that make up mean words that disparage their arguments. Amanda had a dozen cops going at her for hours, and then again hours more, people with authority, that could deprive her of food, water, and just being able to go the bathroom. They weren't just disparaging what she was saying, they were employing real 'personal attacks,' crowding her personal space, and even started hitting her. That she signed a statement that agreed with what they insisted must have happened is on them not on their victim, Amanda Knox.
As for the note, not only the handwriting reveals the unlikelihood of her being concussed, but also I believe that note suggests she was thinking rationally. However, she had three pieces of information that just didn't fit and she was trying to figure out what could be the truth of the matter, as well as try to organize her thoughts by writing, which was her way according to other information available about her. She also seemed to figure she could get it across better with the written word as they weren't really listening and the translator wasn't really translating. Thus as the experience fades she starts to realize the 'flashes' are probably just imagination, but how does she square the 'hard evidence' and what she's heard from the cops that Raffaele said, with her memories of that evening which weren't exactly set in stone to begin with being as she was just enjoying being young and a little bit naughty and hardly watching the clock?
As another recent example of the method of ILE madness is the Scazzi case. Now I haven't spent as much time on that as you have, Rose, but as I recall it they got him to admit to being the murderer, and then kept after him to implicate his daughter as well? In other words he didn't come up with that, they insisted upon it as I recall, then televised the whole thing according to Barbie Nadeau? Then he recants it as soon as he sees a lawyer? Something like that? I suspect that something similar happened with Amanda Knox, that they pushed Patrick on to her, and eventually she did end up signing those statements, but in her case they'd actually managed to implant a few false memories that it took her a little while to totally realize were completely false.
