And that's the important point (although most of the idiots can't see it, or don't want to). If Knox was not present at the murder scene, she would have no idea whatsoever whether Lumumba was a participant or not. The last communication she had with him, he'd told her not to come into work that night because there were so few customers in the bar. For all Knox knew, therefore, Lumumba might have closed the bar then decided to pay Meredith a visit.
And there's another important thing to understand here. It appears that the police told Knox they had solid physical evidence which not only confirmed Lumumba as the killer, but which also placed her in the cottage at the time of the murder. If that was the case (as I believe it was), then I also think that Knox would not have been prepared to believe that the police were deliberately lying to her. Therefore she would have experienced extreme cognitive dissonance: "Hang on: I remember I was at Raffaele's apartment all night, yet the police are now telling me they have proof that I met up with Patrick and went to the cottage, where I was present when Patrick raped and murdered Meredith". It appears perfectly clear to me that this cognitive dissonance had the effect that Knox initially (but reluctantly) chose to distrust her own mind, in the belief that physical evidence trumped intangible memory. It's further clear to me that by the time of the "gift" statement, Knox had had enough time to realise that no matter what the police had told her about physical evidence placing her at the murder scene, her memory was accurate. But Knox was in no position whatsoever to question the supposed physical evidence pointing to Lumumba. As far as she was concerned, it might well be that the police did have solid evidence showing that Lumumba was the killer, but that they had erred regarding the physical evidence tying her to the murder scene.
I think that when you look at the statements of November 5th/6th 2007 (and Knox's discussions with her parents in prison the following week) in the correct context, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that Knox still had internal conflict regarding the alleged police physical evidence versus her own memory. I therefore don't think she could even state with certainty that she wasn't in the cottage: after all, the police said they had physical evidence placing her there at the time of the murder. And she most certainly couldn't say that Lumumba was not responsible for Meredith's murder. In that position, therefore, she was in no position to contact the police or her lawyer and make an assertive statement to the effect that she definitely wasn't at the cottage that night and she definitely didn't go there with Lumumba.
Lastly, let's never lose sight of the fact that, as with everything else, it's up to the police/prosecutors to prove each element of their case. In this instance, it quickly became clear that a) Lumumba was in his bar all evening, and had nothing to do with the crime; and b) there was no physical evidence whatsoever tying either Lumumba or Knox to the murder or the murder scene. Therefore, the police had absolutely nothing to substantiate the statements made by Knox, and in fact they had evidence to positively refute the statements. When you add it all together, the coercion, the police lies (albeit legitimate ones, but ones which Knox trusted as accurate) and the subsequent provable inaccuracy of the narrative, it's clear to most reasonable people that the "confession/accusation" and its aftermath are totally irrelevant in terms of assessing the guilt or non-guilt of Knox.
And yet still we see idiots saying things like: "Well, the clincher for me was when I discovered that Knox had falsely accused an innocent man of the murder: who but a guilty person would do such a thing?!" It's rather sad to see such ignorance, lack of intelligence and poor reasoning skills in action.
Gosh, thanks, I hadn't actually thought of that!