I hesitate to step into this mess, but I have to ask: What can this possibly mean? Could she leave or not? If she had said "I'm outta here," would the cops have said "Okay, we just have a few more questions?" Or "You can't leave until you finish complying with our requests?" Would they have physically restrained her, or what? If she had tried to push her way past a cop who stood in the doorway, would that constitute a new crime of assault on a police officer (never touch a cop, by the way)? Or what? Do the cops have to provide access to a telephone? And would a 20-year-old American coed be likely to know what her rights were under Italian law?
It's obvious the situation was custodial,
de facto even if not
de jure. The police did not and were not going to let her leave. Not after they brought in a bunch of detectives from Rome (probably paying them overtime) for the express purpose of tag teaming her in an overnight interrogation, the entire purpose of which was to "break" her.
Remember, Rudy Guede's name had not even come up at this point - despite the police being "sure" they knew what had happened and who had done it, so sure they actually said they didn't need physical evidence to know what happened. So they were under tremendous pressure to arrest
someone.
Everything about the interrogation suggested that any statement they might get would be unreliable - any experienced interrogator with any skill would have known that, and even the Italian courts had to agree. The court ruled the statement inadmissible with respect to the murder. (They let it in as evidence for the calumnia charge, which may well have only been charged so the prosecution could try to get that statement in front of the jury. At that point, the damage is done, because the jurors would consider it for the murder charge even if they didn't realize they were doing so. It would be impossible not to; you can't un-ring that bell. That's why such a thing would never be allowed in the US, where despite our failings we at least
try to take due process seriously.)
Anyway, back to my point. The police then relied on this statement, signed under duress and full of "coulds" and "mights" and "I'm not sures," to arrest Lumumba and subject him to the same garbage. Then they had the temerity to blame Knox for what
they did to Lumumba based solely on a statement that any competent investigator would deem wholly unreliable. And they charged her for it. It would be comical if real lives weren't ruined.
Seriously, read her statement and tell me she is asserting that she knows Lumumba was there. It's obvious to anyone who knows anything about interrogations that Knox finally broke and told them what they had been demanding for hours to hear. And even then she couched it in language that makes it absolutely clear she was not at all sure if she was remembering or just confused. And she was still sure she did not take part in the crime.
The calumnia conviction will be likely be vacated by the Italian Supreme Court, after the frenzy has died down. It's just too laughable to stand. Even without video of the interrogation, any psychological expert could point to obvious signs of duress just by examining the statement itself. Not voluntary = not guilty. In Britain or the US, that charge never would have been brought. (I can't speak to Britain's law, but in the US the murder charge also would not have survived a motion to dismiss.)
Edit: Sorry, got a little carried away there.
