Well thank you! I couldn't miss the week of her exoneration. Though I guess I'm on week 3 or so.
As far as I'm concerned even though she's no longer in a 'ten foot cell' it still 'won't be over until they clear her
name.' 
I think that's clear. That is why the press attention is freaking them out. They aren't use to having their actions examined by a press they can't control.
The fact they'd even dare to protest the decision the way they did, confronting a Parliamentarian in the Ministry of Justice as well as international media suggests an arrogance that defies understanding. I wonder how that will work out for them...it brings to mind the hubris of Patroclus, perhaps we'll see some 'hectoring' on this issue some day...
I get what you are saying. And you are making a good point. The problem is why doesn't she articulate that on the stand during her cross-x at trial. At trial she asserts her reason for confusion was a very high degree of stress, in other words they freaked her out to the point she was having trouble distinguishing reality. Which is similar to what you are saying but subtly different. It comes down to how much did she believe those images of her covering her ears for example were real.
Thanks! This is why I wanted to start a dialogue on this, you hit on the three things so far that I had to contemplate further as they didn't 'fit' as well. First the spontaneous statement she gave at the beginning of the trial, (or the pretrial I forget) the one where she's up there stammering and searching and says 'I didn't know what to do!' When I first heard that my inclination was she was probably lying, but as I thought more on the circumstances of the time it occurred to me here she was talking publicly about this for the very first time after the 'Foxy Knoxy' smear thus those people might well have been looking at her like she was some sort of diseased filth.
It reminded me of something, speaking at my brother's wedding and my Dad's funeral. I got up there and even though I knew what I wanted to say I did my fair share of stammering, searching for words and trailing off to pregnant pauses. A lot of people unused to speaking in front of crowds do. I recovered and did OK, but I do recall thinking 'if I mess this up it will be with me for the rest of my life!' It wouldn't surprise me in that situation that she might well have been thinking along those lines and not said everything she wanted to or the way she desired.
The second is squaring the 'Fine. We'll write that down. Fine' in response to her suggesting maybe her ears were covered when they asked her if she heard the scream, with what she writes in the note about hearing screaming in her head. That looks directly contradictory, doesn't it? However, they might have pushed her a little after that point to try to remember the scream better, to get a time or something corroborating it, so when they're writing it down she doesn't have that mental image, but they follow up a little and they get it? The thing is, she writes that note
to them in an attempt to improve her situation one would imagine, why would she include common experiences that would seem to discredit her? If not, isn't the more likely explanation that what she wrote at the time was more probable to be accurate rather than eighteen or so months later anyway? If she's incorrect, isn't it the trial testimony on this that would be of lesser reliability?
In your version she actually believes them. That is a very high level of suggestibility. I think she was on hashish during that interrogation. If she had previously used hallucinogens I could buy it, or better if she were in fact on them at the time of the interview. Otherwise, this was rather quick for her to actually believe what she was saying. And again she didn't say this at trial.
My version is she doesn't know what to think. She has weak mental images that would account for the 'hard evidence' and Raffaele saying she's going out, but she
doesn't really believe them, they don't seem 'real.' All messed up under intensive interrogation and being played like a fiddle by the police she signs the Statements, but as they're being compiled she keeps trying to get across something akin to this which is why those Statements keep saying things like 'vaguely' and how she's so 'confused.' She can't get it across with the translator who's not really relating to the police everything she's saying and might not herself be able to put it into Italian, thus Amanda writes the note as a 'gift' to try to explain.
As for the hash, I dunno. It would seem to make sense with Raffaele having smoked, but I've never heard anything to suggest Amanda was too. How long could hash last anyway? Both Amanda's testimony and that of the police suggests they were easy on her early, thus once they put the hammer down and they approach the 1:30 AM or so when she broke down, then the hash ought to have worn off, right?
What part didn't she say at the trial? Keep in mind her lawyers might have cautioned her about the prospect of a
calunnia charge, thus leaving some things out might have been a product of that. Patrick Lumumba tells a very different story in court than he did before or after, Comodi even 'warned' one of the defense experts in court, and of course Mignini handed out some during the trial and the defense suggested some at the end of their presentation.
Sure because evidentially anytime the press disagrees with them, they charge the person with slander and arrest them. Mignini seems unfamiliar with the entire concept of a free press.
Did you see that CNN interview? That might be the first time in his life he's faced an adversarial press. He himself seemed to know it didn't go well.
Do you think there really was a tourism impact?
I dunno for sure, not enough data. My point is regardless of whether there is, if people think so anyway that's all that would matter.
A few months ago a French outlet published an article interviewing some of the people on the street in Perugia, and whether there is or not, the people quoted there seemed to think so, in rather descriptive terms. The objective evidence published elsewhere of less tourism was non-localized and could have been confounded by the economy, but even still the locals might not have taken macro economics and blamed any decline on the Amanda Knox verdict anyway. I've seen some say the school has seen a precipitous drop in enrollment, but I don't recall if they were referring to overall or just amongst Americans or English-speakers.
I think they already got partially neutered. They sort of picked the track they were on, on November 7th when they held their press conference. The courts saved them from themselves.
Let's
hope not... 
