Just to be clear - what I meant was why you even started posting about being able to discern from Knox's writings that she was immune from fatigue related to lack of sleep.
To refresh your memory, this had to do with your claim that Knox was ready and refreshed on the late evening of Nov 5th to implement her plan to deceive the PLE at interrogation.
(...)
Ergo - you claimed that Amanda Knox did not need sleep, that she could simply choose to remain awake, therefore she was lucid and in control during the interrogation.
Do you still stand by this? (I can hear the "yes buts", and "you're taking this out of context" already.
My quotes are quite clear.
The problem is with your choice of words, which re-defines the question:
"immune from fatigue related to lack of sleep". This is something else, it's not something I would say. I would never use the word "immune" and I would never state "refreshed and ready".
Your choice of words carries a reversal of logical value, or a reversal of logical proof. I'ts like as if, I write "It's not white", and you parse what I say attributing me the statement "It's black".
Instead from looking at what I say, you build an interpretation which you build up yoursel which is based on a totally different concept, maybe from a logical opposite.
I never considered the idea that somebody is "immune", this is an absolute word, unrealistic and thus a nonsense (at least, its Italian translation is so). Also the word "refreshed" expresses an extreme on the other side. Even the idea that one does "not need" sleep is out of the scope of my reasoning.
All these are words which express the extreme logical value somehow opposite to your theory. But I never claim these extreme contraries.
I would never entertain the thought tha Knox was "immune from sleep deprivation" because - apart from the unrealistic semantics - that is just irrelevant. It has no relevance nor logical consequence at all whether Knox "needed sleep" or was "refreshed". What matters - in logic, and responsability - lies at the opposite side of the spectrum. Generic instances of "need for sleep" are totally irrelevant. The only question that could make some sense (yet, only in the abstract) is, whether sleep deprivation would be so severe to cause her a picture of major psichiatric or cognitive disturb/symptoms, to the point of interfering with her ability to understand and will.
In fact it is obvious that it was not so. A generic question about sleep deprivation could be put about her interrogators: the police and the prosecutor were as much sleep deprived as her. Mignini was awake since 7am of the 5th and had slept only a few hours, though he did not sleep a minute and went to the police where he worked all night, he discussed with detecvites, collected statements, wrote decrees and issued written orders, so he remained awake continuously for 30+ hours to say the least (and he had only few hours sleep the previous night). The same goes for several of the detectives, such as Profazio and Napoleoni.
But did this sleep deprivation make them uncapable to operate, understand and decide? Obviously not. We are not talking about *this* kind of sleep deprivation.
