Then why do you adduce her statements under interrogation as evidence of her guilt? You must be aware of how easily such statements can be coerced.
Because they are profoundly incriminating!
And the interrogation has been misrepresented by her supporters as some sort of ordeal - it wasn't. Wiki say:
Myth: Amanda Knox's statement was false or coerced after a long interrogation
Not true. Knox's interrogation was
at most two hours long, but realistically less than an hour, from 12:30am to 1:30am. Sollecito was called to the police station that night and Knox accompanied him, waiting in the hall with her homework. Sollecito was being asked about some inconsistencies in his earlier statements, causing him to now tell the police he had lied at Knox's request and the truth was they had parted company at 9:00pm and she did not return to his apartment until 1:00am. The police had been intercepting their conversations that week in which they frequently refer to a third person -- while they were unsure of the roles they felt that Knox was at least covering for someone, so when Sollecito said Knox went out, the police seized the opportunity to ask Knox about this.
They telephoned the interpreter at 11:30 to say they would require her services; Anna Donnino arrived at 12:30am. In the meantime Knox was with the police making lists of Meredith's acquaintances, drawing maps, et cetera. Likely Knox was nervous but not as a result of anything the police were doing. When Donnino arrived she was seated next to Knox at a table across from two police officers, who challenged her about her text messages. It was then that she said she was at the cottage and began to accuse
Patrick Lumumba.
Because the statement had been prepared, typed and signed by 1:45am, realistically Knox implicated herself and Lumumba within minutes of learning Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi. The text message represented an easy out for Knox, a way to concede what she suspected the police already knew without admitting any wrongdoing. She, Sollecito, and Lumumba were arrested that night. It is frequently suggested that the non-existence of a recording of this interrogation proves it was abusive; in truth, the police officers, the interpreter, and Knox all relate the same sequence of events, Knox herself doing so in a conversation which was recorded.
Knox's own account of that evening, written to her lawyers a few days after the event, is also worth reading (see
Amanda Knox's letters to her lawyers). She makes it clear that she and Sollecito arrived at the police station at "around 10:30pm or 11pm" and goes on to describe the things that happened before the formal questioning began, again supporting a considerable elapsed time. Although she was certainly not playing down the unpleasantness of the police questioning, she nevertheless makes absolutely no claim of being denied food, drink or toilet breaks, which are other details that people have added to myth in subsequent retellings.
...So the interrogation has obviously grown in the telling. I'm not sure I see where the coercion comes in. Do you think that Sollecito was also coerced into taking away Knox's alibi?
What would it require to believe in Knox and Sollecito's innocence? Would you have to believe that they had acted in an honest and honourable manner throughout? Because they didn't, they interfered with and misled a murder investigation. Why would innocent people do that? Doesn't make sense to me unless you are positing some kind of grand conspiracy against them.
