[fatso]

I thought the confession stated that she and her boyfriend were involved in the murder. But, again, it was the product of her being interrogated for 14 hours without a lawyer or a break. Apparently, the written confession was in both English and Italian. Knox claims that in addition to verbally threatening her, the police slapped her twice during the interrogation. My personal feelings are that judges should be wary of any kind of confession, and especially so if the circumstances are as unfavourable to an accused as claimed here, so I'm admittedly biased against allowing her confession as evidence.

I do find it totally fascinating that the prosecution and the defence have gone to such great lengths to paint completely opposed interpretations of Knox. The defence is making her out to be some kind of lovable nerd who was merely living her academic dream. The prosecution makes her out to be a drug-fueled, sex-crazed wild child who came to Europe to do naughty things. The truth, as they say, is probably in-between. I don't doubt she liked to party, but was murder really in her mind?

Interestingly, and again someone can correct me if I'm wrong, the original prosecution theory - that Knox and her boyfriend killed Kercher because she wouldn't participate in their orgy - was dropped as the trial proceeded. The defence introduced expert evidence that Kercher was probably killed by one person, not three as originally contended. However, it seems there was also evidence that Knox was growing marijuana in the house and that Kercher was becoming increasingly bothered by the 'friends' Knox was bringing over. Perhaps a fight between roommates escalated quickly and Knox tried to cover it up? What was the convicted grifter doing there that night? And why did Knox say it was the local bar owner who ended up having an airtight alibi?