Three points. One, whether or not Knox and Sollecito are ultimately acquitted or convicted, my view is that the trials have been unfair due to a lack of discovery and views about DNA forensics that don't conform to the real world. If every case involving DNA evidence in Italy were to be decided with the same set of implicit rules, false convictions are almost inevitable. I set forth my reasons
here some time ago. It's a long read, so pour yourself a nice cup of tea first.
Two, one keeps hearing over and over about the putative contradiction between accepting the evidence against Guede and not against Knox. There are a number of reasons why this paradox is not a contradiction. The strongest evidence against Guede is his bloody handprint, his SODDI defense to the contrary notwithstanding. The second most powerful evidence against him is the set of his bloody shoeprints. It is tough to screw up these two forms of evidence IMO, but if someone can offer reasons to believe that ILE did so against Guede, then they have made a very good start to rebutting the case against him. The DNA evidence against him fills out the picture, but it could be discarded entirely and there would still be enough evidence to convict him.
I have not examined the DNA evidence against Guede nearly as thoroughly as the evidence against Knox and Sollecito. However, if it were low template work, I would not accept it (I don't believe any of it is, based on my memory of it). If his DNA were mixed with that of several other males, I would have serious doubts about its value. If someone recovered a knife that belonged to him and found Meredith's DNA at low template levels but did not find blood, I would very seriously doubt the results.* If a piece of evidence with his DNA were stored in a closed container with extraction buffer and became unusable, I would be very unimpressed with it. The problems with the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito lies in these particulars, among others.
Three, an article by Castellini and other information from Italian news sources from 5 November (thank you for finding both of them, Malkmus) confirm what Sollecito implied in his book: The two were suspects in fact before they entered the station on the night of 5 November. If Sollecito's allegedly pulling her alibi was so important, then she was even more a suspect at that point. Finally, she was surely a suspect as of the time of the 12:45 statement. Therefore, there is absolutely no excuse that the interrogation leading up to the 5:45 statement was not recorded, and any claim that she was not really a suspect by the time of the 12:45 statement is highly dubious.
*BTW someone doubted that Guede was smart enough to hide a knife. Yet he hid the knife that at the very least made the wounds that could not have been made by the large kitchen knife (obviously I believe it was the knife that made all of the wounds).