Why all the fuss about an interpreter if Amanda spoke Italian? Did she, or did she not, need an interpreter? If she needed an interpreter, then she was not able to provide information prior to having an interpreter. Since she did need an interpreter and stated in court that she had an interpreter, I think we have to believe that she had an interpreter. Since the interpreter was able to understand Amanda's accusations against Patrick, and Amanda reiterated the exact same accusations without any police presence or coercion, we can assume the interpretation was 100% correct.
Come on, otto. You have extraordinary language skills (particularly by American standards) and you know better. You know perfectly well that knowledge of a language--particularly comprehension of spoken speech, which in my experience is far more difficult to acquire than a reading knowledge--isn't a matter of all or none.
Yes, AK needed an interpreter. That does not mean the first hour of the interrogation was spent in silence while police waited from an English-speaking cop. They spoke, AK understood some of it and replied as best she could. This would be extremely stressful for anyone. (I find it mildly stressful speaking Spanish (a language in which I am less than fluent) to the pool man, and I'm not being accused of murder.)
Just as there are varying degrees of competency in language fluency, there are varying degrees of competency in translation. We don't know how well the Italian cop spoke English. Yes, she served as translator for the occasion. Whether she did it well, we don't know. What we do know is that she was not a neutral translator, but part of the interrogation team working to get a confession from AK. Hardly the same thing.
Amanda signed her statement, written in English, at 1:45 in the morning; two hours after the questioning began. At 11 o'clock on Nov 5 she was talking to Filomina about whether they could still be roommates, then we have the gymnastics, and then the questioning.
Amanda made no effort to retract her statements. At 1:45 she accused Patrick, at 5:45 she accused Patrick, hours later she asked for pen and paper and again accused Patrick (this statement was admissible in court), and then two weeks later, after Patrick was released from jail, she then admitted that she knew he was innocent. Funny thing is that she couldn't know he was innocent unless she was there.
BBM: this is actually not true. If one reads her statements, all three of them from that day are full of qualifications attempting to negate the lies she was telling. AK was clearly under duress (and one may argue she was under duress because she was guilty). But it was not her "master plan" to blame Lumumba and make the accusation stick. She was taking it back even as she made it. (This does not excuse her. But it tells us quite a bit as to how much credence we should give those statements, i.e., none.)
As for admitting PL was innocent, AK merely meant she knew her own statements were false. Twisting that into some slip of the tongue that proves her guilt is mere word play.
Regarding Alibis: Raffaele has stood by his claim that he does not know if Amanda was with him through the entire night, and Amanda has placed herself at the scene of the crime.
Amanda lied, as you yourself are the first to point out.
Raffaele was asleep. He can't know what AK did while he was not awake. To my knowledge, he has never said, "Oh, Amanda left at 9pm and I didn't see her again until 2." If that is what he meant, he would have said so. He did not. Because it did not happen.
