[wideawake]

She would have to knowlingly and willingly dispose of Rudy Guede’s crime.

How do you "dispose of" a crime?

The normal definition of accessory after the fact is someone who helps conceal a crime, fails to fully report it or aids the criminal in concealing it.

By pointing a finger at Lumumba, she enabled Guede to get the drop on the police and flee the country.

Also, an overnight interrogation is hardly a "third world" affair.

Few first world police investigations do without them.

THe matter of having an interpreter is more on point. The police did not understand American idioms.

[KC_Conspirator]

I am referring to evidence, and the US standard is "knowingly" assisting someone; in which case I would contend she did not know it was Rudy Guede and maybe you disagree - who knows, for example, maybe she bought drugs from him, I have no idea. Regardless, this is Italian law anyway, so the point is moot.

Trying to stay on point about the fact that she did not that commit murder; nor was she an accomplice (which is what she is being charged with).

[wiggen]

She was not afforded the opportunity to have a lawyer. Her boyfriend changed his story to i don’t know if she was there when i slept. This was no case at all. Even when all the evidence pointed to one person they kept after her and her boyfriend. Prosecutors don’t like to lose. Thats all the reason they need to continue a non case.

[KC_Conspirator]

Btw, I just wanted to mention that even though I believe the two were innocent of murder and just ignorant potheads, your theory that they tried to cover tracks for Guede does seem very plausible. It would be totally within the confines of probable cause to go ahead and charge them with that. But to my knowledge, I dont think the prosecution is concerned with that.