Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Here's what Massei wrote:
It has already been stated that Rudy Guede was acquainted with the inhabitants of via della Pergola, and that he had a good relationship of friendship and fun with them (with all of the boys from downstairs; with Amanda, in whom he had actually shown some interest; and with Meredith). It thus seems unlikely that Rudy decided to enter this house in the illicit and violent manner shown by the smashing of the window. It is even more unlikely given that at least some of the residents of the house might have been home or might have turned up and surprised Rudy Guede, whom they knew, in the very act of burglary or just after committing this act. Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007 she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95); "the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26), adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a couple of days" (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on December 3, 2007, that "I had pulled the shutters together, but I don't think I closed them tight" (p. 115).
[36] It must be held that when Filomena Romanelli left the house in via della Pergola, she had pulled the shutters towards the interior of her room, although she did not think that she had actually closed them; furthermore, because they were old and the wood had swelled a bit, they rubbed on the windowsill; to pull them towards the room it was necessary to use some force ("they rubbed on the windowsill"); but in this way, once they had been pulled in, as Romanelli remembered doing, they remained well closed by the pressure of the swelled wood against the windowsill. Now, for a rock to have been able to break the glass of the window without shattering the outside shutters, it would have been necessary to remove the obstacle of the shutters by opening them up. The consultant for the defence actually assumed that this had been done; in his exhibit, he assumed that the shutters were not present [in front of the window]. Consequently, since the shutters had been pulled together and their rubbing put pressure on the windowsill on which they rested, it would have first been necessary to effect an operation with the specific goal of completely opening these shutters. The failure to find any instrument suitable for making such an opening (one cannot even see what type of instrument could be used to this end) leads one to assume that the wall would have to have
49
been scaled a first time in order to effect the complete opening of the shutters ("if the shutters were closed, he could not have passed through, that is obvious", cf. declarations of the consultant for the defence, Sergeant Francesco Pasquali, p. 22 hearing July 3, 2009), in order to enable the burglar to aim at the window and smash it by throwing a large stone - the one found in Romanelli's room. The "climber" (the window in Romanelli's room is located at a height of more than three and a half metres from the ground underneath, cf. photo 11 from the relevant dossier) would also need to rely on the fact that the shutters were not actually latched, and also that the ‚scuri‛ ,which are the wooden panels [scuri=non-louvered shutters in interior of room] that usually constitute the outer side (or the inner, depending on the point of view) of the window [attached to the outer edge of the inner side of the window-frame] had not been fastened to the window-frame to which the broken pane was attached; otherwise it would not have been possible to open them from the outside; nor would it have been possible, even breaking the glass, to make a hole giving access to the house, [37] since if these inner panels had been closed, they would have continued to provide an adequate obstacle to the possibility of opening the window, in spite of the broken pane.
Admitting that the climber decided to bet, in a sense, on the presence of both of these "favourable" - in fact, indispensable - conditions, the climber would then have had to climb up once, from underneath the window of Romanelli's room, in order to open the shutters; then he would have had to get the large rock, and having selected the point where he wanted to break the window, to throw it (it seems impossible to accept that he actually made the climb while carrying the large rock, and threw it against the window at the risk of being hit by glass falling from the pane thus shattered).
He would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside.
This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved (going twice underneath the window, going up to throw the stone, scaling the wall twice) and taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and
50
behaviours, all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing by on the street or actually coming into the house.
His entire theory is based on the shutters being tightly closed which certainly wasn't proven.
Btw, the house was not in control of the owner in 2008. Go to your favorite PG sites and look at their pictures. Also when did they add the iron gate in front of the door.
Could you produce one of your PGP writing that the lawyer going up the bars was phony because the bars weren't there.
Did they match the bars to the previous window design?
It has already been stated that Rudy Guede was acquainted with the inhabitants of via della Pergola, and that he had a good relationship of friendship and fun with them (with all of the boys from downstairs; with Amanda, in whom he had actually shown some interest; and with Meredith). It thus seems unlikely that Rudy decided to enter this house in the illicit and violent manner shown by the smashing of the window. It is even more unlikely given that at least some of the residents of the house might have been home or might have turned up and surprised Rudy Guede, whom they knew, in the very act of burglary or just after committing this act. Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007 she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95); "the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26), adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a couple of days" (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on December 3, 2007, that "I had pulled the shutters together, but I don't think I closed them tight" (p. 115).
[36] It must be held that when Filomena Romanelli left the house in via della Pergola, she had pulled the shutters towards the interior of her room, although she did not think that she had actually closed them; furthermore, because they were old and the wood had swelled a bit, they rubbed on the windowsill; to pull them towards the room it was necessary to use some force ("they rubbed on the windowsill"); but in this way, once they had been pulled in, as Romanelli remembered doing, they remained well closed by the pressure of the swelled wood against the windowsill. Now, for a rock to have been able to break the glass of the window without shattering the outside shutters, it would have been necessary to remove the obstacle of the shutters by opening them up. The consultant for the defence actually assumed that this had been done; in his exhibit, he assumed that the shutters were not present [in front of the window]. Consequently, since the shutters had been pulled together and their rubbing put pressure on the windowsill on which they rested, it would have first been necessary to effect an operation with the specific goal of completely opening these shutters. The failure to find any instrument suitable for making such an opening (one cannot even see what type of instrument could be used to this end) leads one to assume that the wall would have to have
49
been scaled a first time in order to effect the complete opening of the shutters ("if the shutters were closed, he could not have passed through, that is obvious", cf. declarations of the consultant for the defence, Sergeant Francesco Pasquali, p. 22 hearing July 3, 2009), in order to enable the burglar to aim at the window and smash it by throwing a large stone - the one found in Romanelli's room. The "climber" (the window in Romanelli's room is located at a height of more than three and a half metres from the ground underneath, cf. photo 11 from the relevant dossier) would also need to rely on the fact that the shutters were not actually latched, and also that the ‚scuri‛ ,which are the wooden panels [scuri=non-louvered shutters in interior of room] that usually constitute the outer side (or the inner, depending on the point of view) of the window [attached to the outer edge of the inner side of the window-frame] had not been fastened to the window-frame to which the broken pane was attached; otherwise it would not have been possible to open them from the outside; nor would it have been possible, even breaking the glass, to make a hole giving access to the house, [37] since if these inner panels had been closed, they would have continued to provide an adequate obstacle to the possibility of opening the window, in spite of the broken pane.
Admitting that the climber decided to bet, in a sense, on the presence of both of these "favourable" - in fact, indispensable - conditions, the climber would then have had to climb up once, from underneath the window of Romanelli's room, in order to open the shutters; then he would have had to get the large rock, and having selected the point where he wanted to break the window, to throw it (it seems impossible to accept that he actually made the climb while carrying the large rock, and threw it against the window at the risk of being hit by glass falling from the pane thus shattered).
He would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside.
This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved (going twice underneath the window, going up to throw the stone, scaling the wall twice) and taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and
50
behaviours, all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing by on the street or actually coming into the house.
His entire theory is based on the shutters being tightly closed which certainly wasn't proven.
Btw, the house was not in control of the owner in 2008. Go to your favorite PG sites and look at their pictures. Also when did they add the iron gate in front of the door.
Could you produce one of your PGP writing that the lawyer going up the bars was phony because the bars weren't there.
Did they match the bars to the previous window design?
