Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Welshman]

In a law court trial, the level of proof needed is simply man-in-the-street common sense, unlike an academic research paper. It simply is not reasonable to expect some defendants should have to be given higher significance levels than others.

Vixen has totally failed to grasp the point I made and comes up with an incoherent reply which bears no relation to the issue I raised. I will try to make my point as simple as possible in the hope that even Vixen may be able to understand.

A good indication of guilt or innocence is whether the defendant or the police/prosecution want the evidence tested. If a defendant does not want evidence tested and police/prosecution want the evidence tested, this indicates the evidence is incriminating and the suspect has something to fear if the evidence is tested. The police know the evidence is likely to be incriminating and will support their case. If on the other hand, the defendant wants the evidence tested and the police don’t want the evidence tested, the evidence is not incriminating and the defendant has nothing to fear if the evidence is tested. The police/prosecution suspect the evidence will not incriminate the suspect and testing the evidence will confirm this which will undermine their case.

I will use an example to illustrate my point. A man has assaulted someone on a train. The train has CCTV which will confirm this. As the man is guilty, he will not want the CCTV viewed as the footage will confirm he has carried out an assault. The police/prosecution will have no problem with the CCTV footage being viewed if they suspect they will confirm the man has carried out an assault. Another man has been accused of a similar crime on a train with onboard CCTV but this man is innocent. The man will have no problem with CCTV being viewed as it will confirm he did not carry out the assault. If the police suspect the CCTV shows the man did not carry out the assault, they will not want the CCTV viewed. A suspect wanting the evidence tested and the police opposing is a good sign a suspect is innocent.

There were instances when Amanda and Raffaele wanted the evidence tested but the prosecution opposed it. An example is the knife. If Raffaele’s knife had been used to stab Meredith, there is always a possibility blood might go in the area between the blade and handle which would survive washing. The defence teams of Amanda and Raffaele were happy to open the knife which indicates neither Amanda or Raffaele had used the knife and they knew there would be no incriminating blood in the area where between blade and handle. The prosecution on the other hand did not want the knife opened which indicated they knew there was no blood in the area between the blade and handle which would damage their case.

If Amanda and Raffaele were guilty, why is that they wanted the evidence tested but the prosecution did not?

 

[Welshman]

Corr:

Crook Hellmann claimed Rudy did it. However, the dodgy Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court upheld the burglary was a staged scene.

There are no two ways about it. No amount of sophistry will help.

Vixen again accuses Hellman and the suprement court of being corrupt. Could Vixen explain why they are corrupt. Is it simply because these courts produced verdicts Vixen does not agree with.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It's not accurate at all, for at the crime scene, there was an inner shutter behind the window pane. No glass was found outside. If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter (assuming it can get through the gap of the outter shutters, which Massei accept it could not have) would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt. Now it would have come to a stop almost immediately, say a generous 0.08inches, to give an impact of 9,000lb.

Such a force would surely cause it to fall directly to the ground below, or at least bounce off the window sill.

You appear to be saying the rock flew straight through the window, regardless of air resistance to such a heavy object, to land roughyl six feet away, under a chair. I would say, that the law of gravity means it should have immediately gone into freefall downwards on impact with the window and shutter. Did it bounce and then roll? It did chip. However, it was in the shape not dissimilar to a discarded paving stone, so would not have rolled at all, or even bounced, given it was some kind of sandstone, limestone or granite - an extremely heavy substance.

We note the shard of glass embedded in the shutter that lies immediately behind the pane. This shows it could only have been thrown from inside the room (not to mention the room was ransacked BEFORE the window was smashed, as glass was on top of the clothes, which had been strewn about pretty half-heartedly).

Doubtless, it was placed under the chair by the stager/s, as it should have fallen directly beneath the shutter on impact (being a dead weight and meeting resistance). Obviously, if it was immediately below the pane, it would have been clear to anyone it had been thrown with the window already in that (opened) angle, so whoever, moved the rock under the chair, where it was half inside a bag, so maybe it was picked up by means of the bag to avoid fingerprinting it.

Lolololol. The guilters are trying to do physics now. This is the best thing ever.

 

[bagels]

It's not accurate at all, for at the crime scene, there was an inner shutter behind the window pane. No glass was found outside. If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter (assuming it can get through the gap of the outter shutters, which Massei accept it could not have) would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt. Now it would have come to a stop almost immediately, say a generous 0.08inches, to give an impact of 9,000lb.

Such a force would surely cause it to fall directly to the ground below, or at least bounce off the window sill.

You appear to be saying the rock flew straight through the window, regardless of air resistance to such a heavy object, to land roughyl six feet away, under a chair. I would say, that the law of gravity means it should have immediately gone into freefall downwards on impact with the window and shutter. Did it bounce and then roll? It did chip. However, it was in the shape not dissimilar to a discarded paving stone, so would not have rolled at all, or even bounced, given it was some kind of sandstone, limestone or granite - an extremely heavy substance.

We note the shard of glass embedded in the shutter that lies immediately behind the pane. This shows it could only have been thrown from inside the room (not to mention the room was ransacked BEFORE the window was smashed, as glass was on top of the clothes, which had been strewn about pretty half-heartedly).

Doubtless, it was placed under the chair by the stager/s, as it should have fallen directly beneath the shutter on impact (being a dead weight and meeting resistance). Obviously, if it was immediately below the pane, it would have been clear to anyone it had been thrown with the window already in that (opened) angle, so whoever, moved the rock under the chair, where it was half inside a bag, so maybe it was picked up by means of the bag to avoid fingerprinting it.

Do you have a script that auto replies to keywords? I didn't ask for a rebuttal of an outside throw, I asked you to concede you agree with my illustration of a hypothetical throw from INSIDE the cottage, which is what you literally believe happened. You still can't bring yourself to admit you believe a rock went through the window opened into the room, and the glass all magically shot out perpendicular to the direction of the projectile with enough force to reach clear across to the bed stand, coincidentally the exact direction one would expect the glass to break if the rock had come from outside.

I don't blame you, it's a really stupid theory. I wouldn't want to admit to it either. The shameless prosecutor and the idiot judge Massei had no problem swallowing it though.

 

[LondonJohn]

Lolololol. The guilters are trying to do physics now. This is the best thing ever.

Just this one short excerpt:

If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter (assuming it can get through the gap of the outter shutters, which Massei accept it could not have) would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt.

...is, in all seriousness, one of the most woeful physics fails I have ever seen in print. It's wrong in so many stunning ways that it almost defies analysis. Particular favourites within just this one fairly short sentence are "the impact on the window/shutter would be weight of the object times distance travelled" (what??????), then the abject failure to understand or use SI units, then the calculation "10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs" (which is nonsensical for so many reasons it's truly embarrassing*), then the stunning statement that "720lbs" represents a measure of "kinetic energy"**(!!!!), then lastly the nonsense about "divided by the distance it comes to a halt".

I really have to consider that this was some sort of deliberate (but very ill-judged) "satire". Because the absurd levels of scientific illiteracy in such a short collection of words is truly, truly remarkable.


* Those reasons would be: a) the distance travelled by the rock between the point of the throw and the window is wholly irrelevant in respect of calculating impact energies or forces; b) there's been a totally arbitrary (and totally incorrect) use of inches instead of feet within the calculation - which only the author could even begin to explain; c) multiplying distance units by mass units is utterly meaningless in this case (and the only time one really sees distance multiplied by mass is when one calculates torques); d) if distance (in, for example, feet) is multiplied by mass (in, for example, lb), the result is expressed in distance x mass units (in that example, foot-pounds - which is indeed one unit in which torque is measured). Multiplying lb by feet (or inches) does not give a result measured in lb units. Wow.


** For Vixen's benefit, kinetic energy (Ek) is actually expressed in units of kgm²/s², which is exactly equivalent to Joules. And it's actually calculated as: Ek = 1/2mv², where m is the mass of the object, and v is its velocity. If, for example, a rock of 5kg mass was travelling at a velocity of 10m/s, it would have an associated kinetic energy of 1/2 x 5 x 10² = 250kgm²/s², or 250 Joules.

 

[LondonJohn]

Workings, please.

You quoted "28mph" in respect of the velocity of the rock. Where did that figure come from?

 

[LondonJohn]

From this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11609662&postcount=1092

Where did Samson get it from then? Samson?

 

[Samson]

I have mentioned before this rock has the same weight as a female shot. Assuming Rudy might emulate this, the maximum speed at launch is 28 mph.
When people look at just the glass shard embeded, their reaction is generally "like a bullet".
Guede probably achieved near maximum speed to embed this shard, and of course this is not realistic and certainly completely unnecessary from within the room.
Thus IMO it can be neatly proved the rock came from outside, which is what convinced me the prosecutors had constructed a massive fiction here, so were probably wrong everywhere.
And of course they were.
eta just randomly checked the thread and wrote this post before seeing the question. Timely

 

[LondonJohn]

In passing, is Vixen aware that a baseball pitcher is able to accelerate a baseball from 0 to almost 100mph within the short time the ball is in the pitcher's hand? Is Vixen aware of the force needed to accelerate a car to 100mph......?

(I'll post a proper scientific analysis of the forces involved in throwing an object - complete with equations - some time soon (I'd first like to clear up this "28mph" thing). My post will show exactly how force is imparted to an object to accelerate it to a given velocity, and how the velocity depends upon the length of the propulsion (i.e. the distance travelled by the object in the direction of the throw while it's in the thrower's hand), the mass of the object being thrown, and the throwing force that an average fit, young, athletic male is able to impart via his arm in a throwing motion. It will be a proper scientific analysis, in (hopefully) easy-to-follow and easy-to-understand steps. Not bollocks and nonsense. Obviously, however, I'll be needing to do a prodigious amount of googling first to make it seem like I actually knew this stuff already..... )

 

[LondonJohn]

I have mentioned before this rock has the same weight as a female shot. Assuming Rudy might emulate this, the maximum speed at launch is 28 mph.
When people look at just the glass shard embeded, their reaction is generally "like a bullet".
Guede probably achieved near maximum speed to embed this shard, and of course this is not realistic and certainly completely unnecessary from within the room.
Thus IMO it can be neatly proved the rock came from outside, which is what convinced me the prosecutors had constructed a massive fiction here, so were probably wrong everywhere.
And of course they were.
eta just randomly checked the thread and wrote this post before seeing the question. Timely

I would say that's not a valid comparison. Professional shot putters spend years honing their bodies and their techniques for the primary purpose of throwing a shot, and they are elite athletes built for purpose.

I would say that a regular (young, fit, athletic) adult male throwing a rock of equivalent mass to that of a female shot would probably only be able to achieve a throwing velocity of around 1/2 to 2/3 (max) of that attained by an elite female shot putter. As I said, I will supply a detailed post soon (when I have the time and inclination.....) showing the exact calculations governing all of this. And I will show exactly how someone such as Guede would easily have been capable of propelling that rock at something around 15-20mph, which would have been more than enough to propel it across the (c.2m) gap between the edge of the parapet and Romanelli's window (with the combination of the propulsion velocity and the distance travelled leading to only a small drop across that distance due to the effect of gravity).

 

[LondonJohn]

And, by the way, any small pieces of glass propelled forward when the rock hit the window pane would almost certainly, and almost by definition, have been travelling forward far faster than the velocity of the rock when it hit the pane. That's down to the law of conservation of momentum:

Simply (and simplistically) put, the pieces of glass propelled forward, even when combined, were of a far lower mass than the mass of the rock, and conservation of momentum dictates that the momentum lost in that particular (i.e. forward) vector by the rock when it hit the pane must be conserved. And because momentum is calculated as mass x velocity, if the rock lost (say) half its forward velocity (and thus half its forward momentum) when it hit the window, that lost momentum must be conserved elsewhere. And if the objects (small pieces of glass, for example) that were propelled forward were only, when combined, (say) 1/50 the mass of the rock, then they would be propelled forward at 25 times the forward velocity of the rock at impact.

I must stress again that the above example is (deliberately) simplistic, especially in respect of the rock throw in the Kercher case. In that case we would have to take into account the various forces on the window glass at impact (including trampoline effects), the forward quantity of momentum transferred to the inner shutter, the precise nature and dispersal pattern of glass from the window, and the trajectory (and thus forward velocity) of the rock post-impact. All of those calculations could be done. I might even get round to doing them one day. But the overarching principle is intact: it's a near-certainty that glass fragments propelled forwards when the rock hit the window would have been travelling forward at a much greater velocity than the velocity of the rock when it hit the window.

 

[Samson]

I would say that's not a valid comparison. Professional shot putters spend years honing their bodies and their techniques for the primary purpose of throwing a shot, and they are elite athletes built for purpose.

I would say that a regular (young, fit, athletic) adult male throwing a rock of equivalent mass to that of a female shot would probably only be able to achieve a throwing velocity of around 1/2 to 2/3 (max) of that attained by an elite female shot putter. As I said, I will supply a detailed post soon (when I have the time and inclination.....) showing the exact calculations governing all of this. And I will show exactly how someone such as Guede would easily have been capable of propelling that rock at something around 15-20mph, which would have been more than enough to propel it across the (c.2m) gap between the edge of the parapet and Romanelli's window (with the combination of the propulsion velocity and the distance travelled leading to only a small drop across that distance due to the effect of gravity).

The shard was embedded as a result of this throw is my point. It looks like considerable velocity was achieved. The important point to be made is that in a staging from within the room that velocity is quite unnecessary, and IMO far more difficult to achieve, remembering the space available for the wind up between wall and inward opening shutter window combo.

 

[Samson]

And, by the way, any small pieces of glass propelled forward when the rock hit the window pane would almost certainly, and almost by definition, have been travelling forward far faster than the velocity of the rock when it hit the pane. That's down to the law of conservation of momentum:

Simply (and simplistically) put, the pieces of glass propelled forward, even when combined, were of a far lower mass than the mass of the rock, and conservation of momentum dictates that the momentum lost in that particular (i.e. forward) vector by the rock when it hit the pane must be conserved. And because momentum is calculated as mass x velocity, if the rock lost (say) half its forward velocity (and thus half its forward momentum) when it hit the window, that lost momentum must be conserved elsewhere. And if the objects (small pieces of glass, for example) that were propelled forward were only, when combined, (say) 1/50 the mass of the rock, then they would be propelled forward at 25 times the forward velocity of the rock at impact.

I must stress again that the above example is (deliberately) simplistic, especially in respect of the rock throw in the Kercher case. In that case we would have to take into account the various forces on the window glass at impact (including trampoline effects), the forward quantity of momentum transferred to the inner shutter, the precise nature and dispersal pattern of glass from the window, and the trajectory (and thus forward velocity) of the rock post-impact. All of those calculations could be done. I might even get round to doing them one day. But the overarching principle is intact: it's a near-certainty that glass fragments propelled forwards when the rock hit the window would have been travelling forward at a much greater velocity than the velocity of the rock when it hit the window.

I do understand that, and interestingly the time lapse between rock hitting glass and internal shutter is tiny, so of course the glass moved faster than the rock. I was going to do experiments myself, as I thought that one shard was sufficient proof of innocence to a scientist, ie the rock being thrown from outside was proof of innocence.
Who would go throwing rocks at a building with a dead body they had left inside and all that sort of thing.

 

[abaddon]

Workings, please.

Workings for what? Are you claiming to be unaware that humans regularly can and do accelerate objects to multiples of that speed? 12 m/s? Just by standing up you can propel your own body faster.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's not accurate at all, for at the crime scene, there was an inner shutter behind the window pane. No glass was found outside. If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter (assuming it can get through the gap of the outter shutters, which Massei accept it could not have) would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt. Now it would have come to a stop almost immediately, say a generous 0.08inches, to give an impact of 9,000lb.

Such a force would surely cause it to fall directly to the ground below, or at least bounce off the window sill.

You appear to be saying the rock flew straight through the window, regardless of air resistance to such a heavy object, to land roughyl six feet away, under a chair. I would say, that the law of gravity means it should have immediately gone into freefall downwards on impact with the window and shutter. Did it bounce and then roll? It did chip. However, it was in the shape not dissimilar to a discarded paving stone, so would not have rolled at all, or even bounced, given it was some kind of sandstone, limestone or granite - an extremely heavy substance.

We note the shard of glass embedded in the shutter that lies immediately behind the pane. This shows it could only have been thrown from inside the room (not to mention the room was ransacked BEFORE the window was smashed, as glass was on top of the clothes, which had been strewn about pretty half-heartedly).


Doubtless, it was placed under the chair by the stager/s, as it should have fallen directly beneath the shutter on impact (being a dead weight and meeting resistance). Obviously, if it was immediately below the pane, it would have been clear to anyone it had been thrown with the window already in that (opened) angle, so whoever, moved the rock under the chair, where it was half inside a bag, so maybe it was picked up by means of the bag to avoid fingerprinting it.

Your amateur deductions are irrelevant as you are not a ballistics expert nor do you have any training in the science of ballistics at all. F. Pasquali, who IS a ballistics expert, concluded the rock was thrown from outside. All your use of "Doubtless", "obviously", and the ludicrous "air resistance" nonsense, does not make your conjecture any more scientifically sound.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, that is not what I am asking. If the 'rock' weighing 9lbs 4oz is thrown from a distance of 6'6", please show me how you calculate (a) it went flying through the window at 28 mph and (b) at what sort of acceleration did it achieve this. Whilst you are busy, perhaps you can tell us the quickest it can take for a car to go from 0 - 28 mph, how much horsepower is needed and the distance travelled in so doing.

You reckon you can do this within six feet?

I'll work on that as soon as you cite the source that the rock "went flying through the window at 28 mph". And I'm afraid Samson's post isn't acceptable.


Have fun!

 

[Vixen]

Just this one short excerpt:

If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter (assuming it can get through the gap of the outter shutters, which Massei accept it could not have) would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt.

...is, in all seriousness, one of the most woeful physics fails I have ever seen in print. It's wrong in so many stunning ways that it almost defies analysis. Particular favourites within just this one fairly short sentence are "the impact on the window/shutter would be weight of the object times distance travelled" (what??????), then the abject failure to understand or use SI units, then the calculation "10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs" (which is nonsensical for so many reasons it's truly embarrassing*), then the stunning statement that "720lbs" represents a measure of "kinetic energy"**(!!!!), then lastly the nonsense about "divided by the distance it comes to a halt".

I really have to consider that this was some sort of deliberate (but very ill-judged) "satire". Because the absurd levels of scientific illiteracy in such a short collection of words is truly, truly remarkable.


* Those reasons would be: a) the distance travelled by the rock between the point of the throw and the window is wholly irrelevant in respect of calculating impact energies or forces; b) there's been a totally arbitrary (and totally incorrect) use of inches instead of feet within the calculation - which only the author could even begin to explain; c) multiplying distance units by mass units is utterly meaningless in this case (and the only time one really sees distance multiplied by mass is when one calculates torques); d) if distance (in, for example, feet) is multiplied by mass (in, for example, lb), the result is expressed in distance x mass units (in that example, foot-pounds - which is indeed one unit in which torque is measured). Multiplying lb by feet (or inches) does not give a result measured in lb units. Wow.


** For Vixen's benefit, kinetic energy (Ek) is actually expressed in units of kgm²/s², which is exactly equivalent to Joules. And it's actually calculated as: Ek = 1/2mv², where m is the mass of the object, and v is its velocity. If, for example, a rock of 5kg mass was travelling at a velocity of 10m/s, it would have an associated kinetic energy of 1/2 x 5 x 10² = 250kgm²/s², or 250 Joules.

Let us know when you come across the following:

The Imperial British Gravitational System - BG
The British Gravitational System (Imperial System) of units is used by engineers in the English-speaking world with the same relation to the foot - pound - second system as the meter - kilogram - force second system (SI) has to the meter - kilogram - second system. For engineers who deals with forces, instead of masses, it's convenient to use a system that has as its base units length, time, and force, instead of length, time and mass. The three base units in the Imperial system are the foot, the second, and the pound-force.
In the BG system the mass unit is the slug and is defined from the Newton's Second Law (1). The unit of mass, the slug, is derived from the pound-force by defining it as the mass that will accelerate at 1 foot per second per second when a 1 pound-force acts upon it.

In a foot system, it is OK to convert into inches, as the distance at 'stop' level is often a small fraction of the distance travelled, hence it makes sense to convert 6 feet into 72 inches, if the stop distance is a fraction of an inch. (This is just a nicetie, and of course, not mandatory.) the weight of the rock was expressed in lbs for similar reason.

How do you think the empire managed before it went metric?

 

[Stacyhs]

Let us know when you come across the following:



In a foot system, it is OK to convert into inches, as the distance at 'stop' level is often a small fraction of the distance travelled, hence it makes sense to convert 6 feet into 72 inches, if the stop distance is a fraction of an inch. (This is just a nicetie, and of course, not mandatory.) the weight of the rock was expressed in lbs for similar reason.

How do you think the empire managed before it went metric?

You still have not shown that the rock was traveling 28 mph.

 

[Numbers]

And, by the way, any small pieces of glass propelled forward when the rock hit the window pane would almost certainly, and almost by definition, have been travelling forward far faster than the velocity of the rock when it hit the pane. That's down to the law of conservation of momentum:

Simply (and simplistically) put, the pieces of glass propelled forward, even when combined, were of a far lower mass than the mass of the rock, and conservation of momentum dictates that the momentum lost in that particular (i.e. forward) vector by the rock when it hit the pane must be conserved. And because momentum is calculated as mass x velocity, if the rock lost (say) half its forward velocity (and thus half its forward momentum) when it hit the window, that lost momentum must be conserved elsewhere. And if the objects (small pieces of glass, for example) that were propelled forward were only, when combined, (say) 1/50 the mass of the rock, then they would be propelled forward at 25 times the forward velocity of the rock at impact.

I must stress again that the above example is (deliberately) simplistic, especially in respect of the rock throw in the Kercher case. In that case we would have to take into account the various forces on the window glass at impact (including trampoline effects), the forward quantity of momentum transferred to the inner shutter, the precise nature and dispersal pattern of glass from the window, and the trajectory (and thus forward velocity) of the rock post-impact. All of those calculations could be done. I might even get round to doing them one day. But the overarching principle is intact: it's a near-certainty that glass fragments propelled forwards when the rock hit the window would have been travelling forward at a much greater velocity than the velocity of the rock when it hit the window.

Could it be that PGPs practice physics without a license? Or even one introductory course including Newtonian dynamics?

Perhaps it will help to explain to them that pounds is a measure of weight, which is the force that the earth exerts on an object (the mass of the object acted upon by the acceleration of gravity, which acts in the vertical direction - that is, toward the center of the earth).

On the other hand, the quantities of interest in the problem of an object thrown in a (mostly) horizontal direction will include its kinetic energy = (1/2)*mass*velocity^2, and its momentum = mass*velocity.

A large portion of the momentum of the thrown rock was obviously transferred to the glass fragments which forward-scattered into the room. Backward-scatter (to the outside) would not be expected, because that would violate conservation of momentum. (I believe any "trampoline" effect would be zero or near zero; window glass is quite brittle and not springy, and the fractures in the glass very rapidly induced by the rock impact would tend not to support such bounce-back.)

But to the point of the prosecution allegation that the window had been broken by the rock launched against it from the inside the room (with the window open inwards) as part of a "staged" break-in, in is clear from the glass shard scatter and the glass shard that got stuck into the wood of the casement that the rock was launched from outside the cottage.

Here are some excerpts from the testimony of the defense expert, Marshal Francesco Pasquali, a ballistics expert.

Counsel Maori. - Quite clear, Marshal, just a contrarian question: would it be possible to hypothesize breakage from the inside.

Consultant. - As far as we are able to verify, no... that is we exclude that the glass was broken from the inside.

Counsel Maori. - For what reasons?

Consultant. - For the reasons I have explained just now and also because, most importantly, in the section of glass fragments {18} on the shutter, it would have had no way of ending up there if the glass had been broken from the inside, the position of the broken glass both on the outside and the inside... confirms to us that the stroke, that the stone traversed the glass from the outside towards the inside.

Counsel Maori. - And so with [the stone] being launched from the position...

Consultant. - Launched in a certain distance, not launched close to the frame, that is to the glazed part.
....
Consultant. - At the moment of the inspection, as I have spoken before of the window, all the details I have explained about the glass, about the position of the glass, of the casing and so on, and I saw fragments of the glass on the carpet which... reached close to the nightstand; the presence of this stone close to the table inside, on the edge of a black bag, slightly torn, the glass fragments beyond the stone on the floor. We put together a report of our findings; it confirms what was documented by the Police, that is, the glass shares on the window were still in the same position both on the windowsill and in the grooves; clearly there was nothing on the ground {floor} any longer because everything was moved, that is the small carpet was no longer in its place but was in another part [of the room] and there were other garments on the bed, so all in all...

Counsel Rocchi. - From the analysis of these documents and particularly of the photographs you have explained to us earlier and of the glass pieces detected in the... let's say stuffed into the blind - from this analysis, did you conclude that the toss could only originate from the outside?

Consultant. - Let's say that we were urged by this {54} to deepen the investigation to proceed to the experiment and see if the effects were such, because the fact that the glass fragments were stuck in the blinds makes clear that the people who broke the glass struck the blind and inserted these fragments.

Counsel Rocchi. - So for the moment I wanted to pay attention to this analysis, that is the analysis of the state of the site, of the photographs...

Consultant. - Yes.

Counsel Rocchi. - And so on... what is the conclusion?

Consultant. - That the rock was launched from the outside towards the inside.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/

Also see: www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guedes-break-in/

The police never investigated the break-in nor had any intention of finding evidence it was real once burglar Rudy Guede was discovered. The records show just five samples were collected from Romanelli’s room for testing and all defense requests for further testing the rock for DNA were denied. At the trial, the prosecution presented no expert witnesses to support their theory or conducted any experiments to prove it. Sollecito defense consultant, Francesco Pasquali, did 3 reconstructions throwing a rock the same size and weight as the one found in the Romanelli’s bedroom through a glass window and showed the glass distribution and where the rock landed matched what’s seen in the crime scene photos.

 

[Numbers]

The analysis of the window breakage by Ron Hendry is useful.

The casement window pane was broken with most of its lower half missing and a large rock was found inside the room. The large rock had fallen onto, overturned and torn a paper bag of clothing as it fell. In landing, small pieces of the rock flaked off as a marker for where it landed. A couple of small pieces of glass could be seen near the resting position of the large rock.

Also the inside wooden shutter had a recent impact site consistent only with being impacted by an object which had initially impacted the window pane. Then too a spray of glass was found on the high contrasting blue floor mat located several feet from the window. Additional glass shards were found on the inner and outer window sill and on the floor beneath the broken window pane. Small piles of glass shards were found on the inner and outer window sill and on the floor beneath the broken window pane. Most importantly, a widely disbursed spray of glass was found on the floor from the window and bed to the desk wall.

All the above elements indicate the window pane was broken by a large rock thrown from the outside.

The final resting position of the rock indicated that the person throwing the rock was located somewhat to the driveway entrance side instead of directly in front of the window. The small contact zone to the inside wooden shutter relative to the size of the rock inferred that the shutter was partially open when impacted by the large rock.

Any theory that promotes the window being broken from the inside totally falls apart when attempting to account for the spray of broken window pieces on the floor which was best illustrated on the high contrasting blue floor mat next to Filomena’s bed

If the window was closed when impacted from the inside, one would not expect a spray of glass out into the room or onto the blue floor mat.

If the window was opened about halfway when impacted, one would expect any glass spray to be directed toward the wardrobe closet and not out into the opposite side of the room where it was actually found. Additionally one would not expect to see the accumulation of large glass shards on the outer window sill as they were found. Also one would expect that the simulator would have dropped the rock under the window instead of off to one side as it was actually found.

Any and all theories for the rock being thrown from the inside are unrealistic when considering both the spray of glass on the floor and the recent impact to the inner wooden shutter.

As regards the glass on items inside the room, Filomena had far too many items of clothing and belongings for the meager storage in the room and had no choice but to stack it along the walls and elsewhere. Thus, her report of finding belongings covered with pieces of glass is consistent with a rock thrown from the outside.

As regards the areas of exposed wood to the outside shutter, these areas were old in appearance. In addition they did not look like damage one would expect to occur from an impact with a rock. Further, the louver damage area appeared to have resulted from a flaking off a portion of the wood. Had the louver damage been related to contact with the rock, then one would have expected the missing wood piece to have been found and promoted as a rock contact site.

As regards the lack of glass on the outside ground, if the rock had been thrown from the inside and struck the window pane and then the outer shutter, one would have expected a blast of glass particles striking the louvered shutters with some going through and falling to the ground and some being stuck in the louvers. We would also expect that the outer shutters would have been knocked open by the rock with a considerable amount of glass winding up on the ground along with the rock. We would also expect glass over most of the outer window sill.

However, no glass was found stuck in the louvers, the glass was restricted to one side of the window sill, the rock was found in the room, and no glass was found on the ground.

Thus, the found condition of the outside louver, the location of the glass on the window sill, and lack of finding of glass pieces outside on the ground were all an indication of a rock thrown from the outside rather than from the inside.

Actually one would also expect a few small pieces of glass to fall to the ground with a rock thrown from the outside. It is likely that no one conducted a rigorous foot by foot sifting of the soil for glass pieces. With the light blanket of fallen leaves, one would not easily detect a few small pieces of fallen glass.

Thus the totality of the physical evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the window pane was shattered by a large rock thrown from the outside and that large rock was the one found inside the room. While this is a strong indicator of an intruder’s handiwork, it does not conclusively prove in and of itself that an intruder by the name of Rudy Guede actually entered the upstairs flat through the window. Part Two will explore facts relevant to that question.

Source: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html