Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
"the statement made by Romanelli on 12-3-2007 (“I had pulled the shutters, but I don’t think I closed them”)" Hellmann Report

Yes, she pulled them as far as the warped wood allowed her to. It was not possible to close them enough to latch them.

From Romanelli's testimony:

" The window was old and wouldn't close. I would have liked to have them replaced, also the shutters, maybe change the window or put bars on it like in Laura's room. It was used, old...warped. It gave me the sense of not being secure. Sometimes I thought even the wind could have opened the window. It didn't give me the feeling of being secure. I didn't feel it would stay closed, and I didn't like it."


Correct.

Oh and the stuff about the pieces of glass on the sill only going back as far as the line of the exterior shutters when pulled to (which is totally correct) also needs explaining to the low-of-intellect and/or hopelessly biassed:

1) Guede climbs up and swings open the (only ajar) exterior shutters covering Romanelli's window.

2) Guede goes to the parapet and throws the rock through the window. Some pieces of glass fall onto the stone exterior sill.

3) Guede climbs up to the window again; he probably removes further pieces of glass from the window to enable him to reach through easily and safely to unlatch the window frame and swing the window open inwards.

4) Guede makes sure that all the glass on the sill - the glass that fell there when the window broke, plus any pieces he removed manually - is to one side of the sill and out of his way, such that he doesn't need to place his hands or his weight on any broken glass; he is able to enter Romanelli's room.

5) (Here comes the "difficult" bit :p:p) Once inside Romanelli's room, Guede is understandably very keen to hide the evidence of a break-in from anyone who might be walking or driving outside the cottage. The blindingly obvious way to do so is simply to reach out and pull the exterior shutters closed (ajar but sufficiently closed as to fully obscure the broken window). Guede does exactly this. And in pulling the exterior shutters closed, the shutters sweep the glass inwards to the point where they form a sort of line along the interior face of the now-closed exterior shutter.

And that, boys and girls, is exactly how easy it is to explain how a) the exterior shutters were found in the closed (ajar) position when first discovered the following day*, and b) why a line of glass pieces was found on the stone exterior sill corresponding to the interior face of the closed exterior shutter. So, so obvious - if one has the analytical skills and the objectivity to enable one to figure it out so easily........


* Also explaining why Knox did not at first notice the disturbance in Romanelli's room from inside the cottage - it was dark owing to the exterior shutters being closed; and indeed why neither Knox nor Sollecito noticed anything amiss from the outside as they walked up to the cottage - the exterior shutters were pulled to and thus the broken window could not be seen from the outside.
 
As a slight aside: the one thing in this whole case that might bring me some personal level of (mild) satisfaction would be if Guede - IMO the only person alive who knows what happened that night, on account of him being the sole murderer - were to read this thread. And if he were to silently and secretly think to himself something along the lines of:

"Hmmmmmmm wow. Those people have pretty much figured out what really happened. I really did do all this alone. I really did come and case the cottage earlier that evening, go away for a kebab, and come back at around 8.30pm. I really did figure out that Romanelli's window was the most viable point of entry, since I could see the exterior shutters were only loosely ajar, since I knew I could climb up to it pretty easily, and since I knew it was a thin single-framed glass that I could break with total ease and an old wooden frame that I could open with total ease.

"I really did climb up and pull open the exterior shutters, then drop back into the shadows for a short while, then I really did go up to the parapet and throw that rock through the window, again retreating back to the shadows for a short while. I then really did climb up again, remove enough additional glass to enable me to reach through and unlatch the window, lift myself up onto the exterior sill (after removing to the side any glass pieces that might have been in my way) and climb in through the now-open window. I then really did pull the exterior shutters closed behind me, to conceal the evidence of the break-in from the outside.

"And I then really did believe I had plenty of time to work, so I stole some juice from the fridge in the house and went to open my bowels before getting down to looking properly for things to steal. I really was then surprised by the return of Kercher just after 9pm. I really did try to sneak out of the front door quietly after Kercher went into her bedroom, but found it unexpectedly locked shut with a key that had been removed. I really was trying to force the door when Kercher heard me and came out to investigate.

"I really did then confront Kercher with my knife in my hand, trying to talk my way out of the situation. But Kercher said she was going to call the police. I really did then become violent, and as I did so, I became sexually aroused, partially owing to my complex psychological problems around women. I really did then force Kercher into compliant submission by threatening to kill her if she tried to fight back, and I started to sexually assault her. She really did react to that by screaming and fighting back, and it was at that point I really did stab her in the neck to silence her (and out of rage at her resistance and her screams).

"And after it was all over, and I'd regained my composure, I really did go and clean my hands, arms and clothing in the small bathroom - removing my shoes and washing blood from my trouser leg(s) in the shower as part of this clean-up, and stepping in the dilute blood/water mix in the tray of the shower then out onto the bathmat, depositing the partial print in the process. I really did then put my shoes back on and return to Kercher's room, then left her room with the intention of exiting via the front door. I really did get as far as the kitchen/living-room area before remembering that the door was locked with a key, so I turned round and went back to Kercher's room to find and obtain her door keys (hence the shoe print pattern in the hall and kitchen/living-room area).

"I really did go through Kercher's handbag (purse) to find her keys, and I took her phones and credit cards when I came across them in her bag too (and I tried to turn both phones off, to avoid them ringing while I had them in my possession - I succeeded with the Italian phone, but could not manage to turn off the UK phone, and made some unintentional calls in the process). Since I now had her keys, I decided to lock her bedroom door too (to delay discovery and buy myself some more time), and I unlocked the front door and escaped as quickly and quietly as possible (pausing outside to re-lock the front door would just have upped the risk of being seen).

"I really did then travel back to my apartment around the outside of the city walls in relative darkness and away from cars and pedestrians in/around Piazza Grimana and Corso Garibaldi. Kercher's UK phone really did ring an incoming message alert as I was walking/jogging round the outside of the walls, which I managed to silence and abort. But I really did then decide that the phones were more of a risk than a benefit, so I threw them into what I thought was the dark undergrowth of the ravine (I was wrong).

"I really did then get back to my apartment, calm myself down, shower properly, package up the clothes I'd been wearing to get rid of them, and decided to "play normal". I had some friends over, then I went into some of the city centre clubs to dance and drink. This really was an attempt on my part to construct some sort of alibi. When Kercher's body was found the following day and the investigation immediately hit an extremely high profile, I really did decide that my best option at that point was just to get out of Perugia and Italy altogether, which is why I took a train to Germany."



Of course, I believe with near-certainty that even if Guede ever did think these thoughts to himself (or something very close to them) silently, he would never, ever admit to the veracity of them to anyone else - either privately or publicly. I think Guede is irrevocably wedded to his (mendacious) version of events now: it minimises his perceived guilt and culpability, which is exactly what he wants. He has already demonstrated on multiple occasions that he truly has no genuine conscience or remorse (even though he pretends to have both those things, as part of the act), and he may well be a genuine psychopath. It would still be marginally satisfying to think that he might silently and privately realise that the truth of what happened in Perugia that night had been figured out, though.......
 
"the statement made by Romanelli on 12-3-2007 (“I had pulled the shutters, but I don’t think I closed them”)" Hellmann Report

Yes, she pulled them as far as the warped wood allowed her to. It was not possible to close them enough to latch them.

From Romanelli's testimony:

" The window was old and wouldn't close. I would have liked to have them replaced, also the shutters, maybe change the window or put bars on it like in Laura's room. It was used, old...warped. It gave me the sense of not being secure. Sometimes I thought even the wind could have opened the window. It didn't give me the feeling of being secure. I didn't feel it would stay closed, and I didn't like it."


Cops know an inside job when they see one.
 

Attachments

  • inside job.jpg.jpeg
    inside job.jpg.jpeg
    37.4 KB · Views: 4
No sign of the shutters covering the window, which Filomena is 100% adamant she pulled to. And the fact the back shards only go as far as the border of where the shutters would have been indicates she is factually correct.

Why do you exaggerate like this? Filomena was not adament about this in her testimony. Once again, it would be better if you gave a citation rather than provide a confirmation biased exaggeration.

I am 100% sure you are wrong on this.
 
Cops know an inside job when they see one.

It is noted that your cartoon is the exact opposite of what was "seen" at the cottage. The "staging" of the break-in, such staging only claimed by the police and prosecution after only eye-balling the scene, has no forensic backing.

There was no investigation at all into this - but that did not stop it from becoming a separate charge on its own, which AK and RS faced. One wonders if like with all the other charges, once charged it was now up to Knox and Sollecito to prove that they hadn't staged it!

But to note - your cartoon - while worth a genuine giggle on its own - is a complete misrepresentation of what happened here.

Typical.

You should have shown a brink inside the store, with the cops peering in at it through the hole in the broken glass, and saying, "Looks like an inside job."

That would be both funny, as well as descriptive of what had gone down as the cops investigated.
 
Why do you exaggerate like this? Filomena was not adament about this in her testimony. Once again, it would be better if you gave a citation rather than provide a confirmation biased exaggeration.

I am 100% sure you are wrong on this.

Romanelli also testified to the state of her room. She started by explaining that the shutters to her bedroom window were closed when she left. This is important because it requires that any argument for the authenticity of the burglary include the hypothetical burglar climbing the wall twice -- first to open the shutters and then a second time to enter the room. The defence realized this would make any argument for an authentic burglary much harder to present so all their experts assumed that the window shutters were open despite the statements that she is certain that she closed them upon leaving. Romanelli confirmed this in her testimony explaining that the wood was old and swollen and as such would rub on the windowsill. Despite efforts by defence attorneys to get Romanelli to admit to doubt about closing the shutters on cross-examination Romanelli insisted that she was certain they were closed when she left.
TMOMK.com
 
As a slight aside: the one thing in this whole case that might bring me some personal level of (mild) satisfaction would be if Guede - IMO the only person alive who knows what happened that night, on account of him being the sole murderer - were to read this thread. And if he were to silently and secretly think to himself something along the lines of:

"Hmmmmmmm wow. Those people have pretty much figured out what really happened. I really did do all this alone. I really did come and case the cottage earlier that evening, go away for a kebab, and come back at around 8.30pm. I really did figure out that Romanelli's window was the most viable point of entry, since I could see the exterior shutters were only loosely ajar, since I knew I could climb up to it pretty easily, and since I knew it was a thin single-framed glass that I could break with total ease and an old wooden frame that I could open with total ease.

"I really did climb up and pull open the exterior shutters, then drop back into the shadows for a short while, then I really did go up to the parapet and throw that rock through the window, again retreating back to the shadows for a short while. I then really did climb up again, remove enough additional glass to enable me to reach through and unlatch the window, lift myself up onto the exterior sill (after removing to the side any glass pieces that might have been in my way) and climb in through the now-open window. I then really did pull the exterior shutters closed behind me, to conceal the evidence of the break-in from the outside.

"And I then really did believe I had plenty of time to work, so I stole some juice from the fridge in the house and went to open my bowels before getting down to looking properly for things to steal. I really was then surprised by the return of Kercher just after 9pm. I really did try to sneak out of the front door quietly after Kercher went into her bedroom, but found it unexpectedly locked shut with a key that had been removed. I really was trying to force the door when Kercher heard me and came out to investigate.

"I really did then confront Kercher with my knife in my hand, trying to talk my way out of the situation. But Kercher said she was going to call the police. I really did then become violent, and as I did so, I became sexually aroused, partially owing to my complex psychological problems around women. I really did then force Kercher into compliant submission by threatening to kill her if she tried to fight back, and I started to sexually assault her. She really did react to that by screaming and fighting back, and it was at that point I really did stab her in the neck to silence her (and out of rage at her resistance and her screams).

"And after it was all over, and I'd regained my composure, I really did go and clean my hands, arms and clothing in the small bathroom - removing my shoes and washing blood from my trouser leg(s) in the shower as part of this clean-up, and stepping in the dilute blood/water mix in the tray of the shower then out onto the bathmat, depositing the partial print in the process. I really did then put my shoes back on and return to Kercher's room, then left her room with the intention of exiting via the front door. I really did get as far as the kitchen/living-room area before remembering that the door was locked with a key, so I turned round and went back to Kercher's room to find and obtain her door keys (hence the shoe print pattern in the hall and kitchen/living-room area).

"I really did go through Kercher's handbag (purse) to find her keys, and I took her phones and credit cards when I came across them in her bag too (and I tried to turn both phones off, to avoid them ringing while I had them in my possession - I succeeded with the Italian phone, but could not manage to turn off the UK phone, and made some unintentional calls in the process). Since I now had her keys, I decided to lock her bedroom door too (to delay discovery and buy myself some more time), and I unlocked the front door and escaped as quickly and quietly as possible (pausing outside to re-lock the front door would just have upped the risk of being seen).

"I really did then travel back to my apartment around the outside of the city walls in relative darkness and away from cars and pedestrians in/around Piazza Grimana and Corso Garibaldi. Kercher's UK phone really did ring an incoming message alert as I was walking/jogging round the outside of the walls, which I managed to silence and abort. But I really did then decide that the phones were more of a risk than a benefit, so I threw them into what I thought was the dark undergrowth of the ravine (I was wrong).

"I really did then get back to my apartment, calm myself down, shower properly, package up the clothes I'd been wearing to get rid of them, and decided to "play normal". I had some friends over, then I went into some of the city centre clubs to dance and drink. This really was an attempt on my part to construct some sort of alibi. When Kercher's body was found the following day and the investigation immediately hit an extremely high profile, I really did decide that my best option at that point was just to get out of Perugia and Italy altogether, which is why I took a train to Germany."



Of course, I believe with near-certainty that even if Guede ever did think these thoughts to himself (or something very close to them) silently, he would never, ever admit to the veracity of them to anyone else - either privately or publicly. I think Guede is irrevocably wedded to his (mendacious) version of events now: it minimises his perceived guilt and culpability, which is exactly what he wants. He has already demonstrated on multiple occasions that he truly has no genuine conscience or remorse (even though he pretends to have both those things, as part of the act), and he may well be a genuine psychopath. It would still be marginally satisfying to think that he might silently and privately realise that the truth of what happened in Perugia that night had been figured out, though.......


Do you have an alibi ...?
 
TMOMK.com


Ahahahaha! Quoting a (partisan, subjective, and clearly biassed) secondary "report" written by a contributor to that fraudulent website (whose clear aim is to try to convince readers of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito, albeit in a "Trojan Horse" style of superficially trying to appear neutral....), rather than quoting primary sources, is yet another in a very, very long line of intellectually-dishonest misdirections (as well as being breathtaking chutzpah) from a pro-guilt commentator. For shame.

Hmmmmm. I wonder now. Just possibly, could a rabidly pro-guilt idiot, "writing" for a partisan website whose overarching aim is to attempt to convince people of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito, be at all inclined to distort primary-source evidence in the course of concocting a secondary "report" in a faux-journalistic style?????

There's a question to ponder, eh............. :D :D :rolleyes:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
 
Cops know an inside job when they see one.


Yeah. See, what's funny about that cartoon - and why it works as a joke, and why readers understand that it works as a joke - is that the brick and all the broken glass are lying on the ground outside the window. And it's a wordplay on "inside job", y'see - because "inside job" here has the double meaning of "the attack took place from the inside (outwards)", as well as the potential "the crime was committed by somebody connected with the premises". Child-level humour, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.

On the other hand, the incompetent and inept police in the Kercher case immediately jumped to the incorrect "conclusion" that this must have been a staged break-in - on the apparent "reasoning" that nothing of value from Romanelli's room was stolen, and that some of the physical scene in Romanelli's room wasn't where they thought it ought to be if someone really had broken in.

But they were wrong on both counts: they had embarrassingly failed to factor in the very real possibility that this was a crime which started out with the intention of being a simple break-in and burglary, but which evolved unexpectedly into a confrontation, sex attack and murder. And by the time the murder had occurred, the person who broke in no longer had any appetite or compunction to complete his originally-intended burglary - he had rather more weighty and frightening things to think about now.

And of course the police were also abjectly wrong in their physical analysis of Romanelli's room - it almost beggars belief, for example, that the fact that Romanelli's exterior shutters were pulled closed when the scene was discovered led the "crack" police to think that this in itself meant it must be an impossibility that the window had been broken by a rock thrown from outside. It seemingly never even crossed their little minds that it was perfectly reasonable to postulate that whoever had thrown the rock, who had then entered through the broken window, might have pulled closed the exterior shutters behind him in order to conceal the broken window from outside view.

So yes, the cartoon-for-people-with-an-IQ-lower-than-80 was lovely, and thanks for providing it. But in the adult world, it bears no relevance to the Kercher case and any proper, cogent analysis of the break-in. Feel free to provide other simple cartoons though :)
 
TMOMK.com

Please stop using summaries of testimony as found on the fake wiki AS IF IT WERE A SOURCE! A summary of her testimony is NOT her testimony, particularly when it is washed through the confirmation bias of the guilter-nutters.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. See, what's funny about that cartoon - and why it works as a joke, and why readers understand that it works as a joke - is that the brick and all the broken glass are lying on the ground outside the window. And it's a wordplay on "inside job", y'see - because "inside job" here has the double meaning of "the attack took place from the inside (outwards)", as well as the potential "the crime was committed by somebody connected with the premises". Child-level humour, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Yeah, the scary part is that you had to explain it.

We are approaching black hole levels of density.
 
Ahahahaha! Quoting a (partisan, subjective, and clearly biassed) secondary "report" written by a contributor to that fraudulent website (whose clear aim is to try to convince readers of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito, albeit in a "Trojan Horse" style of superficially trying to appear neutral....), rather than quoting primary sources, is yet another in a very, very long line of intellectually-dishonest misdirections (as well as being breathtaking chutzpah) from a pro-guilt commentator. For shame.

Hmmmmm. I wonder now. Just possibly, could a rabidly pro-guilt idiot, "writing" for a partisan website whose overarching aim is to attempt to convince people of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito, be at all inclined to distort primary-source evidence in the course of concocting a secondary "report" in a faux-journalistic style?????

There's a question to ponder, eh............. :D :D :rolleyes:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


Proof, please, you really are guffawing and rolling your eyes. A selfie will suffice.
 
Domain name not found. If they (whoever they are) are unable to figure out domain names, what chance they can figure anything out?


"They" are a group of highly-zealous partisans whose primary evangelical goal is to convince the public of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. As such, they have created a website in a fake-wiki style - thereby imbuing their site with the false air of neutrality and quality-control. Upon this fake website, they have taken great - and very deliberate - care in writing secondary "reports" in such a way as to distort primary-source evidence and testimony towards a position as least-favourable to Knox and/or Sollecito as absolutely possible, while of course taking equally great care to try to make it look like honest, high-quality, disinterested reportage. It is nothing of the sort.

Nothing from this fake-wiki website should EVER be considered as neutral or honest, unless it is a certified primary-source document. The rest - including the grossly dishonest "report" excerpt quote here recently - is mendaciously biassed, and must immediately be wholly discounted by anyone concerned with honest presentation of evidence and argument in this debate.
 
Proof, please, you really are guffawing and rolling your eyes. A selfie will suffice.


What?

While you're here, exactly what type of educational establishment (in order: Oxbridge university, Top-10 university, 10-20 university, >20-ranked university, polytechnic, arts-and-crafts-workshop) did you attend for your psychology qualification. You were bragging that it was "one of the top" ones in the country, so which on my list was it? After all, you were voluntarily trying to bolster your credibility. So. Please tell. That won't be difficult or embarrassing for you, will it? Oh and can you also clarify whether you are a "chartered accountant" (as you claimed) or a chartered management accountant (which, as you would know, is a significantly inferior qualification to that of chartered accountant)?

Thanks again in advance. It's important that any claimed credentials are honest, precise and correct if they are germane to the debate - I'm sure you'd agree. And you obviously felt that your qualifications were germane to the debate, since you yourself brought them up. I can only assume that you must have missed my earlier request for clarification. But I'm sure you'll be happy to clear things up properly now, won't you? Myself, I'm a four-time Nobel Prize winner, as well as the former Olympic 1500m champion and ninth in line to the British throne :D
 
Last edited:
"They" are a group of highly-zealous partisans whose primary evangelical goal is to convince the public of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. As such, they have created a website in a fake-wiki style - thereby imbuing their site with the false air of neutrality and quality-control. Upon this fake website, they have taken great - and very deliberate - care in writing secondary "reports" in such a way as to distort primary-source evidence and testimony towards a position as least-favourable to Knox and/or Sollecito as absolutely possible, while of course taking equally great care to try to make it look like honest, high-quality, disinterested reportage. It is nothing of the sort.

Nothing from this fake-wiki website should EVER be considered as neutral or honest, unless it is a certified primary-source document. The rest - including the grossly dishonest "report" excerpt quote here recently - is mendaciously biassed, and must immediately be wholly discounted by anyone concerned with honest presentation of evidence and argument in this debate.
The creation of this fake wiki is a direct result of the guilters losing control of The Murder of Meredith Kercher article on Wikipedia.

It's all there in the article's"history" of editing tag. Circa March 2011 no less than Jimbo Wales himself had to intercede, resulting in a completely new, and truly neutral rewrite of the page.

The response of the nutjobs was to complain - one accused Wales of violating his ow Wiki-rules, and accused him of declaring martial law.

That began the retreat of the nutters into the remaining three guilt websites, and more importantly the creation of the fake wiki, by the pseudonymimous "Edward McCall".

There is no fact checking on that site. As Vixen's citation above from it demonstrates, the site substitutes its own biased summaries of what should otherwise be a simply documenting of what was actually said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom