Same dishonest attempt to spread FUD about the video as you made. What's "obvious" is that they were shooting with two cameras, and that during the climb, they cut from the closer camera to the farther one, and then back to the closer.
This is just asinine. It reminds me a lot of the conspiracy theorists who attempt to reject recreations of Oswald's shooting of JFK by claiming that the shooter and the conditions didn't perfectly match Oswald and the conditions in Dallas on November 22, 1963. ("The shooter must have a reputation for being uncoordinated; the shooter must not have had any recent target practice; etc.). Further, as I mentioned, Panella appears to be wearing running shoes ("trainers"). Unless you can provide some
credible evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that Quennell just pulled this out of an orifice, like so much other guilter crap.
There's no "jump." This is, again, something pulled out of an orifice by guilters in order to make the climb seem more difficult and dangerous. Further, as has been explained, assuming the shutter nearer the road hadn't been left open, Guede could have opened it before he started climbing by standing on the planter under the roof overhang and leaning out to reach it; the distance was only a few feet. Finally, there's no reason to accept that a) this person is who s/he claims s/he is, and b) this person's opinion carries as much weight as that of the person who actually made the climb.
Even ignoring the issues of Rag's hyperbole, Chieffi made several clear logical errors.
First, Romanelli's room was Guede's
entry point to the cottage. There is no reason to assume that he had any special interest in it, or, indeed, that he even knew whose room it was. Second, if Guede stole Romanelli's drugs, she wouldn't have told the police. Third, Guede could have planned to come back, but was interrupted by Kercher. Finally, if the burglary was staged,
why didn't Knox and Sollecito take anything??
First, there is one photo that shows possible evidence. Second, the ground right under the window was relatively dry, and covered with leaves, so there's no reason to assume that Guede would have left footprints. Finally, it is possible that Guede climbed from the aforementioned planter onto the top of the lower window, although this is probably not the best way to do it it. But it is possible.
This totally ignores the possibility that Guede was wearing gloves. Why you (and Chieffi) believe that a burglar wouldn't wear gloves is beyond me.
That's not how physics works. There is no way that a rock flying in through a window can impart outward acceleration to anything it strikes. It is
possible, in certain scenarios, for glass to end up outside (e.g., a shard strikes something with enough force to bounce off and out through the window), but that is never guaranteed, or even necessarily likely, to happen.
Shards were not found "in abundance." At least some of what is taken for "ransacking" could have been clothes disturbed by the rock's hitting the wardrobe, which was right by the window, or Guede when he climbed in, and the shards could have fallen from Guede's clothes onto objects in the room, or been dislodge by him as he climbed in.
This assumes that Kercher was home when the rock was thrown. She could have returned afterwards. Guede used the toilet, so he was clearly in the apartment for some time. If he heard her come in while he was in the bathroom, that would also explain why he neglected to flush. Further, even if Kercher was home, she might not have heard the rock. Recall that Knox's bedroom was between Romanelli's and Kercher's; further, Kercher could have been listening to music or watching a video.
It's perfectly possible that even if Rudy had originally intended to go back and steal things from Romanelli's room, he abandoned that plan after he killed Kercher. There are several reasons why he might have done this: for example, because he was in a hurry to leave, or because he didn't want to take anything that could connect him to the cottage.
No. To quote
@JayUtah, "You are not the teacher here."
Finally, Vixen, I have a direct question for you, which I will continue to pose until you give a satisfactory answer, or admit that you can't. How is it that, in October, Guede had been caught with a laptop and a mobile phone that had been stolen in a burglary in which a window four meters above ground had been broken with a rock? Was that just an astonishing coincidence??
