Well, I tell you what, why don't you write to Ms Nadeau and ask her? I believe she posts her contact email with some of her stories (either on The Beast or Newsweek)?
Well, really I was talking mainly about 'articles'. Books, when written by those who have attended the trial from the beginning and developed sources in Perugia and speak the language add a dimension that the the judges reports cannot (since the remit of those reports are narrow, focussing solely on the testimony and evidence). Books can also add a peripheral story about those on the edges of the case (the families, the media, further insight into some of the layers and characters that that took part in the case or gave testimony for example). Therefore they have their value, especially as this case extends far beyond just the court room. However, when it comes to the actual evidence and case against the accused, it must be judges reports that must be the focus.
Actually, the report doesn't say that about the window....indeed, it notes the 'lack' of blood/hair around it. That forms one of the reasons why it discounts an intruder entering via the window (along with many other reasons and some of those elements are new...in that they weren't reported in the media coverage leading up to or during the trial).
Why would I bother contacting Ms Nadeau? Almost every quote I've seen from her book concerns 'facts' which are either either fabricated or twisted beyond recognition. The only thing she and I agree on is that the appeals court will throw out the knife evidence. But really, she's obviously a tabloid BS artist of the highest order. I have no need to verify it by contacting her. Come on, Fulcanelli - seven samples were taken from the knife, six negative, one positive for DNA but negative for blood. Barbie interprets that as 'seven pieces of flesh were found on the knife'. You surely can't have much respect for her accuracy?
As for the list of seven men, you were certainly implying earlier that Barbie was correct that they were all in Italy (asking for evidence to the contrary). She was wrong, as she was with so much else.
I agree that books can certainly add something to our perspective on the case. I'm particularly interested in reading Mark Waterbury's book, for example. However, when the book is as tabloid-esque as Barbie's is, and full of inaccuracies and fabrications, I think its use in that instance is pretty limited.
As for the hair/blood on the window, it was reported in Frank's blog and I think there is also a reference to it in the judge's report, though they weren't able to get a genetic result from it. I'm going on the Google translation (apologies in advance) so I'd welcome any correction if it's inaccurate:
Romanelli Filomena's room had been found in it some items. IMA training piliferous the bottom of the window frame, a substance suspected of blood sampled from the wooden box with contained broken glass. Both of these findings had provided negative genetic analysis.
'Piliferous' means 'hair' (or producing hair), which I only mention because I had to go to dictionary.com to look it up. Actually, re-reading it, I'm not quite sure what the 'wooden box' is that the report talks about. Frank's account of it, months back, was that it was hair and blood substance found on the window, which does seem to be supported from this quote.
ETA: Ah, is it the wooden shutter? Could be.
