Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Alt+F4]

Is there a single element of the mountain of evidence against Raffaele and Amanda that you do not dispute? Fiona supplied a list about a hundred or more pages ago. We can see if we can dig it up for you.

I think I must have missed this too. If you could link to it that would be great. Thanks in advance.

 

[Fuji]

I have Amanda's statements. She said she didn't kill Meredith. Are we done with this? Do you see that the actual evidence out weighs anything Filomena says about her room?

This is a ridiculous equivalence. Why would the respective statements of Amanda and Filomena be assigned equal likelihood of truthfulness?

On the one hand, you have Amanda, who is one of three suspects in the murder of Meredith. She has every incentive in the world to lie, as it could possibly shield her from a lengthy prison sentence, and if her lie were to be discovered, in an of itself it would not place her in any serious legal jeopardy.

On the other hand, you have Filomena, who is a (circumstantial) witness to Meredith's murder (having been cleared very early in the investigation of any possible suspicion regarding the commission of the murder). What incentive does she possibly have to provide false testimony to the police? If anything, she has a strong incentive not to lie, because if her lie is discovered, it would possibly place her under suspicion of having been involved in the murder itself either before or after the fact, and at the very least, would presumably implicate herself in the lesser crimes of perjury and/or giving false testimony (assuming here that Italy has similar laws against these activities as does the USA).

I can't believe this has to be explicitly spelled out, but that appears to be the case here...

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36593384/ns/world_news-europe/

The news agency ANSA reported Thursday that Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini is seeking to increase the sentences to life in prison, his original request.

Whoa, he wants a life prison sentence for a cartwheel? I hope he never watches the Olympics gymnastics, he'll want them all in the electric chair!

Knox, a 22-year-old former University of Washington student, was sentenced to 25 years in prison, while Raffaelo Sollecito received 25 years. ANSA says Mignini was not convinced by the court's reasoning for the lesser sentences.

Must not be any other pressing criminal cases in Italy these days ...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic scientists should be testing hypotheses

BobTheDonkey,

You wrote, “Logically, we know that there is no reason to not believe Stefanoni.” There are several reasons not to believe her scattered among 170+ pages, even if you choose to ignore them. Here is one more. The forensic lab in Rome put up picture of Amanda next to Mafia Dons put up before she was even charged. So much for the notion that the forensics was done independently and with an open mind.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002467-504083.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

[Chris_Halkides]

show of hands

None of that has anything to do with what I asked you. You cannot convince anyone that information has been witheld by wittering on about other cases: and that is what you were talking about when I asked the question.

Obviously I don’t agree with you, but I also said I had more than one reason. I am still not whether the commenters here agree that the defense team (including expert witnesses) has a right to have electronic copies of the DNA forensic files. At least BobTheDonkey was forthright enough to say that the defense had a right to see them. Fulcanelli said it would depend on Italian law. How about a show of hands from some others?

 

[shuttlt]

BobTheDonkey,

You wrote, “Logically, we know that there is no reason to not believe Stefanoni.” There are several reasons not to believe her scattered among 170+ pages, even if you choose to ignore them. Here is one more. The forensic lab in Rome put up picture of Amanda next to Mafia Dons put up before she was even charged. So much for the notion that the forensics was done independently and with an open mind.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002467-504083.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

OK. First, I don't think this is a particluarly important issue, if it was I imagine Paul Ciolino would have mentioned it closer to the time he saw it rather than coming up with this revelation 14 months after he spotted the picture. Second, if Barbie came out with something as well corroberated as this, would you believe her?

 

[Amazer]

BobTheDonkey,

You wrote, “Logically, we know that there is no reason to not believe Stefanoni.” There are several reasons not to believe her scattered among 170+ pages, even if you choose to ignore them. Here is one more. The forensic lab in Rome put up picture of Amanda next to Mafia Dons put up before she was even charged. So much for the notion that the forensics was done independently and with an open mind.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002467-504083.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

You know, the strangest thing is that this 'revelation' only surfaces now. Why didn't he report this when he first saw the picture?

 

[Fiona]

What do you mean you don't agree with me? You don't agree that was what you were talking about? You don't agree that bringing in other cases is completely irrelevant to whether the information was withheld in this case and so cannot convince anyone one way or the other about this issue? You don't agree that you have made this allegation before and that it has been fully discussed and you have nothing new to say about it? You dont agree this is a waste of time? What?

 

[katy_did]

Having said that, it seems to me this rather throws the ball back into Bruce's court. Bruce, are you able to access any of Filomena's statements, or testimony via the same source that gave you Amanda's statement?

I'm just going from memory here so I'm going to go have to go back and check this later, but I'm sure the report says that Filomena was asked what state her room was in and she said it was untidy. It's quite possible an intruder would have left it more untidy simply by climbing in (knocking over the pile of clothes, standing on them, scattering them around the floor etc) but that the clothes were already on the floor, just in somewhat more organized a fashion.

Would Filomena have necessarily been asked specifically whether those particular clothes were already on the floor? I'm not sure about that. It's not as if any evidence were needed that the room had been disturbed by an intruder; the broken window and glass everywhere were more than enough evidence of that. And the room itself no doubt had evidence that it had been disturbed, the clothes having been moved around as I said above, the rock on the floor, the bags knocked over and so on.

Would there have been any incentive for either the defence or prosecution to ask her exactly what had been moved, and what had not? I doubt it, actually. The central part of the argument seemed to be that nothing had been taken, not that certain things were or were not moved (as you said in your earlier post, I don't think the prosecution really focused on the clothes at all).

 

[katy_did]

By the way Bruce, I wonder if you could give some indication of the relative importance you place on the break in. To me it seems like a minor issue, of importance mainly in terms of explaining why the police were suspicious. Surely the alibis and the DNA are far more significant?

Well, it's very important in the sense that if the jury had concluded the break-in were genuine, they would have had no choice but to clear Knox and Sollecito. Unless they tried to come up with some argument that they invited the burglar to join in their attack on Meredith I suppose, or vice versa. Or that the burglar just happened to break in at the same time that the three of them were attacking Meredith.

 

[katy_did]

It is a fantasy. It's really a lie. That is, it's an attempt to deceive using demonstrably untrue statements.

The defence 'proof' consisted of a volunteer climbing partway up the side of the cottage. There was no glass on the sill. He did not make his way through the window. He did not unlatch the window through a broken pane.

The photo you use shows nothing close to the claim that is made about Filomena's window as an entry point.

The deception is apparent to anyone who has seen views of the cottage from different angles.

Except that Massei never argued that it would be impossible to get up to the window, did he? He agreed with Micheli that it would have been possible to climb up (at least, he doesn't suggest anywhere that it would have been impossible, from which we have to assume that he accepted the defence evidence on this point at least).

 

[shuttlt]

I'm just going from memory here so I'm going to go have to go back and check this later, but I'm sure the report says that Filomena was asked what state her room was in and she said it was untidy. It's quite possible an intruder would have left it more untidy simply by climbing in (knocking over the pile of clothes, standing on them, scattering them around the floor etc) but that the clothes were already on the floor, just in somewhat more organized a fashion.

I agree completely. This is perfectly possible.

Would Filomena have necessarily been asked specifically whether those particular clothes were already on the floor? I'm not sure about that. It's not as if any evidence was needed that the room had been disturbed by an intruder; the broken window and glass everywhere were more than enough evidence of that. And the room itself no doubt had evidence that it had been disturbed, the clothes having been moved around as I said above, the rock on the floor, the bags knocked over and so on.

I would imagine they would have asked her for her impressions of the room, what was out of place etc.. particularly if they thought staging had been going on. No way to know for sure without access to Filomena's statements and testimony which, out of all the people currently posting here, only Bruce has any possible means of acquiring. I guess if the police, prosecutors, judges, and defence didn't think that the state of her room was of any importance then perhaps she was never asked, but if that's the case, why are we bothering with it?

Would there have been any incentive for either the defence or prosecution to ask her exactly what had been moved, and what had not? I doubt it, actually. The central part of the argument seemed to be that nothing had been taken, not that certain things were or were not moved.

I tend to agree. As far as I'm aware if the state of Filomenas laundry was a part of the prosecutions case it was a very minor one. The only reason I am addressing it is because of quotes like this:

I clearly showed you that the prosecution's statements about the room were clearly false.

The clothes were not thrown on the floor.

This is very simple. That fact alone refutes the prosecution's theory.

Bruce, as I understand him, is saying the 'fact' that the clothes weren't thrown on the floor proves that there was no fake burglary. If he only means that the 'fact' that the clothes weren't thrown on the floor only means that the clothes weren't thrown on the floor then I don't see why he brought it up to begin with.

 

[shuttlt]

Well, it's very important in the sense that if the jury had concluded the break-in were genuine, they would have had no choice but to clear Knox and Sollecito. Unless they tried to come up with some argument that they invited the burglar to join in their attack on Meredith I suppose, or vice versa. Or that the burglar just happened to break in at the same time that the three of them were attacking Meredith.

But I don't think a staged break in needed to be proved, it just needed to be felt to be possible enough so as not to be a hindrence to the more important evidence. If it could be proved, then terrific!

How does one show that a burglary wasn't staged? What could Rudy have done as a burglar that Amanda and Raffaele might not have done in staging it? Were it shown that the rock was thrown from outside with 100% certainty, would that prove the burglary was real? If there were scuff marks on the wall, would that prove it? I just don't think it can be shown that the burglary was real without first finding out who it was that broke the window and then working from there to why it was broken.

 

[katy_did]

I would imagine they would have asked her for her impressions of the room, what was out of place etc.. particularly if they thought staging had been going on. No way to know for sure without access to Filomena's statements and testimony which, out of all the people currently posting here, only Bruce has any possible means of acquiring. I guess if the police, prosecutors, judges, and defence didn't think that the state of her room was of any importance then perhaps she was never asked, but if that's the case, why are we bothering with it?

I need to go back and refresh my memory as to the prosecution's theory on Filomena's room too, but like you, I can't recall any major claims about the clothes. But Massei does focus on this issue quite a bit more, suggesting that the clothes having been thrown on the floor is evidence of an unconvincing staging, particularly in light of the fact that nothing was taken. Because I can't remember the prosecution making claims about that, I wonder whether this is another issue where the jury came to their own conclusions about the evidence - and if this is the case, it would make sense that Filomena wasn't questioned about the clothes in any detail, since it wasn't something that was talked about in depth by either side. So the jury may have considered the clothes to be evidence of a staging, even if the prosecution themselves didn't suggest it and Filomena wasn't asked about it.

(Again, I'm going to have to go back and re-read that part of the report to clarify when I've got the time)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensics should be independent

OK. First, I don't think this is a particluarly important issue, if it was I imagine Paul Ciolino would have mentioned it closer to the time he saw it rather than coming up with this revelation 14 months after he spotted the picture. Second, if Barbie came out with something as well corroberated as this, would you believe her?

First, I'd like to know why you don't think it is important. Second, check out the documentary, "Sex, Lies, and Meredith Kercher" on YouTube for corroboration. You will find it about four minutes into the third segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQV6MJXN5Tc&feature=related

Sorry, I have to sign off for a while.

 

[katy_did]

But I don't think a staged break in needed to be proved, it just needed to be felt to be possible enough so as not to be a hindrence to the more important evidence. If it could be proved, then terrific!

How does one show that a burglary wasn't staged? What could Rudy have done as a burglar that Amanda and Raffaele might not have done in staging it? Were it shown that the rock was thrown from outside with 100% certainty, would that prove the burglary was real? If there were scuff marks on the wall, would that prove it? I just don't think it can be shown that the burglary was real without first finding out who it was that broke the window and then working from there to why it was broken.

Well sure, it's certainly extremely difficult to prove it either way. But I would still say it was one of the three big pieces of evidence (after the knife and the bra clasp) simply because if the prosecution couldn't convince the jury that it was staged, it would have been difficult to convict them. I don't think it would have been enough to say maybe it was staged, maybe it wasn't; they needed to try and prove that it was (however difficult that would be). Would the jury have gotten away with saying 'Well, we weren't totally sure it was staged but we decided to give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt'? Perhaps...but I think it would have made the verdict look quite unconvincing.

Theoretically you may be right - they could dismiss the break-in as possibly staged and look at the other evidence instead - but realistically, if they were going to say guilty I think they needed to give definite reasons why they thought the break-in was staged. I agree that it would be very difficult to prove a staging or lack thereof one way or another with absolute certainty, though (I mean, someone could *actually* have climbed up to the window, just not a burglar) and take your point that at least in theory, the jury could have said they weren't sure either way and still have reached either a guilty or innocent verdict.

[ETA: I actually tend to think that the jury DID think 'maybe it was staged, maybe it wasn't', and then came to their conclusion based on other evidence. I think they looked at the break-in in light of their conclusion that the pair were guilty, and interpreted the evidence in light of that. But they couldn't actually say that's what they'd done; they had to give definite reasons as to why they believed the prosecution, even if it was really just a 'possible' scenario. If that makes sense!]

 

[shuttlt]

First, I'd like to know why you don't think it is important. Second, check out the documentary, "Sex, Lies, and Meredith Kercher" on YouTube for corroboration. You will find it about four minutes into the third segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQV6MJXN5Tc&feature=related

Sorry, I have to sign off for a while.

I'm stuck behind a firewall at the moment, so I can't. As for the importance.... if it is important, I'd expect it to be important to the people who are doing all this advocacy for Knox. If it's that important, sitting on this important issue for 14 months and then producing it as an uncorroberated anecdote is a pretty lame way to go about it. It's like the FSA files, if they were so important, why wait until nearly two years after the forensics were done, after all the forensic testimony had been done and when the trial was all but over to tell the court that they were so essential to the defence that the trial should be thrown out because they handn't got them? If the issue is that unimportant to the defence and Knox's advocates, why should it be important to me?

My expectation would be that there is some sort of truth to the story, but that, assuming this doesn't dissappear without a trace, Mr Ciolino will turn out to have taken a more robustly pro-Knox view of what he saw than the evidence necessarily supports. Perhaps I'm wrong. If this photo was hanging in a public space and it is important enough to be bothered with then I am sure other accounts of it will come out.

Has any kind of official query, or complain been made to the lab in Rome? At the moment it doesn't seem to me that the story is important enough for anybody to have tried to corroborate in the 14 months since this discovery.

 

[shuttlt]

Well sure, it's certainly extremely difficult to prove it either way. But I would still say it was one of the three big pieces of evidence (after the knife and the bra clasp) simply because if the prosecution couldn't convince the jury that it was staged, it would have been difficult to convict them.

But how do you prove it? If the jury accepts the DNA evidence as put forward by the prosecution, then Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the killing. At the point whether or not the break-in was real is interesting, but it isn't a central issue. If you accept the prosecutions case about the DNA then that implies very strongly that the break-in was staged, but the break-in doesn't need to be demonstrated as staged in it's own right. Let the breakin be as vague and ambiguous as you like, or let it look pretty convincing, unless the breakin is so convincing that it undermines the DNA evidence then it is of secondary importance.

I don't think it would have been enough to say maybe it was staged, maybe it wasn't; they needed to try and prove that it was (however difficult that would be). Would the jury have gotten away with saying 'Well, we weren't totally sure it was staged but we decided to give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt'? Perhaps...but I think it would have made the verdict look quite unconvincing.

There could be nothing about the breakin that shows it was staged, but if the prosecution managed to convice the court about their interpretation of the knife and bra strap it doesn't matter. The breakin doesn't need to be proved. It helps, but it isn't essential.

Theoretically you may be right - they could dismiss the break-in as possibly staged and look at the other evidence instead - but realistically, if they were going to say guilty I think they needed to give definite reasons why they thought the break-in was staged.

Surely "because the knife that we believe is the murder weapon was found at Raffaele's and Raffaele's DNA was found on the victim's bra clasp and we disbelieve the contamination explanations" would be enough?

I agree that it would be very difficult to prove a staging or lack thereof one way or another with absolute certainty, though (I mean, someone could *actually* have climbed up to the window, just not a burglar) and take your point that at least in theory, the jury could have said they weren't sure either way and still have reached either a guilty or innocent verdict.

It's a pity nobody from the defence did climb in the window to demonstrate that it was definately possible, but it's probably not important.

[ETA: I actually tend to think that the jury DID think 'maybe it was staged, maybe it wasn't', and then came to their conclusion based on other evidence. I think they looked at the break-in in light of their conclusion that the pair were guilty, and that it could easily have been interpreted the other way. But they couldn't actually say that's what they'd done; they had to give definite reasons as to why they believed the prosecution, even if it was really just a 'possible' scenario. If that makes sense!]

I have yet to read the Motivations so I can't really comment. Do they really break it up into self contained units where the knife has to prove itself on its own strength, as does the bra clasp, as does the fake breakin.... I had expected some kind of argument based on the totality of the evidence to tie various things, some of which were merely probable, together.

 

[RoseMontague]

There is quite a bit in the judges motivation report on the broken window and it does seem they give it some importance. Here is an excert (google translated):
Assuming then that the climber has bet, so to speak, on the presence of both "favorable" and indispensable conditions now indicated, the climber should have made a first-after climbing brought under the window of the room to throw open the shutters-Romanelli ; would have to get the big rock and found the point where run to center the window, run it (does not seem possible to admit that he did the climb carrying a large stone and has launched against the glass at the risk of being hit by glass shattered in this way).
He would then have to return under the window of Romanelli to make the second ascent, and through the broken glass, open frame (placing himself in the knee or standing on the ledge outside the window could not otherwise reach, pushing the arm the gap created by the stone, which was the hook close the doors of the window, as if those doors were not closed would not be necessary to break the glass but only open the shutters) and then enter the room. Such a dynamic seems quite unlikely because of its high industriousness (ports is available under the window, go to launch the stone, scaling and rescaling the wall) and given the uncertainties which presented success (you must bet on the combination of the two favorable circumstances above) with a repetition of movements and behaviors, however, could be easily seen by those who were found to pass on the road or even be brought into the house.
Neither it can be assumed-as it did the consultant Defense-the shutters were wide open as this contradicts the statements of the Romanelli are detailed and quite plausible if one considers that the same was away for the holiday and had the Room valuables and already felt unsafe for those windows without grilles and wooden; also the fact of the shutters thrown open completely contrasts with the position of those who was discovered and described the various texts of the day on November 2 and documented by photos of (See, eg. the photo 11 cited above).
But in addition to the above there are additional factors that lead to exclude that a thief may have introduced into the house through the bedroom window of Romanelli. The double climbing, needed to overcome the height of about three feet of you have said, would leave some trace-printing on the wall or more points on the wall on which the "climber" would support the feet, so more than the well Zaroli Marco Romanelli have given grounds for believing that the land in the evening Queiro early November, should be wet (see statements Zaroli Mark ud. 6/2/2009 p.. 174 and declarations Romanelli Filomena P. hearing on 7.2.2009. 24, see also the document purchase hearing on 28.3.2009 alleging that the rain 30.10.2007). No sign is, instead, that was left on the wall and also should be noted that the nail-also noted by the Court of Assizes at the spot where he remained, and it seems difficult to assume that the climber - because of the position of the nail and the same characteristic as can be ascertained in the picture 11 - has somehow "met" this nail and without force or inadvertently or as a base, causing him to fall on the same or at least bending. On this point it is useful to recall the statement of the heads Pitcher Joy, cited above, the hearing on 23.4.2009 which stated that they had also seen the outside of the dwelling and, specifically with regard to the wall below the window with the glass, the room then occupied by Romanelli Filomena, has stated: "We observed both the wall below the window ... all vegetation below the window and noticed that the wall had no evidence of anything, did not traces of dirt rather than grass, anything, different stripes, had nothing, and also all the vegetation that was below this window was not trampled or nothing "(p. 142 statements Pitcher Joy). It also mentioned the existence of a nail on the wall, which protruded for about 6 centimeters and added that "along the outer perimeter of the house" had dirty shoes with "grass stuck to shoes" (p. 145, cf. Also statements assistant Zugarini, p. ud.28.2.2009. 133).
It should also be considered that the glass from broken glass were scattered evenly on the inside and outside of the window sill, but it has been observed without any shift and a few pieces of glass appear to have been found on the floor below the window. This fact, confirmed by the consultant M.llo Pasquali, leads to exclude that the stone has been launched from outside the house to allow access through the same window after breaking the glass. The climber, in supporting his hands and then his feet or knees on the windowsill, he should drop, some glass or at least should avoid any piece of glass so he could avoid that trap and ima be a cause of injury . No piece of glass was instead found under the window and no sign of injury was found on the glasses found in the room of Romanelli. It should also be noted that there are several pieces of glass on the ledge outside the window would make plausible the presence of even a few pieces of glass on the ground below, since there is no reason why so many pieces of glass would have had to stop all outside on the windowsill without exceeding the extreme line and fall on the floor below. This situation, as indeed all other patently inconsistent as it is exposed, adequate and satisfactory response would instead assume that when the stone was thrown from inside the room with the two shutters to the inside so as to establish and protect ground the fall of the glass on the floor below and, once broken glass from inside the stone could be placed in the room at any point thereof and the shutters could be pushed open from inside and then outside the room.
The Defense Advisor, M.llo Pasquali, however, contends that the stone has been launched from outside the room, outside the home. In this assumption is received based on several factors: the presence of fragments of glass on the windowsill outside and inside, "the encroachment of fragments of glass falling from inside the room ..." until the blue carpet, to the bed (p. 47 ud. 3/7/2009).
These factors and considerations that appear to cover the ground that the consultant has given them.
Outset it should be noted that the M.llo Pasquali said he had never worked on throwing stones if not for the case, also supported the possibility of operating a "parallel investigation with ballistic firearms; However, the same consultant has admitted that, while the ballistics you have to do with figures (page 39 Hearing 3 .. 2009), "here we have the variables are endless" (p. 40). Just in relation to these variables and as noted above, the statement and the explanation offered about the launch from the outside are not shared. If it is assumed a launch from the inside with the blinds drawn inwards (as they should be as set out above) and the frame on which you installed the glass slightly open and the dark behind this frame, we have a similar situation to launch from outside (the part affected is the same frame) and the pieces of glass, the shock with large stone and the resistance (shield effect could be said) represented by the dark, are not necessarily to fall on sill both internally and externally (because of the slight opening of the casing and the proximity of the glass thereby crushing

Italian:


Ammettendo quindi che lo scalatore abbia scommesso, per così dire, sulla presenza di entrambe le "favorevoli" e indispensabili circostanze ora indicate, lo scalatore avrebbe dovuto effettuare una prima arrampicata -dopo essersi portato sotto la finestra della camera della Romanelli- per spalancare le persiane; si sarebbe dovuto procurare il grosso sasso e, individuato il punto da dove lanciarlo per centrare la finestra, lanciarlo (non pare infatti possibile ammettere che abbia fatto la scalata portando con sé il grosso sasso e lo abbia lanciato contro il vetro col rischio di venir colpito dai vetri che in tal modo fracassava).
Si sarebbe poi dovuto riportare sotto la finestra della Romanelli per effettuare la seconda scalata e, attraverso la rottura del vetro, aprire l'infisso (ponendosi in ginocchio o in piedi sul davanzale esterno della finestra poiché altrimenti non avrebbe potuto raggiungere, facendo passare il braccio per il varco realizzato dal sasso, il gancio che doveva chiudere le ante della finestra, poiché se tali ante non fossero state chiuse non sarebbe stato necessario rompere il vetro ma solo spalancare le persiane) e quindi entrare all'interno della stanza. Una tale dinamica appare del tutto inverosimile stante la sua elevata laboriosità (portarsi e riportarsi sotto la finestra; salire per lanciare il sasso; scalare e riscalare la parete) e stanti le incertezze di riuscita che presentava (occorreva scommettere, sulla combinazione delle due favorevoli circostanze sopra indicate), con una reiterazione di movimenti e comportamenti che, peraltro, potevano essere facilmente visti da chi si fosse trovato a transitare sulla strada o addirittura si fosse portato nella casa.
Nè si può ipotizzare -come invece ha fatto il Consulente della Difesa- che le persiane fossero state completamente spalancate poiché ciò contrasta con le dichiarazioni della Romanelli che appaiono circostanziate ed assolutamente verosimili ove si consideri che la stessa stava via per il giorno festivo ed aveva nella camera cose di valore e già si sentiva poco sicura per quegli infissi di legno e senza grate; inoltre la circostanza delle persiane completamente spalancate contrasta con la posizione delle stesse quale fu rinvenuta e descritta dai vari testi nella giornata del 2 novembre e documentata dalle foto relative (cfr. per es. la foto 11 già citata).
Ma oltre alle considerazioni che precedono esistono ulteriori elementi che portano a escludere che un ladro possa essersi introdotto nella casa attraverso la finestra della stanza della Romanelli. La doppia arrampicata, necessaria a superare l'altezza dei circa tre metri e mezzo di cui si è detto, avrebbe dovuto lasciare una qualche traccia-impronta sulla parete o meglio sui punti della parete sui quali lo "scalatore" avrebbe appoggiato i piedi, tanto più che la Romanelli ed anche Zaroli Marco hanno fornito indicazioni che consentono di ritenere che il terreno, nella sera di queir inizio di novembre, dovesse essere bagnato (v. dichiarazioni di Zaroli Marco, ud. 6.2.2009 pag. 174 e dichiarazioni di Romanelli Filomena udienza del 7.2.2009 pag. 24; vedi altresì il documento acquisto nell'udienza del 28.3.2009 relativo al fatto che il 30.10.2007 pioveva). Nessun segno risulta invece che sia stato lasciato su tale parete e, inoltre, va osservato che il chiodo -constatato anche da questa Corte di Assise in occasione del sopralluogo- è rimasto dov'era e pare difficile ipotizzare che lo scalatore - stante anche la posizione di tale chiodo e la caratteristica dello stesso quale è dato constatare nella foto 11- non abbia in qualche modo "incontrato" tale chiodo e fatto forza, o inavvertitamente o come punto d'appoggio, sullo stesso facendolo cadere o comunque piegandolo. Su tale aspetto si ritiene utile ricordare quanto dichiarato dalla teste Brocci Gioia, già citata, la quale all'udienza del 23.4.2009 ha dichiarato che aveva anche osservato la parte esterna dell'abitazione e, con specifico riguardo alla parete sottostante la finestra avente il vetro rotto, quella della stanza all'epoca occupata da Romanelli Filomena, ha precisato quanto segue: "Osservammo sia il muro...sottostante la finestra che tutta la vegetazione sottostante la finestra e notammo che il muro non aveva tracce di alcunché, non aveva tracce di terriccio piuttosto che di erba, niente, strisciate varie, non aveva nulla, e anche tutta la vegetazione che era sottostante questa finestra non risultava né calpestata, niente" (pag. 142 dichiarazioni Brocci Gioia). Ricordava anche l'esistenza di un chiodo su tale parete, che sporgeva per circa 6 centimetri ed aggiungeva che "percorrendo il perimetro esterno dell'abitazione" si era sporcata le scarpe con "erba attaccata alle scarpe" (pag. 145; cfr. anche dichiarazioni dell'assistente Zugarini, ud.28.2.2009 pag. 133).
Va poi considerato che i vetri provenienti dal vetro rotto risultavano sparsi in modo omogeneo sul davanzale interno ed esterno della finestra, senza che sia stato rilevato alcuno spostamento e senza che un qualche pezzo di vetro risulti che sia stato reperito sul piano sottostante la finestra. Tale circostanza, confermata anche dal consulente M.llo Pasquali, porta ad escludere che il sasso sia stato lanciato da fuori la casa per consentire l'accesso nella stessa attraverso la finestra dopo la rottura del vetro. Lo scalatore, nell'appoggiare le mani e poi i piedi o le ginocchia sul davanzale della finestra, avrebbe dovuto far cadere, qualche vetro o almeno avrebbe dovuto scansare qualche pezzo di vetro sì da evitare che avesse potuto costituire ima insidia e una causa di ferimento. Nessun pezzo di vetro è stato invece rinvenuto sotto la finestra e nessun segno di ferita è stato riscontrato sui vetri rinvenuti nella stanza della Romanelli. Va inoltre osservato come la presenza di numerosi pezzi di vetro sul davanzale esterno della finestra avrebbe dovuto rendere plausibile la presenza di qualche pezzetto dì vetro anche sul terreno sottostante, non essendoci alcuna ragione perché tanti pezzi di vetro si sarebbero dovuti tutti arrestare su tale davanzale esterno senza superarne la linea estrema e cadére nel piano sottostante. Tale situazione, come peraltro tutte le altre palesemente incongruenti per quanto si è esposto, troverebbe invece adeguata e soddisfacente risposta ove si ipotizzi che il sasso fu scagliato dall'interno della camera con le due persiane accostate verso l'interno così da costituire riparo e impedimento alla caduta dei vetri nel piano sottostante e, una volta rotto il vetro dall'interno, il sasso poteva essere posto nella stanza in un qualsiasi punto della stessa e le persiane potevano essere spinte all'esterno e quindi aperte stando all'interno della stanza.
Il Consulente della Difesa, M.llo Pasquali, sostiene invece che il sasso sia stato lanciato dall'esterno della stanza, dall'esterno della casa. A tale assunto perviene sulla base di vari elementi: presenza di frammenti di vetri sul davanzale esterno e interno; "l'intromissione di frammenti di vetro caduti dall'alto all'interno...della stanza" fino al tappetino celeste, fino al letto, (pag. 47 ud. 3.7.2009).
Trattasi di elementi e considerazioni che non appaiono rivestire il rilievo che il Consulente ha loro dato.
Preliminarmente va osservato che il M.llo Pasquali ha dichiarato di non essersi mai occupato di lanci di pietra se non per il caso in oggetto; ha inoltre sostenuto la possibilità di operare "un parallelo con l'indagine balistica con le armi da fuoco"; lo stesso consulente ha tuttavia ammesso che,mentre nella balistica si ha a che fare con dati certi (pag. 39 udienza 3..2009), "qui abbiamo delle variabili che sono infinite" (pag. 40). Proprio in relazione a tali variabili ed a quanto sopra osservato, l'affermazione e la spiegazione offerte circa il lancio dall'esterno appaiono non condivisibili. Se infatti si ipotizza un lancio dall'interno con le persiane tirate verso l'interno (come dovevano essere secondo quanto sopra esposto) e l'infisso sul quale è installato il vetro leggermente aperto e con lo scuro a ridosso di tale infisso, si ha una situazione analoga al lancio dall'esterno (la parte di infisso colpita è la stessa) ed i pezzi di vetro, per l'urto col grosso sasso e per la resistenza (effetto scudo potrebbe dirsi) rappresentata dallo scuro, vanno necessariamente a cadere sul davanzale sia interno che esterno (stante la leggera apertura dell'infisso e la vicinanza del vetro in tal modo frantu

 

[Jungle Jim]

OK. That explains everything.