Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[shuttlt]

RoseMontague,

Is that the bulk of what the report says about the break-in?

 

[RoseMontague]

There is much more, I don't speak Italian so it is difficult to pinpoint but here is another excerpt (again via da google translate:

But that this was a mere simulation, a staged event, results from additional circumstances: the photos taken by staff of the Police (see photos 47 to 54 photos and 65 and 66) is an activity that is solely aimed at creating a situation of apparent disorder in the room Romanelli, there appears instead of an actual poking around, looking for things of real value and appeal to a thief. The drawers of the nightstand next to the bed are not even open (photos 51 and declarations that Battistelli reported that Romanelli was to open the drawers, then, were closed and no sign of research they carried out: see page . 66 declarations Battistelli, ud. 6/2/2009), the items placed on shelves in the 52 pictures are absolutely untouched; clothing appears to have been thrown in heaps dall'armadio under 54 but picture does not appear to have been put in any research in that closet where clothes and some boxes were in place without any sign indicative of an actual research of things of value may be stored there (see photo 54), does not appear to have been open boxes placed on the table (see photo 65) to search for any valuables that could be found. Furthermore, no object of value (see in particular about the statements of Romanelli) was taken away or otherwise prepared, set aside to be taken away from-at this point may be well-qualified elusive thief. A final aspect to be noted regards the presence, and notes reported by several texts, objects and glass on the clothing room Romanelli. That fact, too revealing of Simulator-though not decisive, since nothing would be ruled out that the elusive thief had broken the glass first and then he put in disorder, was excluded from the defense of the accused through the photos that the undocumented presence of glass on clothing and things moved in the room of Romanelli and through the relief for which the documentary value and crystallization of a situation created by photos, witness statements should prevail over the assigned memory.
This is an assumption which, although suggestive, is not admissible because it does not take account of the events and their chronological order. Significant and nullifying the contrast between emergencies that would be testimonial and documentary (the photos of the room Romanelli Filomena not documented pieces of glass on clothing and objects moved) is believed to be the deposition of Romanelli. In its examination of 7/2/2009 then recalled that he left his computer bag in the custody "upright, not lying" (p. 269) and then, when he saw that went in his room window was broken and "... all the air out of place" (p.
40). He checked that there were jewels and saw that there were tried and the computer could see "from below" (p. 40) and continuing to exhibit, said that "taking the computer I realized that raising the computer woke up glasses in the sense that the windows were on things "(p. 41) and the fact struck her so that made it the subject of special comment" was a stupid thief, besides the fact that you have not got no glasses are well above things "(p.
41). So in addition to clearly remember the clear heads also reported to have entered his room and tried if anything is missing and this research has also moved objects then change the location of pieces of glass. Currently, however, was only the Postal Police who was looking for why two mobile phones were found in a garden of a house in Via Sperandio and the broken glass of a window was thinking only a theft, completely independent by the discovery of two mobile phones, so seemed perfectly normal and almost automatically into the room where there was broken glass, without caution, with attention paid only to seek what is missing. It was therefore natural movement of objects and the gradual change in the situation in this room with respect to Romanelli pieces of glass, found objects and found above, were dropped and moved in research that can also imagine that you make Romanelli with a certain restlessness and anxiety because of the concern and strong disturbance in which it was. The photos, however, were carried out only later, around 15.00 seconds is given as inferred from the statements of the scientific staff of the police headquarters in Perugia, Cantagalli and jug, and when the discovery of the lifeless body of Meredith required a different circumspection; the need to crystallize the situation, to avoid any alteration thereof, to acquire every item that you were able to detect useful to the investigation.
There are several moments when the then just found the presence of glass even on objects, than when each particular environment and the house was photographed and somehow crystallized.
Therefore can not be placed on the same evaluation level visual and tactile perce

 

[shuttlt]

Thanks, now my brain hurts. If only professional translators worked for free. Falcanelli, how long are we talking now for the motivations to be tidied up? A week? Two?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

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.

I don't see what your point is here. You try to claim the break-in is important, but then your evidence for why it's important falls on it's face as, well, it's what happened (i.e. the Prosecution presented the scenario similar to what you claim would have had to be presented for the break-in to not matter).

We know it's not plausible for Rudy to have climbed through the window - I don't care if it's 2ft shorter than another window he was alleged to have climbed in. As Kermit, I rock-climb - and I can assure you...while I have no trouble climbing an (indoor) 5.11 up 40', I surely cannot do the same on a 5.16. Height of the entry is only relevant if the walls are the same. In this case, there are no footholds/handholds (aside from the sill) for Rudy to use to scale this wall. Given that he must use the sill, he would surely have knocked some glass into the garden - and that's before we even discuss how he managed to hang on the sill with one arm, reach up through the broken pane, unlock the window - and all without cutting himself. This is not an easy feat.

So now, we have mental and physical gymnastics required to believe the Defense scenario. Well done

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Shuttlt,

This is not a new story. We all knew the photo was on the wall. I already had this information on my site. You should read through the site, you will learn a lot about the case. Crimesider is doing a series of articles about the case highlighting some of the most ridiculous aspects. These articles will be available on Injustice in Perugia in their entirety.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/crimesider.html

 

[RoseMontague]

Hurts my head as well, just trying to find relevant information. I'll give you one more, just a short one because it appears to be pertinent:

"How far has exposed leads then to say that the situation of disorder in the room of Romanelli and breaking the glass window of a representation are artificially created to guide the investigation of those who, failing the availability of key entrance door, was having introduced into the house through a window after breaking the glass of that and had then set up the violence to the detriment of Meredith to cause death.
Rudi the mortgage?
As has been said so far about the presence of Rudi Guede in the house in Via della Pergola and the simulation about the theft (breaking the glass and the disorder created in the room as if within the same Romanelli had been put in place a ' research that may not appear designed to create an appearance of theft) leads to address the following question: Rudi may have been the author of staging made Romanelli's room?
This hypothesis assumes that Rudi has entered the house on Via della Pergola 7, or with or Meredith because Meredith opened the door. "

 

[RoseMontague]

Bruce, regardless of my opinion on guilt or innocence, I think you have a fine website with a lot of valuable information.

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttlt,

This is not a new story. We all knew the photo was on the wall. I already had this information on my site. You should read through the site, you will learn a lot about the case. Crimesider is doing a series of articles about the case highlighting some of the most ridiculous aspects. These articles will be available on Injustice in Perugia in their entirety.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/crimesider.html

I read through your site when it first appeared. Some stuff has been added, perhaps I will have another look over the weekend. As for the the photo on the wall, the web page you link to is about an article that appeared on April 15th 2010.


Do you have any evidence of anyone talking publicly about this that wasn't in the past couple of days, or are you claiming that you and umpteen other people have known about this for many months, but didn't think it was worth mentioning until now?

I've been aware of this story since at least yesterday as well. I had considered posting it if only for the pun headline about it being proved that Amanda had been framed.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Shuttlt,

This is not a new story. We all knew the photo was on the wall. I already had this information on my site. You should read through the site, you will learn a lot about the case. Crimesider is doing a series of articles about the case highlighting some of the most ridiculous aspects. These articles will be available on Injustice in Perugia in their entirety.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/crimesider.html

2 things:

1) The pictures of the Mafia bosses (or whatever) were pictures of suspects, the same as Amanda. I see nothing inherently wrong with that.

2) Was the picture of Amanda the only of the 3 (or 4 including Patrick) suspects to be posted or were they all posted?

 

[shuttlt]

Hurts my head as well, just trying to find relevant information.

I don't mean to be dismissive of your efforts. Google Translate is a lot better than nothing.

 

[Matthew Best]

2) Was the picture of Amanda the only of the 3 (or 4 including Patrick) suspects to be posted or were they all posted?

I can save you the effort of reading the story for yourself, Bob:

"If that is the case," asks Ciolino, "then why is Amanda's picture up on the wall? Looks like she's been singled out as guilty from the start. Especially when you consider there were no trophy photos of her co-defendants, Rudy Guede or Raffaele Sollecito, hanging in the hall of shame. It's just her."

 

[shuttlt]

2) Was the picture of Amanda the only of the 3 (or 4 including Patrick) suspects to be posted or were they all posted?

Ciolino claims not, but then there doesn't seem to have been any effort to follow up and check, so perhaps there was one elsewhere, perhaps the Knox photo was the only one.... who knows? If it's important somebody should probably check, of course now that all these months have passed the picture may no longer be there, it's a pity nobody did anything sooner.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I can save you the effort of reading the story for yourself, Bob:

Thanks Matt.


I still see no problem with it. The Police suspected Amanda was the ring-leader. It's common for Police to do this (as evidenced by the Mafia pictures on the wall).

 

[Dan O.]

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.

That was on page 54:

I am going to say this again in the hope that you will stop assuming that other people are doing what your pet theory predicts.

I do not know if this crime was premeditated. I do not know if any crime was in contemplation.
I do not know why they switched their phones off. I think only they know why they did that.
I do not know if Knox noticed that her lamp was missing. She knows.
And on and on.

What I do know is that Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered.
I know that Guede was at the cottage and in Meredith's room
I know that the forensics state he could not have killed her alone
I know that there are eyewitnesses that AK and RS were in the area
I know that her body was moved after Guede had left
I know that Guede has an alibi for the time when Meredith's body was moved
I know that RS did not tell the truth about where he was that night
I know that AK did not tell the truth about where she was that night
I know that someone faked a break in
I know that someone cleaned up
I know that RS and AK did not tell the truth about the time they woke up the next morning
I know that AK did not tell the truth about what she did that morning
I know that AK lied to Romanelli
I know that RS did not tell the truth about when he phoned the police
I know that AK did not tell the truth about when she phoned her mother
I know that AK misled the police in to thinking it was normal for Meredith's door to be locked
I know that it was only after hearing from Romanelli that the police were truly concerned
I know that it is impossible to say where AK was when she phoned Meredith but on the account she gave in court she did not do so after she returned to the cottage with RS: though they did try to break down the door, it seems
I know that both AK and RS made calls after the police arrived which did not mention them being there
I know that AK seemed to know more than she should have about how Meredith was killed.
I know that RS changed his second account of where they were
I know that shortly after he did this AK changed her own account and accused Patrick Lumumba
I know that when she did so she placed herself at the scene
I know that she reiterated this when not under pressure
I know that both she and her mother knew Patrick was innocent, but did nothing about it
I know that forensic evidence places RS at the scene
I know that forensic evidence shows AK's DNA was mixed with Kercher's blood in several locations, which places her at the scene
I know that the knife had Meredith's DNA on it and also Knox's
I know that AK lied to her friends and family in her e-mail iin several ways
I know that the "interrogation" lasted no more than 3 hours at the very maximum, and that she was offered food, water and toilet breaks
I know that her lawyer denies that the police assaulted her
I know that there is no evidence whatsoever that any one other than these three were there that night
On the basis of these and other facts I conclude that Meredith was murdered by more than one person and that there is no other candidate who could have been involved.

I have no idea why they did it. It is interesting but rather futile to speculate. But on the basis of the facts that I have I would have convicted them.

 

[stilicho]

The logical entry point can be asked in regard to the alleged staged break in as well. Why would someone that lived in the house chose that window to stage a break in? It's not the best entrance point. You question works both ways. It's a wash.

It was the logical choice for the perpetrators because they couldn't use Meredith's since it was locked, couldn't use Amanda's or the common area windows because they would point to an immediate problem yet she did not call the police directly. It doesn't work both ways.

When you look at the break in, please tell me what evidence you have that can possibly prove that Amanda or Raffaele had anything to do with that broken window?

This was covered in the trial, argued by both sides, and a judgement was made based on reason, logic, and evidence.

We are talking about proving guilt. It doesn't really matter if you think that Rudy can or cannot climb through that window.

See above.

the room wasn't staged in any way. The prosecution's claims are wrong. You simply ignore all of the evidence in the room that proves my point.

I didn't ignore the evidence you say points to Rudy. I examined it although not nearly in as much detail as the investigators and the court did. Their evidence is solid. Yours is based on deception.

Micheli thought the wall climb was possible. Rudy scaled a wall that was 2 feet higher to enter a law office. He is a very athletic man. Do you pick and chose the judges that you want to listen to?

Nobody here has claimed that the climb was impossible. The climb isn't the problem. The problem is scaling the wall, breaking the window, gaining entry, and leaving no evidence of having done so. All the while ignoring the fact that the entry point would have been one of the least likely for anyone, let alone someone familiar with the building.

He left evidence of his climb on the floor in the room. I am surprised that you look at that wall and expect to see marks on it from a climb. It is a porus surface with many areas of discoloration.

This demonstrates your dishonesty just as your claims that Filomena made the mess herself, that there was no investigation of the room, and that the police allowed Filomena to enter the room unescorted and move things around.

Your surprise is an affectation. Kermit has more information about it but the investigators included the area beneath the window, including the ground and the wall, in their evidence.

I am here for an honest discussion. I am stating basic facts that are very easy to see.

Prove it. It's easy. List the evidence that you feel was correctly collected and interpreted by ILE and the courts in naming Raffaele and Amanda as participants in Meredith's murder. Let's find the areas in which you are in agreement with the investigators, the court, and the judges' reports.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Just this once, because someone has posted a very poor Google translate version and because it is necessary to dismiss the BS offered by Bruce Fisher, here is the relevant section for the translated report. It has not been proofread yet, so there may be the odd typo:

Second half of the section 27-44 (pages 36-44):

It must be held that when Filomena Romanelli left the house in via della Pergola, she had pulled the shutters towards the interior of her room, although she did not think that she had actually closed them; furthermore, because they were old and the wood had swelled a bit, they rubbed on the windowsill, and to pull them towards the room it was necessary to use some force ("they rubbed on the windowsill"), but in this way, once they had been pulled in as Romanelli remembered doing, they remained well-closed by the pressure of the swelled wood against the windowsill. Now, for a rock to have been able to break the glass of the window without shattering the shutters, it would have been necessary to remove the obstacle of the shutters by opening them up. The consultant for the defence actually assumed that this had been done, and in his exposition, he assumed that the shutters were not present [in front of the window]. Consequently, since the shutters had been pulled to and their rubbing put pressure on the windowsill on which they rested, it would have first been necessary to effect an operation with the specific goal of completely opening these shutters. The lack of finding of any instrument suitable for obtaining such an opening (one cannot even see what type of instrument could be used to this end) leads one to assume that the wall must have been scaled a first time in order to effect the complete opening of the shutters ("if the shutters were closed, he could not have passed through, that is obvious", cf. declarations of the consultant for the defence, Mshl. Francesco Pasquali, p. 22 hearing July 3, 2009), in order to enable the thief to aim at the window and smash it by throwing a large stone - the one found in Romanelli's room. The "climber" (the window in Romanelli's room is located at a height of more than three and a half metres from the ground underneath, cf. photo 11 from the relevant dossier) would also need to rely on the fact that the shutters were not actually latched, and also that the wooden panels attached to the outer edge of the inner side of the window-frames [scuri=non-louvered shutters in interior of room] had not been fastened to the window-frame to which the broken pane was attached, since otherwise it would not have been possible to open them from the outside, and nor would it have been possible, even breaking the glass, to make a hole giving access to the house, since if these inner panels had been are closed, they would have provided an adequate obstacle to the possibility of opening the window, in spite of the broken pane.

Admitting that the climber decided to bet, in a sense, on the presence of both of these "favourable", in fact indispensable conditions, the climber would then have had to climb up once, from underneath the window of Romanelli's room, in order to open the shutters; then he would have had to get the large rock, and having selected the point where he wanted to break the window, to throw it (it seems impossible to accept that he actually made the climb while carrying the large rock, and threw it against the window at the risk of being hit by glass falling from the pane thus shattered).

He would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window-frame (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill, otherwise he would not have been able to reach pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside.

This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved (going twice underneath the window, going up to throw the stone, scaling the wall twice) and taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and behaviours all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing by on the street, or actually coming into the house.

It cannot be assumed - as the Defence Consultant did - that the shutters were left completely open, since this contradicts the declarations of Romanelli, which appear to be detailed and entirely likely, considering that she was actually leaving for the holiday and had some things of value in her room, and already she did not feel quite safe because window-frames were in wood without any grille. Also, the circumstance of the shutters being wide open does not correspond to their position when they were found and described by witnesses on November 2, and photographed (cf. photo 11 already mentioned).

But beyond these considerations, there are other elements which tend to exclude the possibility that a thief could have entered the house through the window of Romanelli's room. The double climb necessary to attain the height of three and a half metres would have left some kind of trace or imprint on the wall, especially on the points on the wall that the "climber" would have used to support his feet, all the more as both the witnesses Romanelli and Marco Zaroli gave statements that indicate that the earth, on that early November evening, must have been very wet (declarations of Marco Zaroli, hearing of February 6, 2009, p. 174, and declarations of Filomena Romanelli, hearing of July 7, 2009 p. 24; see also the document acquired at the hearing of March 28, 2009 concerning the fact that on October 30, 2007, it was raining). In fact, there are no visible signs on the wall, and furthermore, it can be observed that the nail - this was noted by this Court of Assizes [?] during the inspection - remained where it was, and it seems difficult to hypothesise that the climber, given the position of that nail and its characteristics visible in the photo 11 - did not somehow "encounter" that nail and force it, inadvertently or by using it as a foothold, causing it to fall or at least bending it. On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci cited above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli, and she said: "I observed both the wall...underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and I noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and all of the vegetation underneath the window did not appear to have been trampled; nothing." (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci). She also recalled the existence of a nail on that wall, which jutted out about 6cm, and added that "going around the outside of the house" her shoes became dirty with "grass attached to the shoes" (p. 145, cf. also declarations of the assistant Zugarini, hearing of Feb. 28, 2009, p. 133).

The next fact to considered is that the pieces of glass from the broken pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the windowsill, without any displacement being noted or any piece of glass being found on the ground underneath the window. This circumstance, as confirmed also by the consultant Pasquali, tends to exclude the possibility that the rock was thrown from outside the house to create an access to the house through the window after the breaking of the pane. The climber, in leaning his hands and then his feet or knees on the windowsill, would have caused at least some piece of glass to fall, or at least would have been obliged to shift some pieces of glass in order to avoid being wounded by them. Instead, no piece of glass was found under the window, and no sign of any wound was seen on the pieces of glass found in Romanelli's room.

It can moreover be observed that the presence of many pieces of glass on the outside part of the windowsill increases the probability of finding some small pieces of glass on the ground underneath, since there seems to be no reason for which so many pieces of glass would all stop just at the edge of the windowsill without any of them flying beyond the edge and falling down to the garden below. This situation, like all the other glaring inconsistencies, is adequately and satisfactorily explained if one supposes that the rock was thrown from the inside of the room, with the two shutters pulled inwards so that they blocked the pieces of glass from falling to the ground below, and once the glass had been broken from inside, the rock was set down at some place in the room, and the shutters were pushed towards the outside, being thus opened from within the room.

The consultant for the Defence, Mshl. Pasquali, maintains instead that the rock was thrown from outside the room, and outside the house. He arrives at this assumption on the basis of various elements: the presence of fragments of glass on the inner and outer parts of the windowsill, and from the "intervention of fragments of glass that fell from high up down into the interior...of the room" all the way to the blue carpet, and to the bed (p. 47 hearing July 3, 2009).

These are elements and considerations which do not appear to deserve the emphasis given to them by the consultant.

Firstly, it should be observed that Mshl. Pasquali has declared that he has never studied stone throwing apart from this case; he also supported the possibility of "making a parallel with investigations of ballistics and firearms"; the same consultant did however admit that, whereas ballistics is a science of precise data (p. 39 hearing July 3, 2009), "here we have an infinity of possible variations" (p. 40). Precisely in relation to these variations and to what has been observed above, the asertion and the explanation he offers for the stone having been thrown from outside cannot be adopted by the Court. Indeed, if one supposes that the stone was thrown from the inside with the shutters pulled closed (as they must have been according to statements cited above), but with the casement holding the pane somewhat open, with the inner shutter behind it, then here is a situation analogous to that of throwing the stone from the outside (the rock would hit the window in the same place as if it came from the outside), and under the shock of the large stone, because of the resistance of the inner shutter behind the window-pane (the shield effect as one might say), the pieces of glass would necessarily fall down on the windowsill both inside and outside (considering the casement as having being only slightly open, and thus the smashed pane positioned near to the windowsill). The presence of the shutters pulled inwards, as described by Romanelli, would have prevented the pieces of glass from falling to the ground below, as indeed they did not, but as they surely would have had the stone been thrown from the outside. As for the presence of glass in Romanelli's room, the violence of the blow, the characteristics of the glass (which was rather thin as indicated by Romanelli and Pasquali), the large rock used, and finally the shield effect caused by the inner shutter hanging half-open behind the glass pane (a position of the inner shutter which corresponds to the scratch on it visible in the photos) give an adequate explanation of the distribution of the glass.

But the fact that all this was in fact just a simulation, a staging, can be deduced from further circumstances. From the photos taken by the personnel of the Questura (photos 47 to 54 and 65 to 66) one can perceive an activity which appears to have been performed with the goal of creating a situation of obvious disorder in Romanelli's room, but does not appear to be the result of actual ransacking, true searching for the kind of valuable objects that might tempt a thief. The drawers of the little dresser next to the bed were not even opened (photo 51 and declarations of Battistelli who noted that Romanelli was the one who opened the drawers, having found them closed and with no sign of having been rifled: see p. 66 of Battistelli's declarations, hearing of Feb. 6, 2009). The objects on the shelves in photo 52 appear not to have been touched at all; piles of clothes seem to have been thrown down from the closet (photo 54) but it does not seem that there was any serious search in the closet, in which some clothes and some boxes remained in place without showing any signs of an actual search for valuable items which might have been there (photo 54). It does not appear that the boxes on the table were opened (photo 65) in a search for valuable items. And indeed, no valuable item (cf. declarations of Romanelli) was taken, or even set aside to be taken, by the - at this point we can say phantom - thief.One last aspect which must be recalled is the presence, noted and checked by several witnesses, of pieces of glass on top of the objects and clothing in Romanelli's room.This circumstance, which also reveals an activity of simulation, although it is not decisive because it does not actually exclude that that the phantom thief first broke the window and then made the mess in the room, was rejected by the Defence of the accused, which showed photographs that did not show glass on top of the clothes and objects scattered around Romanelli's room, and observed that the value of photographs in documenting and crystallising a situation should be of more account than even official testimonies on record [is this correct?].

This assertion is not held to be acceptable, since it does not take into account the events and their succession and chronology. On the subject of the contrast between the testimony and the documents (photographs of Filomena's room that do not show pieces of glass on top of the clothes and objects scattered around), Romanelli's own declarations are significant and decisive. In her questioning of Feb. 7, 2009, she recalled having left her computer in its case "standing up, not lying down" (p. 269), and then, when she returned to the house, she saw that in her own room, the window was broken and "everything was all over the place..." (p. 40) She checked that her jewellery was there, which it was, and she looked for her computer which she saw "from underneath" (p. 40), and continuing to explain, she declared that "I picked up the computer and perceived that in lifting it, I was picking up pieces of glass, in the sense that there was actually glass on top of it" (p. 41), and she noticed this circumstance so particularly that she added the following comment: "It was really a stupid thief; not only did he not take anything, the broken glass was actually on top of the things" (p. 41). As she is usually very orderly, the witness also stated that she entered into her own room and searched around to see if anything was missing, and during that search she moved objects, thus changing the position of some pieces of glass. At that moment, however, only the Postal Police was present, and they were there to understand why two mobile phones had been found in the garden of a house in via Sperandio, and the broken pane of a window indicated a robbery which seemed entirely independent from the finding of the telephones; thus it seemed perfectly natural and almost automatic for them to enter into the room with the broken glass, without taking any particular precautions, only paying attention to finding out if anything was missing. Thus, the movement of objects was perfectly natural, as was the progressive modification of the situation in Romanelli's room with respect to the pieces of glass which, having been found and noted on top of objects, were then allowed to fall and moved around during the search which, it can be imagined, Romanelli made with a certain agitation and anxiety on account of the worry and the strong disturbance that she felt. The photos, however, were only taken later, towards 15:00 according to what can be inferred from the declarations of the personnel of the scientific section of the Questura of Perugia, Cantagalli and Brocci, when the discovery of Meredith's lifeless body was imposing the use of care and circumspection in the necessity of crystallising the situation, avoiding any modification of the scene and acquiring every element which could be useful for the investigation.

Thus, the moments at which the witnesses found glass on top of the objects and the moments in which everything in the house was photographed and thus fixed were different moments.

Consequently, the visual and tactile observations of the witnesses and the photographs of the surroundings cannot be judged in parallel, given that they represent different situations at different times. It is enough to note that inspector Battistelli told everyone to leave the house, not when he saw the broken window in Romanelli's room, but when he realised that there was a corpse in Meredith's room.

Therefore, the declarations and descriptions of the said room need not be accepted only insofar as they correspond to what is shown in the photographs, especially in regard to the presence and position of the pieces of glass. On this point, apart from Romanelli's declarations, which appear reliable because of their precision, and because the emotion of the event caused the images to be imprinted on her memory in a very lively manner (as in the comment referred to and recalled above) and which are thus valid to complete the record [?], also the declarations of the assistant Fabio Marsi should be recalled. He declared that he observed "that there were clothes and other personal items on the floor with glass on top of them and the rock which, presumably, had broken the window" (p. 127 hearing Feb. 6, 2009), and he also added that Romanelli "checked if anything was missing, and said no, but look, everything is here, everything" (p. 129 hearing Feb. 6, 2009), an activity of checking which necessarily, as has already been observed, involved the movement of objects and thus also of pieces of glass, since the room was turned upside-down, thus rendering the situation which was subsequently photographed somewhat different than the one described by the witnesses. Therefore, the presence of glass on top of the various objects scattered on the floor all over the place is considered as a proof of the testimonies which is not falsified by the photos. It is certain that the presence of pieces of glass on top of objects found out of their places cannot but suggest a simulation, since the throwing of the stone and the breaking and falling of the glass must have happened when Romanelli's room was as she left it, and in particular pieces of glass should not have been found on top of objects supposedly thrown around by the phantom thief(?) who was only supposed to have entered the room after breaking the window, so that the clothing and the objects would have actually been tossed down on top of the glass.

What has been explained up to now thus leads to the assertion that the situation of disorder in Romanelli's room and the breaking of the window pane constitute an artificial representation created in order to orient the investigations towards a person who, not having the key to the front door, was supposed to have entered through the previously broken window and then effected the violent acts on Meredith which caused her death.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thank you Fulcanelli, that is fantastic. Can't wait to see the whole thing.

 

[Amazer]

Shuttlt,

This is not a new story. We all knew the photo was on the wall. I already had this information on my site. You should read through the site, you will learn a lot about the case. Crimesider is doing a series of articles about the case highlighting some of the most ridiculous aspects. These articles will be available on Injustice in Perugia in their entirety.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/crimesider.html

I'd like to see some proof too that this is not a new story.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Ciolino claims not, but then there doesn't seem to have been any effort to follow up and check, so perhaps there was one elsewhere, perhaps the Knox photo was the only one.... who knows? If it's important somebody should probably check, of course now that all these months have passed the picture may no longer be there, it's a pity nobody did anything sooner.

The photo on the wall is clearly seen in the documentary. This has already been proven. You need to watch the documentary and you will see that I am being honest with you.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I'd like to see some proof too that this is not a new story.

I am not on my home computer. I will link the documentary tonight. This is clearly seen in the documentary. The photo is hanging on the wall.

In time people on this board will see that I am an honest guy. I have no reason to lie to any of you.