That nothing was stolen supports that the burglary was interrupted.
It has the opposite affect on the staged breakin theory. If someone was going to stage a break in they would 'steal' something to make it look good
There's also the possibility that the burglary was staged ... badly.
Any number of discrepancies which seem to require such contortions of logic and verbiage and coincidence and conspiracy to explain away as innocence are much more easily resolved when viewed as the panicked and ill-considered actions of ... guilty ... young people.
Mary H has made much of her apparent puzzlement that the police might have had early suspicions concerning Knox and Sollecito. The term "intuition" has been bandied about here with a great deal of scorn, and not-so-sly references to the sort of red herrings that the OP tried to pass off are resurrected with depressing frequency, but the fact is that police are actually trained professionals, and observing and judging the behaviors (in the general sense of the term) of people close to a crime is not necessarily "intuition". It is also "experience".
Although the comparison may seem trite (it isn't) any parent is perfectly familiar with the experience of questioning their children and knowing ... with absolute certainty ... that the kids are hiding something, even though their protestations to the contrary are seemingly heartfelt and unequivocal. Certainly there are times when that parent is wrong, but the incidence of error pales by comparison to the number of times they are not.
Cops deal with victims, criminals, witnesses, and other less directly involved actors in
real life crime dramas every work day.They are not only trained to judge people, scenes, and surrounding, they are practiced at it.
It is not unusual for perpetrators of a violent crime to try to create the appearance that some relative stranger was responsible. It's even a hackneyed plot device on the TV murder dramas. The problem is that the police, the trained experienced professionals, know that. Unlike most people who get their ideas about crime statistics from the TV, the police
also know that stranger crimes are a relatively rare scenario for a violent murder such as this, in spite of what the news programs might lead people to think. 'Smash and grab' burglars just aren't usually violent rapist killers. Yes, there are exceptions, but the odds are way against it.
A break-in normally isn't going to look 'kinda sorta, almost like a break-in if you hold your head just right'. It's going to look like a 'fer shur' break-in.
Someone up-thread recently was trying to argue that Sollecito and Knox wouldn't have called the cops and shown them the break-in if it was staged. That's also not true. Someone who had tried to stage a break-in would likely do
exactly that. They would want to insure that all the hard work they had devoted to their ploy was properly appreciated. Combine that with social proximity to the victim, conflicting, rapidly dis-proven and deteriorating accounts of activities during the time-line and there is plenty of quite reasonable cause for suspicion.
About the only foolproof way for them to have staged a break-in in Filomena's room and
not raise suspicion would have been for them to really break in. They didn't do that, not only because they didn't have enough time or thought it would attract too much attention, a
real burglar probably would have thought the same thing. They did because they thought they could make it look real anyway.
A
real burglar would have also not chosen that room. The best reason for choosing that room is that it is the only one Knox could plausibly 'not notice' right away. There are just too many discrepancies, and trying to argue them away in detail doesn't work. Not only does it not work here, on a message board, it is also not what trained professionals would have done at the scene. They would have thought, "Something doesn't look quite right here.", and continued from that.
Amateurs would not have a clue what a real break-in scene would look like. Their efforts would look ... well, 'kinda sorta' like a break-in. If it was real we wouldn't be hypothesizing whether or not Rudy had the wall scaling skills of a free rock climber, the body strength and contortionist abilities of an Olympic gymnast, and a stick. We wouldn't be trying to claim that none of the window glass flew back from the window in spite of years of studies showing that it always does, or that trained professionals ignored the ground underneath the apparent entry point of a murder. We wouldn't be questioning whether or not a room was
really "ransacked" when both the room's resident
and one of the accused said it was.
There is a much simpler explanation.
