Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I think that Kestrel and LondonJohn are missing Fulcanelli's point, with which I agree. Of course, the cottage was empty - but so were, presumably, hundreds of others on the same evening. And of course, other properties were burgled in Perugia that week (again, presumably). However, what makes it "special to the exclusion of everywhere else" is that this is the house which Rudy allegedly burgled - not any others.
Why this particular house? He had already met AK and MK and knew they were foreign students, who would be unlikely to have any significant portable wealth at the house. Why not select a more lucrative target? The house also doesn't appear to be physically isolated, which again also reduces its likelihood as a target. Finally, why select a house where you are known by sight to most of the residents (MK, AK, the boys downstairs)? If there is a burgalry and you are witnessed near the scene around the time of the crime, you are much more likely to be connected to the crime than if you had selected another house whose occupants (and neighbors) had never seen you before.

Even without going over the minutiae of glass deposits on Filomena's windowsill, I find the whole theory of Rudy entering the house as a burglar with the intention of robbing the place to be most unlikely.

Can you really not see the deep illogicality of the highlighted section of your post? Here's an illustration: suppose that a house ("House 1") in the German town of Dortmund (purely for the sake of argument) was burgled on a particular night by a burglar who we can call "Herr A". Presumably, Herr A could have chosen from a large number of houses to burgle that night, but he happened to select the one that he did burgle - House 1. But working backwards from the fact that House 1 was burgled, doesn't in itself make House 1 a special case. It just happens to be the house that Herr A selected. It could have been House 2, 3, 4, 5....., but it happened to be House 1.

And in addition to the sheer illogicality (in my view) of the highlighted statement, I believe there are positive reasons why Guede might have selected this particular property. He had visited the boys' house, and knew the layout of the building and the identities of all the occupants. It's no coincidence that many burglars "case" their targets over a long period prior to a burglary, in order to establish this sort of information. Indeed, it's not unusual for burglars to have been previous visitors to the property, as tradesmen, window cleaners, delivery men etc. It's often a lot easier (and higher-payback) to burgle a place where you have more of an idea what to expect, in terms of layout, occupants and available booty.

So, Guede would have known that the house was occupied by students and young people who likely had few proper security measures in place. He'd also be aware that they all most likely owned laptops, cameras, iPods and other high-value easily-fenceable items. He'd also be aware that as young people with no dependents, there was a high possibility that they would have left the house to spend the holiday period with family.

And I would suspect that, with all this in mind, Guede might have observed the house from outside for some time before deciding to break in. I think he would have satisfied himself that there was nobody at home in either house (no lights or noise, at 9pm - i.e. before most young people would go to sleep). He couldn't easily break into the boys' house, since all their windows had strong bars. So he had no option but to break into the girls' house. But this put him at a pretty high risk of discovery, since the best point of entrance (Filomena's window, whose exterior shutters were, I believe, open at this point) could be seen from the main road running past the house. But that was the option he selected - as the easiest-but-still-very-risky way of entering the house.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If Stefanoni actually did what you said, she would be incompetent. If one actually took all of the biological material first for DNA testing, then there would be nothing left and the blood test would be meaningless. However, she split the sample, according to Perugia-Shock.“So she said O la va o la spacca, make it or break it, and took a 20% of it to test it for blood: negative. The test failed but Dr Patrizia wasn't discouraged and she took what remained, about 20 microliters, she dried it to 10 and tested it for DNA.”

On a different subject, one follow-up test to luminol for blood is the Kastle-Meyer test, which is more specific.

And since the DNA tested material amounted to only between zero and 10 cells, what would your 20% that were subjected to the blood test have amounted to? At MAXIMUM, it would be about two cells and was most probably less. And of those, which came from a sample that probably contained mixed types of cells, how high are the odds that any of the blood cells will have fallen into that catchment? And only if your exceptionally lucky and win the odds the maximum you may expect is 'one' blood cell. Of course you're never going to get a positive with a blood test.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The cottage was empty. It's what makes any house a target for burglars.

You also claim that the shutters were closed at the time of entry. Filomena's testimony indicated she didn't really remember if she closed the shutters. Even if she had, they didn't close properly, could not be latched and could easily be opened from the outside.

There were lots of empty houses and apartments in Perugia, especially with many away for the holidays. So again, what made the cottage so special?


No, Filomena testified she certainly closed the shutters. We've already done this Kestrel and it's disingenuous to keep on saying she testified she didn't remember if she closed the shutters when she did not...read Massei AGAIN:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

 

[LondonJohn]

Spot the difference between these two statements:

"Filomena... does not say (in her court testimony) that Amanda told her that she (Amanda) had already called Meredith."

"Filomena says (in her court testimony) that Amanda did not tell her that she (Amanda) had already called Meredith".

The first one is in the Massei report. The second one is not. QED.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Jumping eleven feet to a paved street is an almost guaranteed way to break something -- ankles, knees, the elbow you fall on, your head etc. Jump off a chair two feet off the ground onto a hard floor and feel the stress it puts on your ankles and knees. You might even have some trouble keeping your balance. Now look out a second-floor window and imagine how much more force you will absorb if you jump from the sill-- and that's if you land upright, which might not be easy on a hill. Climbing out backward and hanging by your hands before dropping is the way almost anybody would do this if they had to. But it's hard to imagine why Rudy (or anybody else) wouldn't leave the house by the front door.

It was grass below the window.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are correct that, for the most part, I haven't specifically mentioned what aspects of my experience make me doubt the defense narrative. Those specific aspects are present in my internal monologue, but I will try to be more explicit in future arguments.

In my opinion, you should not have to quote from your internal monologue at all when making an analysis of this case. This case is all about whether there was sufficent evidence (of sufficient quality and probative value) to convict Knox and Sollecito beyond reasonable doubt.

Investigators use their experience, professional intuition and prior examples to aid them in the identification and collection of suspects/evidence. However, the interpretation of evidence must be made in isolation of this. In other words, it's perfectly rational and reasonable for an investigator (for example) to see a murdered wife, and to then immediately look closely at the husband - because his/her experience will inform him/her that husbands are the single most likely culprit in such a crime. But the husband clearly cannot be convicted on this intuition/experience - regardless of its value in pointing investigators towards a likely suspect.

Experience and intuition will benefit the investigators in identifying suspects and in looking for evidence, but the evidence itself has to fit basic human experiences (devoid of prior specific experience of law, criminal investigations etc) in order to have proper probative value.

 

[christianahannah]

By 'the other side of the flat' you must mean 'the other side of the room', since that's where the large bathroom is located from Filomena's room. Only the bathroom door separates the main living area from, well, the bathroom. If that's a maze, good thing Rudy didn't gamble on using the other bathroom, what with the door leading to the corridor and the four doors leading off it. He'd probably never have found his way out again.

Rudy also stated that he was in the kitchen, and that he took a swig of orange juice from a carton he took from the fridge (in his version, Meredith was in another part of the house at the time). No doubt he was worried his DNA would be found on it, and was putting forward an explanation in advance as to why he drank straight from the carton in a house where he was a guest (something which might be even more tricky to answer if three people were in the house at the time). The fridge is directly outside the large bathroom.

I think you're wrong about the small bathroom being the more 'natural' one to use for someone in the main living area (which is where Rudy would've been as soon as he stepped out of Filomena's room). He was in the right half of the house to use the large one, and it certainly isn't more likely he'd use the other, as you suggested.

I think you are not correct in your assessment of how the flat is designed (refer to graphics in an earlier post). From Filomena's room he'd need to enter two doors to the large bathroom - from the kitchen to the washer room then the large bathroom. The fridge is not directly outside the large bathroom - the washer room is. In the main room there are four doors to choose from, none of which lead directly to a bathroom, however, the door to the corridor leads straight to the small bathroom easily viewed from that door.

While the scenario proposed by some of Rudy breaking in the window, using the bathroom, so on, while plausible, is probably not possible for a variety of reasons (as explained by others in prior posts).

 

[Kestrel]

I think that Kestrel and LondonJohn are missing Fulcanelli's point, with which I agree. Of course, the cottage was empty - but so were, presumably, hundreds of others on the same evening. And of course, other properties were burgled in Perugia that week (again, presumably). However, what makes it "special to the exclusion of everywhere else" is that this is the house which Rudy allegedly burgled - not any others.

Why this particular house? He had already met AK and MK and knew they were foreign students, who would be unlikely to have any significant portable wealth at the house. Why not select a more lucrative target? The house also doesn't appear to be physically isolated, which again also reduces its likelihood as a target. Finally, why select a house where you are known by sight to most of the residents (MK, AK, the boys downstairs)? If there is a burgalry and you are witnessed near the scene around the time of the crime, you are much more likely to be connected to the crime than if you had selected another house whose occupants (and neighbors) had never seen you before.

Even without going over the minutiae of glass deposits on Filomena's windowsill, I find the whole theory of Rudy entering the house as a burglar with the intention of robbing the place to be most unlikely.

Fulcanelli's point doesn't stand up to the evidence. The cottage in question was in fact relatively isolated. The cottage sits below street level with no other buildings on the same side of the street. Burglar bars were installed on the lower floor windows, indicating that the property owners recognized it was a possible target for burglars. In the time since the murder, the cottage has been broken into at least twice. Given this, it's silly to claim that the cottage was an unlikely target for a burglary.

Rudy had been caught breaking and entering at least twice in the month before the murder. He had no job, yet still managed to pay his rent. Rudy was probably aware that the boys living in the downstairs apartment were out of town that weekend. Having been at the cottage, it's also likely that he noticed the shutter on Filomena's window didn't latch properly.

In a town were students often pay the rent in cash, an isolated and empty student dwelling would be a tempting target on the weekend before the rent is due.

 

[Supernaut]

Was it established fact with Meredith that Amanda wouldn't be staying the night at the flat? Was there any testimony in court to that situation?

AK had spent the previous 4 or 5 (?) nights at RS’s. Whether or not it was understood by Meredith that she would continue to do so is not the point.

I think it best to not imply any reaction to Meredith's family on what they felt. They and Meredith are absolutely without fault of what occurred that night in November.

On the contrary, I see no reason for it to remain “off limits” in perpetuity. The Kerchers may have remained silent, but people fail to note that their lawyer had a great deal to say - he was strident in his advocacy of AK’s and RS’s guilt.

I realise that the Italian justice system gives astonishing latitude to prosecutors, and as a corollary to lawyers who act as “joiners” (in fact, it seems to impose practically no restraints at all) and maybe Maresca was acting unilaterally. But even if so, I fail to see how vilifying AK and RS was a de facto part of HIS remit.

So, to reiterate;

Amanda and Meredith were peers in every sense - age and status, both visiting English-speaking students, the two of them outsiders in their household.

The Kerchers may have perceived (after the fact) that Amanda had deserted Meredith in an unspoken obligation for the two to look out for each other.

That is, it’s possible that on hearing the circumstances of Meredith’s death, alone in the cottage, that they experienced feelings of anger and betrayal toward Amanda, even if unconsciously, which made it that much easier for Mignini (and their own lawyer) to gain their acquiescence.

(As an aside, note that it was the ‘boys downstairs’, one of whom was Meredith’s own boyfriend, who brought Guede to the household. I wonder how they (the boys themselves) feel about that? I suppose, given Mignini has seen to it that Guede has all but been exonerated, they needn’t let it bother them.)

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli's point doesn't stand up to the evidence. The cottage in question was in fact relatively isolated. The cottage sits below street level with no other buildings on the same side of the street. Burglar bars were installed on the lower floor windows, indicating that the property owners recognized it was a possible target for burglars. In the time since the murder, the cottage has been broken into at least twice. Given this, it's silly to claim that the cottage was an unlikely target for a burglary.

Rudy had been caught breaking and entering at least twice in the month before the murder. He had no job, yet still managed to pay his rent. Rudy was probably aware that the boys living in the downstairs apartment were out of town that weekend. Having been at the cottage, it's also likely that he noticed the shutter on Filomena's window didn't latch properly.

In a town were students often pay the rent in cash, an isolated and empty student dwelling would be a tempting target on the weekend before the rent is due.

Isolated? The cottage was sitting at the bottom of a virtual ampitheatre surrounded on one side by dozens of apartments directly overlooking it and a main road running right outside it.

Why would he suppose rent money would be just lying around the apartment, especially on a holiday when the banks were shut and the rent wasn't due until days later anyway? Why would Rudy be aware the boys were out of town for the holiday, did they testify in the trial that they told him so? No? Then he didn't know. And one thing he certainly didn't know was if the girls were out or not and if/when any of them may return.

Again, what was wrong with the rest of the houses and apartments in Perugia, many of which would have been empty due to the holiday?


To keep saying that Rudy had been caught breaking and entering twice is an outright falsehood. He had entered only ONE place, the nursery in Milan because he'd been told it was a doss house and he needed somewhere to sleep. He didn't enter it to burgle it. He has no record for entering anywhere else.

As for his not having a job he had only been out of work for a month. The state in Italy pays benefits and the rent of the unemployed and he also had a very wealthy foster family. He didn't need to steal money to pay his rent or to live.

 

[Supernaut]

I do not think so.

According to Wikipedia, argument from incredulity is understood as:



I conede that Rudy could have interrupted the burglary to use the bathroom. However, I find that very hard to believe - incredible, if you will. Nevertheless, my concession means that, formally speaking, I am not arguing from incredulity. Certainly not as much as those who dismiss the prosecution narrative that all three were involved with the murder on the grounds of its purported implausibility.

and also;

However, as I've said several times now, I find it ridiculous to believe that Rudy interrupted his search for a bathroom break.

You find the idea that “Rudy could have interrupted the burglary to use the bathroom ….. hard to believe - incredible”?

Then you’re probably about to fall off your chair.

Burglars are frequently known to “take a dump” in homes they’ve broken in to.

Not only that, they’re sometimes known to do so LITERALLY in the middle of the crime, which is to say, on the floor, or even on furniture such as tables (!!).

Why? I don’t really want to go there, but suffice to say we’re considering individuals who often barely qualify as human.

(I felt rather uncomfortable typing that, but it appears that some need to learn a little patterns-of-criminal-behaviour 101 before they hold forth on what is, or is not “credible”.)

 

[katy_did]

I think you are not correct in your assessment of how the flat is designed (refer to graphics in an earlier post). From Filomena's room he'd need to enter two doors to the large bathroom - from the kitchen to the washer room then the large bathroom. The fridge is not directly outside the large bathroom - the washer room is. In the main room there are four doors to choose from, none of which lead directly to a bathroom, however, the door to the corridor leads straight to the small bathroom easily viewed from that door.

While the scenario proposed by some of Rudy breaking in the window, using the bathroom, so on, while plausible, is probably not possible for a variety of reasons (as explained by others in prior posts).

No, I think there's only one door from the main living area to the bathroom (don't think the laundry area has a door, it's just a doorway open to the main kitchen, if you look at the plans of the house on PMF. Assuming of course that they're right). So Rudy could indeed have seen through to the bathroom while standing at the fridge; on the other hand there were two doors between him and the other bathroom and no lights on in that part of the house, so I doubt he could just have looked across and noticed it.

This seems like a very nitpicking discussion, anyway. Rudy says he was in the kitchen near the fridge, very close to the large bathroom, and it's entirely possible he chose to use that bathroom because it was closest. I think you're wrong that it would've been 'natural' for him to use the other bathroom, since it was further away than the one he actually did use. But really it doesn't matter: either would've been possible and he chose to use the large one, which though it indicates he was in that area of the house (maybe going in there after being in the kitchen) obviously doesn't prove it or rule it out.

(I am curious, though, as to your theory as to why he tackled the maze of doors to use that bathroom, if it was such a difficult one to find even while standing next to the fridge. Especially since Amanda would've presumably directed him to her bathroom. Was he doing some laundry?)

ETA: This plan shows a doorway but no door. Don't know whether they're just guessing, that there was no door, that it was kept open or what.

 

[Matthew Best]

While the scenario proposed by some of Rudy breaking in the window, using the bathroom, so on, while plausible, is probably not possible for a variety of reasons (as explained by others in prior posts).

"probably not possible"?

This thread continues to amaze me.

 

[katy_did]

Spot the difference between these two statements:

"Filomena... does not say (in her court testimony) that Amanda told her that she (Amanda) had already called Meredith."

"Filomena says (in her court testimony) that Amanda did not tell her that she (Amanda) had already called Meredith".

The first one is in the Massei report. The second one is not. QED.

I noticed that the Machine quoted the following over on PMF, but I'm not sure it contradicts what you've posted above:

"Amanda called Romanelli, to whom she started to detail what she had noticed in the house (without, however, telling her a single word about the unanswered call made to Meredith, despite the question expressly put to her by Romanelli)..."

If Filomena asked her explicitly if she'd called Meredith, how could Amanda just 'not have mentioned it'? That makes no sense, there's pretty much only a 'yes' or 'no' answer to that question. And the way Massei describes Filomena as 'not saying that Amanda told her she'd called Meredith' is very odd, too. He clearly isn't able to say Filomena said 'Amanda never told me she'd called Meredith', since that wouldn't have been quite accurate. It's what she didn't say that he's relying on, not what she did say.

I wonder whether on the one hand he's taking Amanda's statement that Filomena asked her if she'd called Meredith, and then combining that with the fact Filomena never mentioned Amanda saying she'd called her. Putting the two things together and coming up with a rather creative conclusion. Seems like there might be more to this than it appeared...

(And of course, even if the two girls did disagree about what was said, it's still only one person's word against another, since Amanda clearly says she did tell Filomena she'd called Meredith).

 

[Fuji]

Can you really not see the deep illogicality of the highlighted section of your post?

I was using your formulation. Apparently, you misunderstood my argument, as in fact, I do not see this house as "special" in any way as a hypothetical target of burgalry. If anything, I could imagine that many of the other houses which RG could have broken into would have been more attractive targets. This, along with other points of evidence, I see as one more indicator that the "burglary" was staged.

And in addition to the sheer illogicality (in my view) of the highlighted statement, I believe there are positive reasons why Guede might have selected this particular property. He had visited the boys' house, and knew the layout of the building and the identities of all the occupants.

And they also knew him. As I stated previously, I believe this is a factor which mitigates against the likelihood of Rudy breaking in.

As far as "knowing the layout", I think that you are vastly over-estimating its importance in regards to your average residential burglary. Unless you're looking for a hidden wall-safe or something secretive like that, a burglar would have no need of knowing the layout beforehand. This is a simple, small cottage - not a labyrinth.

It's no coincidence that many burglars "case" their targets over a long period prior to a burglary, in order to establish this sort of information.

Yes, in the case of professional burglar rings, or when a particularly juicy target has caught the fancy of a would-be burglar. But there is nothing officially known about RG working with other criminals - indeed, despite the rumors, RG himself does not have a criminal past. And, as I assert below, this house was far from being a juicy target.

So, Guede would have known that the house was occupied by students and young people who likely had few proper security measures in place. He'd also be aware that they all most likely owned laptops, cameras, iPods and other high-value easily-fenceable items. He'd also be aware that as young people with no dependents, there was a high possibility that they would have left the house to spend the holiday period with family.

And he also would have known that none of the inhabitants were wealthy or even middle-class in income levels. And that, in the girl's apartment, half of them were transients (MK & AK). This is not the profile of a household likely to have significant portable wealth. There would be no silverware, no rare collectibles, no expensive electronic equipment. Furthermore,the only items that you do mention (laptops, cameras, iPods) are the same ones that - by virtue of the girls leaving for the weekend - they are likely to have taken with them!

 

[Fuji]

In my opinion, you should not have to quote from your internal monologue at all when making an analysis of this case.

When I said "internal monolgue", I was referring to spontaneous statements I've thought to myself when examining this case, such as "That's a load of ********" or "Not bloody likely". That sort of thing.

Investigators use their experience, professional intuition and prior examples to aid them in the identification and collection of suspects/evidence. However, the interpretation of evidence must be made in isolation of this.

Of course. And my experience of crime in general, and burglary in particular, is part of what drives me to interpret that evidence the way I do.

 

[LondonJohn]

and also;





You find the idea that “Rudy could have interrupted the burglary to use the bathroom ….. hard to believe - incredible”?

Then you’re probably about to fall off your chair.

Burglars are frequently known to “take a dump” in homes they’ve broken in to.

Not only that, they’re sometimes known to do so LITERALLY in the middle of the crime, which is to say, on the floor, or even on furniture such as tables (!!).

Why? I don’t really want to go there, but suffice to say we’re considering individuals who often barely qualify as human.

(I felt rather uncomfortable typing that, but it appears that some need to learn a little patterns-of-criminal-behaviour 101 before they hold forth on what is, or is not “credible”.)

I believe that some criminal psychologists interpret this defecation phenomenon as a complex combination of "territory marking" and a psycho-physiological response to heightened anxiety/fear. There are very, very few nonchalant burglars. Most of them (backed up by studies and post-arrest interviews) are something between very nervous and terrified while they are actually committing the crime.

A quick google search of "burglar defecate" will show just how strangely common this phenomenon is (I bet "burglar defecate" doesn't rank very high on google's list of top search terms.....).

 

[Danceme]

The footprint appeared to have been made with bloody water, which, when tested for DNA, matched the victim. A visible streak of blood was found in the drain of the bidet, and a line of droplets, also made with bloody water rather than unadulterated blood, was visible in the basin of the bidet. There were also a number of other, smaller bloodstains on the rug. What do you think happened?

I wasn't interested in the bloody footprint on the bathmat in my post, just the non-existent shoeprints leading from the bathroom to the bedroom that should have been there if your scenario was what likely happened. Without these shoeprints the story doesn't ring true to me, it simply couldn't have happened that way.

Can I ask why? That doesn't seem like a particularly logical argument.

It doesn't seem unlikely that, given we know for sure Guede took part in a sexual assault/murder, his DNA would be on some things that were left in the room and not initially tested. That doesn't mean contamination of the scene in the meantime isn't a possibility.

And supposing we assume those two items were the result of contamination. Would that lead us to think Guede was innocent? Hardly. There's non-DNA evidence from Guede which proves he was present immediately after the murder, and his DNA had no business being anywhere in the house anyway. On the other hand, if the DNA on the clasp was the result of contamination, the case against Raffaele (and actually against Amanda too, given the problems with the knife) would fall apart. The two situations are hardly comparable.

Throughout the course of this story unfolding there has always been the refrain "they went back 6 weeks later just to get the bra clasp", which according to Amanda's supporters was supposed to indicate planting of evidence or contamination. Every time it was made to sound as if the bra clasp was the only item collected, lending some credence to her supporter's claims.

I've read just about everything I possibly could on this case but hadn't stumbled across anything describing the other items the police collected that day nor was this story of 'just the bra clasp' ever disputed by Charlie or Bruce who had this information. It's pretty significant to me that some of the most damning evidence against Rudy was also collected that day, not just that against Rafaelle. It renders the "just the bra clasp" argument as outright worthless or a sly attempt to mislead.

I wonder what other info we're missing as it's obvious from the title of the document "Selected DNA Samples" and the fact that it's in english that it is a document prepared by the defense and not at all complete.
Given all that, I no longer believe the bra clasp was even possibly planted or contaminated. I believe it is what the forensics said it is, a piece of evidence amongst other pieces of evidence which just happens to have Rafelle's DNA all over it.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

There were lots of empty houses and apartments in Perugia, especially with many away for the holidays. So again, what made the cottage so special?


No, Filomena testified she certainly closed the shutters. We've already done this Kestrel and it's disingenuous to keep on saying she testified she didn't remember if she closed the shutters when she did not...read Massei AGAIN:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

Filomena testified 3.12.2007 'le persiane le avevo tirate, però penso di non averle chiuse' (Pag.115)
'I have shut the shutters, but I think I did not latch them'.
And then they went into some further details - how the wood of the shutters was a bit 'twisted' because of beeing old. And therefore they would remain closed without latching them and it would afford some force to open them from outside.
**

Please keep in mind, that, with the shutters closed, you have only a little bit more than one inch of window-sill to hold on!! When you look at some fotos from the cottage you can very easy see this.
**
Our burglar-Rudy had (I cannot imagine, how) managed to reach that window-sill, hanging in a dark night,- with his hands on a one-inch-windowsill with nothing like a hook to find more grip (and let alone that notorious nail -probably not seeing him in the dark) - and then loose one hand to open wooden shutters - as described above and draw them, or at least one of them, outside.
Lets imagine, he is successful, then he has at least a part of window sill, with about 8 inches width, but still hanging on that sill.
For smashing the window with that rock there are 2 possibilities: he has brought that rock with him (Rucksack?) or he jumps down that 3 1/2 meters, risking a brocken leg, throw the window and start that burdensome climbing again.
I am still imagining, that he managed this also, why does he not completely remove the remaing (sharp edges like a guilloutine) glass - instead of risking his wrists beeing slashed ??
**
And of course all this happens without a microscopic little piece of evidence, neither on the ground, nor on the wall, nor on that window....
**
I have read for quite a long time your posts and your different scenarios.
For me, beeing a very practical person, I always try to imagine this scenario, as if I where that burglar. Maybe I do a bit better, because I once lived in an old farmhouse with windows and shutters like they are described here.

 

[Amazer]

In a town were students often pay the rent in cash, an isolated and empty student dwelling would be a tempting target on the weekend before the rent is due.

That might have been true 30 years, perhaps even 20 years ago but now with ATM's at just about every corner? It would be rare for any house hold to have large sums of cash lying about.