Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Rose,

I don't know if the glass fragment was collected as evidence or tested. It is mentioned in the motivations on pages 160 and 381 (may be even more references - those are two I know of) included in the hypothesis of Professor Introna with regards to the small wounds on Meredith's hands. Masse alsoi gives his interpretation of the fragment.

There were over 200 items/samples collected which over 400 specimens were taken and analyzed. I would think there would be an inventory of those items listed but I don't know for certain.

It seems they also saw it in the video, the first theory that it formed the wounds on Meredith's hands does not make sense as it does not appear to be bloody at all and the second theory is that it got carried in there inadvertently by Amanda or Raffaele after they busted Filomena's window. Charlie's theory makes the most sense to me, the other theory about the busted bottle after a drunken orgy is silly as well. I didn't see anything showing they collected it or tested it. The thing about advancing theories like this is that if it was tested Massei should have said something about it supporting his theory (glass consistent with the window glass) and discounting the other theory (no blood on the glass).

 

[christianahannah]

It seems they also saw it in the video, the first theory that it formed the wounds on Meredith's hands does not make sense as it does not appear to be bloody at all and the second theory is that it got carried in there inadvertently by Amanda or Raffaele after they busted Filomena's window. Charlie's theory makes the most sense to me, the other theory about the busted bottle after a drunken orgy is silly as well. I didn't see anything showing they collected it or tested it. The thing about advancing theories like this is that if it was tested Massei should have said something about it supporting his theory (glass consistent with the window glass) and discounting the other theory (no blood on the glass).

Massei does discount the theory of the glass being used in the wounds on Meredith's hands (no blood stain on glass). Whether he derives the no blood stain from a visual perspective or testing perspective (or both), I don't know.

The theory of the glass embedded in shoe perhaps, however, is there evidence of scrapes or scratches on floor from walking around with glass on bottom of shoe? And if that glass did embed in bottom of shoe I am having a difficult time believing it did so swinging from planter to balance on ledge while reaching in to unlatch window to enter room.

 

[RoseMontague]

My initial theory of the remaining glass on the sill was that it was secondary fallout when the window was closed after Rudy entered the room. It might be possible to trace the pieces and reconstruct the puzzle to see if they are inner edge (removed by hand to enlarge the opening to reach the latch) or outer edge (fell out on their own) pieces. If the edges are not there then neither scenario fits well.

I don't believe the inner shutter latch is important since Filomena didn't have any reason to latch it, it was not latched on discovery and the latch did not show signs of being broken.

The latches on the slats on the inner shutter seem to use a pole type that connects at the top and bottom of the window in slots that are plainly visible. By turning the circular knob that is located in the middle they connect at the top in this manner. The best pic for that is that window 105 pic but it is to big to download and I have lost the link for this one. In any case the slot on the bottom appears to be torn and damaged possibly from a forced entry (or a rock hitting the shutter).

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/105.JPG

 

[Chris C]

You would have to elaborate on this to make me think about other scenarios. Where would the rock land according to you if it bounced from the inner blind?

Ok apparently people are wondering how the rock landed there. So I'll explain it you. The rock landed where it did based on how fast the inner shutter opened. As an example go get a small rock and throw it at your door while its cracked. The rock will bounce off. The door will probably barely move. Go get a brick and i bet the door will swing open and the brick land inside. The rock uses the same dynamics. The rock is thrown with force at the window. The glass will break and the remaining kinetic energy the thrown rock is generating while strike the shutter. The weight of the shutter will then absorb some of the kinetic energy pushing it open. The rock will then ricochet off the shutter. Now where the rock will ricochet and land, depends on how much energy the shutter absorbs and how fast the shutter swings open. If the shutter swings open slowly then the rock only has a small angle of entrance into the window. The fact that the rock hits close to the hinges of the shutter suggests the window opens slower compared to if it hit towards the middle of the window, because thats the point on the shutter that needs the greatest amount of kinetic energy to open the shutter. The momentum of the rock will basicly go where the shutter allows it to go.

Also, does the rock have sollecito's or knox's dna on it? Did they bother to check? The rock would have had to been picked up off the floor if it was thrown from the inside and placed at the new location. Since any rock thrown from the inside couldn't have landed there, because thats where the person would have had to been standing to break it from the inside.

Also, we dont know if Filomena moved the bag. She could have moved it a foot or 2 while searching for missing stuff.

 

[christianahannah]

Ok apparently people are wondering how the rock landed there. So I'll explain it you. The rock landed where it did based on how fast the inner shutter opened. As an example go get a small rock and throw it at your door while its cracked. The rock will bounce off. The door will probably barely move. Go get a brick and i bet the door will swing open and the brick land inside. The rock uses the same dynamics. The rock is thrown with force at the window. The glass will break and the remaining kinetic energy the thrown rock is generating while strike the shutter. The weight of the shutter will then absorb some of the kinetic energy pushing it open. The rock will then ricochet off the shutter. Now where the rock will ricochet and land, depends on how much energy the shutter absorbs and how fast the shutter swings open. If the shutter swings open slowly then the rock only has a small angle of entrance into the window. The fact that the rock hits close to the hinges of the shutter suggests the window opens slowly because thats the point on the shutter that needs the greatest amount of kinetic energy to open the shutter. The momentum of the rock will basicly go where the shutter allows it to go.

Also, does the rock have sollecito's or knox's dna on it? Did they bother to check? The rock would have had to been picked up off the floor if it was thrown from the inside and placed at the new location. Since any rock thrown from the inside couldn't have landed there, because thats where the person would have had to been standing to break it from the inside.

From the motivations, page 193:

During the second search, on the suggestion of the defence's technical consultant Professor Saverio Potenza, the large rock and two fragments found on the floor of the room were tested, but they yielded negative results.

 

[quadraginta]

Now I see where all the confusion comes from.

quadraginta, I don't know who alleged that Rudy crawled through that window, but I certainly agree with you that crawling is the worst possible choice of entering it. Placing a foot or two on the ledge and then stepping in makes much more sense.

I find it amusing that so many of these scenarios proposed by supporters of a break-in focus on what could have been done before the intruder was on the ledge, and then conjecture what might have happened after he was up on the ledge, and completely avoid any discussion of the intervening process. Getting onto the ledge.

How did he place a foot or two on the ledge? I bet you're not suggesting he walked on air.

This ledge is not a waiting room. To avoid disturbing the glass we are talking about an approximately six or eight by sixteen inch surface, maybe ten feet above the ground. That's after the exterior shutters are open.

This is small. Very small.

This is about the size of the flap on a standard cardboard box. Don't just sit at your keyboard and dream up implausible hypotheses. Try some stuff out. Cut a piece of cardboard eight by sixteen inches and place it against a wall. Then stand on it and see how much you can do. Remember that there is supposed to be another eight inch overhang about three feet above where you're standing. You have to stay crouched below that or pretend to be leaning out to avoid it. (Whoops. You just fell over. Hope you didn't get hurt.)

Put it on the edge of your kitchen counter and kneel on the floor below it. Now place your fingers on it with your arms flat against the side of the cabinet and imagine you are hanging ten feet in the air. LJ thinks you can easily pull yourself up onto the countertop without scraping the side of the cabinet. What do you think?

Give yourself a real thrill. Stack a pile of books under that piece of cardboard while it's against the wall to simulate an edge. Now try standing on it again. Don't forget what's overhead. (Whoops! Sorry. )

I am not saying that it is "impossible" for someone to have gotten through that window without disturbing the glass on half of the sill. (I understand that this statement will be utterly disregarded and misrepresented in just a few pages or posts.) I am saying that the arguments which suggest that it would be easy or trivial to do are completely fantastic, and that it is vanishingly unlikely that someone did, or would even have bothered to try.

 

[Chris C]

Oh dear.

Here we go........

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100920/ten-foxy-knoxy-story-to-be-made-into-a-m-ea4616c.html

Well I will say thats not gonna be a channel that will side with Mignini. Thats like the main women's network in America. Could be worse though. Could have been the oxygen channel where Mignini would be compared to Hitler and Stalin.

 

[Chris C]

I find it amusing that so many of these scenarios proposed by supporters of a break-in focus on what could have been done before the intruder was on the ledge, and then conjecture what might have happened after he was up on the ledge, and completely avoid any discussion of the intervening process. Getting onto the ledge.

How did he place a foot or two on the ledge? I bet you're not suggesting he walked on air.

This ledge is not a waiting room. To avoid disturbing the glass we are talking about an approximately six or eight by sixteen inch surface, maybe ten feet above the ground. That's after the exterior shutters are open.

This is small. Very small.

This is about the size of the flap on a standard cardboard box. Don't just sit at your keyboard and dream up implausible hypotheses. Try some stuff out. Cut a piece of cardboard eight by sixteen inches and place it against a wall. Then stand on it and see how much you can do. Remember that there is supposed to be another eight inch overhang about three feet above where you're standing. You have to stay crouched below that or pretend to be leaning out to avoid it. (Whoops. You just fell over. Hope you didn't get hurt.)

Put it on the edge of your kitchen counter and kneel on the floor below it. Now place your fingers on it with your arms flat against the side of the cabinet and imagine you are hanging ten feet in the air. LJ thinks you can easily pull yourself up onto the countertop without scraping the side of the cabinet. What do you think?

Give yourself a real thrill. Stack a pile of books under that piece of cardboard while it's against the wall to simulate an edge. Now try standing on it again. Don't forget what's overhead. (Whoops! Sorry. )

I am not saying that it is "impossible" for someone to have gotten through that window without disturbing the glass on half of the sill. (I understand that this statement will be utterly disregarded and misrepresented in just a few pages or posts.) I am saying that the arguments which suggest that it would be easy or trivial to do are completely fantastic, and that it is vanishingly unlikely that someone did, or would even have bothered to try.

You could also just put on a thick shirt and not have to worry about the class on the ledge. It was Nov. and i Heard it was in the 50's.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you honestly believe that? I don't think that you do.

But if you do then you obviously know little or nothing about climbing of any sort, or about the capabilities of the average person. Yes, it could feasibly be done. It certainly could not "easily" be done by many people. Anyone capable of doing it "easily" would be verging on the skills and training of a world class gymnast.

I think we can be fairly confident that Guede is not. If he was he would have had no money problems. He would have been performing somewhere.

Try it yourself sometime. Find a wall with a top above your head and see how "easily" you can do it. Invite all your friends to try. Get back to us with the results. Please include video.

Only.....the sill wouldn't have been above the intruder's head if his feet were on the top bar of the grill over the window below. It would have been at about the level of his armpits.

So yeah, I found a wall whose height was level with my armpits. I stood with my feet tight up against the bottom of the wall, I placed my hands on the top of the wall, and pushed up with my legs and arms simultaneously. I was able to get straight up to the top of the wall and place my knee on the top. My feet only very lightly brushed against the surface of the wall on my way up. And I'm in no way in as good a physical condition as, say, Rudy Guede was on November 1st 2007.

You should try it some time. It might be instructive.

 

[LondonJohn]

I find it amusing that so many of these scenarios proposed by supporters of a break-in focus on what could have been done before the intruder was on the ledge, and then conjecture what might have happened after he was up on the ledge, and completely avoid any discussion of the intervening process. Getting onto the ledge.

How did he place a foot or two on the ledge? I bet you're not suggesting he walked on air.

This ledge is not a waiting room. To avoid disturbing the glass we are talking about an approximately six or eight by sixteen inch surface, maybe ten feet above the ground. That's after the exterior shutters are open.

This is small. Very small.

This is about the size of the flap on a standard cardboard box. Don't just sit at your keyboard and dream up implausible hypotheses. Try some stuff out. Cut a piece of cardboard eight by sixteen inches and place it against a wall. Then stand on it and see how much you can do. Remember that there is supposed to be another eight inch overhang about three feet above where you're standing. You have to stay crouched below that or pretend to be leaning out to avoid it. (Whoops. You just fell over. Hope you didn't get hurt.)

Put it on the edge of your kitchen counter and kneel on the floor below it. Now place your fingers on it with your arms flat against the side of the cabinet and imagine you are hanging ten feet in the air. LJ thinks you can easily pull yourself up onto the countertop without scraping the side of the cabinet. What do you think?

Give yourself a real thrill. Stack a pile of books under that piece of cardboard while it's against the wall to simulate an edge. Now try standing on it again. Don't forget what's overhead. (Whoops! Sorry. )

I am not saying that it is "impossible" for someone to have gotten through that window without disturbing the glass on half of the sill. (I understand that this statement will be utterly disregarded and misrepresented in just a few pages or posts.) I am saying that the arguments which suggest that it would be easy or trivial to do are completely fantastic, and that it is vanishingly unlikely that someone did, or would even have bothered to try.

Nice tone to your post here.....

1) Why are you suggesting that an intruder would have been standing on that small space, as per your little "experiment"? The logical hypothesis is that an intruder would have sat or kneeled in this area, with the opened exterior shutters as a hand support. Did you forget about the assistance available from the exterior shutters?

2) Where has all this "hanging 10 feet in the air" stuff come from? There is demonstrable support from the grill over the window below. To suggest that an intruder would have been essentially hanging from his fingertips from Filomena's ledge, and would have had to pull himself up onto the ledge from that position, is misleading at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Time for some new experiments.

 

[LondonJohn]

Massei does discount the theory of the glass being used in the wounds on Meredith's hands (no blood stain on glass). Whether he derives the no blood stain from a visual perspective or testing perspective (or both), I don't know.

The theory of the glass embedded in shoe perhaps, however, is there evidence of scrapes or scratches on floor from walking around with glass on bottom of shoe? And if that glass did embed in bottom of shoe I am having a difficult time believing it did so swinging from planter to balance on ledge while reaching in to unlatch window to enter room.

I reckon the most logical reasoning for the glass in Meredith's room is that it was trapped in a fold in the clothing of someone who entered the house via Filomena's room. Maybe the intruder had put his coat over the broken glass on the windowsill to facilitate his entry, and the glass had remained lodged in the coat. It's then not unlikely that the glass could have become dislodged during the struggle with Meredith, leading to its subsequent discovery on her floor. This seems to me to be far more plausible and likely than glass being dislodged from the assailant's shoe.

 

[katy_did]

Mind you, the Massei theory is that Amanda and Raffaele broke the window by throwing a rock out the window with the shutters closed to catch it, and then putting the rock down in the room. That's his story for why there is a pile of large pieces of glass directly outside the hole on the sill, but none on the ground below.

I thought that Massei said the window was broken the other way, by Amanda and Raffaele leaning behind the window and breaking it from outside in. It seems to have been the only way he could account for the evidence that the window was broken from the outside. As I understood the report, they're supposed to have closed the outer shutters, opened the window a little bit (but still close enough that glass could fall on the outer sill), and held the inner shutter up against it (to account for the scratch), then broke the window from outside. Then I guess they would need to have dropped rather than placed the rock on the floor, to account for the fragments which broke off it. At least, I think that's what Massei suggests, though it's been ages since I read that part so I might be wrong.

Basically Massei has to come up with a staging that would mirror exactly what would've happened if the window had been broken by someone throwing the rock from outside (spray pattern of the glass, mark on the inner shutter, glass falling on the outer and inner sills, etc)...

 

[Chris C]

I thought that Massei said the window was broken the other way, by Amanda and Raffaele leaning behind the window and breaking it from outside in. It seems to have been the only way he could account for the evidence that the window was broken from the outside. As I understood the report, they're supposed to have closed the outer shutters, opened the window a little bit (but still close enough that glass could fall on the outer sill), and held the inner shutter up against it (to account for the scratch), then broke the window from outside. Then I guess they would need to have dropped rather than placed the rock on the floor, to account for the fragments which broke off it. At least, I think that's what Massei suggests, though it's been ages since I read that part so I might be wrong.

Basically Massei has to come up with a staging that would mirror exactly what would've happened if the window had been broken by someone throwing the rock from outside (spray pattern of the glass, mark on the inner shutter, glass falling on the outer and inner sills, etc)...

Thats the way I understood Massei when he talked about the broken window. I took it to mean that Knox/Sollecito, staged the broken window to make it look like the rock was thrown from outside.

Its funny how, the body was staged to look like rape. The window was staged to look like the rock was thrown from outside and there was a break in. They used 2 knives instead of 1. Oh wait no they used 1 knife, they just barely stabbed her twice. They cleaned up the scene to make it look like 1 person attacked and killed Meredith. Meredith didn't want to have sex with Rudy, so Amanda jumped in and helped Rudy rape Meredith while Sollecito watched. Then knox killed Meredith and staged every aspect of this crime while Rudy was dancing at a night club.

So basicly from start to finish, the prosecution theory. Knox and Sollecito rushed over to Amanda's/Meredith's apartment. On their way the met up with Rudy. Went into the apartment and all 3 sat down. Knox and Sollecito decide to get stoned and Rudy decides to go rape Meredith while Knox/Sollecito are getting stoned. Meredith fights back and knox rushes in to helps Rudy rape her. Sollecito decides to watch while Rudy has his way. Then suddenly knox decides shes wants to kill meredith and stabs her 2 times, switches knives and has Rudy and Sollecito hold Meredith while Knox cuts her throat. Then Rudy takes a crap, drinks some OJ and leaves to go clubbing. Meanwhile Knox and Sollecito are left to stage a crime scene while they are still stoned out of their mind. That is the prosecution theory of how this crime happened.

Of course they didn't do this whole crime at once. They decided to go play basketball in the middle of the night in between rape and murder.

 

[katy_did]

Thats the way I understood Massei when he talked about the broken window. I took it to mean that Knox/Sollecito, staged the broken window to make it look like the rock was thrown from outside.

Its funny how, the body was staged to look like rape. The window was staged to look like the rock was thrown from outside and there was a break in. They used 2 knives instead of 1. Oh wait no they used 1 knife, they just barely stabbed her twice. They cleaned up the scene to make it look like 1 person attacked and killed Meredith. Meredith didn't want to have sex with Rudy, so Amanda jumped in and helped Rudy rape Meredith while Sollecito watched. Then knox killed Meredith and staged every aspect of this crime while Rudy was dancing at a night club.

Yeah, Massei's not really a fan of Occam's razor, is he?

Knox and Sollecito staged the break-in to make it look as if a burglar had climbed up to the window and entered the house. Rudy, who had recently been associated with a burglary in which the culprit climbed up to a window and entered the house, would never have staged a burglary because, as a burglar, he knew suspicion would've fallen on him.

You couldn't make it up (oh wait...)

 

[piktor]

Do you honestly believe that? I don't think that you do.

But if you do then you obviously know little or nothing about climbing of any sort, or about the capabilities of the average person. Yes, it could feasibly be done. It certainly could not "easily" be done by many people. Anyone capable of doing it "easily" would be verging on the skills and training of a world class gymnast.

I think we can be fairly confident that Guede is not. If he was he would have had no money problems. He would have been performing somewhere.

Try it yourself sometime. Find a wall with a top above your head and see how "easily" you can do it. Invite all your friends to try. Get back to us with the results. Please include video.

Our "climber" left zero glass on the ground below . That is an epic feat in itself.

As FBI agent Moore is fond of saying,
our "climber" hovered over Filomena's room.

He left no fibers ,
no finger prints ,
no palm prints ,
no shoe prints ,
no DNA .

NOTHING ​

More a Flying Wallenda than seasoned raping/murdering burglar.

 

[Mary_H]

From: www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/39Foxy-Knoxy39-story-to-be.6540695.jp

I believe Amanda got the nickname from her soccer team back home. I KNOW it wasn't "because of her colourful sex life"

Don't the European newspapers have fact checkers?

If truth prevails, then Amanda should be cleared of all charges. Then, if she wished, she could sue everybody. Fortunately for the people that have maligned her, I think she would rather forgive and forget then spend anymore time in court (or so she indicated in her last speech in court)

I, too, think Amanda would rather forgive and forget, but her lawyers might feel otherwise. Suing all the people who harmed Amanda would be a gold mine for them.

 

[Mary_H]

Our "climber" left zero glass on the ground below . That is an epic feat in itself.

As FBI agent Moore is fond of saying,
our "climber" hovered over Filomena's room.

He left no fibers ,
no finger prints ,
no palm prints ,
no shoe prints ,
no DNA .

NOTHING ​

More a Flying Wallenda than seasoned raping/murdering burglar.

piktor, your post accidentally gives the mistaken impression that Steve Moore made that comment about Rudy. He did not. He said that if Amanda and Raffaele were in the room where the murder took place, then they were "hovering."

 

[RWVBWL]

I reckon the most logical reasoning for the glass in Meredith's room is that it was trapped in a fold in the clothing of someone who entered the house via Filomena's room. Maybe the intruder had put his coat over the broken glass on the windowsill to facilitate his entry, and the glass had remained lodged in the coat. It's then not unlikely that the glass could have become dislodged during the struggle with Meredith, leading to its subsequent discovery on her floor. This seems to me to be far more plausible and likely than glass being dislodged from the assailant's shoe.

_________________________________________________________________

Hi LondonJohn,
Didn't Amanda and Raffaele show the Postal Police what they thought was odd that day?

I wonder if it is also possible that Postal Police Officer Battistelli might have tracked the glass shard from Filomena's room when he went inside Miss Kercher's room to see if she was still alive.

Or wait a sec, he said in court that he didn't go in the room to check on her well being though, didn't he? So I guess that he couldn't have done this.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Katody Matrass]

I find it amusing that so many of these scenarios proposed by supporters of a break-in focus on what could have been done before the intruder was on the ledge, and then conjecture what might have happened after he was up on the ledge, and completely avoid any discussion of the intervening process. Getting onto the ledge.

Thanks, quadraginta, your post amused me too
But in fact getting onto the ledge is not something I'm overlooking. You're right that the window ledge is not very large, being about 20x80 cm. It's also not very far from the plantar on the corner of the cottage - about 1 - 1.2m max.

It's funny that you're suggesting some practical experiments, because it's something I've already tried not long ago.
I'm not very tall (below 1.8m) and moderately fit. And as I happen to have a suitable 1.2m wall with a corner I checked if I could reach the "window" standing on a simulated "planter edge". Easy stuff, especially when you have something to grab - like Rudy had the oblique roof beam above the planter.

OK. So Rudy could reach the window and push the shutter flat on the wall - now he has a 20 cm deep window edge to hold with his left hand.
Next thing I tried was stepping over that gap while embracing the corners with both hands - again, definitely doable for me, for Rudy - taller and fitter - a piece of cake.

OK, standing on a 20 cm wide ledge - I tried it before you suggested it, could you imagine ? - another piece of cake, you just need hand support and Rudy had window edges, shutters, even the roof above.

Next thing I tried - can I lean or lower myself to "unlatch" the window when standing on a 20 cm ledge by a wall? Again - as long as you keep your hand on something firm you can do it on both feet, with one dangling in the air, however you wish - piece of cake.

And this is just one approach - from the planter.
The other one - from the grating below it is as easy - even easier because you can unlatch the window while standing on the grating. Remember the climbing lawyer pic? The guy stands on the middle bar and is already level with the window. Is he a giant? If I had the window sill at my armpits level I could easily reach 70 cm above it. Maybe Rudy has very short hands? But wasn't he a semi-pro basketball player?

 

[katy_did]

It would be interesting (and probably revealing) to look at the original reasons the police thought the break-in was staged, and to compare them with the reasons presented by the prosecution in court.

From memory, early on the newspapers suggested a staging based firstly on the theory that a crime of this type is often carried out by someone the victim knew, usually a boyfriend or another man she was friendly with. A "romance gone wrong" sort of thing (I have a feeling one of the newspapers even used that phrase...). Secondly there was the fact nothing was stolen. It seems as if the postal police's early surprise that nothing was taken (obviously before the murder was discovered) was then picked up by the other investigators, even though an attempted burglary ending in murder is a pretty obvious reason for the burglary side of things to be abandoned. At the beginning, those seem to be the two main reasons why they thought the break-in was staged. No evidence linked to the state of the window, the wall, the ground etc is mentioned.

The first reference to the window itself that I can remember (in terms of it indicating a staging) is some weeks later, when one of the papers reported that "scientific tests showed the window was broken from the inside". To me that implies the window was broken from inside out, i.e. by someone inside when the window was closed. I wonder if the reason they thought the window was broken that way is because of the glass on the outer windowsill, which I suppose intuitively might have led them to think it could only have been broken from the inside. The blog entry from Frank Sfarzo which deals with the expert testimony about the window states that the glass on the outer windowsill was used by many on the pro-guilt side to 'prove' that the window was broken from the inside. He goes on to say it would be funny if, now they've learned that it's normal for glass to fall on the outer sill even if the window was broken from outside, they went on to argue it should have fallen even further outside than it did!

If the above are the reasons the police initially suspected the break-in was staged - and if they differ so much from the reasons the prosecution eventually presented in court as evidence - then how can we really trust they realized the importance of, say, checking the ground for fallen glass? The fact they don't seem to have taken pictures of either the ground or the wall outside the window suggests they didn't think it was all that important. Is this just yet another instance where they jumped to a conclusion early on, then had to scrabble around later looking for evidence to support it?