Thank you!
I guess we arrived at the point of this topic, where it boils down to personal experiences. I understand your concerns, however I don't share them. I too have a garden and walking on the grass on a dry day doesn't result in tracking any dirt or grass on my shoes. Look at the photo:
http://injusticeinperugia.org/hendry19.jpg
there is no bare soil or dirt under the window. The ground is covered with rich vegetation and yellow leaves. On a dry day - and Nov 1 was dry - you'll not get your shoes dirty from it.
Also, if you look at the hi-res photo of the climbing lawyer, you'll notice that his shoes are not stained in any way, nor does he leave any soil on the grating bars.
Your argument hangs also on another assumption, namely that ILE would notice and record the traces if there were any. I don't think it is certain. We saw examples of traces that were left untested - the piece of glass from Meredith's room, the powdery tracks next to Filomena's window. There are no records, photos or documentation of any search of the ground under the window or the wall itself. We have only some testimony.
I personally prefer the solid records of any investigative activity.
I would sum up four or five objections.
1. The first: my statement this is possible, was made without taking in account the distance between the grid and the window. In fact looking back at the wall I see them as too distant. A person 1,80 high cannot stand on the grid and reach the window latch.
2. You cannot talk about a dry day. You are talking about November in Perugia. And night time. You would find nothing dry on soil. Humidity was 70% in average during Nov 1. and 90% during Nov 2. Even less dry in that pit.
3. Police witnesses testified not only about the lack of prints and soil inside, but also about the grass and soil being completely moist.
4. The locution "
only some testimonies" is a kind of self deceit. A trial would rest, legally, ultimetely on testimonies. Documents different from testimonies afe hold in hight esteem by internet bloggers, but in reality they don't exist without testimonies. A "visible" document - like a photo or video - can be fabricated, can be a fake. Any document would require the confirmation of a testimony. You cn't bring a video in the trial, for example, without a witness testifying at what time and date the video was recorded, who was there, and so on. Everything rests on testimonies. Experts reports and documents do not exist by themselves without a witness questioned about them. You simply cannot have "solid records" independent from testimony, you can never have this material as a topic of discussion alone in an Italian trial.
The police docmented there were no shoeprints. Whatever you "prefer" to see, you cannot just decide to dismiss witness reports and investigators reports as if they didn't exist.
5. Photo documentation showing no trace of soil inside the house is available. Youd detect crmbles that I easily identify with white paint (not with whitewash), then you identify rock powder (which could be from the stone, but doesn't change anything logically). But there is no soil. There is no trace of grass. Photo documentation also shows the soil was
not covered with rich vegetation: there was a surface of black, soft earth (this can been assessed in a picture taken that day from beneath) together with a kind vegetation (stellaria, amaranthus, etc.) that would show the marks of steps. There is no trace of removal of broken glass from the window sill, and this is an issue, you think of a person who has crawl or pull himself across the window sill.
. "Cartoon" covers a lot of ground. Are there any pictures?
