Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Grinder]

The statement has made often that contamination must be proven. It seems a ridiculous requirement, perhaps in Italy it is required?

But if a highly sensitive test needs proof of contamination wouldn't calling a break in "staged" also require maybe just a little proof. Wouldn't labeling footprints bloody require more proof than the level of glow of luminol? Wouldn't attributing a bloody footprint on a squishy bath mat to one person require more than saying it looks more like his than his?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

an ill-considered suggestion

Another "major" reason to hate her is that she never recanted the accusation. My reading of the notes was at the time and remains that she did recant as strongly as possible considering that she being held by the people that had told what would happen to her if she didn't cooperate. I've always thought that she couldn't say for certain that he didn't participate in the murder unless she was at the cottage during the murder. It must be remembered that police lied about the evidence they had and they "knew the truth".

Grinder,

She made her confusion plain as of 6 November. She told her parents that she did not believe that she had been at the cottage on the night of 1 November, and the police listened in, so they knew what she was thinking. She apologized on 30 November. The notion that she should voluntarily talk to the police to tell them what she told her parents may be an honest expression of one's beliefs, but it is extremely ill-considered because it is so potentially detrimental to the person who is accused, irrespective of his or her guilt or innocence. Once one is incarcerated, one has to learn only to talk to the police in the presence of one's lawyers and only talk about what they agree should be talked about. It would not make sense to hire a lawyer and then fail to follow their advice. Any contrary advice is naive. MOO.

 

[AmyStrange]

You hit the nail right on the head for me...

If Amanda had one flaw, it was to assume that people were all the same. She assumed the police would be understanding.

Raising my children, I almost got the feeling that if you them too good and understand them too much, that they will project the characteristics of the parents on others. I think Amanda projected her parents onto the police and thought the police only had good intentions for her. The result was that she talked too much.

Perhaps the police would have had more respect for Amanda had she spoken perfect Italian with no accent. We are all prejudiced against people that don't speak our language perfectly. I instinctively think of blacks and people from India as white if their accent is perfect. I always surprise myself by not thinking of the colored as colored if they speak perfect English.

I am troubled that some of the guilters try to find bad characteristics in Amanda to explain Guede's murder and justify their belief that Amanda is guilty. If the instinct of the guilters is no better than to think normal characteristics as evil, then that means they will see you and I as evil. They will see evil in everybody. Perhaps they are more paranoid as indicated by their seeing evil in normal or superior behavior. If they see more evil in the world, are they likely to lash out at others more frequently? Are guilters as a group more likely to engage in anti social behavior?

Perhaps it isn't good for a society coddle the idea that there are good people and bad people. It is a dangerous belief if people don't know what they are looking for. The villians on TV are always angry and always hurt everybody else. It's usually not that simple.

-

especially your last paragraph Justinian,

in the classic old movies, the bad guy wore a black hat and the good guys wore white hats. Simpler times indeed, then Macartyism came along, and Vietnam, and movies like "Rebel Without a Cause", "Easy Rider", "Mad Max", and "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" and all those things just helped to blur the line between good and evil and our understanding of what they are and how to pick them out of a line up.

It should have taught us all that what you say is right, deciding who is good and who is evil isn't always as simple as who wears the white hat and who wears the black one,

Dave

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Leskie and Mixer contamination cases

The statement has made often that contamination must be proven. It seems a ridiculous requirement, perhaps in Italy it is required?

But if a highly sensitive test needs proof of contamination wouldn't calling a break in "staged" also require maybe just a little proof. Wouldn't labeling footprints bloody require more proof than the level of glow of luminol? Wouldn't attributing a bloody footprint on a squishy bath mat to one person require more than saying it looks more like his than his?

Grinder,

Someone associated with the prosecution said this (I do not remember who), and it is has become a mantra of those who are pro-guilt. It is nonsense. No one know for certain precisely when the contamination took place in the Jaidyn Leskie case, and that case of contamination was especially carefully looked at. In this case the DNA of a possible rape victim (Ms. P) who probably never left her village was found on the clothing of a toddler (who lived elsewhere, IIRC) whose body had been submerged for months before it was discovered. The existence of contamination is concluded when no other reasonable explanation for the presence of DNA exists. The Mixer murder is a good example of something that is far more easily explained by contamination than by Mr. Leiterman's guilt. MOO.
EDT
Luminol is a presumptive test, not a confirmatory test, for blood. The lack of DNA in the luminol footprints does not help the case that they were made in blood (though DNA is not a confirmatory test for blood, either).

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Good work! Nice article. Bonito!

Note that the video of Marty Tankleff has been removed.

This page has been on IIP for a while now. I had not noticed that the video was removed until I posted the link above. Most recently we have been adding videos we use to the IIP YouTube page to avoid other users deleting them. I will look to see if I can find the video that I had posted about Marty Tankleff. It is a good example.

Saul Kassin reviewed Amanda's case and he is fully convinced that she is innocent. His work on false confessions is outstanding.

Thanks for taking a look.

 

[Antony]

You may be right that many folks may not go read both sites and assume that both sides are as bad as the other, but with your permission, I would like to add your second paragraph above (word for word, no editing) to our blog as "a comment from a reader - Antony:". Is this the BLG-2011-06 blog or the BLG-2011-07 blog. We would be happy to attach it to both.

It was the May 2011 blog (BLG-2011-05) - and of course you may use my quote; it would be worth adding that it came from the current JREF thread as well.

One other comment - why do you think it necessary to include the banner "!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!" over and over again on the later pages? Of course it's right that her friends and family should remember her privately in whatever way they choose - but there's no reason for us in the wider world who didn't know who she was until the murder was reported, to remember her particularly.

To us, it was a senseless and avoidable death, but hardly a unique one. The best way to honour Meredith Kercher is to do what we can to have the Italian police and courts held to account for bungling the investigation, for persecuting 2 innocent people in her name, and for failing to prevent the murder in the first place by not arresting Rudy Guede after his 2 previous break-ins.

Filling your blog with pleas to "remember Meredith!" smacks of trying to appease the faction bizarrely attacking her 2 innocent friends, who have also suffered enormously as a result of the tragedy. These are the people who seek to manipulate sympathy for her family and who try to make out that disagreeing with them over how Meredith died, is somehow disrespectful (!)
Why not remember Rachel Nickell, who was murdered in July 1992 on Wimbledon Common, or Jodi Jones, murdered in Scotland in 2003 (for which her boyfriend was convicted on shaky evidence)?

And by the way, thank you so much for reading our blog and for presenting us with your critical analysis of what we said. It is deeply appreciated,

Dave

I'm glad you've given me a platform to express my views. Have you thought of including a "readers' comments" section on your site?

 

[Dougm]

Since the pro-guilters are not willing to step up and discuss I'd like to make a point for them. The reason nothing or almost nothing tying A and R to the murder room was found is that the police weren't competent. They left major, significant evidence behind only to be picked up 6 weeks later. Proof that they aren't competent. In those six weeks DNA might, I mean did, move from some of the items to the floor or never to be tested items.

BTW the video of the bra clasp was done in the art de clown style because the lawyers were watching from a nearby van.

The problem with this is, if the PGers were to admit this, there goes the case.

 

[Antony]

No, wrong, just wrong! You have no idea obviously of what my position is. I suggest you stick to facts instead of making up things about people and trying to ask "gotcha" questions. In fact, reading my posts more carefully may enlighten you to my current beliefs.

This is the statement of yours which led me to understand that you think the break-in was staged:

First off let me say that I've always considered Filomeana's window the most unlikey entrance for a burglar no matter the arguments put forth here.

To me, that implies that you don't believe that Guede got in through Filomena's window, and consequently that he must have been let in, either by Meredith or Amanda. This means that the broken window was nothing to do with him being in the flat in the first place, so I don't see any other conclusion than that it was broken after the crime in order to give the impression that the killer had gained entry that way.

If that's not what you believe, then instead of getting defensive and making accusations, can you please explain what you think the reason is for the broken window, and why?

 

[JREF2010]

The statement has made often that contamination must be proven. It seems a ridiculous requirement, perhaps in Italy it is required?

But if a highly sensitive test needs proof of contamination wouldn't calling a break in "staged" also require maybe just a little proof. Wouldn't labeling footprints bloody require more proof than the level of glow of luminol? Wouldn't attributing a bloody footprint on a squishy bath mat to one person require more than saying it looks more like his than his?

You're being logical. I think I heard that from the legal counsel or one of the Judges in this case, that contamination must be proven because it is an accusation. But then this is frustrating, because mountains of accusations have been made and wind up in the Judges report!?

Here's an excerpt from Massei report to refresh what is acceptable in the trials and Judges reports....


It is to be believed that Raffaele Sollecito, who in the meantime, after having been in the small bathroom, must have put his shoes on again, went around [the outside of] the house to look for the big stone (subsequently found) to use in order to break the glass, and Amanda could, in her turn, go to the bathroom to wash her hands and feet; when Raffaele came back in with the big [410] stone the disorder in Romanelli’s room was created, the glass was broken, and the shutters pushed towards the exterior.

It's almost hard to believe this isn't some low rated movie script, that doesnt follow a plot or logic. ...but its a very real trial.

The burden is on the defense, not the prosecution, it seems in this part of Italy.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Go to .org, read the threads carefully, all of them.

Yikes. If option B is lethal injection, allow me to roll up my sleeve...

 

[AmyStrange]

You make valid points Antony...

It was the May 2011 blog (BLG-2011-05) - and of course you may use my quote; it would be worth adding that it came from the current JREF thread as well.

-

Will do and we will add a link to this forum and specifically this thread immediately after your comment. We will place them in all the places we mention TJMK and also link to IIP likewise if that is acceptable to you.

One other comment - why do you think it necessary to include the banner "!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!" over and over again on the later pages? Of course it's right that her friends and family should remember her privately in whatever way they choose - but there's no reason for us in the wider world who didn't know who she was until the murder was reported, to remember her particularly.

-

We don't think it is actually necessary except (as you figured out) for the reason you mentioned below and my other personal reason explained here in the next paragraph, but remember we also have a comment directly below that to "not (remember) Mignini" in reference to our belief (of which we comment upon in the blog at the same time we first ask people to remember her) that remembering Meredith is more important than remembering Mignini's horrible theory of why she was killed.

Plus, I personally am horrified by the way she died, and feel it is even more horrifying to turn it into a filthy and tawdry (tabloid-friendly) circus type of side-show case like Mignini did with his "sex-game gone bad" theory. We should have made that much clearer in our writings, but it's just something that bothered me deeply and thus I HAD to add the "!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!" mantra as often as we did (if for no other reason) than for my own piece of mind. Sorry if it bothers you.

Filling your blog with pleas to "remember Meredith!" smacks of trying to appease the faction bizarrely attacking her 2 innocent friends, who have also suffered enormously as a result of the tragedy. These are the people who seek to manipulate sympathy for her family and who try to make out that disagreeing with them over how Meredith died, is somehow disrespectful (!) Why not remember Rachel Nickell, who was murdered in July 1992 on Wimbledon Common, or Jodi Jones, murdered in Scotland in 2003 (for which her boyfriend was convicted on shaky evidence)?

-

True, but the blog article is about the Meredith case (and specifically about the highly probable innocence of Amanda and Raffaele) and not the Nickell case or the Jones case, but you have compelled me to at least (at some point) read about these cases further and for that I thank you also.

I'm glad you've given me a platform to express my views. Have you thought of including a "readers' comments" section on your site?

-

Yours was our first comment so we didn't see the need, but we do have a "contact us" link in our menu to the left of each individual webpage, but adding a comment notice and link at the end of each blog item would probably be a good idea and we will think about it.

Once again, thank you for your insightful comments and thoughtful criticisms and suggestions,

Dave

 

[JREF2010]

Mixed DNA ..with or without blood

Charlie, and anyone else up on the details...

One of the strongest guilt beliefs is the "mixed blood".
Barbie called it this in her interview in todays Dateline piece. Her response to the camera is this "mixed blood" is a big issue for the defense, and not explained. TJMK consider it the main evidence, even quoting Maresca as stating it was this mixed dna/blood that convinced the jury in the Massei trial. Barbie interviewed layjudges and they agreed the mixed blood was a large part of the verdict and the defense didnt address it enough.

As I understand it the reason they claim it is blood is the high peaks on the DNA charts. The locations are all in the bathroom with possibly one in Filomenas room, on the floor.

For most pro-defense, the bathroom swabs dont mean much of anything.
it was her bathroom, and finding someones dna in their bidet, sink, etc.etc..
These swabs seems very, very weak as evidence, if not supported by the knife or something from the bedroom where the crime happened.(Which there isnt anymore)

Any guesses why Hellman didn't want to have his experts include the luminol and mixed dna in their work?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie, and anyone else up on the details...

One of the strongest guilt beliefs is the "mixed blood".
Barbie called it this in her interview in todays Dateline piece. Her response to the camera is this "mixed blood" is a big issue for the defense, and not explained. TJMK consider it the main evidence, even quoting Maresca as stating it was this mixed dna/blood that convinced the jury in the Massei trial. Barbie interviewed layjudges and they agreed the mixed blood was a large part of the verdict and the defense didnt address it enough.

As I understand it the reason they claim it is blood is the high peaks on the DNA charts. The locations are all in the bathroom with possibly one in Filomenas room, on the floor.

For most pro-defense, the bathroom swabs dont mean much of anything.
it was her bathroom, and finding someones dna in their bidet, sink, etc.etc..
These swabs seems very, very weak as evidence, if not supported by the knife or something from the bedroom where the crime happened.(Which there isnt anymore)

Any guesses why Hellman didn't want to have his experts include the luminol and mixed dna in their work?

This is a desperate claim that was promoted by Luciano Garofano, a supposed forensic expert, in Darkness Descending. Garofano states that he can spot the presence of blood in a DNA sample merely by looking at the e-gram. I asked Greg Hampikian about this, and Hampikian told me in no uncertain terms that it is nonsense.

Barbie et al. are trotting it out now because the most important DNA evidence has been discredited. But the court cannot accept this "mixed blood" claim, because it is a plain fact that no forensic test was performed on any of the DNA samples that could establish whether they contained the blood of more than one person.

 

[Antony]

Will do and we will add a link to this forum and specifically this thread immediately after your comment. We will place them in all the places we mention TJMK and also link to IIP likewise if that is acceptable to you.

It's just the one place where you appear to suggest that IIP is some sort of TJMK-in-reverse that concerns me.

Plus, I personally am horrified by the way she died, and feel it is even more horrifying to turn it into a filthy and tawdry (tabloid-friendly) circus type of side-show case like Mignini did with his "sex-game gone bad" theory. We should have made that much clearer in our writings, but it's just something that bothered me deeply and thus I HAD to add the "!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!" mantra as often as we did (if for no other reason) than for my own piece of mind. Sorry if it bothers you.

It doesn't bother me particularly, it's just that I think it detracts from the credibility of your site, by begging questions as to what you are trying to do. You have to consider what the effect is on the first-time reader - and to me it just seemed baffling, and a bit weird.

Can I suggest you just include a section somewhere expressing sympathy to MK's family and friends, and perhaps regretting the sordid way some of the case has progressed. If you think it's appropriate, include a little bit of the person that Meredith was and what she should have looked forward to in her life. Having done that, there is no need to mention her memory elsewhere.

I personally would also point out that raising questions about the judicial handling of the case in no way implies disrespect or lack of sympathy for the tragedy, and protesting at the way certain commentators have tried to use the opposite suggestion as a way of furthering an agenda - but it's not my website, so I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you decided not to follow this line.

True, but the blog article is about the Meredith case (and specifically about the highly probable innocence of Amanda and Raffaele) and not the Nickell case or the Jones case, but you have compelled me to at least (at some point) read about these cases further and for that I thank you also.

The Nickell case seems to have been resolved, but not without destroying the life of a wrongly-accused man; while the Jodi Jones case seems deeply concerning: her boyfriend Luke Mitchell was helping the police in the search for her body, which was in the event found by his dog. It seems the police accused him on the basis that only the murderer would know where the body had been hidden. So they conduct a search for the body, and "solve" the crime by pinning it on whoever succeeds in locating it.

...

Once again, thank you for your insightful comments and thoughtful criticisms and suggestions,

Hey, don't lay it on thick. We're all contributing to this discussion in our own ways (even the guilter faction!)

 

[Mary_H]

If Amanda had one flaw, it was to assume that people were all the same. She assumed the police would be understanding.

Raising my children, I almost got the feeling that if you treat them too good and understand them too much, that they will project the characteristics of the parents on others. I think Amanda projected her parents onto the police and thought the police only had good intentions for her. The result was that she talked too much.

Perhaps the police would have had more respect for Amanda had she spoken perfect Italian with no accent. We are all prejudiced against people that don't speak our language perfectly. I instinctively think of blacks and people from India as white if their accent is perfect. I always surprise myself by not thinking of the colored as colored if they speak perfect English.

I am troubled that some of the guilters try to find bad characteristics in Amanda to explain Guede's murder and justify their belief that Amanda is guilty. If the instinct of the guilters is no better than to think normal characteristics as evil, then that means they will see you and I as evil. They will see evil in everybody. Perhaps they are more paranoid as indicated by their seeing evil in normal or superior behavior. If they see more evil in the world, are they likely to lash out at others more frequently? Are guilters as a group more likely to engage in anti social behavior?

Perhaps it isn't good for a society coddle the idea that there are good people and bad people. It is a dangerous belief if people don't know what they are looking for. The villians on TV are always angry and always hurt everybody else. It's usually not that simple.

Amanda did not talk too much, nor did she trust too much. Amanda had nothing to do with why she was suspected, arrested and convicted.

Even the most sophisticated person cannot fully prepare himself for betrayal -- that's why the concept of betrayal exists. It can happen to anyone, regardless of his own behavior and expectations. Wishing that the victim had done something differently shifts the blame and is not helpful.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well........ I just watched the SBS (Australian public service broadcaster) current affairs magazine "Dateline" segment on the case:

http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/601316/n/Justice-on-Trial

Of course the report has many of the usual inaccuracies, but what I found extremely interesting was the "round table" interview with the three main "journalists" covering the case - Pisa, ClouseauNadeau and Vogt - and CBS producer Sabina Castelfranco. To me, it utterly exposed the ignorance, poor judgement and pliability of the three "journalists". Here are some prime examples:

Pisa: "If you're getting some information from a primary source - like a police officer, like a prosecutor - you've got to take it at face value, you've got to believe what you're being told". Ever heard of investigative journalism and scepticism, Nick?

Clouseau: "You think: well, we're in a university town, with a lot of drugs, and a lot of co-eds, having a lot of sex..... why not?!" Why not what, Barbie? Why not brutally murder your housemate in a sex game gone wrong? You idiot.

Vogt: "She (Knox) was a girl who was deeply out of context in Italy". What does that even mean?!

Vogt (getting agitated and defensive now): "Most(??) of the jurors and judges who have looked at this case are convinced that Raffaele and Rudy and Amanda were all present; they don't know how it went down, they don't know exactly who put the knife in or what, but the confessions and all of the evidence put together has convinced multiple judges and jurors that the three were involved." Does that sound like a safe conviction to you, Andrea? Or does it sound like you appealing to authority to try to defend your increasingly indefensible position on Knox's/Sollecito's guilt?

Pisa: "In a UK court, that trial would not have taken place, because the evidence was not... I don't think was concrete enough to convict her (Knox)." So you're basically saying that in your opinion Knox should be acquitted, Nick? How long have you had that view? I don't recall that being the tone of your reporting in 2009, Nick.

Clouseau: "The question is: is this a clean conviction, is this a good conviction? No. No matter whether you think she's (Knox) innocent or guilty, was this a clean conviction? No." So you're also now saying essentially that Knox should be acquitted are you, Barbie? Cos that's what you're implying here. Seems like you too (like Pisa) have belatedly realised the truth about this case, and are reverse-ferreting like crazy. Maybe you'd like to read some of your own articles from 2008-2010 and compare them to your current opinion. That would be interesting, wouldn't it?

Vogt (now clearly backed into a corner by Castelfranco in particular and being very defensive indeed): "I err I feel that...still not been properly explained why there are mixed traces of DNA of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher in four different spots in the house... mixed blood...." (Interrupted by Castelfranco saying "What are you talking about?!"). Well now you're just being stupid, Andrea. Have you seen the crime scene video featuring the photographer (of all people) smearing large areas of the sink surface when collecting these "mixed DNA samples"? And are you really not aware that there is no proof whatsoever that the samples contained mixed blood, as opposed to Meredith's blood plus Knox's DNA from other sources (e.g. sloughed inner cheek/gum cells from normal toothbrushing)? You're an idiot, Vogt. A real idiot.

Clouseau: "I live in a house with three people (my two sons and my husband); I guarantee you I have never mixed blood with any of them anywhere in the house; I don't bleed where they bleed; we never bleed at the same time." Same goes for you, Barbie. You don't understand the evidence in this case. And you're also an idiot.

Clouseau: "If she (Knox) would have had an adequate and able defence, she'd be home right now...... she had a defence that did not defend her in the way that she needed to be defended" So you're saying again that in your opinion Knox should be acquitted, and that (in your view) it was only an incompetent defence team that got her wrongly found guilty in the first trial. Let's look once again at all those articles you wrote in 2008-2010, Barbie. You hypocritical, ignorant idiot.


To me, it's extraordinary to watch this inept, self-contradictory, ignorant, low-quality display by the three "journalists" who are supposed to be at the forefront of bringing this case to the English-speaking world. They are incompetent hacks who are clearly incapable of understanding the critical nuances of this case, and who have quite clearly been manipulated by Mignini and others. Only now are Nadeau and Pisa understanding this, although Vogt still seems to be living in some dreamland of personal denial and inability to realise just how stunningly wrong she called this case.

The only sane journalists in the piece seem to be Castelfranco (who obviously knows that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted) and Bob Graham, who makes the following incisive - and perhaps prescient - comment on the journalistic coverage of the case:

Graham: "I think we the media - collectively - have failed to ask a lot of questions."

Question: "Can you blame the media for reporting on information they're given by the police or prosecutors though?"

Graham: "Without question. If they report it without question... if they report it when some of the things they have been told are as extraordinary as they have been in this case..... there are people amongst the journalistic corps here who've got an awful lot to answer for. Will they ever be held to account? Probably not."

Says it all, really...

 

[AmyStrange]

Hmmmm...

It's just the one place where you appear to suggest that IIP is some sort of TJMK-in-reverse that concerns me.

-

Antony,

I put it at both places TJMK is mentioned:
http://www.amystrange.org/BLG-2011-05.html#comments-001a
http://www.amystrange.org/BLG-2011-06.html#comments-001a

It doesn't bother me particularly, it's just that I think it detracts from the credibility of your site, by begging questions as to what you are trying to do. You have to consider what the effect is on the first-time reader - and to me it just seemed baffling, and a bit weird.

Can I suggest you just include a section somewhere expressing sympathy to MK's family and friends, and perhaps regretting the sordid way some of the case has progressed. If you think it's appropriate, include a little bit of the person that Meredith was and what she should have looked forward to in her life. Having done that, there is no need to mention her memory elsewhere.

-

Looking it over again, you might be right. It does look weird. When I have a few minutes over the next few days (or next month), I'll remove most of them and just leave one or two and link it to a memorial site. Do any of the Kerchers (or friends of Mez) have a website up in memory of her that isn't also an obvious hate site? Can't seem to find one anywhere.

This is the closest one I've found (but it looks like it's going to be archived soon):
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7332645805

This one is interesting as they seem to be remembering Meredith by arguing that A&R are innocent:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/meredith-kercher-in-loving-memory/215205376848

Here's an article about a scholarship set up by The University of Foreigners in Perugia in memory of Meredith. Nice:
http://www.italymag.co.uk/italy/perugia/kercher-scholarship-announced

Can't find anything else about it though, but if anyone who speaks italian can search the University site for more info, I would certainly appreciate it:
http://www.unipg.it/

Hey, don't lay it on thick. We're all contributing to this discussion in our own ways (even the guilter faction!)

-

Too late. Pfffffffft (just kidding with you Antony),

Dave

 

[Matthew Best]

Barbie et al. are trotting it out now because the most important DNA evidence has been discredited. But the court cannot accept this "mixed blood" claim, because it is a plain fact that no forensic test was performed on any of the DNA samples that could establish whether they contained the blood of more than one person.

Yes, it seemed bizarre to me that a group of journalists who supposedly know more than the average person about this case could still be so credulous about the "mixed blood". Not one of them had anything to say to Nadeau about it. Even Madison Paxton appeared not to have any idea that it's not actually established that it was mixed blood rather than just mixed DNA.

 

[Danceme]

This is the statement of yours which led me to understand that you think the break-in was staged:
<snip>

Well, for one, you read the first sentence but neglected the second, "I still do but sometimes life is illogical, I accept that".

If you were curious about what i wrote why not just ask the question? instead you posted an assumption based on your own preconceived notions of what i think.
I still think Filomena's window was just about the least likely entry point for a burglar when i think of how one would suss the joint, but I did not say I don't think it happened that way, hence my second sentence. There is a difference you know.
Perhaps you agree with LJ's opinion that the kitchen window or patio door presented a greater challenge because of double paned glass but this particular argument hasn't resonated with me, coming from Canada where all windows and doors have double paned glass which regularly get broken in all kinds of break ins.
Thus, I look at the simple balcony access with an easily reached window as one which would look more appealing to a burglar, but it seems Rudy didn't. C'est la vie, perhaps it's a cultural thing

 

[Grinder]

Danceme,

I too doubted the double glass argument and still do, but when I Googled double paned something it came up with all these UK sites talking about tempered glass that is so hard to break that firemen were talking about the danger. I have no idea if Italy has such windows nor do I know if Rudy was still carrying his little break in hammer that would work on these windows.

The window does seem unlikely, but I believe Rudy named that window on his Skype call at a time when the press reports had stated it was Meredith's window.