Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Rolfe]

No, but I have been 20.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

No, but I have been 20.

Rolfe.

And a basketball player?

 

[Rolfe]

I just think it's a daft scenario. Why not just go down a dark alley or in that wood? And don't tell me a wood in November doesn't have leaves, or a dark alley doesn't have litter blowing in the wind.

Rolfe.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ok here a brief outline of what I believed happened

Rudi broke into the house, not to steal anything but to go to the bathroom. He tried the boys flat first, no answer, walked to the front and tried the front door, same reply, looked around the corner, saw Fils window and broke in.

As explanations go, this doesn't feel like a very plausible starting point. Breaking into a second storey apartment by throwing a rock through a window to relieve oneself is rather extreme, when people can and do relieve themselves in parks or in doorways. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the risk/reward ratio for a person who has only just left police custody is unfavourable to say the least.

Here the pro-innocence theory that he desperately needed money to pay rent, given that Rudy had no obvious means of support, seems to explain events substantially better. (How is Rudy planning to pay his rent in your version?).

While sitting on the toilet, Meredith comes home, Rudy tries to leave but front door is locked, he confronts Meredith and we all what escalates from there.

It doesn't make much difference at this point though. Whether he came in to use the loo or steal mobile phones and rent money, either way at this point he's a sex murderer. So I guess we can agree to differ on the original motive because I don't see how it changes anything.

Amanda comes home to change from her work cloths into her going out cloths (whatever) and hears the attack in Meredith's room, she does not even think it's a murder, likely a fight Meredith is have with someone and it's getting out of hand.

She runs to get help, Ralf, she tells him what she heard and before leaving to go to Amanda's house, he grabs the biggest knife in hos drawer.

This seems pretty weird. It seems much more likely that she'd ask if they were okay in there, or tell them to knock it off, or threaten to call the police, or actually call the police. Given all those options, silently departing to travel hundreds of meters each way to get a new boyfriend seems implausible.

Raffaele arming himself with a kitchen knife instead of the more apt knives he owned is also weird, but whatever, people are weird sometimes.

When they arrive at Amanda's house, she does not go in with Ralf, he encounters Rudi, no fight ensues, he leaves with Amanda to the park where Toto see's them and waits for Rudy to leave.

Raf does not know Rudi so when he tells Amanda what happened inside, she only knows it was a black man.

I think you can see where I'm going and it would take days to write it all down, so ask any question you like, I'll try to answer.

So they've discovered a murder, committed by a near-total stranger, of a friend and housemate, and then they decide to wander around for a while without calling the police and then try to cover it up? What's their motivation here?

I've compared your theories to mad libs before, and that feeling remains. You're stage-managing your characters about to get them from A to B with the evidence you prefer but you're not making any sensible narrative out of it.

Rationalists approaching a puzzling problem don't treat it as a game of mad libs. They gravitate to the least improbable theory, not some pet theory. Your theory currently has several points of serious improbability, where the standard pro-innocence theory lacks such weaknesses.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Timothy Egan on this case and the Central Park 5

Timothy Egan wrote, "As Knox was a she-devil with a kitchen knife, the kids in New York were a “wolf pack” that went on a “wilding” spree. The police controlled the story from start to finish, feeding a tabloid fantasy to unquestioning reporters..."

 

[MDDVS]

Prove I'm wrong - there is **** in the toilet - what's your take, and before you answer ..... are you serious?

I'll "prove" you wrong. Rudy broke in to steal cash, then he went to the toilet to take a **** (not exactly uncommon behaviour in burglars).

Evidence (you already know it but I'll repeat):

- he had burglarized houses before
- he needed money
- there is a **** in the toilet

Prove me wrong.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Ok here a brief outline of what I believed happened

Rudi broke into the house, not to steal anything but to go to the bathroom. He tried the boys flat first, no answer, walked to the front and tried the front door, same reply, looked around the corner, saw Fils window and broke in.

While sitting on the toilet, Meredith comes home, Rudy tries to leave but front door is locked, he confronts Meredith and we all what escalates from there.

Amanda comes home to change from her work cloths into her going out cloths (whatever) and hears the attack in Meredith's room, she does not even think it's a murder, likely a fight Meredith is have with someone and it's getting out of hand.

She runs to get help, Ralf, she tells him what she heard and before leaving to go to Amanda's house, he grabs the biggest knife in hos drawer.

When they arrive at Amanda's house, she does not go in with Ralf, he encounters Rudi, no fight ensues, he leaves with Amanda to the park where Toto see's them and waits for Rudy to leave.

Raf does not know Rudi so when he tells Amanda what happened inside, she only knows it was a black man.

I think you can see where I'm going and it would take days to write it all down, so ask any question you like, I'll try to answer.

This strikes me as deeply improbable. If Amanda ran away from what she judged to be a dangerous situation and told Raffaele about it, they wouldn't have returned to confront the attacker with a kitchen knife, without any idea whether he would still be there, or whether he was alone. That is just not realistic.

Here's what I think the evidence shows:

Guede broke in, Meredith came home, he killed her, sexually assaulted her, stole her money and ran off. Amanda stumbled across the scene the next day, and she was totally caught off-guard. She noticed the blood in the bathroom and the locked door, but it was an ordinary, quiet day, so it took her awhile to become really alarmed. She returned to Raffaele's, told him what she had seen, they went back to the cottage and noticed the broken window, and he called the police.

This scenario fits with criminal behavior as I understand it, it fits with witness behavior, and it fits the evidence. Your scenario makes for a more interesting and convoluted story. But why do you think it is more likely as an explanation of what really happened?

 

[RandyN]

Some PGP think the break-in was very difficult or impossible but more of them are very doubtful that it could be accomplished without evidence under the window, on the wall, on the grate and question the use of a 10 pound rock.



The diagram clearly has Rudi higher up than the picture of the taller than Rudi lawyer at IPP.

Bill once again I ask you what evidence would you require or you think would be proof of staging? A well staged break-in would leave no evidence that it was staged. The stager could have done everything including entering the room through the window to perfectly imitate a real break-in.

The PLE looked at the glass on top of things that they thought had been tossed, they didn't find foot prints or glass below the window, they were told that the shutters were closed and nothing save the make-up was removed from the room. I think it was a fair guess that a real burglar who had enough time to toss the room also had enough time to start piling up his loot. Robbers don't find loot and leave it in place they put it in a suitcase or some carrying device.



Here's where you veer off the straight and narrow. No one needs a comprehensive narrative to believe the burglary was staged or at least possibly staged



So what? Actual perps do stage things. Look it up. Google can help.



Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that, so what?

What facts?



I prefer PG to "guilters" and PI to "groupies" as the expressions inside the quotes are pejorative and distort the discussion. As Sherlock said above and I have been saying here for month (oh God years?) both sides lean towards hyperbole and self congratulatory conversations.

Im certain you meant to say the PLE SAID they looked at glass on top...but in case you meant what you said...can you please offer evidence of glass on top? I can provide you with a large amount of photos that show NO GLASS ON TOP of anything. But please...show us these missing photos of glass on top...it would be marvelous to see those.

What convinces you that they actually looked for glass outside? Or bothered to check if there was grass or mud anywhere? Did they set up the computerized camera outside to photograph that part of the crime scene? Because if they did I would love to see that data as well..

You are simply restating the prosecution case which actually was developed in more than a years time and was then presented in court. Cept they forgot that whole bothersome evidence part once again. And you who certainly knows better repeats these non-facts as if.

I happen to agree that it was always entirely possible for Guede to have smashed out the window and as he lay in wait in the darkness he notices Meredith coming across the street. Or is somehow interrupted out back perhaps and comes up with the bathroom story...Oh I need to use the bathroom badly...I thought the boys might be home...can I use yours?

But I have many doubts that he planed a staged break-in. First there is no logical reason that he needs to do that. He has killed the only witness...and other than a few partial shoe prints which I doubt he noticed there was little that a semi stupid person might think would trip him up.

I would be happy to examine proof or evidence of any sort that this was a staging. It has to make more sense and have as many points as Ron Hendrys does for Rudy coming in thru FR window though.

As for being told the shutters were closed...that is another prosecution line...simply look at the numerous photos that clearly show the shutters open...time and date stamped photos...they usually call that evidence and the shutters were not closed and or locked and or jammed tight against the swelled frames...

What facts indeed? Sherlock says lots but he provides no facts...His opinion is that Guede made one bee line from murder room to front door. meanwhile there are no facts to back up that claim...Guede could well have gone back and forth 20 times...no way to know...no facts so no conclusion about who else locked any door can be made...in fact it is not even a logical argument. Guede couldn't twist to some position so it must have been Knox who done it! Thats an illogical leap without facts to back up the assertion.

And no most PIP dont have the innocent idea and then fit facts to uphold that idea. I recall most PIP starting out giving the assumption and benefit of doubt to the police because lets face it...most times they get the right guys...I know that was certainly the case for me...and I recall many others stated that was how they first looked at the case.

What changed was the continued suspicious nature of the prosecutions assertions that never seemed to have any facts to back them up.

I mean I get the whole speculation thing...but only earlier and not later as facts come in and are boiled down. Certainly not 5 years later discussing an unimportant and really unprovable assertion of a staged break-in and there is still someone suggesting there was glass on top....when they know damn well there is not one single photo or any proof of that.

PGP OTOH refuse to present any evidence based case that fits facts and proves that AK or RS had anything to do at all with the murder of Kercher. They mention Lumumba, Knox is guilty of calumy...and thats about it ....

Sorry but the underwear thing is nothing at all like the computer hard drive issue. But I recently heard about the sexy underwear vs the Pennys undies...but yet I am certain this was hashed out in court already...both Massei and Hellmann...as if these undies were meaningful...and I recall that conclusion was that they were normal typical underwear...

What that is is a distraction from a corrupt weak case. This type of pointless non evidence is brought up in court to hide the weak to non existent case. In fact, I'm certain the prosecution often did that to cover for bigger mistakes and or "accidents"...like burning up 4 separate hard drives...

When you cant dazzle them with brilliance (or in this case evidence) then baffle them with BS. It is the only case the prosecutions have made so far...and though they keep running the same old flags they never seem to rally the truth. And there is a reason for that.

You have left out one group...Sherlock would fit into this group...they are the "involvementers" some how AK and RS have to be guilty of something although most feel not the murder itself. Again not one reliable shred of evidence to prove anything near that.

Sorry I gotta agree with the reverend again...everybody can have an opinion...but if you can't make the facts uphold your opinion then you are probably wrong.

 

[Matthew Best]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/26/my-penpal-amanda-knox

At times there is something childlike about the formerly convicted murderer, who I've been writing to for nearly four years

 

[Mary_H]

Ok here a brief outline of what I believed happened

Rudi broke into the house, not to steal anything but to go to the bathroom. He tried the boys flat first, no answer, walked to the front and tried the front door, same reply, looked around the corner, saw Fils window and broke in.

While sitting on the toilet, Meredith comes home, Rudy tries to leave but front door is locked, he confronts Meredith and we all what escalates from there.

Amanda comes home to change from her work cloths into her going out cloths (whatever) and hears the attack in Meredith's room, she does not even think it's a murder, likely a fight Meredith is have with someone and it's getting out of hand.

She runs to get help, Ralf, she tells him what she heard and before leaving to go to Amanda's house, he grabs the biggest knife in hos drawer.

When they arrive at Amanda's house, she does not go in with Ralf, he encounters Rudi, no fight ensues, he leaves with Amanda to the park where Toto see's them and waits for Rudy to leave.

Raf does not know Rudi so when he tells Amanda what happened inside, she only knows it was a black man.

I think you can see where I'm going and it would take days to write it all down, so ask any question you like, I'll try to answer.

Hi Sherlock, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Also sorry I don't have any questions for you, but I do get a very big kick out of you calling Raffaele "Ralf." Also, I tried to read my husband the exchange about Rudy climbing in to use the bathroom, but I was laughing so hard I couldn't.

No way Amanda and Ralf go back to the house with a kitchen knife and no way they get a sense or a glimpse of what's going on and don't call the police. Why wouldn't they? (Oh, I guess that's a question.)

 

[RoseMontague]

Im certain you meant to say the PLE SAID they looked at glass on top...but in case you meant what you said...can you please offer evidence of glass on top? I can provide you with a large amount of photos that show NO GLASS ON TOP of anything. But please...show us these missing photos of glass on top...it would be marvelous to see those.

What convinces you that they actually looked for glass outside? Or bothered to check if there was grass or mud anywhere? Did they set up the computerized camera outside to photograph that part of the crime scene? Because if they did I would love to see that data as well..

You are simply restating the prosecution case which actually was developed in more than a years time and was then presented in court. Cept they forgot that whole bothersome evidence part once again. And you who certainly knows better repeats these non-facts as if.

I happen to agree that it was always entirely possible for Guede to have smashed out the window and as he lay in wait in the darkness he notices Meredith coming across the street. Or is somehow interrupted out back perhaps and comes up with the bathroom story...Oh I need to use the bathroom badly...I thought the boys might be home...can I use yours?

But I have many doubts that he planed a staged break-in. First there is no logical reason that he needs to do that. He has killed the only witness...and other than a few partial shoe prints which I doubt he noticed there was little that a semi stupid person might think would trip him up.

I would be happy to examine proof or evidence of any sort that this was a staging. It has to make more sense and have as many points as Ron Hendrys does for Rudy coming in thru FR window though.

As for being told the shutters were closed...that is another prosecution line...simply look at the numerous photos that clearly show the shutters open...time and date stamped photos...they usually call that evidence and the shutters were not closed and or locked and or jammed tight against the swelled frames...

What facts indeed? Sherlock says lots but he provides no facts...His opinion is that Guede made one bee line from murder room to front door. meanwhile there are no facts to back up that claim...Guede could well have gone back and forth 20 times...no way to know...no facts so no conclusion about who else locked any door can be made...in fact it is not even a logical argument. Guede couldn't twist to some position so it must have been Knox who done it! Thats an illogical leap without facts to back up the assertion.

And no most PIP dont have the innocent idea and then fit facts to uphold that idea. I recall most PIP starting out giving the assumption and benefit of doubt to the police because lets face it...most times they get the right guys...I know that was certainly the case for me...and I recall many others stated that was how they first looked at the case.

What changed was the continued suspicious nature of the prosecutions assertions that never seemed to have any facts to back them up.

I mean I get the whole speculation thing...but only earlier and not later as facts come in and are boiled down. Certainly not 5 years later discussing an unimportant and really unprovable assertion of a staged break-in and there is still someone suggesting there was glass on top....when they know damn well there is not one single photo or any proof of that.

PGP OTOH refuse to present any evidence based case that fits facts and proves that AK or RS had anything to do at all with the murder of Kercher. They mention Lumumba, Knox is guilty of calumy...and thats about it ....

Sorry but the underwear thing is nothing at all like the computer hard drive issue. But I recently heard about the sexy underwear vs the Pennys undies...but yet I am certain this was hashed out in court already...both Massei and Hellmann...as if these undies were meaningful...and I recall that conclusion was that they were normal typical underwear...

What that is is a distraction from a corrupt weak case. This type of pointless non evidence is brought up in court to hide the weak to non existent case. In fact, I'm certain the prosecution often did that to cover for bigger mistakes and or "accidents"...like burning up 4 separate hard drives...

When you cant dazzle them with brilliance (or in this case evidence) then baffle them with BS. It is the only case the prosecutions have made so far...and though they keep running the same old flags they never seem to rally the truth. And there is a reason for that.

You have left out one group...Sherlock would fit into this group...they are the "involvementers" some how AK and RS have to be guilty of something although most feel not the murder itself. Again not one reliable shred of evidence to prove anything near that.

Sorry I gotta agree with the reverend again...everybody can have an opinion...but if you can't make the facts uphold your opinion then you are probably wrong.

What I pointed out in my Facebook analysis is that you can see the glass under the clothes by looking at the point where the clothes meet the floor. Three separate spots. So the pictures only prove that glass is under the clothes at the time the pictures are taken. The other thing is the nature of cloth and glass. Glass tends to stick to clothes. Shaking may remove the large fragments but not all of the smaller ones. In the video taken at night with a spotlight on the floor you can clearly see glass reflection, just not on top of the clothes.

 

[Bill Williams]

Im certain you meant to say the PLE SAID they looked at glass on top...but in case you meant what you said...can you please offer evidence of glass on top? I can provide you with a large amount of photos that show NO GLASS ON TOP of anything. But please...show us these missing photos of glass on top...it would be marvelous to see those.

What convinces you that they actually looked for glass outside? Or bothered to check if there was grass or mud anywhere? Did they set up the computerized camera outside to photograph that part of the crime scene? Because if they did I would love to see that data as well..

You are simply restating the prosecution case which actually was developed in more than a years time and was then presented in court. Cept they forgot that whole bothersome evidence part once again. And you who certainly knows better repeats these non-facts as if.

<..... sinister deletia.....>

Sorry I gotta agree with the reverend again...everybody can have an opinion...but if you can't make the facts uphold your opinion then you are probably wrong.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It's amazing the number of times this has come up in the Perugian thing.

I was trying to give Grinder and Sherlock the benefit of the doubt, though. If this is what they believe, then this is what they believe. Can one really argue with belief?

But it is when someone brings up this pesky word "evidence". I am always on the lookout for someone who states a belief (fine with me.... who's to argue with that!), but then they slip into the conversation, "Prove me wrong!" Or, "You'd think there would be some foliage found on the grate...." or some such thing which subtly does two things.....

1) introduces the vague notion of "evidence"
2) reverses the burden of presentation of evidence​

Not the burden of proof, but the burden that if you want me to accept that your belief is something more than your belief - ie. it should become MY belief - well, in the history of evangelisation it is simply bad salesmanship for me to say, "God exists, prove me wrong!" People tend to look at you funny when the hard pressure salesjob comes out, they hide all the sharp objects within reach, and dial 9-1-1.

To conclude - if SH still believes that someone who is in a real need of #2 will did a second-storey, forced entry into a building so as to take care of business I can only say this: in the long history of defecation I do not know of ONE instance where this has happened. Yes, even for the sake of toilet paper. See: here I have accepted the reverse-challenge; "Prove me wrong," is the dare about this... and I apologize in advance that my suspicious little mind operates this way....

..... if someone makes a claim about their belief, I tend to sit back and say: "Great! Everyone needs core beliefs as an unexamined organizing principle of life. I 'believe' that when I take my next step while walking down a sidewalk that there will not be a sinkhole which will swallow me up. No one can go about daily routine with latent fears that all of a sudden the gravitational constant will change and we'll all fly off into space. I barely known what a gravitational constant is, but I put my naive faith in it nearly ever moment of my unexamined life - and if someone were to ask me to prove that the gravitational constant exists, I'd probably quote something from the Psalms - that's about all I know on the subject."

But when this statement of belief goes through that tried and true retail "bait and switch", and now I am being asked to DISprove something they never even bothered to prove.... well, this is where RandyN and I get all unexpectedly cozy.

No one from Missouri would fall for this.

 

[Bill Williams]

John Follain will be writing in an English paper tomorrow that an "anonymous Italian prosecutor" has said that it is a mistake for both Knox and Sollecito to be writing books, when a new trial is forthcoming - albeit an appeal's trial, yet with the marching orders assigned to it by the SC.

This "anonymous prosecutor" says that the new prosecutors will be looking for contradictions in the two books to use at trial.

Why is it that I am cynical. If thet find no contradictions, the prosecutors will call it collusion.

Whatever happened to the prosecution's role, first, to demonstrate through evidence that the two students actually did something criminal.

This, friends, is the state of this case five years later. The Kerchers deserve better than this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

seeking justice

Whatever happened to the prosecution's role, first, to demonstrate through evidence that the two students actually did something criminal.

This, friends, is the state of this case five years later. The Kerchers deserve better than this.

One wishes that someone would subject the police and prosecution to stricter sub judice pronouncements. One also wishes that the Perugian prosecutors would take to heart a guideline that prosecutors should seek justice: "(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict." Both of these principles would have served the Kercher family better than what actually transpired.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's emails

John Follain will be writing in an English paper tomorrow that an "anonymous Italian prosecutor" has said that it is a mistake for both Knox and Sollecito to be writing books, when a new trial is forthcoming - albeit an appeal's trial, yet with the marching orders assigned to it by the SC.

This "anonymous prosecutor" says that the new prosecutors will be looking for contradictions in the two books to use at trial.

This is why it was wise of Raffaele not to go into the details of his electronic alibi in his book. I am dollars-to-doughnuts confident that the emails he mentioned in his book were read and responded to in a time frame that is outside of a reasonable window for Meredith's TOD. His actual appeal document is a better indication of his defense's position IMO.

 

[Grinder]

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It's amazing the number of times this has come up in the Perugian thing.

It amazing how often you repeat this, fog of nonsense, in situ and any phrase you think is catchy. Your first was that you agreed with Hellmann completely including the calumnia conviction.

I was trying to give Grinder and Sherlock the benefit of the doubt, though. If this is what they believe, then this is what they believe. Can one really argue with belief?

Thanks but no thanks. Please explain what I believe that you are giving me a benefit on?

Most recently I've said that it was not lunacy to believe that the break-in might have been staged as you had stated and you went into a heap of misdirection including F taking her laptop, which you claimed compromised her room for all evidence. I asked you to describe how the taking of the laptop would compromise fingerprints or blood on the glass. The silence has been deafening.

Bill you make all sorts of claims, accuse others of not answering your questions but in fact just change the subject when you can't answer.

Filomena getting her purse was not a problem since she had brought it into the cottage after the PP arrived. The laptop shouldn't have been removed but it didn't compromise the entire room.

But it is when someone brings up this pesky word "evidence". I am always on the lookout for someone who states a belief (fine with me.... who's to argue with that!), but then they slip into the conversation, "Prove me wrong!" Or, "You'd think there would be some foliage found on the grate...." or some such thing which subtly does two things.....

you seem very confused. This is not a court of law. We are discussing the case and various specifics. I listed a number of things that I would expect to have existed - dirt on the wall, leaves or dirt on the grate, glass on the ground, signs of shoes under the lower window - and referenced that it was suspicious that Raf said nothing was missing. I didn't say I proved there was staging, I only said that the idea of staging was not lunacy. I also mentioned the repported glass on top of the clothes (btw I've also mentioned that clothes such as sweaters will have glass cling to them as Rose recently wrote).

I asked what would be definitive proof of staging but alas as usual no reply

1) introduces the vague notion of "evidence"
2) reverses the burden of presentation of evidence​

Not the burden of proof, but the burden that if you want me to accept that your belief is something more than your belief - ie. it should become MY belief - well, in the history of evangelisation it is simply bad salesmanship for me to say, "God exists, prove me wrong!" People tend to look at you funny when the hard pressure salesjob comes out, they hide all the sharp objects within reach, and dial 9-1-1.

God doesn't exist.

If God did exist, I would receive answers to the questions directed at you.

Prove God exists

 

[Chris_Halkides]

clothing and mixed DNA profiles

"It was several years later that a little-known paper was published by the FBI DNA unit (Stouder et al., 2001). The aim of this paper was to compare recovery and typeability of habitual wearer DNA using swabbing and scraping techniques. Using new or freshly laundered garments, and pressing into service their own employees, researchers found a surprisingly high number of mixed profiles, some identifiable, some not. (Figure 1)...Where there is a known single habitual wearer [of an item of clothing], that person tends to be detected as the major source of DNA on a garment; minor profiles may also be detected from individuals with whom the habitual wearer has had close contact as well as from unknown sources." link here

 

[anglolawyer]

Just on glass on the ground, which Grinder mentioned, isn't it a much stronger indicator, to a point of virtual certainty, that the splash of glass far into the room proves the rock was thrown from outside?

The straightened glass on the sill results from Rudy closing the shutter behind him. The shutter organised the glass in a straight line.

 

[Grinder]

"It was several years later that a little-known paper was published by the FBI DNA unit (Stouder et al., 2001). The aim of this paper was to compare recovery and typeability of habitual wearer DNA using swabbing and scraping techniques. Using new or freshly laundered garments, and pressing into service their own employees, researchers found a surprisingly high number of mixed profiles, some identifiable, some not. (Figure 1)...Where there is a known single habitual wearer [of an item of clothing], that person tends to be detected as the major source of DNA on a garment; minor profiles may also be detected from individuals with whom the habitual wearer has had close contact as well as from unknown sources." link here

R U suggesting that the above would explain the number of profiles on Meredith's bra clasp? Perhaps (sorry Bill substitute certainly) she had Raf's DNA on her hands when she put it on or took it off.

 

[Grinder]

Just on glass on the ground, which Grinder mentioned, isn't it a much stronger indicator, to a point of virtual certainty, that the splash of glass far into the room proves the rock was thrown from outside?

The straightened glass on the sill results from Rudy closing the shutter behind him. The shutter organised the glass in a straight line.

Does the rock being thrown from the outside prove anything as to whether or not the break-in was staged.

The glass being organized by the shutter doesn't point one way or the other.