I see that. All I am saying is that if I had walked onto this crime scene, my first thought would not have been "gotta preserve this glass evidence." So i am not faulting the police for moving things around.
I am trying to be careful about things like that because a lot of ink has been spilled on both sides saying a lot of reckless things. I try to be a reasonable and moderate man (until I get the rouge derriere about something!). So while I think the crime scene under the window was absolutely disturbed, I don't want people hauling off and making inferences of misconduct.
I take it as established fact that the photos do not show the original crime scene under the window.
Further, because the window was moved, it is possible that the glass on the sill might be partly in question. I am not there yet.
I am cataloging what can be plainly proven. I am not making inferences yet.
MattJones - you've already suggested that a claim which comes from a source which might have cause to quash the claim, tends to be believable....
John Follain, in "Death in Italy", a friend to the prosecution and who often claims to know the very thoughts of police and prosecutor makes a, to me, astonishing claim.
It is that under instruction from the Postal Police, before the horrible discovery, went in and "rummaged through her room."
To someone with my own set of biases, that would be the kind of thing Follain might conveniently omit from his narrative, because it tends to suggest that whatever anyone later thought about Filomena's room, they simply were not looking at the condition of the room following Rudy's break-in.
Ok, that's my bias, and I believe it to be a fair bias and a reasonable assumption. It might not be for you. It obviously is not for Briars. But my point is that an author closely connected to preserving the reputations of the PLE.... he's the one who says, "Filomena rummaged through her room".
What did he mean by that? He doesn't say. But it suggest that Filomena's room was not in a condition, post-horrible discovery, to discern ANYTHING about staging or non-staging.... which is why I come to a conclusion of a real break-in on other grounds.
One of which is that I do not believe the front door was opened by Knox's key. The police were absolutely right to suspect EVERYONE, Knox included, who held a key that this could be the mode of entry - esp. when Knox, Sollecito and
Lumumba were rightly or wrongly in the PLE sites.
The absolute mystery is that when Rudy Guede entered the scene - first by the vehicle of forensics pointing to one and only one unsub, and then when Rudy was captured in Germany..... the case was essentially solved. Rudy alone is something supported by the forensics in Meredith's room, and.....
.... the condition of Filomena's room is so compromised that no one, really, has the right to discern that the break-in was staged. Esp. when they have Rudy as a sole perp in Meredith's room - unlike AK, RS, and PL, Rudy has the background to do it.
That should have been the "case closed" right there. The tragedy is that PLE and now the ISC is trying to shoehorn in AK and RS, the latter now with a sex-game gone wrong theory that even the PLE gave up on
at the first trial!
Two hundred years from now there will be another Occam looking for a razor with which to shave who'll stumble on an archive of this case and wonder what all the fuss was about, trying to shoe-horn two (rather young and somewhat gormless) students into a grisly crime they had nothing to do with.
What's the agenda here?
I am not faulting the police OR Filomena for moving things around. Strangely, they only buttress the exact reaction Amanda and Raffaele had - there's something very odd about this (pre-discovery) scene, but it doesn't add up to murder... until the door is opened; where there is only found the presence of Rudy.
This is not rocket science. No wonder the Italians don't have a space program. Then again, the Chinese do.... so go figure!
