Yes, my point wasn't that the available evidence suggests that the rock was thrown from the outside. It looks to me like it does. My point was that a test that could determine which side was impacted first by the rock would not provide definitive evidence for either the defense theory or the prosecution theory about the breaking of the window.
The thing that troubled me a bit about the window being broken from the outside theory was that I imagined that the rock needed to be thrown from below. When I came to realize that the rock could be thrown roughly at the same level as the window breaking the window in a way that it seems to have been done with a rock looks like a likely possibility to me.
As far as the mystery suggested in the video about why there wasn't a greater disbursal of the shards back from the window: I didn't think this was a mystery at all. I thought the explanation was that the inside shutter was partially closed and that limited the disbursal of the shards. Hendry's article claims that a mark on the inside shutter was probably caused by the rock thrown from the outside.
If the Italian police had investigated the window breakage with more rigor and had examined the exterior wall with more care with the goal of finding smudge marks caused by shoes then it seems like that the possibility of a break in could have been ruled out or in more reliably. Right now the evidence looks like it points strongly towards a break in from the outside but as with many elements of this crime unless the evidence can be shown to be definitively false it is used to suggest RS/AK guilt.
Dave, there are several other things the police should have done.
They should have looked to see if there were any glass fragments below the window on the outside. I mean really looked, by getting down and running a hand or tool (cloth with tacky adhesive?) over the grass, leaves, or dirt to pick up any glass shards and slivers. (A proper forensic examination might involve laying a grid over the area and doing a close examination of vegetation and topsoil.) As it was, after a cursery look, those running the crime scene examination (Stefanini? Mignini?) allowed police to use the area under Filomena's window as a place to smoke cigarettes or make cell phone calls.
A proper exam would also involve examining the TV antenna wire that looped loosely along the bedroom's inside wall below the window. Ron Hendry identifies from photos that the wire is bent or kinked at a certain spot under the window, and is discolored there from what may be the burglar's shoe as he snagged his shoe sole on the loose wire while climbing in the window. The discoloration on the antenna cable should be examined to see if it is made of soil, as would occur if someone climbing in the window snagged the bottom of his shoe on the cable, and kinked it there. ( Let me mention that discredited American stringer Andrea Vogt is married to a reputable Italian soil scientist with US Ph.D and post-doc research experience at German and Italian geological institutes. A serious and impartial scientist like him could have examined the discoloration and confirmed or denied it was made by soil from a shoe snag.)
Additionally, Ron Hendry identifies dirt dust left on the floor and torn bag from a shoe step just inside the window. The direction and location of this shoe print dirt is compatible with the person coming into the room through the window.
This is a good time to point out again discrepancies in Filomena's account of closing her shutters, and Mignini's role in shaping her statement. When first questioned Filomena said she closed the outer shutters a bit but not all the way, due to the fact swollen wood interferred with the shutters closing all the way. Mignini went over her statement with her in several rounds of questioning and by the time he had his input, wouldn't' you know it, she agreed her shutters were pretty well closed. Mignini's theory was that the break-in was staged and he needed her statement to be that the shutters were closed or nearly closed.
.
