It has been suggested that some new physical evidence might illuminate things. One of the key arguments is with regards to the break in. RG was not charged with a break in because there was no evidence that there was a break in. The prosecution allege he was allowed in by either MK or AK. The only people with an interest in faking a break in would be AK. But it seems unlikely that AK would know that RG had a history of burglary. If RS had a confederate, perhaps a drug dealer who wanted access to the flat down stairs where there was the stash of a rival supplier and wanted to pressurise MK into handing over the key to access this. This confederate would know of RG history and know to fake the break in.
I don't believe this but it fits the facts. So we need to look is there evidence of any one else, any unidentified DNA or fingerprints?
Yes there was unidentified DNA, It's at the end of the RTIGF, try page
267, it looks like 8 males and 3 females, though I can't recall if that includes the ones they eventually identified or not. Some of those are from downstairs and the bloody tissues (not Meredith's blood) found outside. The same is true of
fingerprints, but haven't looked at that for a while.
I think the defence not only needs to deny the involvement of AK and RS but create alternative narratives that matches the facts. A lone killer is not acceptable so there has to be an alternative that involves RG and others.
That's what that whole travesty involving Alessi and Aviello was all about, producing possibilities for someone else who could have been involved with Rudy. I thought at the time it was a formality, it never truly sunk in that any system could work like the Italian system seems to: that because Mignini and Rudy's defense decided there were more attackers that it was set in stone and Raffaele and Amanda would be judged on that basis: whether it was then or some other people. That's literally
insane considering the pathetic argument made for multiple attackers, which should be a
minority position on the basis of the evidence. Very minority, as in infantile.
The prosecution cleverly avoid details in their scenario. Making it difficult for the defence to rebut. They allege the break in was fake, but provide no evidence. They do not have a falsifiable hypothesis. They do not specify was the window broken by throwing a stone from the garden, from inside against the inner pain with the window closed, or against the outside of the window with it opened to the inside.
The latter, and their scenario is quite detailed, I've spent a fair number of posts on it as I got interested when I made a post like yours and Platonov had his way with me for a few pages. The translated prose in Massei regarding the breaking of the window is quite confusing, especially for someone like me who's never seen (or didn't notice) a window like that which you can pull in on that axis, and had forgotten there were two sets of shutters. I should have been looking at the pictures when I was reading that section, instead my mind started convulsing so I skipped ahead to the next paragraph. It's a damned silly idea that the break-in was staged, but the entirety of the prosecution argument is quite clever.
That the climb was unclimbable is falsifiable. The defence should have put more effort into this. There is poor quality imaging of the outside of the building, the defence should point out the smudges and say they are the footprints of some one breaking in. The poor quality pictures of the window frame and inside show footprints.
I think that challenging the 'staged break-in' is better than pretending more people were there who might have done it, that strikes me as a losing strategy not the least because it's trying to prove something that actually didn't happen without the authority of the police and prosecution and their evidence gathering and distorting powers.
I guess it is too much to hope that the glass from the window was preserved and is able to be analysed to show the direction of breaking.
The prosecution theory includes the window being broken from the outside of the glass, but from inside the room.
The defence need to utilise the poor forensic analysis to sow doubt. The lack of investigation cuts both ways. So far I think the defence have been too 'gentlemanly', like a good politician being interviewed the defence needs to decide on the message they want to get over and make it regardless.
I agree, but that would go easier with the entirety of the DNA work being available to the defense. It's not
impossible for Rudy to have had accomplices, it's just there's not enough available evidence from the scene to prove much of anything.
who could explain it to you but as you are a scientist IIRC you can probably figure it out.
