Powerpoints #11: Countering The Spin By The Defenses On The Recent Cottage Break-in



Click here if you have (1) Windows MS Office or Powerpoint Viewer (downloadable here), or (2) Apple Mac iWorks Keynote or Apache OpenOffice.

Context

Just over two weeks ago, on 18 February, the Italian police discovered that in recent days intruders had broken their way into the girls’ apartment in the house on Via della Pergola.

The intruders had entered through the kitchen window to the north, which opens onto the balcony. This strange happening sparked many concerned questions, especially in Italy. For example, was the break-in perhaps related to the crime of 1 November 2007 and the trial now underway?

Nobody knows as yet. Police investigations continue. But it is just possible that it WAS related to the case. And if it was, there seem to be several possibilities as to why:

Some Possibilities

1. Proof of easy access for burglars?

The break-in could have been a demonstration of how a thief could very easily make his way into the cottage, similar to the notional “lone wolf” attacker that Raffaele Sollecito’s lawyer Ms Bongiorno has been promoting as the real perpetrator of the crime.

2. Proof of contamination of DNA evidence?

If an undetected thief could have entered the cottage between 2 November 2007 and the date when the bra clasp with Raffaele’s DNA was collected in mid-December, that could be an explanation for the unlikely DNA contamination which the defence teams claim might have occurred.

3. Modification or removal of remaining evidence?

The break-in could have taken place with the object of modifying or removing some remaining evidence which the police have not yet collected, evidence which may soon become significant for example in the course of a confession by one of the defendants or Rudy Guede..

4. A threat or message to the police?

The fact that during the break-in some knives in the cottage were arranged in a suggestive manner, and one was placed on a police envelope (apparently brought in by the intruders and unrelated to the previous evidence gathering) might point towards the intruders making some threat to the police, or trying to send some message to them.  This possibility becomes a bit more significant when one considers that the break-in occurred just before the resumption of the trial, when the 12 police investigators who were involved in the crime-scene investigation were all just about to give their testimonies before the court.

5. Unrelated possibilities to explain the break-in?

Perhaps it really was some sort of satanic rite. Or a prank or a hoax. Or it might simply have been some itinerants getting in to spend a night out of the extreme cold.

Defense spin has been attempted along most of these lines, to suggest that the prosecutors and crime scene investigators really did botch the investigation.

The most outlandish of all claims was in the blog section of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. That, because the perpetrators of this break-in quite easily got in through the KITCHEN window it proves they easily could have got in through a BEDROOM window. And this despite the facts that:

  • It seems far beyond the ability of any normal human being to climb through that very high, out-of-reach bedroom window

  • It was testified early on at the trial that the simulation of a burglary seemed to have happened before the window was shattered

Our Analysis

These Powerpoints here set out to demonstrate that there is no possible parallel between this THEORETICAL break-in through Filomena’s bedroom and the ACTUAL break-in through the kitchen window.

Posted by Kermit on 03/04/09 at 09:49 PM in

Tweet This Post


Comments

Kermit,

Without your detailed photos and powerpoints I’m sure that a lot of the evidence and information from the case would get “lost in translation” or would be that much easier for the Knox PR camp to spin or deny.  With your helpful tools it is much easier for common sense to rule.  Thank you once again for your efforts.  Hard to argue with the logic you present.

Posted by jodyodyo on 03/05/09 at 12:51 AM | #

Kermit has convinced so many that there really is a strong case here. If you are up for some extremely whimsical satire (be warned it IS satire!) Kermit created a longer version for the PMF forum website which you can download here. He takes some strong pokes at those who seem part of the spinning machine.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/05/09 at 01:59 AM | #

This is Tim from Seattle again, I continually follow the case from your site instead of anything that I hear around here, that’s how I found this site in the 1st place, looking for more evidence & information as well as facts. I can’t help but think this break in has zero effect on the trial, who would introduce it, as what, evidence? It’s not evidence for this trial at all, the next one dealing with the jerks that broke in, yes.
Thanks to all of you who have such interest to spend your time doing what is right, I see many things that are facts & not slanted towards anyone but the real criminals. If that is AK then so be it.
I do not see anything that shows the police did anything wrong, the actions of the defendants have been real strange if anything.

Posted by tjcchamp on 03/07/09 at 11:15 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Powerpoints #12: Telling Evidence Against Sollecito The Experts Seem To Have Got Absolutely Right

Or to previous entry Powerpoints #10: The DNA Evidence May Be A Tough Mole To Whack