. It does not appear that the boxes on the table were opened (photo 65) in a search for valuable items. And indeed, no valuable item (cf. declarations of Romanelli) was taken, or even set aside to be taken, by the - at this point we can say phantom - burglar. One last aspect which bears repeating is the presence, noted and checked by several witnesses, of pieces of glass on top of the objects and clothing in Romanelli's room. This circumstance, which also reveals an activity of simulation, although it is not decisive because it does not actually exclude that the phantom burglar first broke the window and then made the mess in the room, was rejected by the Defence of the accused, which showed photographs that did not show glass on top of the clothes and objects scattered around Romanelli's room, and observed that the documentary and crystallisation value of a specific situation as realised [42] through a photo should prevail over witness statements sworn into the record.
This claim is not held to be sustainable, since it does not take into account the events and their succession and chronology. On the subject of the contrast between the testimony and the documents (photographs of Filomena's room that do not show pieces of glass on top of the clothes and objects scattered around), Romanelli's own declarations are significant and decisive. In her questioning of Feb. 7, 2009, she recalled having left her computer in its case "standing up, not lying down" (p. 269), and then, when she returned to the house, she saw that in her own room, the window was broken and "everything was all over the place..." (p. 40) She checked that her jewellery was there, which it was, and she looked for her computer which she saw "from underneath" (p. 40), and continuing to explain, she declared that "I picked up the computer and perceived that in lifting it, I was picking up pieces ofglass, in the sense that there was actually glass on top of it" (p. 41), and she noticed this circumstance so particularly that she added the following comment: "It was really a stupid burglar; not only did he not take anything, the broken glass was actually on top of the things" (p. 41). As she is usually very orderly, the witness also stated that she entered into her own room and searched around to see if anything was missing, and during that search she moved objects, thus changing the position
of some pieces of glass. At that moment, however, only the Postal Police officers were present, and they were there to understand why two mobile phones had been
