Amber29 wrote, The argument of no "evidence" of AK and RS in the murder room is constantly used as proof they didn't do it. Well if we are back to using that logic, then RG is not guilty of breaking Filomenas window,crawling in a glass fill windowsill, and ransacking her room all while leaving NO trace of himself there. If the argument can't be used both ways then it is an invalid argument. (I copied this from the previous thread and merged three paragraphs into one to save space)
I agree with part of this and disagree with part of it. Let us assume that there was no murder for a moment, just a broken window, etc. If that were the case, I would infer that there had been vandalism and possibly a break-in. There is broken glass consistent with a rocks being thrown as Pasquali demonstrated. There is a possible hair and possible blood substance (Reps. 198 and 199, respectively). However, there is nothing which ties Rudy uniquely to Filomenas room. In other words, if no murder had taken place, there is not enough evidence to find him or anyone else guilty of vandalism or whatever.
I am not surprised that no DNA of his was found in her room. If he wore gloves, then nothing he would have done would obviously leave DNA; if he did not wear gloves, then one would have to make an educated guess about what he touched and swab there.
On the other hand, the not-yet-dried blood in Merediths room ties Rudy to the crime in two central ways, namely the handprint found beneath her and the shoe prints. Rudy had to be in the room before the blood dried, on the bases of both the hand print and the shoe prints. If Amanda and Raffaele were in Merediths room at the same time, then where are there bloody shoe prints, hand prints, or footprints? Where are their bloody clothes? It is not just the lack of such evidence; it is the lack of it when there is so much evidence of Rudy.
The evidence that puts Rudy in the flat is why I think that Rudy was in Filomenas room. To extend this idea, lets reconsider the bloody footprint on the mat. It should not be used as evidence against anyone, because there are no distinguishing marks. However, Rudy probably made it, because there is no good evidence of anyone besides him being there on the night of 1 November. Could someone else be responsible for the bathmat print and for tossing the rock? Yes, but there is no evidence of that other person.