I must ask does no one on the pro guilt side ever look anything up? This was presented at trial, is in fact part of the Motivational Report that everyone states they read.
I have been accused many times this week of not doing my research and I must admit I am becoming cranky
I hope these are enough cites
The reconstruction
He made a reconstruction throwing a rock of the same weight on a window of which the left part had the same measures than the original one.
The reconstruction confirmed what always seemed obvious, that the glass falls inside but also on the external part of the sill, as it happened in the actual event.
The conclusion is again that the rock can have been thrown only from the outside. Exactly from the angle of the garden in front of the window. With the thrower standing outside the fence and throwing the rock with one hand.
To support this hypothesis the Marshall filmed his reconstruction with a window set on a room with inside a bed and a desk of the same dimensions.
The film showed three throws to the left side of the window from a distance equal to the presumed original (3 meters) and they all resulted a similar distribution of the glass on the floor and on the internal and external sill, as in the actual case. They also resulted fragments of glass stick into the fibers of the wood, as in the actual case The conclusion is again that the rock can have been thrown only from the outside. Exactly from the angle of the garden in front of the window. With the thrower standing outside the fence and throwing the rock with one hand.
To support this hypothesis the Marshall filmed his reconstruction with a window set on a room with inside a bed and a desk of the same dimensions.
The film showed three throws to the left side of the window from a distance equal to the presumed original (3 meters) and they all resulted a similar distribution of the glass on the floor and on the internal and external sill, as in the actual case. They also resulted fragments of glass stick into the fibers of the wood, as in the actual case
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/07/carabiniere-to-save-raffaele-sollecito.html
The window broken at the “house of horrors” on the night Meredith Kercher was murdered in Perugia, Italy, doesn’t present the climbing challenge of the Eiger’s North Face.
No agile person need fear that brick wall. Even the Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, wearing slippery street shoes of fine Italian leather, could scale it. We still await proof that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito broke it, to make the homicide look like a botched robbery attempt, allegedly to frame Rudy Guede, already sentenced to 30 years for murder and sexual assault.
Defense expert Francesco Pasquali shattered that popular climbing myth in the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito this weekend. The retired forensics officer Pasquali used a video to demonstrate that a burglar could have thrown a 4 kg. rock through the window from the outside, not from the inside as the prosecution maintains.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2009/07/
A consultant for the defense in the trial of U.S. student Amanda Knox used a video presentation today to show the court in Perugia, Italy, that Knox and co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito had not faked a break-in at the murder scene of her British roommate, as prosecutors allege Francesco Pasquali, a retired forensic police officer hired as a consultant by Sollecito's defense, presented a video in court that included three different scenarios showing how the rock could have been thrown from the outside to break the window, located 13 feet off the ground.
According to Pasquali, the rock was thrown from a terrace across from the window, making the glass "explode" on the inside and spreading glass fragments everywhere on the inside and the outside of the windowsill
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7995762
But retired police forensic officer Vincenzo Pasquali will use a video and ballistic measurements to tell the court the window was smashed from the outside and was not simulated.
Pasquali will also tell the court how it was possible for someone to enter the house through the broken window, which was 13 feet above ground
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529951,00.html
But retired police forensic officer Vincenzo Pasquali will use a video and ballistic measurements to tell the court the window was smashed from the outside and was not simulated.
Mr Pasquali will also tell the court how it was possible for someone to enter the house through the broken window, which was four metres (13ft) above ground.
The court has already heard how 21-year-old Guede, a small-time drug dealer, was known to carry a knife.
It was also told he carried out a series of break-ins in the weeks leading up to the murder in November 2007.
Among these was a burglary at a lawyer's office, in which he climbed through a window four and a half metres (15ft) above ground - higher than that smashed at the murder scene
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...-To-Divert-Detectives/Article/200907115328274
LOL