Recent content by DerKritiker2011

The reason is that the glas was broken in many parts, it wasn't solid. Some parts of glas bounced on the inner shutter. The other parts will be flied through the room, because the inner shutter was half closed. The trajectory of the glas which were bounced on the inner shutter were different...

You are right, it's rebounded by the inner shutter. But it's possible if the stone was thrown from the parking pad, if the inner shutter wasn't completly closed. If the inner shutter was half open, the the rock will turn to the left. It's physics and named law of conservation of (angular)...

An expert had to look at this, not a judge. Massei was wrong, he sad, that the stone was thrown from inside. But this had caused violation of the shutters and a complete different arrangement of the broken glas in the room. We see, he had obviously no knowlege of a break in.

Had the prosecution proved it by a report of an expert? No! It was also a assertion without evidence.

The prosecution had to prove it, that the climbing was impossible e.g. by a report of an expert, but they hadn't. It was only an assertion without evidence.

What about going through the left-side window?

She wrote: I think it's possible to stand on the narrow ledge, hold the rail with one hand and leaned over as far it's possible. Nothing else was written in the book. But in this position, it's impossible to have a look into the room of meridith, but i think it wasn't clear for Mrs...

That's an unrealistic construction. If you get caught stealing, that will leave a permanent record into the memory of Q and others. No one would take this risk who was involved in a murder.

Judges? The first court was manipulated by a video animation, shown in the plea. You can read about the possible manipulation of such animations on the following page: http://theconversation.com/computer-generated-images-influence-trial-results-19734 And the second court had determined...

I don’t think so. The involvement of Guede was obvious for persons who were at the scene. They will known it's certain after the analysis of the traces. In this case such a person won’t incriminate Lumumba, because it will be an obvious lie. That’s independent from the results...

That's the problem in this case, obviously wrong accusations were done by this parties.

If she was involved and she had cleaned her and Sollecitos traces but not Guedes then she had knowing, that Guedes DNA, fingerprints and shoeprints were all over the scene. She would had known: Incriminate Lumumba would be an obvious lie. It makes no sense at all. I think she had confessed...

That's your opinion, but you won't incriminate Lumumba, if it's obvious that Guedes traces are all over the scene (especially if you have cleaned arround Guedes footprints).

That's right. But you wrote, that a person guilty of murder will try to stay as far away from the truth as possible! This is probably not correct. I would say the reverse is true. A culprit says as much as possible the truth (only the incriminating parts would be changed) or invents very...

I don't think so. Could you give me some sources for this claim?