Huh??

That's if you have a problem with a double climb, I don't. I'm more troubled by the lack of wall scuffs or other evidence that indicates the area was scaled to gain access to the window. I don't find the potential for the shutter being latched as an issue because I think an intruder would have just tried to get in elsewhere or given up altogether


Not sure what the point is here. They look pretty open to me:

Source:




That's a good point. I haven't seen a good picture of what the glass looked like on the exterior sill, have you?

You realize I wasn't trying to make a point for either side by saying Filomenas testimony isn't that important, I was trying to show there are more troubling issues regardless of whether she left the shutters open or not.

Case closed!

I'm not following you, what's your point here?

It would be nice to have the testimony so we can decide for ourselves. Massei is also the guy who concludes Amanda was given a big kitchen knife to carry around in her handbag. He's hardly a master logician.



And you think Amanda and Raf did it despite the obvious fact that Guede did. Talk about a loss of crediblity. I've showed you the actual defense exhibit from the trial that proves the CCTV stuff and you don the tin foil and assume it's a forgery despite the images not existing anywhere on the internet. Well done.

Those pictures are from the jury's field trip to the cottage eighteen months later

No. Unless you want to jump the guardrail from the road. It looks like a little under two meters which landing on earth you could do but you'd definitely leave a mark and get dirty.

The problem with going around is that to get to this window you had to walk past so many windows that were better points of entry.

A last piece of evidence of staging is that the search wasn't really a search. The person threw clothing on the floor but that was it. No effort was made to find valuables in places where you would expect them. Her jewellery box was untouched, various small boxes in the closet were not opened, the thief even tossed about $3,000 worth of handbags on the floor. Designer sunglasses, laptop, mp3 player, and camera all in plain sight and not touched.

And I posted that date in good faith in attempt to help you stop being absolutely 100% wrong on the issue of the CCTV times, big mistake obv.

Yes that's compelling evidence of staging. He probably would have taken something if he didn't end up murdering Meredith. I think he decided to grab a bite to eat or had to take a dump. It also didn't work out too well the last time he'd horked a laptop.

My point is that there is more to her testimony than Massei concludes "must be held".

Looking for it.

No. You showed me a presentation on a site that constantly presents false information. You can't give me the name of who testified for the defence to establish the clock was slow or when.

I've narrowed the possible days it could have happened to four court dates. I find no media mention or this and no who was twittering for the courtroom makes any reference to it. I do find references to the police using the CCTV to prove the calls were made after the postal police arrived. From the defence I can find them using the CCTV to argue a white guy seen walking to the house is Rudy and that Meredith arriving home could be anyone because it is just a few pixels. Proving the CCTV camera was slow would have been major news and would have made the news. Much less important things get reported for those days. As such it never happened.

Henry you're completely gone on this issue sorry. I've showed you that Raf's appeal says they proved it definitively at the trial and I've showed you the exhibit they used. It clearly shows the arrival of the postal police and the Caribineiri. I think it's telling that you would claim it never happened in the face of that kind of evidence that it did.

Also the site you're talking about clearly has defense exhibits and the real deal on a lot of their site which should add weight to it. And again, I already know this is true from seeing it discussed on by both sides of the argument.

I was honestly just trying to help you get informed. It's probably more entertaining if you're in the echo chamber I suppose so carry on.

I think we've now seen what the problem is with the staged break in "evidence". There basically isn't any hard evidence and it's mostly speculation.

I also find it telling that the guilters on this issue argue until their blue in the face that there should be evidence of X,Y, and Z but are totally cool with no evidence at all in the murder room point at Amanda and Rafaelle. The bra clasp is found under the pillow under the body and the pillow is covered in Guede's bloody footprints.

They can't even tell us where the other two were at this point.

Fair enough, not saying you're incorrect, but how do you know this? Do have a picture of what the shutters looked like at the time of the crime? What does it even matter how far open they were?


Seems to me I could speculate all kinds of reasons why an intruder would choose Filomena's window over another, but it would still be unprovable speculation so I don't see any point in haggling back and forth over why an intruder would choose one window over another.

My issue is how can I know the claims of the police are accurate when they say they had dirt on their shoes from being beneath the window.

Perhaps or perhaps the intruder was interrupted in the middle of his theft when Meredith came home and bolted out of the house in a rush after he committed the murder without stopping to steal anything he would have to carry.

I know you don't buy this so save your keystrokes replying as I assume this will get addressed in your manifesto and it will be more clear to me after I read it.

I was looking at that video I posted previously and it dawned on me why Fiomena's window might have been the one that was broken into. If I am seeing things correctly, it appears its the only window that didn't have burglar bars over them. The one in front at ground level has bars as well as the windows on the opposite side by the staircase.

This seems too obvious, what am I overlooking?

No. You are spreading propaganda. If you want to believe sites that lie you are welcome to but that presentation was never used at trial because it is wrong.

Why would Raf admit to calling the police after the postal police had already arrived if it wasn't true?