6 The No-Staging Hoax
1. False Claims
2. Hard Truths
(1) nothing (not even jewellery or the computer) was missing from Romanelli’s room, which was the focal point;
(2) there was no evidence of climbing on the outside wall of the house over the distance of 3.5 meters from the ground to the window through which the phantom burglar supposedly entered, nor was there any trace of trampling on the grass on the ground underneath the window;
(3) there were no traces of the blood of the climber on the window sill, which he would have had to grip among the glass shards in order to sneak inside the room;
(4) the glass shards were found on the inside but not on the outside of the window, a sign that the rock was thrown with the outside shutters closed, forming a shield that prevented pieces of glass from spraying to the outside;
(5) the shards were found in abundance on top of the clothes and objects ransacked by the alleged intruder, proving that this ransacking had occurred before the window was broken;
(6) the sound of the rock, hypothetically thrown from the ground, had not startled the young English woman so as to make her call for help outside the house before being attacked (given the lapse of time between the throwing the stone and the climbing up the wall). (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, pages 63-64).
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/30/16 at 03:20 PM in
Tweet This Post
TweetComments
No comments yet. Commenting is not available in this channel entry.Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry 5 The No-Pack-Attack Hoax
Or to previous entry 7 The No Witnesses Hoax