Channel 5 TV FAIL: The window climb

According to one Knox’s supporters, repeatability is one of the measures of good science. Repeatability means if you repeat an experiment *under the same conditions*, it  will lead to the same result. If the conditions are not the same, then repeatability is not relevant. Here, then, are ways in which Channel 5 fails at repeating (recreating) elements leading to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Below is an analysis of the window climbing demonstration.

The experiment in the Channel 5 video is useless because they did not have the same conditions:

  1. The window bars did not exist in 2007. The climber uses these bars to pull himself up for the first ‘example’ (which is really a montage of clips; see below).
  2. When demonstrating how to climb without the window bars, the climber pulls himself up onto a window sill that does not have broken glass on it.
  3. The climber did not attempt to open the shutters BEFORE pulling himself up. The occupant of the bedroom reported that she closed the shutters when she left earlier that day.
  4. They used an experienced climber. Experience provides skills and muscles that athletes may not even be aware they’re using.
  5. According to reports of others, the climber wore specialized climbing shoes.

In addition, Channel 5 failed to include other elements of the crime scene from November 2, 2007:

  1. The window has internal shutters that were closed. Channel 5 did not show an attempt to open these shutters.
  2. Glass was left in the window pane.
  3. Glass was found on both sides of the window sill.
  4. Glass was NOT found on the ground outside the window.
  5. No evidence was found on the ground outside the window that someone was there.

When the climber in the video pulls himself up using the window ledge alone, he puts his hands in the exact same spot where glass was found.

glass left

Channel 5 does NOT show how a climber, after breaking a window, could:

  1. Pull himself up to the window using a ledge full of glass
  2. Open the window that was just PARTIALLY broken
  3. Open the INTERNAL SHUTTERS which had been closed by Filomena
  4. Then, pull himself up and over the window and the glass while leaving the glass on the window sill.

Chancomparisno2nel 5’s video is not a continuous segment and cuts out a key part of the climb. The climber appears to jump from his spot halfway up the wall to having a foot on the upper window ledge. With a key segment missing, the video as it was released is all but useless to determine what it claims it proves. Channel 5 claims to show the climb is possible, but does NOT show a complete, unbroken clip of the climb.

Therefore, the video as broadcast is useless, not only as evidence that a climb is possible, but also as evidence that someone could climb through this window while leaving glass on the sill to be found the next morning, but not have any glass found on the ground outside the window.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Channel 5 TV FAIL: The window climb

  1. “Channel 5 does NOT show how a climber, after breaking a window, could:
    Pull himself up to the window using a ledge full of glass”

    if he could get his hand to the ledge, he could sweep some of the glass glass to the side, still leaving plenty of glass on the window sill.
    regardless, he may not even have done that. when guede was brought in by the police, he had a wound on his hand.

    • Thanks for your comment. The photos show that there was glass on the windowsill that was closest to the window Guede would have been reaching up from; i.e. there was glass in the very position that he would have naturally reached for to pull himself up. There was no blood found on the window sill, thus your theory that he cut himself on that glass is not supported. If I recall correctly, the sill was also tested for DNA, and Guede’s DNA also was not found. If Guede did cut himself on the glass left on that window sill, he did it in a way that he left no trace; he was also able to climb up and over the sill from several meters below while leaving glass on the very spot he would have been climbing to.

    • Re: “when guede was brought in by the police, he had a wound on his hand”

      Did he really? Well that helps back up what he said to his friend on Skype about his hands being cut by the attacker with ‘chestnut hair’ – who was that I wonder?

      If Guede had cut himself on the glass climbing up to the window the he would have left some of his DNA there – there was none of his DNA at the ‘break in’ scene.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s