Rudy Guede’s Break-in

The prosecution’s staged break-in theory of Filomena Romanelli’s bedroom is one of the key elements of the case and their entire theory of Meredith Kercher’s murder was built around it. Some of the arguments used to support the staged break-in theory include it’s an “illogical entry point” and “nothing was missing from Romanelli’s room” and “glass on top of the clothes” and “there’s no evidence of a climb on the external wall”. The sheer number of arguments is meant to impress but the quality of the arguments lack substance. Rudy Guede’s break-in at the cottage was real and almost identical to his break-in at Paolo Brocchi’s law office two weeks earlier through a window three feet higher.

Both Rudy Guede break-ins involved:

  • Using a rock to break a second story glass window and scaling the wall to gain entry;
  • Selecting a window with a grate underneath that could be used as a ladder;
  • Tossing clothes on the floor;
  • Stealing a cell phone;
  • Taking a drink from the fridge;
  • Making himself at home.

During closing arguments at the Massei trial, Sollecito defense attorney, Giulia Bongiorno, also noted the similarities between another Rudy Guede break-in at Cristian Tramontano’s home and the Kercher murder: Both involved the use of a knife and theft of money and credit cards.[1]

Rudy Guede Statements

Guede denied breaking the window but did create a cover story for being in Romanelli’s bedroom at the window.

Rudy Guede’s deposition March 2008 – p55

Guede: From the scream that I heard and when I left the bathroom? Very little time, I did things as quick as possible, so much so that I had to back off. Why did I fall? I fell because I hadn’t done up properly my trousers that all of a sudden dropped and I fell for that reason… I mean it was… hearing this scream I said “I’ll go to see what has happened” and so when I fell I heard these steps, seeing as I was on the floor and in front of me there was a room, a bedroom, I saw there was the window, it was open, anyway there was this window and it was visible also from the yard so my thought was to go and see if I could see anyone however I couldn’t see clearly.

Attorney: Tell us what you saw…

Guede: No, I saw the silhouette of a woman… here’s why I say I didn’t see clearly because I wouldn’t be able to

Pros. Mignini: Where did you see the silhouette of the woman?

Guede: Leaving the yard… Because from the window…

He admitted helping himself to the fridge and taking a drink just like at the law office break-in. (see testimony below)

Rudy Guede Prison Diary – PDF page 21, original page 18

Even though I’d bought some drinks with the kebab, I needed to drink some more because it was very spicy, and I asked her if I could drink something. She told me to help myself as if I was at my place. I opened the fridge and drank some apricot juice and water too. Since she wasn’t paying attention, I drank out of the bottle because I didn’t know where the glasses were, and then I sat down.


In February 2009, the cottage was broken into in bizarre circumstances with intruders laying knives in the kitchen and lighting candles.[2] In March 2009, the cottage was broken into again and Meredith Kercher’s mattress, 2 pillows and a suitcase stolen.[3] In May 2014, a cleaning lady caught an Albanian man sleeping inside.[4] In February 2015, Umbria24 reported Perugia’s students had experienced a wave of burglaries with burglars turning violent when surprised by the residents. Chinese authorities warned they’ll move their students to other Italian cities if nothing was done to stop it.[5]

Since the murder, security bars have been installed on the window which raises the question: If Romanelli’s window really was an ‘illogical’ entry point for a burglar, why were security bars installed? Furthermore, if it’s so ‘illogical’, why would Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have chosen that window to fake a burglary? The prosecution was never able to explain how Knox and Sollecito just happened to stage a break-in exactly like Rudy Guede’s modus operandi and why he didn’t lay all the blame on them in his secretly recorded Skype Call if they had.

The Investigation

The police never investigated the break-in nor had any intention of finding evidence it was real once burglar Rudy Guede was discovered. The records show just five samples were collected from Romanelli’s room for testing and all defense requests for further testing the rock for DNA were denied. At the trial, the prosecution presented no expert witnesses to support their theory or conducted any experiments to prove it. Sollecito defense consultant, Francesco Pasquali, did 3 reconstructions throwing a rock the same size and weight as the one found in the Romanelli’s bedroom through a glass window and showed the glass distribution and where the rock landed matched what’s seen in the crime scene photos. (See video below)

Injustice Anywhere has no opinion one way or another if Rudy Guede was a police informant as some have speculated but a legitimate question worth asking is: How is it possible the police who attended the break-in at the law offices (Brocchi testified police attended and looked around) didn’t realize immediately the two break-ins, two weeks apart, were almost identical and likely the work of the same person? The incompetence is extraordinary. Also worth asking is why Rudy Guede was never charged by the Perugian Police for break and enter and instead only charged for possession of stolen property in Milan?

In December 2014, the Supreme Court confirmed Rudy Guede’s conviction for possession of the stolen computer and phone that he was caught with in Maria Del Prato’s nursery and upheld the sentence of 16 months.[6]

For a detailed look at Rudy Guede’s break-in see Ron Hendry’s reconstruction here.

The Window Climb

The video below is from a UK documentary called “Amanda Knox Trial: 5 Key Questions” which aired in 2013. It shows a young guy demonstrating the window climb and “it’s not a problem”.

Break-in Photos

(Click to enlarge for high resolution)

Glass distribution away from the window
A glass shard lands as far as the bedside table
Where’s the glass on top of the clothes? There’s none!
Glass on the floor but none on the clothes
Evidence of glass under the clothes as shown in this photo
A glass shard in the murder room next to Rudy Guede’s bloody shoeprint

Testimony Excerpts

Filomena Romanelli (Housemate) – page 25

Answer: I complained to the Estate Agents immediately, from the moment I rented the apartment, because I would have preferred that my window had, I mean, I would have liked that the owner of the house could have installed… at least change the window lock, the windows themselves, or put bars, because it really wasn’t manageable and it didn’t give me a sense of security, they were old, they were old shutters, and so the glass was very thin and it didn’t give me an idea of security, in fact I personally complained a lot with the agency.

page 68

Question: So on 3rd December [2007] you said to the police on page 24 to have closed the windows, to have drawn the shutters without latching them, to have closed only the right blind [internal shutter] and not the left one because (unheard) – do you remember this?

Answer: In all honesty, seeing as I said that in the immediacy of the crime I can confirm because it was fresh in my mind.

Paolo Brocchi (Attorney testifying about Rudy Guede’s break-in at his office) – pages 1 and 3

Question: Can you tell us how this theft happened, how the robbers entered and what was removed?

Answer: Well, the theft was in fact discovered by my colleague, attorney Palazzoli. Being the owner of the premises, he told me on a Sunday afternoon because the theft occurred … was consummated during the night of the 13th and 14th of October 2007, on the night between a Saturday and a Sunday. The theft was discovered by my colleague attorney Palazzoli Sunday afternoon because he entered the office to retrieve a professional file and, upon entering, he discovered the burglary. The person or persons who entered inside the office, from what we could reconstruct together with the crew of the flying squad, who intervened on the spot, entered through a window near the desk which was broken, the glass of this window with the help of a piece of rock, a stone large enough that we then found on the spot. The window was broken, then these people or this person opened the handle. The shards were clearly scattered everywhere, because it was a rather large window. After that, on top of these shards we found our clothes. Basically the shards were scattered on the floor and then above the glass were our jackets, mine and those of my colleague Palazzoli that had been hung on hangers right in the corridor next to the window.


Amanda Knox case: The Palazzoli Law Offices


The Palazzoli Law Offices 2nd story window.

Question: Before you spoke about this rock, this stone.

Answer: Yes.

Question: Where was it found, outside or inside?

Answer: Outside, on the balcony, because clearly the person or persons who did this, with the aid of this very heavy rock, because it was enough to break a double glazing, so it was not a thin glass, but it was the kind used for thermal insulation more than anything else, certainly not for security reasons, apparently it required a massive impact of a certain magnitude in order to then somehow succeed in breaking it otherwise a small stone fragment would have been not clearly enough.


Question: Did they access the heater?

Answer: Yes, the heating, when we entered, was on as usual, so much so that there was a torrid temperature inside the office because it was on, I think, more than twenty-four hours in a row at a time, moreover, in October, which wasn’t even particularly cold. However I noticed that this person or these people who came in the office also used the drinks that were present in a cupboard, leaving … they even opened all the first aid cabinets, meticulously researching everything that was in there, but more than anything disinfectants, a pressure gauge, things like this, but they did make a selection of material present in the first aid Cabinet.


Question: What was removed in the office?

Answer: Well, at first we noticed that the office was in a state of general confusion: all the archives were turned upside down, all the documents and files had been reduced to a heap, the office files, the desk files. However, from the first inventory that we made there at the time, a newly purchased computer was missing, owned by attorney Palazzoli, a laptop notebook the brand I absolutely do not remember, USB keys that you use for entering and saving data, a portable Canon printer that was my property and then a few days later, just when I was physically contacted by a a crew member of the Milan squad chosen agent Rita Spessi I realized that they had also stolen a mobile phone, which was only partially working, because just via that phone my submitted complaint came up in the joint survey system, SDI’s police forces. Then there was also a mobile phone, which I had abandoned and for which I didn’t even keep any memory, which was placed in the drawer of my desk.

Matteo Palazzoli (Paolo Brocchi’s colleague) – page 37

Question: The person who entered had drunk beverages that were in the legal office?

Answer: Yes, I remember that it was a bottle of orange drink, if I am not in error, it was left in the waiting room.

Michele Battistelli – Postal Police February 06, 2009

This is the testimony the prosecution and Judge Nencini latched onto. Battistelli says there was glass on top of the clothes yet the crime scene photos show there wasn’t.

[…] it was a little topsy-turvy, in the sense that it was mostly … There was clothing out, thrown around a bit, and scattered pieces of glass. Glass pieces were on the floor and the curious thing, which stood out for me, is that these glass pieces were on top of the clothing. I noticed this to the point where I started playing with the notion, in the sense that I immediately said that for me this was a simulation of what I was seeing, basically this…The things that I noticed, the camera, the computer, if they played into the theory of a hypothetical burglary, I saw that inside the house practically everything was there. There was a laptop, a digital camera, things that can be easily taken, so….

Marshal Francesco Pasquali – Sollecito defense ballistics consultant July 3, 2009. page 6-8

Consultant. – I am a retired Marshal of the Carabinieri, and I served in the RIS [Reparti Investigazioni Scientifiche, Department of Forensic Investigations] in Rome for about thirty years, in the section of ballistic investigations.

Consultant. – We restored everything to the same conditions, same positions and this is the run which, together with the first one, corroborates the experimentation because in two cases, the behavior of the rock, of the stone is similar to each other and also similar to the effect we encountered in the room both from the photographic documents and also from what we were able to observe in the inspection phase. So the distance from the camera is always that, however it is zoomed… so in this case the glass… the stone hit the glass from one side and almost centrally, and the rock bumped the shutter in the part of the casing at the point where the other was struck… the window at Via della Pergola in fact; later in the documentation which we will show, the photographic documents, we shall see even better, whatever the impact {14} of this… let’s say of this launch, we see that the rock is near the leg of the table because the hit was the one that impacted the glass more; we shall see that the diffusion of the glass pieces is equally spread in all the room up to about the entry door; now it does not show well in this photograph but now we see in oblique light [luce radente] that it is more obvious, however we find them up to this distance, we find them also under the table; these are the fragments on the inside and we have seen before the fragments on the outside of the window. So this is the point of impact which, as we have said, is the same point as in Via Pergola, in this case one can better see the fragments because of the light – from a small angle – one can see much better, including the position of the rock and the fragments which reached as far as this position. So these are more obvious, therefore it is a random diffusion on all the floor.

Counsel Maori. – (Off microphone.)

Consultant. – Yes, because this rerun then… having performed this experiment, we proceeded to document each test run and photograph/film the impact on the glass and the spreading of glass in the room, we have a photographic record exactly to point out these results which are much similar to those we found at the window of the house in Via della Pergola.

This is the interior of the room clearly; the furniture items are of precisely the same dimensions as they were in the room, measuring 90 to one meter if I am not mistaken, and the bed has the same dimensions. These are the documents from the first run of the test, here we see that the stone’s position is to the right again, looking from inside, to the right from the center of the window and approaching the leg of the table, we see the diffusion of glass pieces all over the room, so this is an image taken in oblique lighting, which shows it perfectly… shows the fragments all over the room and also under the table, as we highlighted in the photograph by the State Police, because the rock in the State Police [photo] was in this position, approximately, and the glass pieces reached beyond the table leg, so this is a view to show that a great amount of glass pieces are near the window because it is clear that the smaller fragments and those which received greater energy got farther away but the majority fell in the inside of… so this other view makes it clearer, the fragments; let’s move on, this windowsill where we have the fragments… this is the internal windowsill and this is the external windowsill, so we have the fragments all over and on both sides of the window. So this is the effect of the insertion of the glass which fell from the upper part and inserted itself among the glass which was instead in place in the low part which did not yield but [this] indicates a lever; also, in this case the casing which held the glass in place was shifted. This is a view of the effect we have talked about, this is the glass which received the thrust in the central area where the rock struck and acted as a lever of the type… of the first kind with the fulcrum {16} on the internal part [which] pushed forward the casing in the lower part.

So this is the image of the groove as it widens gradually to where it is subjected to more pressure towards the outside. This is the second test run, which we have seen in the video, and the stone bumped into the frame and then the shutter and there are glass pieces spread – in this case as well – to a distance which reaches as far as the carpet: that is more obvious, because in the room, there were things on top, which don’t show this diffusion of broken glass; but more obvious are those on the carpet and those near the stone, which are close to the table, therefore we are talking about the diffusion at the position of the carpet, which is that. This is the same image again, we make the position of the carpet copy the position of the glass pieces which we witnessed on the photographs taken by the State Police immediately, during the investigation of Nov. 2, 2007. These are again views from… to highlight the presence of broken glass even better. This is the movement of the rod [asta], of the lower casing seen from the inside part, here, I repeat, it was more violent because the rock had hit the frame. This is the third run of the test, as has been seen in the footage and the rock hit centrally the lower part of the glass, had contact only with the shutter which changed its direction rightwards close to the leg of the table and we see that here, too, the diffusion is always in the area of… here it extends also towards the entrance door but here in the part of the carpet we see that there are always diffusions of broken glass, there is other footage which highlights that, here one sees the rock which… this is the level of the table, the rock which is below, to show how far it made it relative to… as it was a photograph taken from above. Here we have also in the third run the presence of broken glass on the two windowsills, both the inside and the outside one, so these {17} repeat themselves in all the test runs therefore we can say we have acquired an important datum.

This is the last test run, the casing detached itself and fell down on the external windowsill, here we see how the glass above fell down and wedged itself in the slit underneath, near the glass that was in place below. So in this test we had these points of impact, this and the other one, which is on the frame… to sum up, it is not well highlighted, however we see that this impact is very similar to that in Via della Pergola; this is the other impact, on the center of the shutter, and these are the fragments of glass which inserted themselves into this part, let’s say the central middle part of the shutter from the thrust of the stone. I would say that on the basis of these results, which appear to us rather explanatory of the behavior of… of what we found on the site and what was documented by the State Police, we have formed the conviction that the rock was thrown from the outside towards the inside, and in particular we conclude, to put it this way, that there are sufficient and proven grounds to believe that the position of the broken glass discovered on the floor, which is to give a precise response to the query posed, that the broken glass found on the floor inside Filomena Romanelli’s room and on the windowsill of the window of the same, is attributable to the throwing, from the outside towards the inside, of the rock (inaudible) discovered. These are our conclusions.

Counsel Maori. – Quite clear, Marshal, just a contrarian question: would it be possible to hypothesize breakage from the inside.

Consultant. – As far as we are able to verify, no… that is we exclude that the glass was broken from the inside.

Counsel Maori. – For what reasons?

Consultant. – For the reasons I have explained just now and also because, most importantly, in the section of glass fragments {18} on the shutter, it would have had no way of ending up there if the glass had been broken from the inside, the position of the broken glass both on the outside and the inside… confirms to us that the stroke, that the stone traversed the glass from the outside towards the inside.

Counsel Maori. – And so with [the stone] being launched from the position…

Consultant. – Launched in a certain distance, not launched close to the frame, that is to the glazed part.

Counsel Maori. – OK, thank you, that’s it for the moment.

Consultant. – You’re welcome.


Counsel Ghirga. – Concerning the third element, these pieces of glass that went in all the way to the little blue carpet, to the bed, do you recall them upon the clothes or do you recall them on the ground and the clothes were scattered, in a different way? Here there is a problem: were the glass pieces over the clothes or on the ground?

Consultant. – This…

Counsel Ghirga. – Do you remember?

Consultant. – This problem… I know about this problem; I {48} looked attentively and anyone can have a look; from the photos, fragments do not appear to be upon the clothes; I have highlighted – we have seen earlier – I have also drawn red circles so we can find more of them wedged under the clothes; as for those on the floor, those above, I did not see any glass fragments above.


President. – For that conclusion, did you consider the presence… that conclusion or another, the presence of possible pieces of glass below the pavement, whether there were any or not?

Consultant. – Well, since I did not find them to be documented…{56}

President. – You did not find them.

Consultant. – And I did not find them at the site inspection; I went down to see but I found nothing.

President. – There were none of these pieces of glass?

Consultant. – When I visited, no; in the official documents, I did not see them, no…

Court Rulings

The Italian Supreme Court ruling summarizes the six reasons why it’s a staged burglary according to the first level ruling (the Massei trial). Decide if these sound like valid reasons or simplistic conjectures.

The Chieffi Report – The Staged Burglary

1) the fact that nothing was missing from Romanelli’s room, which had been targeted (not even the jewelry and the computer);

Meredith Kercher’s cash, keys, credit cards and phones were stolen. Is it realistic to think after raping and murdering a girl, Guede would have bothered taking the computer to carry around vs grabbing items he could put in his pocket? The fact the phones were dumped almost immediately shows Rudy Guede knew to get rid of something that connected him to the murder.

2) the fact that there was no evidence of a climb on the external wall of the house in order to scale the 3.5 metres between the ground floor and the window through which the imaginary burglar would have entered, nor was there any sign that the grass underneath the window had been trampled;

No photographs were taken of the grass below the window on November 2 nor did the police document what they observed. The video above shows the young guy climbing the wall didn’t leave any traces either.

3) the fact that there were no traces of the climber’s blood on the windowsill, which he would have had to hold on to amongst the shards of glass in order to furtively enter the room;

Again, the video of the young man shows the ease of entry. Only a portion of the sill had glass on it.

4) the fact that the glass fragments were found on the inside and not on the outside of the window, a sign that the rock had been thrown with the shutters closed, the latter acting as a shield and preventing the fragments from dispersing to the outside as well;

The rock was thrown from the outside. The inner shutter has an embedded glass shard in the wood and the glass distribution reaches as far as the bedside table consistent with the rock being thrown from the outside.

5) the fact that the glass fragments were found in abundance above the clothing and objects which would have been rummaged through by the burglar, which demonstrated that the disarray had been created before the breaking of the glass;

Yet not a single photograph or the crime scene video shows glass on top of clothes.

6) the fact that the noise from the rock, supposedly launched from the ground, did not arouse concern in the young Englishwoman, so as to lead her to ask for help outside the house before being attacked (given the useful interval of time between the actions of launching and climbing).

The defense has never suggested Rudy Guede threw the rock while Meredith was home but beforehand and he was already inside and likely on the toilet when she walked in the door. Rudy Guede admits heading to the cottage after 7.30pm and is seen on the CCTV at 7.51pm, nearly 70 minutes before Meredith arrived home.

The Italian Supreme Court concludes:

The analytical dissertation of the first judges, precisely in light of these clues to the improbability of the sequence of events that would have allowed entrance into the house by means of the window, not only due to their laborious nature, but also because success was uncertain, due to the repetitiveness and noisiness of the movements which could have attracted the attention of passers-by in the street, was wholly ignored [by the appeal court] in favour of an axiomatic assumption that Guede alone had an interest in staging the burglary

Break-in Room Investigation

Only 5 samples were tested from the entire bedroom.

Exhibits and biological traces found in the bedroom of Filomena ROMANELLI (report of investigation, exhibits and seizures, prepared by Gabinetto Provinciale of the Scientific Police of Perugia, dated 11/05/2007

Rep.198 – Hair formation found between the lower corner of the left window shutter having the broken glass, indicated in the evidence photographs with the letter “R”, (report of the evidence described carried out by the Gabinetto Provinciale of Forensic Police of Perugia) – page 172 A.F./239 R.;

Rep.199 – Sample of presumed blood substance taken of the portion of the wood of the window having the broken glass, indicated in the evidence photographs by the letter “S”,(report of the evidence described carried out by the Gabinetto Provinciale of the Forensic Police of Perugia) – page 172 A.F./239 R.;

Exhibits and biological traces of the house of Via della Pergola nr.7, ground floor apartment (report of investigation, dated 12/19/2007) relative to the investigation carried out by the Polizia Scientifica on date 12/18/2007)

Rep.169 – Large rock and nr.2 fragment, presumably the same one, found on the floor inside the room in use by Filomena ROMANELLI, exhibit carried out by the Technical Consultant di Parte Prof. Saverio POTENZA (sample U) page 169 A.F./210 R.;

Rep.176 – Sample of presumed blood substance, revealed by luminol, carried out on the floor situated in the room in use by Filomena ROMANELLI (sample L1) – page 171 A.F./218 R.;

Rep.177 – Sample of presumed blood substance, revealed by luminol, present on the floor situated in the room in use by Filomena ROMANELLI (sample L2) – page 171 A.F./218 R

It was defense consultant Professor Saverio Potenza who suggested the rock be tested.[7] The single trace (48905) was extracted on December 29, 2007, and quantified on January 3, 2008. No DNA was detected.


Description Document Description Document
Hellmann Report – Why the scene in Filomena Romanelli’s room was the authentic work of known burglar Rudy Guede and not a staging by Knox and Sollecito English Exhibit list translated to English Download
Testimony: Paolo Brocchi Italian – English Crime Scene Photos November 2-3 Wiki Gallery or Download
Testimony: Matteo Palazzoli Italian Crime Scene Video November 2 Download – Youtube
Expert Testimony: Francesco Pasquali (Sollecito Defense) Italian – English Crime Scene Video November 3 Part 1Part 2
Testimony: Filomena Romanelli Italian Francesco Pasquali rock through window video Video


[1] Micheli Report Italian page 35

CHRISTIAN TRAMONTANO and MUSTPAHA AOUAD. The former indicated having experienced a burglary in his house on the previous 1st or 2nd of September, by a young black man – following the publication by the press of many photographs of GUEDE – he claimed to recognize today’s defendant. In particular, the man reported that at 6 in the morning of the day indicated he was awakened by some noises coming from the room below his bedroom in the attic: Looking down next to his partner who was with him, he saw a young black man, who was rummaging through his things, so he hurriedly and angrily got out of bed to try and send him away.

The other man, at that point, started to go down the spiral staircase that led to the floor below, but – finding the door closed – he faced towards TRAMONTANO who was following him, at first he grabbed a chair and brandished at him, then he pulled out a switchblade: the complainant, who was frightened, returned back upstairs, while his girl-friend called “113”, and in the meantime the burglar – who had said something in perfect Italian, and his breath smelled of wine – was able to escape.

In checking how much had been stolen, the man noticed that very few banknotes were missing and three credit cards; the next evening immediately after, going to the discotheque “Domus”, he thought he saw again the young man in question among the customers of the local. After some time, seeing GUEDE’s photo in the newpapers, TRAMONTANO had the impression that it was really him who had been the burglar.

Giulia Bongiorno Closing Arguments November 30, 2009 page 112

Cristian Tramontano ci riferisce che ha denunciato un furto subito da Rudi, riferisce che il ladro ha frugato tra gli effetti personali. Parole come eco, cellulari, quando Rudi si è… qui vengono rubati i cellulari, quando Rudi si introdotto nello studio degli Avvocati di Perugia viene rubato un cellulare, carte di credito, qui vengono rubate delle carte di credito quando Rudi si è introdotto a casa di Tramontano ha rubatodelle carte di credito.

[2] Meredith, incursione nella casa del delitto per terra coltelli e una candela, forse un rito February 18, 2009 – Intruders break into the cottage and perform a ‘rite’ laying knives in the kitchen and lighting a candle.

[3] Perugia, giallo nella casa del delitto Rubato il materasso e i coltelli di Meredith March 21, 2009 – Intruders break into the cottage again and steal Meredith’s mattress, two pillows and a suitcase with knives inside.

[4] Si intrufola nella villetta di Meredith e si mette a dormire, eroica donna delle pulizie May 2014 – An Albanian intruder is caught sleeping in the cottage.

[5] Perugia, il grido della Stranieri: «Basta furti e aggressioni ai danni dei nostri student» February 2015 – “The students of Perugia’s Stranieri University are being victims of a wave of burglaries, in some cases the burglars reacted violently when surprised by the residents. Currently most of the foreign students in Perugia come from China under exchange programs in cooperation with other Italian universities. The Chinese authorities already warned that if nothing is done, next semester the students will be moved to other Italian cities due to the insecurity problem in Perugia. The Stranieri’s General Director is very concerned.”

[6] Caso Meredith, Rudy Guede condannato per ricettazione December 2014 – Theft conviction confirmed by ISC

[7] Massei Report, page 193, english version:

In Filomena Romanelli’s room a few items were tested: a hairlike fibre [formazione pilifera] on the lower part of the window frame, and a presumed haematological substance on the wooden part of the window which held the broken pane. Both of these items yielded negative results on analysis. During the second search, on the suggestion of the defence’s technical consultant Professor Saverio Potenza, the large rock and two fragments found on the floor of the room were tested, but they yielded negative results.