For the second day in a row, Michelle Kosinski misleads americans into thinking there is “little evidence” in the appeal trial for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Reporting from Perugia, Kosinski states:
…the court just ordered a very careful new look at what little evidence exists.
Before Kosinski’s next report, she might want to take a look at the body of evidence.
Kosinski goes on to imply that independent experts will review the whole case, and the defense can call new witnesses at will.
The judge finally allowed independent experts to review the case. The defense can call new witnesses.
At this point, the independent experts have been selected to only review the DNA evidence on the knife and bra strap.
Kosinski also doesn’t have an understanding of that DNA evidence or why it is actually contested. Kosinski believes that all of the DNA can be retested:
Experts will retest that highly contested DNA evidence.
Indeed the experts appointed by the court have been given the permission to retest where possible. However, the primary defense objection to the victim’s DNA on the knife is that the DNA quantity was so low it required a refinement to the DNA testing, called Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA testing. Since DNA testing is destructive, retesting of the victim’s DNA originally found on the knife will likely not be possible. However there may have been sufficient DNA on the bra strap to allow for a restest.
Kosinski doesn’t stop there, however; she implies that its odd that Sollecito’s DNA was only found on the clasp, not the rest of the strap:
And a tiny trace of Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp but nowhere else on it, her body, or the scene.
Kosinski doesn’t mention that the clasp had been cut away from the rest of the bra.
Unfortunately, Kosinski fails to follow the courts lead in consulting with experts, and instead provides this incisive quote from… a retired british doctor:
There’s no evidence. There’s not the slightest bit of evidence.
For all the emphasis that Kosninski is placing on having experts review the evidence, she is quick to provide as her primary support a layperson who has no connection to the case.