Today Show continues misleading information

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.

9 thoughts on “Today Show continues misleading information

  1. Kosinski happened to quote a retired British doctor who said there is no evidence, but there are many additional experts who have stated the same. Would you like their names? Meanwhile, there are no experts left (apart from the prosecution’s) who will publicly state that the evidence is legitimate.

    I notice you include “crime reconstruction” in your body-of-evidence diagram. Can you elaborate? Do you agree that the chief of police, the prosecutor, the judge and the Minister of the Interior had enough information on 11/6/07, the day Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick were arrested, to confidently state, as they did, that the case was closed? Given there is no evidence of Amanda in Meredith’s bedroom, and very unlikely any of Raffaele, how does a crime reconstruction help establish their participation?

    • The entire crime scene is not just the bedroom, though Knox’s defense tries to make it so. The victim’s blood was trailed out into the hallway and was found in the bathroom and in the bedroom with the ostensible break-in. Thus the crime scene is the entire apartment. It was Knox’s dna that was found mixed with some of those blood drops, including the one found in a room that was not hers.

      Prosecutions in America don’t have the entire case made the day they arrest someone either. That’s what the trial is for. The argument of what information they had on Nov 6th is a spurious argument.

      The reconstruction I was referring to was the actual murder. The case included reconstruction and addressed the numerous wounds and how they were created.

      • The reconstruction I was referring to was the actual murder, too. I was responding to your phrase, “crime reconstruction,” not “crime scene reconstruction.”

        I brought what had been said at the press conference on November 6th into my argument because, on November 6th, it was claimed that three people had tried to engage Meredith Kercher into sexual relations and when she refused, they killed her. The same scenario was the prosecution’s case throughout the trial; they never let go of it.

        There is no way, even now, to reconstruct the crime based on the existing evidence and come up with that scenario. There certainly was no way to do it on the fourth day after the murder. The scenario sprang full blown from the prosecutor’s imagination and was accepted by others who believed the prosecutor had evidence of it. He did not.

        There is a difference between stating suspects are in custody and stating the case is closed, as if no trial will be necessary.

      • On november 6th, they already had some of the results of the autopsy. So some of what they say was supported by what was known at the tim. I’m not sure what evidence you believe would exclude the three-people case put forth by the prosecution.

  2. All the experts *do* say there is little evidence… some even say there is none. There isn’t a single reliable source who says there’s anything more than that. It’s only the witch hunters who scream “Guilty!” off of concocted claims with no scientific or legal weight who claim otherwise.

    • There is a difference between evidence that you dispute, and no evidence. Lots of evidence has been produced in this case, and the defense disputes all of it.

  3. pataz1 :
    On november 6th, they already had some of the results of the autopsy. So some of what they say was supported by what was known at the tim. I’m not sure what evidence you believe would exclude the three-people case put forth by the prosecution.

    What evidence would INCLUDE it? The medical examiner, Luca Lalli, said he could not state with certainty that a sexual assault had taken place (he was later let go). I don’t believe he stated unequivocally that Meredith’s injuries showed that she had been attacked by more than one person. Any other so-called evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was contrived after they were in prison.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s