Yes, always the 2 sides.It is very difficult to know how far and wide the PR campaign reaches. Yesterday, someone posted a link to this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...-win-for-american-accused-of-murder-in-italy/
CBS news should be respectable enough. The article is written on October 16, 2013. The article states that, according to the Conti and Vecchiotti report, the knife and related evidence (Meredith's DNA) have been "busted", "trashed", "dismissed" and deemed "unreliable. The article goes on to suggest that the prosecution is now basing the case entirely on the 36-I sample (currently being tested). The article also suggests that if 36-I DNA belongs to Knox, then the case should be thrown out. What about the crime scene evidence and circumstantial evidence? Apparently that should be completely ignored, at the very least it is ignored by the author of the article.
If that is responsible reporting, there is a serious problem somewhere. The Conti and Vecchiotti report has been heavily criticized and is pretty much the primary reason that the appeal was annulled. None of the conclusions of the report are accepted by the court. Yet, the CBS article uses that rejected report as the foundation for the points made in the article. How is that possible? Where does such inaccurate and un-researched reporting come from? Is this an example of PR propaganda, or is it a reflection of the absence of integrity in today's news reporters?
I just had a look at the comments below the article. There you read the two sides of the debate. On the one hand, several people attempt to reinforce that claim that the Conti and Vecchiotti report is valid, and on the other and, others attempt to clarify that the knife evidence is still accepted by the court regardless of the Conti and Vecchiotti report.
And I would agree that journalism has sunk to new low: Not enough objectivity, not enough research, too much buying into one's own cultural or political camp's agenda. Clearly the case with the above CNN "journalist".
But although I can see both that this CNN journalist is dismissing things out of hand, and the other poster's point about both sides putting their spin on things, I still am bothered that I don't know if the facts that I had listed in my other post (CCTV showing postal police before Sollecito phoned them; Amanda being spotted getting cleaning supplies first thing in the morning; etc.) were really discounted (broken clock, man "recalled" seeing Amanda 12 months after the fact) or if this is merely rumor or spin?:tantrum: