Regarding the re-enactment, there has been a lot of criticism over the use of a computer generated re-enactment. Why? It's a re-enactment ... something that is commonly used all over the world.
I did a little more searching into this for you, Otto.
Here are some of the key issues surrounding the animation:
1. It cost $240,000. I looked up some figures for for forensic animations.
http://www.frameworkmedia.com/forensic_animation_faq.aspxAt Framework Media, the cost of creating a forensic animation can range anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000, depending upon duration and scene complexity.
http://www.hgexperts.com/article.asp?id=5247A forensic animation can range widely from $3,000 to $30,000
So, as you can see, the $240,000 price tag is extraordinarily high. I suspect this is the main reason for the investigation.
2.
Defense lawyers said the production was based on circumstantial evidence.
The second issue appears to be with the admissibility of the video. As I argued before, these animations typically are based on forensic data, or as mentioned below, eyewitness testimony. The Perugia animation appears to be based almost entirely on Mignini's theory and not on forensics (for how could it, since Amanda and Raf left no forensic traces for the animators to base the video on).
http://www.hgexperts.com/article.asp?id=5320The animator should be able to prove that the animation is based on data, reports and testimony provided to him. Also, the supplied data should be independently admissible. The forensic animation should be shown to be in agreement with witness or expert witness testimony. In many cases, the witness or expert witness is required to be a vital part of the verification process. There is very little room for the animator to be creative and “add” his own interpretation of events, as this leads to inaccuracies and inconsistencies.