...Then why did anyone bother writing an article on it? The US was very clear in the beginning of the investigation that we were removing evidence, such as cartridges and blood for analysis.
The UN has known this all along, and it has access to said evidence. The only reason to stick it in this article, in THIS context, is to give the impression that the US is covering up something...total BS....just like the claim that the UN found "evidence" that womens' hands were tied...uh...DUH!
Unless the UN was AT the site within a couple of hours of the attack, no such evidence exists. If any does, odds are it's fabricated, and considering these people's backward nature, they'd be lucky to have one operational camera among them.
This article is bogus. Thanks for the barf alert.
LOL! You answered your own question further along in your post.
The Eurosnot press has no problem reporting anything from unnamed sources or dubious sources, or preliminary unsubstantiated UN reports. No problem at all. And those already predisposed to believe the U.S. automatically lies about any and everything will believe this.
Notice how the part about the report being preliminary and unsubstantiated is buried in the story.
It's typical for these bozos to write a screaming headline such as "US COVERS UP EVIDENCE OF MASSACRE" and then in small print somewhere deep in the story, ...according to a preliminary, unsubstantiated report that relies on shadowy, nebulous, unnamed "eyewitnesses."