I don't know how many times I have to say it. Nothing was 'planted' if you mean by that 'daubed on the bra hooks or knife blade'. Stefanoni produced a couple of graphs, that's all. Such is my theory. And either my theory is correct or she did indeed hole her second to the 18th to make the play off and then hole in one at the first extra hole.
Since you are famous for being certain they are innocent, what do you think the odds are that just about the only knife they tested, which, you say, had nothing whatever to do with the crime, showed up an incriminating profile?
The cops don't know how to do LCN 'planting' but Stef knows that LCN = unrepeatable and that's how she fixed it. IMHO.
There seems to be confusion between "official misconduct" and "framed" and also between "false evidence" or "misleading evidence" and "planted evidence".
1. Knife blade DNA
The LCN claimed associated with the knife blade was not necessarily on the knife blade, and was not necessarily planted. It could have been a contamination event of the kind that would be likely to occur in a lab that was not well-maintained with respect to freedom from contamination. In this hypothesis, many other samples would have been shown to contain low levels (LCN levels) of Meredith Kercher's DNA, had the EDFs been made available. In this hypothesis, the electropherograms shown for samples tested and made available to the defense were scaled to either not show or, in the case of the knife blade, to show this lab contamination. This would be the reason that EDFs of controls, including negative controls, were not provided.
The quantification results actually provided by Stefanoni did show DNA contamination of at least one control, but there were no profiles provided for the controls. In an honest and forthcoming forensic DNA lab, the EDFs (which show all DNA profile raw data detected) of all samples and controls would be provided. There is likely to be a reason they were not in this case. Based on sample numbering, there may have been a secret retest of the knife, with no information provided on the original results.
2. Bra clasp DNA
For the bra clasp, based on sample numbering, there may have been a secret retest, with no information provided on the original test. The DNA on the bra clasp (if any was indeed present) was destroyed by storage at room temperature of the clasp in a sealed tube containing extraction fluid. Persons with minimal training in the field of DNA technology would recognize this storage method as one leading to the degradation (break-down) of the DNA. (An analogy would be the thorough shredding of a document, separating each letter of each word of each sentence, resulting in a random collection of letters which could not be reassembled into the original text.)
One possible motivation for this destruction of the DNA on the clasp would be that the results presented in the electropherogram provided to the court and the defense did not represent what a fairly-obtained one would show. That is, suppose that the bra clasp only had Kercher's DNA on it, and that somehow the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito, and perhaps inadvertently that of several other males, was added to the sample in the lab. (This could have been a contamination event or an intentional fraud.) The lab technician responsible fo this hypothetical "mix-up" would not want a retest done, which might be incriminating to the technician and cast doubt on the validity of the (alleged) evidence as presented by the lab.
ETA: For the bra clasp, it could have been that there was a DNA contamination event before the clasp reached the lab, but the technician was not confident that a retest would support the "official" lab finding. This could be, for example, if one hook but not the other was contaminated with Sollecito's DNA, as a result of, for example, the (notoriously unprofessional and contrary to international standards) evidence collection technique.
