I think the clearer question is what did the police and Mignini think they were doing when they went after Amanda and Raf? What did the lab tech think she was doing? Footprint experts? Witnesses? All of it.
You can say stupidit, or self delusion, or even delirium (as Mignini was accused of in his abuse of office case at the same time).
But there seems to be a guiding principle that causes all these false elements to congeal into an accusation and conviction.
'Conspiracy theory' sounds tinged with kookiness, doesn't have to mean that, but that's kind of the baggage the word seems to be carrying at this point.
But a 'theory of conspiracy' sounds like a way to understand specific people acting in concert towards a specific identifiable objective. Surely its not all one way, or all the other.
The use of a particular word, is less important than what is meant to be conveyed by its use, imo. I promise not to reply anymore and further sully your response here.
This thread has been pulled off course by a false debate over strict definitions.
However, your response CJ72 about the meaning and role of "conspiracy theory" here is helpful. It is not helpful to use "conspiracy theory" pejoratively, as if its use signals kookiness.
Whether a frame-up or a noble-cause prosecution - the one thing this whole thing was, was a conspiracy. What that means is that two or more people conspired to achieve an end - in this case the conviction (wrongfully) of two people demonstrably innocent.
I'm old enough to remember the Iran/Contra-gate scandal in the Reagan Administration, where those who early on who were criticizing the White House for trading arms for hostages were called conspiracists; as if they were wild-eyed, tinfoil-hat-wearing nutcases.
One of the mainstream reporters later commented on how the word "conspiracy" had been hijacked around only one of its meanings - the pejorative one. Because in the case of the Iran/Contra-gate scandal, it turned out that there actually WAS a conspiracy - Col. Oliver North, Admiral Poindexter, etc., were conspiring to deliver arms for hostages, while at the same time maintaining deniability in the Oval Office. (It led to further concerns - just who was running American foreign policy, if the Chief Executive could be kept out of such a sensitive loop!)
Just like when someone said that US Presidents are never assassinated as the result of a conspiracy, they need to be reminded that four people were hanged, and one killed in a barn by authorities for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
Point being - any talk of a framing or of a noble-cause prosecution/investigation is, by definition, a conspiracy. Indeed, conspiracy is perhaps a better word than frame-up or noble cause..... my view is that it is unrecoverable anyway, the motives of those who early on fomented this unjust prosecution.
But like another poster observed upthread - it is refreshing that this is now where the debate is. A year ago - Vixen excepted - the debate was on phantom contact-list entries of drug dealers in mobile phones. Or grainy CCTV images from car-parks.
It's refreshing being in this post-exoneration period....
