This article starts off with some serious points about science and law.
It will become apparent soon enough why I have posted this under 'humor'.
Please bear with me.
Being 'fitted up' means being 'framed' - being on the receiving end of criminal charges founded on false evidence.
It occurs to me that if a person is acquitted through the framing of a defence based on false evidence, or the bad 'framing' by the judge of good evidence then the expression 'unfitted up' might be apt.
Means, motive, opportunity + ?
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
The act is not enough to show guilt unless the mind is guilty.
In pulp fiction and movies it is often stated by 'experts' that a successful prosecution for murder can be brought if means, motive and opportunity are proven. These are indeed necessary conditions, but they are not sufficient. Mens_rea is not often mentioned, much less expanded to incorporate the general character and psychological makeup of a suspect.
"The defendant was discovered in an alley with the murder victim, who had been strangled with some sort of ligature. The victim had a coin gripped in his hand. The defendant has never had any money. The defendant was wearing a headscarf at the time in question. The prosecution has established means, motive and opportunity. I urge you, members of the jury, to look to your consciences and ask yourselves if there is any doubt in your minds that the killer was Mother Theresa."
I suggest that means, motive, opportunity and predisposition to commit the crime are the sufficient and necessary conditions for the bringing of a successful prosecution in a jury trial for any planned crime.
Unless the judge is hopelessly inept, biased, or both.
The following video is not entirely unconnected with the 1979 trial - at London's Old Bailey - of a prominent politician, for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ??? Trial