The first words you find on this fellow's Web page say that "(t)he scientific analysis of the literature of the New Testament reveals many signs of a heavy ecclesiastical censorship of the historical aspects of the early christian origins." Don't believe a word of it: Science has as much to do with this work as it does with jostling a pinball machine; the "censorship" (as usual with all such theories) is assumed yet never proved, much less proved through textual criticism; the errors are the same old ball of wax we've been cleaning out of our ears with the Q-tips of sound scholarship since Day 1. I was asked to look into the work of David Donnini by a reader, and here's what we find. This critic of Italian origin spends a great deal of time on one subject in particular, the trial of Jesus. There's not much to say here, for all we find is the same mistakes we have addressed in this piece on that subject. Not that even this means much, for it appears that Donnini lifts most of his material uncritically from Weddig Fricke, who is one of the primary writers addressed in our piece.

Possibly the only unique aspect of Donnini's trial material is his "computer analysis" comparing the Jewish trial recorded in Matthew 26 and the Roman trial recorded in Mark 14. Apparently Donnini finds some significance in the similarities of the material, thusly (J from Matthew, R from Mark):

From this Donnini concludes that "the Jewish trial appears just like a copy of the Roman one, with exactly the same words pronounced," and therefore, "the Synoptic authors reveal their need to depict the Jews as those who wanted Jesus' death, not the Romans, which is why they invented the existence of a previous legal action in the house of the High Priest before the later one in the presence of Pilate. All these observations give us decisive elements of interpretation: the starting point of the synoptic tradition is the explicit need to turn the Romans' responsibility into that of the Jews, perhaps because admitting the Romans' responsibility would have had unacceptable political implications."

Well, if Donnini needed a computer to figure this one out, I suppose he also needs a calculator to compute tips at restaurants. Nevertheless, what of these parallels? To begin with, it is clear that this thesis is dependent upon Matthew's dependence on Mark, which is far from a solid thesis. But the real error in this package is that Matthew's Roman trial scene, and Mark's Jewish trial scene, is not a a lot less of a parallel. Let me add it in using A as a notation for Matthew's Roman scene, and B for Mark's Jewish scene:

So in other words, even if Matthew did copy Mark somehow, the elements are still the same, albeit in a different order -- most likely because of the oral structure that would be given to the stories, but regardless of the reason, Donnini's thesis is pure hokum.

Other than this, against the idea that the Jews had no right to execute people, Donnini cites all of the usual cases we cover in our trial piece, only adding a note that Herod "executed hundreds of Jews" (of course he did; tetrarchs were vested with Roman authority!). Donnini goes on to borrow a page or so from the old "Jesus as revolutionary" thesis of Carmichael and others; nothing new there, though there is a curious twist about Paul setting out to re-invent Christianity as non-violent as a way of preserving the peace and avoiding Roman interference. (Not that it helped: Romans still didn't like Christianity anyway, so Donnini's Paul wasn't the bright counter-saboteur he needed to be to pull this off.) The Gosepls, at any rate, are said to show a re-adjustment in this view, but don't take Donnini's few words for it.

Bottom line: There's nothing new here, and little worthy of attention. It's just the same old conspiracy thesis peddled by yet another writer who has picked up a few books, mashed them together with a few ideas, and thinking he's done the job properly. And as usual, we beg to differ.