Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

But they also supported the Tycho Brahe model. In fact the reason why Galileo preferred the heliocentric model was a form of Occam's Razor: simplicity, a minor number of causal postulates; and the reason why he considered extra terrestrial planet phases and moons as circumstantial evidence is: analogy.

Analogies and the reducing of the number of causes were his argumentations.

Highlight 1: Yes, and part of the scientific method used today

Highlight 2: No, there are contradictions between Galileo's observations and inferences and the geocentric theory. The revolution of the moons of Jupiter around the planet were of course analogous to the inferred revolution of the planets around the sun of the heliocentric theory, but analogy is not demonstration. The Jovian moons were a counter-demonstration to (or, in other words, falsification of) the geocentric theory.

ETA: Among the guilters and their analogs among the Italian judiciary, one of the clear departures from logic is the abandonment of Occam's razor.

 

[Dan O.]

Of course I am calling Guede a liar. What Guede said is irrelevant: he said this very late, after his arrest. Guede also claims he cut his hand during the crime, and in fact he had scars on his fingers, do you recall that?

You are proving yourself a liar.

From Rudy's Skype conversation:
R. And it was like my pants were falling down, because I hurried out of the bathroom, I hurried out of the bathroom, so I fell on the ground, and then the guy ran away, he escaped, he went out the door, see? And then I got up, and I tried to help, to staunch the wounds, I took a towel in the bathroom, I tried to...to...
G. Staunch the wound?
R. ...to put it into the wound, see, I was trying, and she was clinging to me hard, very hard. So before anything, I know...it's not that I ran away, but I was scared, I don't know why I didn't call the ambulance, it's because...I was alone there right then, alone, and it was a huge mess of blood, and I was scared that they would blame only me.
​

The towels are evidence of a cleanup, there is no question of this, is it?
And another sure fact, is that someone was on the crime scene some time after the crime was committed. Maybe hours later. Meredith was already dead when they pulled the duvet over her, but she didn't die immediately. She was also lying in a different position and was still wearing her sweater when she was stabbed. And someone swept blood with semi circular movement around her after her death.

Did you forget already that it was Rudy that said he grabbed the towels from Maredith's bath

And where is your evidence for this "hours later" when the duvet was pulled over her?

I have established more facts myself than all posters of this forum altogether.

Are you calling the crap you spew into this thread facts?

I have done things like a thorough analysis and measurement of the bathmat print, showing whom it belongs to and whom it does not.

How could you do that when you don't even recognize that the right edge of that print is extended because of saturation and not showing the boundary of the foot that made it.

Yet it seems the forum is full of posters who make statements and claim while feling no need to establish anything. Remind: I am not the person who starts with claiming absence of DNA is evidence of absence, I am responding pointing out the inconsistency of their arguments. How much DNA is deposited turning on a light switch? A nice question. By the way, did someone establish how much DNA is deposited by stabbing someone in the neck? Maybe zero picograms?

And what happens when you walk inside a room and touch objects with your hands, after you just had you fingers cut? Did Guede cut his fingers, or not? Why didn't he leave his blood drops in the small bathroom, where he supposedly washed his hands?

You really should be more familiar with the material. Anyone that signed up with Marriott got a nice package with everything they need so they don't have to make anything up.

Rudy says already in the Skype call that the wound on his hand didn't bleed:

R. Well, firstly this person wasn't bigger than me, I mean taller, physically, in height, he wasn't taller than me. His back was turned, and I saw there...Meredith...I saw Meredith who was bleeding already, she had a slash in her throat, and this guy took a knife and I've got wounds on my hands because I grabbed his hand, he tried to stab me and I still have the wounds on my hands, the signs, that are healing now, but I still have them on my hand...

R. ...I was trying to help her, Giacomo, it's not that...my blood, no, I don't know if there is any or not, because I didn't bleed, I didn't actually bleed, my wounds that I had, the guy just wounded me lightly, it didn't bleed, now I can't tell you...
​

Why there are no traces of Guede's blood and of his bloody hands nor his DNA on Meredith's body, if he returned to the scene and touched the body half an hour later or so?

No blood of Rudy's was found. But his DNA was found in several places like on the pillow case, Meredith's bra, inside Meredith's vagina. What gets me is how does Napolione know about Rudy's DNA on the pillow when this result doesn't show in the official records? Could it be that Stefanoni did take a swabbing from the stain that was visible on the pillow right below Meredith's vagina? Is that the semen sample that she was calling her lab about the next morning saying that it needed to be tested right away? It's curious that the call happened on the 3rd yet no work was supposedly done until the 5th. Italians must have a funny concept of what "right away" means.


And about Rudy's DNA on the bra. That was found right where someone might try to grab the bra strap to move or lift a body. It also happens to be the point on the bra where if someone tried to lift a body with it the bra would disassemble by ripping out the stitching exactly as we see this bra did. But if someone did try to lift a body this way and the stitching did rip out, when the final stitch holding the clasp on the band snaps the band is suddenly going to pull through that persons fingers potentially leaving a burn from where the friction of the edge of the band cuts against the fingers. Nasty things these friction burns, they hurt like hell because of the particles left behind but they don't necessarily bleed because the heat cauterizes the wound. Without the blood to promote the healing process they heal slowly.

And how is it that he got his bare feet dirty with blood, if he was wearing shoes? (and whose is the second footprint on the mat?)
And how did he manage to wash (why?) his feet splashing half of the bathmat with bloody water, without stepping or dropping water on the bathroom floor? And why is there no trail of bare bloody footprints going to or leaving from the bathmat?

And here you are claiming that you have this all figured out. Rudy offers a hint in his diary written in the German prison:

I left the house in shock. I was outside, but didn’t know where to go, seeing still all that blood. It was all so red. I thought of going home. I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt. There were a lot of people in the street, in Piazza Grimana. There were some guys still playing basketball even though it was dark.
I arrived back home, not knowing what to do. I remember having taken off my pants. I changed only those, because of the clothes I was wearing, only the trousers were dirty.​

Rudy has apparently gotten blood on the outside right seem of his trousers just about knee hight if the drip on the bathroom door is any indication. The easiest way to quickly clean this off is to slip off the shoes and step into the shower. Using the wand to rinse that portion of the pants while holding up the leg and a flow of bloody water will flow across the bottom of the foot. taking a single step out of the shower to grab a towel or something and the toes of the right foot are placed on the edge of the bath mat. The heal isn't set down but bloody water continues to drip off the pant cuff saturating the right edge of the print. Stepping back into the shower, the towel is used to dry the foot and pat down the excess moisture from the pant leg. This towel is tossed onto the bathmat as Rudy uses the shower wand to rinse down the shower. Rudy finishes wiping his feet on the towel and bathmat then puts his shoes back on Bloody water dripped off Rudy's hand into the sink when he reached for the towel. Bloody water drips off his pant leg when he props his foot on the bidet to tie the laces.

 

[Dan O.]

Who cares about the lamp.

I want to know who testified about the lamp.

 

[Numbers]

He was wrong to endorse the heliocentric theory given the evidence at the time. He just got lucky.

How can it be "wrong" to "endorse" a theory?

His evidence contradicted one theory and supported another. It may not have fully contradicted Tycho's theory, but the heliocentric theory was consistent with the differences in orbital motion observed versus the "fixed" stars for the inner planets (Mercury and Venus) compared to the outer planets (Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). Tycho's model was not supported by those observed differences in orbital motion.

 

[Draca]

The towels are evidence of a cleanup, there is no question of this, is it?
And another sure fact, is that someone was on the crime scene some time after the crime was committed. Maybe hours later. Meredith was already dead when they pulled the duvet over her, but she didn't die immediately. She was also lying in a different position and was still wearing her sweater when she was stabbed. And someone swept blood with semi circular movement around her after her death.

This is not reality. The duvet was deeply stained with blood in a moving pattern, she was still alive when the duvet was involved. There is nothing to show she was moved after death. That blood swept in a motion would NOT have swept that way if not fresh. She was likely dragged while still alive a few feet causing that. Your assumption that it happened after death makes no sense.

 

[RWVBWL]

About that Gravity stuff...

Carbonjam's Gravity post has my thinking about, well, gravity.
Now I am not a dude who went to college, just a guy who only got my Venice High School diploma, yea.

But when I look again at this photograph of Meredith Kercher's upraised arm and hand,
I wonder: Would not gravity had a different effect?

Look at the position of her hand.

Do a test.
Now lay on your couch, bed, or better yet, your own floor.

Put your left arm along side your torso and raise it,
next raise your hand to the position like Miss Kercher's.
Now relax, let gravity have its effect.

How is Mereridith hand so high?
My hand falls to a 90 degree angle and then flops down onto my chest if completely relaxed.

I'm bothered by this, and the blood drops on her hand which do not appear smeared, they make it look like the duvet was placed under and over her later. But heck, what do I know? I still think that it is a blonde hair in her grasp also...
RW

 

[Planigale]

This calculation is incorrect. Let's try to see where the error is. I will not consider single data figures but I will address instead another concept, which is: the need to change the sample base on which develop error analisis, that means a change in the whole statystical distribution function whenever you change the reference sample. The error in LJs' calculation consists in keeping the same reference sample. LJ does not change the population of reference of the sample.

I already made an example that has to do with age. An average Italian person currently has less than 10% probability to survive up to 88 years.
In fact, less than 50% of individuals survive until 80 years of age. So the average Italian has less than 50% probability to survive beyond 80 years.

However, wht's the probability for an 80 year old person to reach 88 years? The probability is above 50%.

It means if you pick up a random sample of 80 year old people, after 8 years you will find that more than 50% is still alive. This is much more than what you would expect if you considered the general sample.
A 80 year old person has a much higher probability to reach 88 years of age than an average person.
Why this?

Because a sample population of 80 year old people is not the average Italian population.
If you want to calculate the actual probability, once you know a value, you need to consider an appropriate sample.
The distribution becomes more diffuse and the gradient of the curve with this new sample is less steep, because the sample has changed.

In other words, if you want to calculate a probability base on gastric emptying, then you need to re-draw the curve, that shall be a curve that describes the distribution of that new, diferent sample, a sample of cases of gastric emptying later than 100-150 minutes.

If you assume as a known value that the gastric emptying has not started after 100 minutes, you need to consider a curve based on a sample population of people whose gastric emptying didn't start after 100 minutes, not the average case population. Based on a known value, you should do a research focused on a sample of people who share that value, not the average population of cases; than draw another curve based on that sample, and after that you can calculate gradient and areas.

But whether you choose a seventy, eighty or ninety year old you can be sure they will not reach 120. There is still a limit. I accept that we are selecting someone with longer than normal gastric emptying, but you still have right censoring. You cannot argue that short of death gastric emptying will be indefinitely delayed. It remains true that even in your case it is more likely an eighty year old will die before ninety than after ninety, and it is unlikely they will reach 100, and very unlikely they will live to 110 and certain they will be dead before 120.

 

[anglolawyer]

I would strongly disagree with anyone claiming that an unreliable or bogus piece of evidence can be combined with credible evidence, or a collection of such unreliable or bogus pieces can be combined, to form a probative whole which indicates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is a difference between 'unreliable' and 'bogus', firstly. Nothing can shore up bogus evidence. But something which is, viewed in isolation, not reliable can be shored up by something else and turned into useful evidence. It's got a name - corroboration. It's very difficult to use this case as an illustrative example because most of the so-called evidence is indeed bogus but, in a proper case and like I said before, if a hurricane had blown the house away after the luminol tests but before TMB then the resulting evidence would not be fundamentally worthless and incapable of proving anything. It could conceivably have probative value if other evidence existed that showed, say, there had been all-night cleaning activity in the house (lights on, noise, use of cleaning materials, mop with traces of blood etc).

Let's step back and remember why we are discussing this in the first place. It's because Galati, the ISC and Nencini claim that Hellman erred in looking at evidence in isolation and not taking the above principle into account. The guilters now parrot this as though it resolves everything. It doesn't. Weak evidence may not survive direct assault. It may never make it, not because it is weak (weak evidence is still evidence) but because it is destroyed altogether. The luminol hits are a good example, as are the knife, the bra clasp, Curatolo, Quintavalle and many things besides.

The other thing about circumstantial evidence is it should all point to just one thing. Only one thing that actually happened. The Thing That Actually Happened gave off evidence like radiation and the sensors detecting it should be able to describe its path through space time accurately. What we have instead is a mėlange of inconsistent and irreconcilable junk that cannot be made to fit no matter how hard you try. That there are many out there, including Italian judges, willing to make fools of themselves in the attempt doesn't alter the fact.

 

[Planigale]

1. The first question is: where did Meredith receive the fatal blow, which caused the massive blood loss? I mean the location in space. This spot is located between 40 and 60 centimeters from the floor, left of the wardrobe.
Meredith was facing the wall, the fatal wound is at her left, the person holding the kitchen knife (Knox) inflicted the fatal blow while she was located between Meredith and the bed. Immediately after Knox retracted the knife and herself and she let the knife on the bed sheet where the blade left an iprint (which matches the kitchen knife perfectly btw).
Note: between 40 and 60 centimeters. This is the height from which blood travelled by gravity.
Nobody could be standing under such a low spot.
Only the person who was keeping the hold on her in that kneeling position whould have been somehow get significantly dirty with blood, and may also work as a screen to blood drops.

Meredith was immediately left on the floor while the perpetrators retracted and at least two of them run immediately outside. In some minutes Meredith died of haemorragic suffocation and fatal blood loss.
Pools of blood were formed in that spot of the room over the minute following the fatal blow or so, but I don't see why some perpetrator must have necessarily walked in the pools.

2. Rudy Guede was the person holding Meredith. He had both his hands free. He was at her back, slighlty on her right, and was basically the person closest to her. At first he used a hand to commit a sexual violence but then he used both his hand to restrain her, blocking her right wirst. He pressed the palm of his hand on her mouth when she screamed, and so his palm got dirty with blood.

3. Her trousers had been removed forcedly by someone who was pulling them while someone else was holding her. The person who was holding her was Guede, and the person who pulled her trousers could have been Knox. Meredith did not remove her trousers herself, because the trousers are completely reversed and that would be a very unusual and difficult way to remove them even if she did it under threat. You need someone to pull them from a somehow distant position. But someone must hold her. Basically, you need two people.
This means there are some perpetators who are somehow in "external" position.

4. One assailant was facing her at some moment. This assailant did not have both his hands free as Guede did. This one was holding a knife, possibly a small knife, which produced a small cut on her left cheek, that looks like a kind of threat.

5. Meredith also suffered a wound on the right side of her neck. That was a rather superficial wound (4 centimeters) from a pointed narrow blade, a different knife. It's a minor wound but it's the wound that caused the soaking with blood of the bra shoulder, and this happened in another spot of the room, closer to the entrance and while Meredith's head was much more higher from the floor. But she was laid down fwith force on the floor at a certain point. Someone climbed over her, and pressed her body against the floor (the weight caused bruises at the bottom of her back).

6. Meredith was obviously resisting through all the steps of this violent assault. She was never complied with the aggrssors. Her wounds are a massive set of defensive wounds, they show how the assailants were forced to employ physical force to restrain her, they show her resistence. However, they also show that her capability to resist was being diminished, her hands were immobilized. Only one hand has defensive wounds showing contact with the blade and those defensive wounds are minimal. She has massive defensive wounds, but not defensive wounds on her hands.

Mach you are intelligent, so you must know the highlighted part is fantasy. Even assuming that AK, RS and RG were in the room and all participated in the crime it is impossible to say who struck a particular blow. To say Knox did it says more about the person arguing this. The only honest approach is to say that one of them did so. If one is being scrupulously honest one would say the fatal blow could have been struck with the smaller knife (no one argued this was impossible) or the larger knife (ex Sollecito), though some would argue there was disputed evidence against the larger knife. I will note interpretations of the knife print differs.

I also note that the argument for more than one person being involved is the lack of defence wounds, while you say she had massive defence wounds, so does this favour a single assailant? Or perhaps one can not conclude anything about whether there was a single or multiple assailant from the presence or absence of defence wounds.

Finally if there was such close contact between AK, RS, and MK there should have been fibre transfer, where is the evidence of this? Any competent forensic service would be looking for fibre transfer. (We know RG disposed of his clothes and never revealed where so we cannot look for fibre transfer on his clothes).

 

[anglolawyer]

My sig over at IIP asks about the fibre evidence. It's as though Stefanoni just doesn't do it.

 

[Kauffer]

Surface sampling

If Machiavelli is claiming that the absence of DNA is proof that Rudy did not touch the item in question, then this assertion is wrong. Sometimes people touch items yet do not leave DNA, according to Suzanna Ryan.

This study also appears to conclude that there is a greater likelihood of obtaining a touch DNA sample from a rough, porous substrate than any other. It was an obvious oddity in this case that Mr Sollecito's DNA was allegedly found on the metal hooks of the bra fragment but not the fabric either of the fragment or the rest of the bra. The PG version of the crime must either conceive of a manner of pulling the bra away from the body so that the fabric is not touched, which seems difficult, or maintain that the finding of DNA on the hooks but not the fabric is not an unlikely phenomenon. And yet it appears to be unlikely.

 

[Kauffer]

Meaning

It's an interesting observation, interesting quotes from dictionary entries.

A good occasion to point out another aspect of law and language.

In the Italian law and in the Italian language too, there isn't a word equivalent to "evidence".

The italian word used for "evidence" is prova, which is the same word used for mathematical "proof" and a synonim of "demonstration".

The word evidenza exists in Italian, but means "what's apparent", "what seems obvious", it does not have a use related to investigation or crime.

In the Italian law, instead of "evidence" there are two different words (with some variants, say to concepts), one word is prova and the othr word is indizio.

Prova is roughtly "direct evidence";
Indizio is (roughly) "circumstantial evidence";

Both words are numerable (they have a singular and plural form).

Prova means a complete proof, which may consist in what you would call some big piece of direct evidence, or be constituted of a number of indizi, that is pieces of circumstantial evidence.

One single indizio is a piece of circumstantial evidence, something that "indicates" and let's say points in the direction of how to build a proof.

As you may guess from the Italian language, the equivalents of "evidence" are translated as something very related to the semantics of mathematics and logic. The concept of "inference" is very strong in the word prova, and also present to some degree in the word indizio. Those words tend to have an "active", or "performative" meaning, describe the activity of a subject, like "find the result"; they mean "build a demonstration" and "follow a direction". For an Italian speaker prova (evidence) is foremost an argumentation, not an object.

I think this concept of inference is very inherent to the Italian words prova and indizio, which are also the words of legal language.

Is this where Italian justice is mired? In the limitations of conceptualisation based on language deficiencies? What we are interested in is EVIDENCE - in the first instance, this is a non-abstract noun. You have these in Italian, I think.

 

[platonov]

Rust________!

Cleaning supplies_________!

A whole host of possible substances_________!

Not blood___________.

I'm still thinking turnipjuice.


Moving on, On this 'Not blood' belief.

Would you assign a 0% probability. Could you show your calculations.
The ToD stuff is no longer funny (for me) & I love some maths in the morning

 

[Kauffer]

Well now, it seems to me that Italy's record in this regard is no worse than that of any other European nation (god knows why the hell you think "North Korea" is relevant), which is entirely Machiavelli's point. So what is your point?

If Italy's record is unremarkable in the context of all countries submissions to the ECHR it might be intelligent to realise the total irrelevance of the topic and stop droning on about it endlessly. You won't of course . In a week's time, when you think everyone has forgotten about it, you'll be frothing at the mouth and spouting about Italy's diabolical human rights record!! Plus ca change...

Italy's human rights record is miserable. It's one of the principal reasons why we need the ECHR and the various rapporteurs.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Italy's human rights record is miserable. It's one of the principal reasons why we need the ECHR and the various rapporteurs.

Oh dear, here we go. Yawn. We have already discussed this and shown that the Italy's record is unremarkable. That's the fact of the matter. It might not support your wild conspiracy theory but that's the situation.

 

[Samson]

But whether you choose a seventy, eighty or ninety year old you can be sure they will not reach 120. There is still a limit. I accept that we are selecting someone with longer than normal gastric emptying, but you still have right censoring. You cannot argue that short of death gastric emptying will be indefinitely delayed. It remains true that even in your case it is more likely an eighty year old will die before ninety than after ninety, and it is unlikely they will reach 100, and very unlikely they will live to 110 and certain they will be dead before 120.

In fact there are two probabilities that must be multiplied.
1. The probability of being murdered.
2. The probability that gastric emptying begins outside the bell curve peak.
All mathematicians will conclude that Meredith's gastric emptying commencement would be normal, and that she is unlikely to be murdered, so she was murdered at the earliest time evidence allows, and indeed, strongly suggests, 9pm.

I fail to see why this is not the most simple project for Marriot to earn his money, rather than to requisition it.

 

[platonov]

Margins of error - for the noobs

Well, Machiavelli's point has some (very limited, and misunderstood) validity.

The experimental curve for t(lag) is demonstrably a modified bell curve, with a significantly squashed left hand side (owing to the fact that the curve cannot extend beyond t=0) and a shortened tail on the right hand side (owing to the fact that there is a definitive upper limit to t(lag)).

And Machiavelli is correct to say that we are dealing with the far right hand side of this bell curve, where there is (by definition) a shallower gradient, and where therefore there is a lesser step change in probability per unit of time than for the steep middle part of the curve.

But....... the curve at this point still enables cogent, statistically-valid analysis. I can go over the precise data at some point if necessary, but from memory, the curve obeys the following approximate properties:

At t=150, the area under the curve to the right of this point equates to about 2%, meaning that there's a 2% probability that t(lag) is >= 150 minutes.

At t=180, the area under the curve to the right equates to about 0.2%, meaning that a) there's a 2% probability that t(lag) is >=180m, and b) there's a 1.8% (2%-0.2%) probability that t(lag) is between 150m and 180m.

At t=210, the area under the curve to the right equates to about 0.01%, meaning that a) there's a 0.01% probability that t(lag) is >=210m, b) there's a 1.99% (2%-0.01%) probability that t(lag) is between 150m and 210m.

At t=240, the curve has reached zero on the y-axis, showing that there's zero probability of t(lag) >=240m.

Now, with all those in mind, the pertinent questions are actually conditional probability calculations. These are as follows:


Q1: Given that t >=150*, what is the probability that t(lag) is between 150-180m as opposed to >180m?

A1: 90%. In other words, it's 90% likely that Kercher died between 9pm and 9.30pm as opposed to later than 9.30pm.


Q2: Given that t >=150, what is the probability that t(lag) is between 150-210m as opposed to >210m?

A2: 99.5%. In other words, it's 99.5% likely that Kercher died between 9pm and 10pm as opposed to later than 10pm.


Q3: Given that t >=150, what is the probability that t(lag) is between 150-240m as opposed to >240m?

A3: 100%. It's a statistical certainty that Kercher died between 9pm and 10.30pm as opposed to later than 10.30pm.


That's what an analysis of the statistics, and the proper application of conditional probability theory, tell us. I will concede that there's bound to be some margin of error around these numbers, but the overall message will remain absolutely firm: it's very highly likely that Kercher died between 9pm and 9.30pm; it's a virtual certainty that she died between 9pm and 10pm, and its a total certainty that she died before 10.30pm.


* Working on the knowledge that start of Kercher's last meal (which is the relevant starting point here) took place at around 6.30pm, and that she was last knowingly alive just before 9pm (150 minutes later)

I was a math teacher. This is lovely.

If you think that’s lovely THIS will knock your socks off.

 

[anglolawyer]

I quoted some of the testimony HERE.

If you work back from that post for 2 or 3 pages your confusion may be at an end.

Oh what a pity, Platonov. I thought you were being serious for once and wasted a few minutes of my life looking for this 'testimony' of yours. I only found you making the excellent point that the presence of the lamp would probably not have been what those at the door immediately noticed. We are in complete agreement on this one tiny little point.

 

[Diocletus]

Oh dear, here we go. Yawn. We have already discussed this and shown that the Italy's record is unremarkable. That's the fact of the matter. It might not support your wild conspiracy theory but that's the situation.

Um, well, I think what actually happened was that you made a questionable post, were asked for a cite and backup, failed to supply, and now you're beating your chest about your "point". Not impressed.

Italy seems to have significant echr problems.

 

[Kauffer]

Oh dear, here we go. Yawn. We have already discussed this and shown that the Italy's record is unremarkable. That's the fact of the matter. It might not support your wild conspiracy theory but that's the situation.

"We note with satisfaction that Italy ratified the Optional Protocol of the Convention against Torture on April 3, 2013, though Italy has yet to establish or designate a national prevention mechanism, nor has it incorporated into domestic law the crime of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention against Torture. At this writing, a bill to do the latter is pending in parliament. We regret that Italy has yet to fulfill its pledges to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and to establish a national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles." September 19th 2014

http://m.hrw.org/news/2014/09/09/italy-upr-submission-march-2014

Wild conspiracy theory? Really?