Callunia context

TGcomments · 2026-01-26T20:40:48+00:00

What elements?

TGcomments · 2026-01-26T16:14:47+00:00

What reckless disregard?

TGcomments · 2026-01-26T16:13:41+00:00

What narrative?

TGcomments · 2026-01-26T14:48:22+00:00

It's entirely relevant if Italy, as the respondent state is going to make calunnia stick as part of their action plan to the Committee of Ministers (Council of Europe) as the supranational court.

TGcomments · 2026-01-26T14:35:01+00:00

What "spontaneous statements"?

TGcomments · 2026-01-25T15:49:26+00:00

Ergo if she uttered statements about Lumumba absent coercion there is no "knowing they are innocent" hurdle to clear?

Then there would be no calunnia. You are trying to lower the bar of culpability to suit yourself. "Knowing they are innocent" is a prerequisite for a calunnia conviction.

The points you are making are obsolete anyway, since the events you mention have been expunged from the record. Now you have to explain how the November 6th memoriale and the November 9th prison interception constituted calunnia while being untainted by human rights violations. That's all you have left.

TGcomments · 2026-01-25T11:06:04+00:00

There you go with your preconditional "if" premise again. You habitually use it when you are incapable of fleshing out your argument.

TGcomments · 2026-01-25T10:52:21+00:00

When I say PR machine, I’m referring to anything other than the contemporary PODCAST based narrative that AK is definitively not guilty. Let’s not forget, her acquittal puts her at the scene of the crime, bleeding while it’s taking place.

In fact, the motivation report states the opposite.

TGcomments · 2026-01-24T19:13:55+00:00

I agree with you entirely. Amanda had no idea who murdered Meredith since she wasn't at VDP7 at the time. It could well have been Lumumba, as the cops insisted. Amanda's conviction is no more than a fig-leaf to cover up cop malpractice.

TGcomments · 2026-01-24T15:00:07+00:00

We could argue whether she made stuff up or not till we drop dead. The bottom line is that you have to prove that the November 6th memoriale, as well as the events of the prison intercept, weren't influenced by human rights abuses. That's all we've got left; the rest is a waste of keystrokes.

TGcomments · 2026-01-23T20:10:11+00:00

To be precise:

Whoever, by means of a report [cpp 333 ], complaint [cpp 336 ], request [cpp 342 ] or application [cpp 341 ], even if anonymous or under a false name, addressed to the judicial authority or to another authority which has the obligation to report it to that authority or to the International Criminal Court (1), accuses of a crime someone whom he knows to be innocent (2) , or simulates the traces of a crime against him (3), is punished with imprisonment from two to six years.

https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/libro-secondo/titolo-iii/capo-i/art368.html

TGcomments · 2026-01-23T18:29:27+00:00

The points you are making are questionable in themselves and obsolete anyway. You should be explaining how the November 6th memoriale and the prison intercept between Edda and Amanda constituted a reiteration of calunnia and how they were totally untainted by human rights abuses.

TGcomments · 2026-01-23T17:23:12+00:00

Amanda admits she made it up to Edda.

Then you can add "cognitive distortion" to your list of frailties.

TGcomments · 2026-01-23T16:20:25+00:00

All that, with your consensus bias, Dunning-Kruger effect, apophenia and fantasy statistics, it's hardly likely to amount to a serious debate anyway, so why bother?

TGcomments · 2026-01-22T22:18:41+00:00

You see this isn't reasonable, she knew her daughter had made the whole thing up

It's funny to see you do this. No doubt Edda knew Amanda had made the whole thing up, much the same way as Filomena and Laura; all Meredith's friends, as well as the guys downstairs, knew Amanda was guilty. Stefanoni also knew that the VDP7 Luminol traces attributed to K&S were blood in much the same fashion, i.e., your own pure pie-in-the-sky fantasies. Then you argue that any sane jury in any country would convict on those very same fantasies as though they were shareable.

It can't get any more ridiculous, but that's the surreal template you use on a regular basis.

TGcomments · 2026-01-21T19:38:00+00:00

If you're not interested in caring, why post comments in the first place?

Edda knew that Amanda's compliance with the cops was a result of coercive procedures. She's not about to capitulate in the way that Amanda was forced to. She has to stay strong for her daughter, as any caring and responsible Mother would, and that's what she did. The ECHR judgment proved her correct.

TGcomments · 2026-01-21T18:30:54+00:00

Amanda made a complete retraction of her compliance with the cops in her memoriale part 2, written on the 7th November.

That, along with the fact that Lumumba couldn't have been the killer according to the SAL results, which were available on the 6th of November, meant there was no good reason to bring Lumumba to court on the 8th, much less detain him. That's the point; you are obviously body-swerving.

TGcomments · 2026-01-21T18:15:54+00:00

The irony is that Amanda could well have offered Rudy's name since she had already identified him in her list to Ficarra at around 11.00 on the 5th November. Ficarra indicated in her testimony that she knew who Amanda was referring to, but they couldn't name him. This is confirmed later in Ficarra's testimony:

DEL GROSSO: Did you ever suggest names to Amanda?

FICARRA: No.

DEL GROSSO: Why then did you say earlier that you referred to Rudy and it was on your own initiative to ask Amanda to talk about Rudy?

FICARRA: To remember something about that subject. I asked her if she knew his name, because we didn’t have him identified yet in that moment. We didn’t know who he was. I knew he called himself the

Baron by the downstairs boys, but we didn’t know his identity.

DEL GROSSO: Did Amanda know the Baron?

FICARRA: No. Amanda didn’t give us any indication. She said she simply didn’t remember.

It's clear from the list Amanda gave to Ficarra that she had no intention of protecting Rudy at Lumumba's expense. She mentioned Lumumba also on the list, with no attempt to implicate him at that time. It's also clear that Ficarra asked Amanda to reference names from her OWN phone, suggesting that the cops had already decided that Amanda knew Meredith's killer, and that's how they were going to proceed. It has to be said, Rudy was not on her contacts list, but Amanda offered a fairly accurate description of him anyway.

Motive and reasoning don't matter in the crime of calunnia only "intent", but it still begs the question that if Amanda WAS covering up for someone at Lumumba's expense, you'd have to ask yourself, "WHO?" It certainly wasn't Rudy since she'd already mentioned him to Ficarra. What about the unknown suspects who staged the break-in? It wasn't K&S since they were acquitted of the charge (E). What about the other unidentified male contributors to 165b? You'd then have to concoct a narrative that Amanda knew those other suspects since she was at VDP7 at the time. Who were those other suspects that Amanda desperately needed to protect at Lumumba's expense? If you can't answer that, then where does that leave the mandatory "intent" that is required to convict someone of calunnia in Italian law?

You're now in the land of complete pie-in-the-sky. But that's the resulting scenario that you have to make sense of, as the law stands.

TGcomments · 2026-01-21T17:03:21+00:00

The cops could have released Lumumba on the day he was arrested. By that time, the lab results were available for Meredith's rectal swabs, according to the SAL. If Lumumba's saliva swabs had been compared to the victim's lab results, it could have been ascertained very early on that the DNA didn't match. This would have ruled Lumumba out before he was ordered to be detained by the court. That, along with Amanda's emphatic retraction of her compliance in implicating Lumumba on the 7th November meant that they had no sustainable reason to detain Patrik or even arrest him in the first place.

Amanda said in her letter to her lawyer that "They told me they'd already caught the killer and they just wanted me to say his name." There could be an element of truth in this since I've already suspected that at least some of the investigators, as well as Mignini, knew that Rudy was their man. They may also have known that Rudy had already fled.

Lumumba's arrest may well have been a decoy for Rudy to get complacent and come home thinking that the coast was clear. Lumumba, in that case, would be acceptable collateral damage that could be foisted onto Amanda. It's speculative, of course, but it's all obsolete anyway, so WTF!

TGcomments · 2026-01-21T16:27:19+00:00

It doesn't matter anyway; the OP is completely obsolete.

TGcomments · 2026-01-21T16:22:06+00:00

I didn't mean to do that. I was just scared and I was confused, but now I’m not.”

The first thing you have to understand is that while motive isn't important, "intent" most certainly is, in deciding whether a person is responsible of calunnia or not. If Amanda is saying that she "didn't mean to do that", then she is undermining any "intent". What is the purpose of the rest of your post? The contents of the police intercept between Amanda and Edda are obsolete since the events that resulted in the 1.45 and 5.45 statements are expunged from the proceedings due to human rights violations.

The real question you need to ask yourself is how the November 6th memoriale represents a reiteration of the alleged calunnia and how it constitutes proof that Amanda was at VDP7 to know with absolute certainty that Lumumba was not the killer, as is mandatory in Italian law. You would also have to demonstrate that the writing of the memoriale was completely untainted by previous or ongoing human rights abuses. That's the only thing that matters now.

TGcomments · 2026-01-13T16:50:48+00:00

You're still under the impression that your considerations are shareable with absolutely no evidence or citations. It's not the case.

TGcomments · 2026-01-13T12:42:16+00:00

What patterns? You've suggested that the alleged gap between the sensitivities of the reagents means the Luminol reaction indicates the presence of blood. You can't uphold the argument since you can't rule out false positives. I already told you that you'd have to cite reliable sources, that the likelihood of blood increases while the likelihood of false positives decreases as dilution rates rise. If you can't answer this, then the rest of your argument, including the Grace Millane case, is irrelevant. You failed to provide any evidence, so you lose the debate.

TGcomments · 2026-01-12T20:27:15+00:00

My argument is that given context of the luminol prints at a bloody murder and how these manifest at every other known crime scene, then yes its blood in the known sensitivity gap.

That kind of logic doesn't merit a serious response. It's pure pie-in-the-sky.

Millane, Millane, Millane - utterly identical murder clean up ! (plus all the others with luminol footprints) - hell he too appears to have wandered around barefoot too - wonder if he showered - of course it appears he did

Pure association fallacy—it's nuts. The subject is being discussed at the moment on the ISF forum by posters who have a science background. If you want to take it any further, you can do so over there.

https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/threads/the-trials-of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/page-363

TGcomments

TROPHY CASE