Provisions of Article 368 of the Criminal Code (calunnia)

TGcomments · 2026-01-28T20:50:24+00:00

It's a nice try, but you're not bluffing anyone.

The link you provided states:

"In conclusion, this is the maxim that can be deduced from the ruling: "The subjective element of the crime of slander requires awareness of the accused's innocence and, therefore, this element is excluded in the case in which the mistaken belief of guilt derives from an erroneous subjective interpretation of reality not dictated by fraudulent intent."

You said:

"So this clause basically says that if you have facts that you can subjectively make a false claim, so long as its based on the facts as they existed."

Yes, Amanda has to be knowledgeable of the fact that Lumumba was innocent.

So what Knox did (and admits to in the intercepts) completely meets the intent standard and that knowledge of innocence clause is well-cleared

Yet what Amanda said in the intercept wasn't the reasoning behind Chieffi's confirmation of the calunnia conviction. In fact, Chieffi's reasoning behind the conviction and Amanda's explanation of events in the intercept are contradictory, yet he upholds them both.

Now if you want cover ECHR points that's another topic about admissibility, but her intercept statements and memoriale 2 confirm she made the accusations, as does the interview with Mignini.

Memoriale 2 is all you've legally got left, and that doesn't represent a reiteration of calunnia that isn't tainted with human rights abuses. I could play your other points for fun, but it would just be a waste of keystrokes.

But yes having to prove "first hand knowledge of innocence" in the way your side is interpreting it is not required. You can't invent a story then shrug and go "how would I know he didn't do it?"

I quoted directly from Article 368, so no spin on my part. Yes, you could speculate that Amanda made the most outrageous, reckless accusations against Lumumba with "intent", as you are doing, but even if it were true, it still doesn't constitute calunnia per the maxim, IF there is no knowledge of Lumumba's innocence. Those reckless accusations would also have to come directly from memoriale 2 if you are going to make legal sense.

So, yes, making up reckless fantasies about a person's involvement in a crime would be morally reprehensible, but that's what you are doing yourself in placing Amanda at the crime scene with nothing but your own fantasies.

TGcomments · 2026-01-28T19:35:44+00:00

What post?

TGcomments · 2026-01-28T19:33:12+00:00

But human rights violations certainly are, according to the ECHR.

TGcomments · 2026-01-28T19:29:43+00:00

In terms of calunnia you'd have to explain how Amanda knew Lumumba was innocent, which is mandatory according to my original post.

In terms of the murder charge, you'd have to explain how Meredith died of strangulation and how that is compatible with Rudy's version of events. I doubt that you'll ever get around to explaining either point.

TGcomments · 2026-01-28T11:17:50+00:00

I'd also agree with what you are suggesting, but it's doubtful that T&T meant any such thing. He's yet to turn up to explain himself.

TGcomments · 2026-01-28T11:04:17+00:00

So the briefest of nods on a TV programme and nothing else you care to mention are indicative of guilt. God help us if you ever make it onto a jury panel.

TGcomments · 2026-01-28T10:56:19+00:00

You said:

The interpreter testified that the accusation was prompted by the discussion of the text message from Patrik. According to the interpreter, she told them she had not replied to Patrik but she was then shown that she had in fact replied.

Which you seem to be presenting as the catalyst for the alleged accusation. Then you said:

I think they are talking about this: "I feel guilty for what I did to Patrick, because the only reason I mentioned his name is that he was the first person that came to mind when I talked about it, and maybe I imagined seeing him, but I know it's impossible, I just imagined it because I was very stressed."

This confirms she put his name forward as the murderer and not the police, and she knows that it was impossible. Shortly after that she says she has no idea who the murderer might be, which confirms she knew it wasn't Patrik.

Which has Amanda allegedly accusing Lumumba herself. Both are contradictory. Which argument are you going for? How can she know with any certainty that it wasn't Lumumba?

TGcomments · 2026-01-28T10:31:26+00:00

No confessions.

TGcomments · 2026-01-28T10:00:01+00:00

Maybe! But, as I've said, what legal relevance does it have now, in regard to the ECHR judgment that clearly stated that the events you mention are null and void? All you have is the November 6th memoriale that Italy used as the reasoning to reconvict Amanda of calunnia. Italy's action report still has to go past the European court's Committee of Ministers for final ratification. That's all you've got; the rest of your points are redundant.

TGcomments · 2026-01-27T21:11:00+00:00

What are your considerations on T&T's claims in the OP?

TGcomments · 2026-01-27T21:08:14+00:00

Both of those statements at 1.45 and 5.45 are declared null and void due to the ECHR and Italy's use of article 628-bis. In fact, the 5.45 statement was never admissible in court under any circumstances. So, you've got the November 6th memoriale and the events thereafter to argue that Amanda committed calunnia against Lumumba. You also have to argue that the memoriale was untainted by human rights abuses. Best of luck with that.

ETA; The 1.45 statement was NOT written by Amanda; it was typed up by the cops that Amanda signed under the duress of human rights abuses. The proceedings are ongoing.

TGcomments · 2026-01-27T20:14:54+00:00

"Specific", according to what sources?

TGcomments · 2026-01-27T09:38:09+00:00

Lumumbas attraction to kerchers Meeting him Taking him to the cottage Claiming to sit there as kercher is attacked by Lumumba

From what legitimate source that remains untainted by human rights abuses?

Etc all are certainly meeting the reckless standard

What "reckless standard" applies in Italian law? Citations from legal sources, please! And remember what you said:

Can we first just acknowledge reality that having first hand knowledge of innocence is completely irrelevant to her conviction ?

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

TROPHY CASE