Intentionally leaving out parts of a law in a quotation in order to support one's position is an easily detectable falsehood, a violation of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
Here again is the Canadian law defining Public Mischief, which I had previously published in full, with relevant wording highlighted.
Public mischief
140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who,
with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by
(a)
making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
(b)
doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or
(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits public mischief
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 140; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 19.
Source:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-140.html
____
It's relevant, as I pointed out in an earlier post, that an element of the crime of public mischief is that the person who commits this crime has an "
intent to mislead". Leaving this element out of the quotation of the law is grossly misleading.
Further, the concept "intent to mislead" must be coupled to the issue of whether a statement is "voluntary" as defined by Canadian common law. It a statement is not voluntary, it cannot be admissible in Canada.
The relevance to the case of Amanda Knox is that, according to the Hellmann court motivation report, her conviction for calunnia was
NOT because of an intent to mislead, but because of a need to escape from the pressure of the interrogation. The Chieffi CSC panel, by making the Hellmann court conviction of Knox for calunnia definitive, made this the "judicial truth" of her conviction, even though the Chieffi CSC panel went on to question the reasoning and remanded the case to the Nencini court for examination of "aggravating" factors, which may include intent to mislead.
The Nencini court provisional conviction of Knox for aggravated calunnia was based on the Nencini court provisional conviction of Knox and Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher. The Marasca CSC panel definitively acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape of Kercher and definitively acquitted Knox of the aggravated calunnia charge. Thus, the Nencini court convictions are null and void, demolished, and quashed. They only exist now for examination by the ECHR, if that court wishes to review them.
Thus, Knox, having been convicted of "simple" calunnia in Italy, cannot be said to have committed a crime equivalent to "public mischief" in Canada, because 1) there was no intent to mislead, a necessary element of the Canadian crime; and 2) the statement was not voluntary as it was to escape the pressure of interrogation, according to the Hellmann court, and given in violation of Italian procedural law and Knox's defense rights, as acknowledged by the Gemelli CSC panel, the Hellmann court, and the Bonisegna court.
