If you want a logical statement break down lets assume the following conditions:
- Statement X = "John failed to respond to a criminal court summons"
- Statement Y = "John moved out of the state."
- Statement X is False.
- Statement Y is True.
- Statement Z = X AND Y.
- Is x defamatory? Is Y defamatory? Is Z defamatory?
For the first question, X is false and therefor defamatory per say (A false statement that need not prove any damage i.e. insinuating criminal responsibility when none legally exists).
For the second, Y is a true statement and thus not defamatory in and of its' self.
For Z, which is Statement X AND Statement Y combined, we need to understand logical operands. In Logic, two statements are combined with AND, OR, XOR (either this or that) and NOR. These function like arithmetic in many of the same rules in addition. Additionally, the ! before any statement will mean that the statement is to be inverted, so !X in our logic is true while !Y is false (because we assume the inverse of both statements. X is false and Y is true.).
Each opperand will change the nature of how we evaluate Z's truth or false. OR will mean for Z to be true, at least one statement must be true (so x, y, or both x and y must be true for z to be true). For XOR to be true, exactly one statement must be true (Z is false if either both are false or both are true, but not if just one is true). NOR means that both statements must be false for z to be true. AND means that for Z to be true, both x and y must be true.
So to answer your question, the fact that Y is a true statement does not make the overall statement (X AND Y) true. While "He moved to the other state" is fact, the fact that it was combined with a false statement by "AND" means that the full statement we is defamatory even if half of it is factual. It's the part about failing to respond that is false about the statement.
Suppose I say "All animals with four paws are dogs and Cats have four paws" the statement is still false even though it is true that cats have four paws. The reason is because, well, the first part (All animals that have four paws are dogs) cannot stand as a truthful statement as a whole.
The implication does not come into play here as the statement is defamatory because the false thing said was an accusation of a crime (per say defimation) not that the person did move to another state (true). Whether it was intended as a statement of two facts that are not related to one another (he is a criminal and moved to another state) or implied causal (he is a criminal who moved to another state (implied flight from the law) the statement still contains the falsehood "he is a criminal". Lots of criminals move to other states for reasons unrelated to their crimes and lots of criminals move to other states for reasons related to their crimes... The problem is describing John as a criminal who moved to another state is lying about his legal status of not being a criminal (who moved to another state).