Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

A "Fast Track" trial, where the defendant concedes the evidence put forward by the prosecutor, isn't the same as "pleading guilty". But your rights to challenge evidence looks like its more limited, and the trial moves more quickly. The compensation to defendants, is that they get a 1/3rd discount off of their sentence.

If you got sentenced to "30 years" in a fast track process, you would get 1/3 off, and wind up with a "20 year" sentence.

However, if you got a "Life" sentence in a fast track proceeding, your sentence would only be "reduced from Life" to "30 years". (The fact that you can only serve 30 years for a life sentence isn't relevant to the calculation).

So Rudy's original fast track reduction would have been 'Life' to "30 years", technically the same amount of time, but the sentence is considered different nevertheless.

Thanks for the info.

The text of Mignini's beef against Maori and the journalist shows, if nothing else, the brilliant way Mignini used his knowledge of **legal process** to milk this thing for all it's worth. To milk this thing even thought there was a paucity of actual evidence - he **almost** got away with convicting Sollecito and Knox on purely judicially-driven truths; not truths which arose because of actual evidence. Look at the text of his beef with Maori as h reagues a now discreditd case - the break-in was a staging because Mignini himself, and others, ye-baled it and declared it to be so. Nothing more.

High on this list of manipulating the process is the way Rudy's process was handled. Machiavelli, when he was posting here, complained that it was unfair to blame Mignini for what was, essentially, Rudy's decision to go "fast track". Yet both he and Mignini know it is not that simple.

Like keeping Lumumba around so that Knox's "confession" would be heard by the same judge-panel concurrent with the murder charges; allowing Rudy to go "fast track" generates judicial truths....

.... from a process described best as, "a regular set of trials with the evidence-phase missing". All the evidence is, essentially, a set of stipulations - and the truth of any one item of evidence is completely beside the point. So it is, for instance, "multiple attackers" can be set in stone - not because the evidence suggests it (there is none at fast track trial)....

..... but because it is in the interests of both sides in Rudy's process to stipulate to it. Witness the birth of a judicial fact.

Early on Mignini played the process like a pro - and it **almost** made up for the lack of evidence. Almost. It required judges like Massei and Nencini to literally make-stuff-up so that all these judicial-truths would line up - more judicial truths generated though sheer speculation and fantasy.

 

[Samson]

Great avatar pic. And great anecdote from Barbie. This issue came up a few months ago I think, and Mach nearly blew a gasket trying to explain. Here's what I gathered -

The highest sentence you can get in Italy is "life". But a "Life sentence means the most you can serve is 30 years.

You could get a 30 year sentence, but that's still not considered the equivalent of a "life" sentence.

A "Fast Track" trial, where the defendant concedes the evidence put forward by the prosecutor, isn't the same as "pleading guilty". But your rights to challenge evidence looks like its more limited, and the trial moves more quickly. The compensation to defendants, is that they get a 1/3rd discount off of their sentence.

If you got sentenced to "30 years" in a fast track process, you would get 1/3 off, and wind up with a "20 year" sentence.

However, if you got a "Life" sentence in a fast track proceeding, your sentence would only be "reduced from Life" to "30 years". (The fact that you can only serve 30 years for a life sentence isn't relevant to the calculation).

So Rudy's original fast track reduction would have been 'Life' to "30 years", technically the same amount of time, but the sentence is considered different nevertheless.

At Rudy's appeal, Rudy asked for mitigation, and he received it. This is where I'm not sure how it worked, but Rudy's sentence went from being "Life" to a 30 year sentence with mitigation, and the mitigation brought Rudy's sentence down to 24 years.

So they applied a "fast track discount" to Rudy's 24 years, and that left Rudy with a 16 year sentence (I'm not dividing 24 by 3 for you).

The extraordinary part about all this, is that Mignini asked for a got a life sentence for Rudy in his fast track trial before Judge Micheli. But at the appeal, Mignini, IIUC, didn't object to Rudy getting mitigation because Mignini believed Rudy had shown remorse (by cooperating with his prosecution of Amanda and Raf would be my guess, but I'm not sure what Mignini's reason was for taking this position in regard to Rudy).

So guilters like to use the math and say Rudy just got the usual discount for taking a fast track trial, but that's really not true. Mignini needed to sign off at Rudy's appeal, on the mitigation that busted Rudy's sentence down from "Life" to "not life" (30 years, and even then reduced to 24 years for mitigation for youth, 1st time offender, remorse??) for the fast track math discount to kick in.

So Mignini went out for a "Life sentence" for all defendants at the first trial levels. But at Rudy's appeal, Mignini did Rudy a solid by going along with the leniency in sentencing. I'd say its obvious Rudy got a sweetheart deal after he agreed to help convict Amanda and Raf. That's why I think Rudy's fast track discount discount should be revoked, cause otherwise he profits from giving false testimony about that night.

The sentencing malfeasance can be seen when comparing other western countries of which I can guess.
In New Zealand the minimum non parole period for murder with unlawful entry is 17 years.
Americans will know better, but I imagine he would be doing life without chance of parole at best.

How about England?

ETA there has been talk of imminent work, study, general release for Rudy for some time, well inside the 16 years.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for the info.

The text of Mignini's beef against Maori and the journalist shows, if nothing else, the brilliant way Mignini used his knowledge of **legal process** to milk this thing for all it's worth. To milk this thing even thought there was a paucity of actual evidence - he **almost** got away with convicting Sollecito and Knox on purely judicially-driven truths; not truths which arose because of actual evidence. Look at the text of his beef with Maori as h reagues a now discreditd case - the break-in was a staging because Mignini himself, and others, ye-baled it and declared it to be so. Nothing more.

High on this list of manipulating the process is the way Rudy's process was handled. Machiavelli, when he was posting here, complained that it was unfair to blame Mignini for what was, essentially, Rudy's decision to go "fast track". Yet both he and Mignini know it is not that simple.

Like keeping Lumumba around so that Knox's "confession" would be heard by the same judge-panel concurrent with the murder charges; allowing Rudy to go "fast track" generates judicial truths....

.... from a process described best as, "a regular set of trials with the evidence-phase missing". All the evidence is, essentially, a set of stipulations - and the truth of any one item of evidence is completely beside the point. So it is, for instance, "multiple attackers" can be set in stone - not because the evidence suggests it (there is none at fast track trial)....

..... but because it is in the interests of both sides in Rudy's process to stipulate to it. Witness the birth of a judicial fact.

Early on Mignini played the process like a pro - and it **almost** made up for the lack of evidence. Almost. It required judges like Massei and Nencini to literally make-stuff-up so that all these judicial-truths would line up - more judicial truths generated though sheer speculation and fantasy.

The following list of violations of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure and the Italian Constitution in this case, although for the sake of brevity not complete, are in contrast to the statements in the defamation lawsuit complaint of Giuliano Mignini against Luca Maori and others, where for example Mignini states that the judgment of the CSC-finalized fast-track trial of Rudy Guede may be taken into account, or that unreliable evidence may be summed into proof of guilt, or that contamination of DNA must be established by the defense rather than shown not to exist by the prosecution.

CPP Article 526 Evidence for the purposes of deliberation

1. For the purposes of deliberation, the judge shall not use evidence other than that lawfully gathered during the trial.

1-bis. The accused person's guilt shall not be proven on the basis of statements made by the person who deliberately chose not to be examined by the accused or his lawyer.

CPP Article 533 Conviction of the accused person

1. The judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven to be guilty of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt....

Italian Constitution

Article 111

1) Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
2) All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.
3) The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.
4) In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a defence.
5) The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence.
6) The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which the court proceedings are conducted.
7) In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.
8)The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.
9) The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit conduct.
10) All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.
11) Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.
12) Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.

Application to the Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito trial:

The statements of Rudy Guede were never subjected to examination by the accused or their lawyers, by the intentional and legimate choice of Guede. Therefore, Guede's statements may not lawfully used as evidence against Knox or Sollecito, based on CPP Art. 526 para. 1-bis and It. Const. Art. 111 clause 8 (my numbering).

Other provisions of the Italian Constitution Article 111 were also violated, including but not limited to the provisions of: clause 1 - due process was not followed; CPP articles, including Art. 63 and 64, were violated by the prosecution and the courts at several stages; clause 2 - the judges were not impartial and made arbitrary judgments favoring the prosecution (for example, the Massei court, Chieffi CSC panel, and Nencini court); clause 3 - the trials were unreasonably extended by means of arbitrary evaluations of unreliable evidence - in fact, it appears that the prosecution knew, based on DNA profile evidence, as soon as the arrest confirmation hearing of Nov. 8, 2007 that neither Sollecito nor Lumumba was responsible for the rape of Kercher, and neither the hearing judge nor the defense was informed; clause 5 - many defense requests for examination of evidence, including DNA controls and the DNA raw data files (EDFs) were arbitrarily denied; and clause 6 - Amanda was not provided with a fair interpreter during her Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation.

 

[davefoc]

[see above]

This was an awesome explanation carbonjam72. How did you come to understand this?

Summary:
1. Guede convicted of murder and gets "life" (actually 30 years) sentence
2. Because Guede accepted fast track trial conditions his "life sentence"is changed to 30 years (also a 30 year sentence).
3. Guede got a mitigation of 6 years (now the sentence is down to 24 years). This has been explained in the past as the result of some sort of remorse shown by him even though he never admitted to the crime.
4. Guede gets a second fast track reduction of one third (sentence is reduced to 16 years.

It seems like your claim here is that Guede got two fast track trial reductions? Is this normal? You can get one for the trial and another one for the sentencing?

What affect, if any, did Guede's burglary convictions have on the murder sentence or visa versa?

Machiavelli argued long and hard that Mignini had nothing to do with Guede's light sentence and that it was a normal sentence for a person convicted of rape and murder in Italy. I've never seen statistics on this but it seemed unlikely to me.

According to what has been claimed in this thread, evidence from the rape kit, evidence from the downstairs and evidence from an allegedly untested presumptive semen stain was suppressed. This together with the apparent light sentence for Guede makes it look like a deal was in place to compensate Guede for his cooperation against AK/RS. Is this likely?

Even if it is I don't see how the evidence of it will ever be released. Three people would have known about it, Mignini, Guede and Guede's lawyer. Who there would have an incentive to break their silence? Guede's lawyer might I guess if they indemnified him and his client. If that happens a full scale effort to get Mignini would be underway. My guess is that none of the paperwork involved sealed or not provides evidence of a quid pro quo.

 

[Kauffer]

This was an awesome explanation carbonjam72. How did you come to understand this?

Summary:
1. Guede convicted of murder and gets "life" (actually 30 years) sentence
2. Because Guede accepted fast track trial conditions his "life sentence"is changed to 30 years (also a 30 year sentence).
3. Guede got a mitigation of 6 years (now the sentence is down to 24 years). This has been explained in the past as the result of some sort of remorse shown by him even though he never admitted to the crime.
4. Guede gets a second fast track reduction of one third (sentence is reduced to 16 years.

It seems like your claim here is that Guede got two fast track trial reductions? Is this normal? You can get one for the trial and another one for the sentencing?
What affect, if any, did Guede's burglary convictions have on the murder sentence or visa versa?

Machiavelli argued long and hard that Mignini had nothing to do with Guede's light sentence and that it was a normal sentence for a person convicted of rape and murder in Italy. I've never seen statistics on this but it seemed unlikely to me.

According to what has been claimed in this thread, evidence from the rape kit, evidence from the downstairs and evidence from an allegedly untested presumptive semen stain was suppressed. This together with the apparent light sentence for Guede makes it look like a deal was in place to compensate Guede for his cooperation against AK/RS. Is this likely?

Even if it is I don't see how the evidence of it will ever be released. Three people would have known about it, Mignini, Guede and Guede's lawyer. Who there would have an incentive to break their silence? Guede's lawyer might I guess if they indemnified him and his client. If that happens a full scale effort to get Mignini would be underway. My guess is that none of the paperwork involved sealed or not provides evidence of a quid pro quo.

It does seem that way doesn't it? However, he actually doesn't get a double discount, because his sentence on appeal was reduced from life to 24 years (not 30 years to 24 years) and he gets his discount applied to his final sentence. (What seems outrageous is the generous reduction from life to 24 years). It just so happens that the Italians arbitrarily decide that 30 years is the discounted term of a life sentence. One could argue, therefore, that they regard a full life term to be 45 years, but as far as I'm aware, there's no discussion of this in the literature and no ready application of a de facto 45 year term for life sentences received in regular, non fast track trials.

 

[sept79]

This was an awesome explanation carbonjam72. How did you come to understand this?

Summary:
1. Guede convicted of murder and gets "life" (actually 30 years) sentence
2. Because Guede accepted fast track trial conditions his "life sentence"is changed to 30 years (also a 30 year sentence).
3. Guede got a mitigation of 6 years (now the sentence is down to 24 years). This has been explained in the past as the result of some sort of remorse shown by him even though he never admitted to the crime.
4. Guede gets a second fast track reduction of one third (sentence is reduced to 16 years.

It seems like your claim here is that Guede got two fast track trial reductions? Is this normal? You can get one for the trial and another one for the sentencing?

What affect, if any, did Guede's burglary convictions have on the murder sentence or visa versa?

Machiavelli argued long and hard that Mignini had nothing to do with Guede's light sentence and that it was a normal sentence for a person convicted of rape and murder in Italy. I've never seen statistics on this but it seemed unlikely to me.

According to what has been claimed in this thread, evidence from the rape kit, evidence from the downstairs and evidence from an allegedly untested presumptive semen stain was suppressed. This together with the apparent light sentence for Guede makes it look like a deal was in place to compensate Guede for his cooperation against AK/RS. Is this likely?

Even if it is I don't see how the evidence of it will ever be released. Three people would have known about it, Mignini, Guede and Guede's lawyer. Who there would have an incentive to break their silence? Guede's lawyer might I guess if they indemnified him and his client. If that happens a full scale effort to get Mignini would be underway. My guess is that none of the paperwork involved sealed or not provides evidence of a quid pro quo.

Stefanoni knew about it and possibly her boss, Bionidi.

 

[Strozzi]

Stefanoni knew about it and possibly her boss, Bionidi.

What role did Prosecutor Manuela Comodi have? I do know that Comodi covered for Stefanoni when Stefanoni was shown to lie on the stand or to have misplaced or manipulated records.

Would Comodi have known of suppressed evidence regarding Guede's role or any actual tacit understanding between Mignini, Guede's lawyer, and Guede for leniency for Guede in exchange for his cooperation/support of Mignini's and Comodi's prosecution of Knox and Sollecito?

 

[carbonjam72]

fast track yes, but there is no "45 years" sentence...

It does seem that way doesn't it? However, he actually doesn't get a double discount, because his sentence on appeal was reduced from life to 24 years (not 30 years to 24 years) and he gets his discount applied to his final sentence. (What seems outrageous is the generous reduction from life to 24 years). It just so happens that the Italians arbitrarily decide that 30 years is the discounted term of a life sentence. One could argue, therefore, that they regard a full life term to be 45 years, but as far as I'm aware, there's no discussion of this in the literature and no ready application of a de facto 45 year term for life sentences received in regular, non fast track trials.

1st highlite - That was my understanding too. It's not sequential or multiple discounts, but rather that the sentence is recalculated at a different stage of trial or appeal. (Otherwise, you could imagine multiple trials whittling away a sentence at each stage. In any event, I don't think 'multiple discounts' are ever applied, just once to the final sentence after a fast track trial).

2nd highlite - A sentence of "Life" is the same, whether at a fast track or regular full trial. I think the fast track discount from "Life" to formally "30 years" is a reflection of how bad a "life" sentence is thought to be. "Life +9months solitary" the heaviest sentence in the Italian system - which Mignini requested for Amanda, though normally reserved for mafia dons - gets fast track discounted down to "Life" (so the solitary confinement is the discount).

Maybe "30 years" or a sentence less than "life" has more or better chances for early release for good behavior, or something like that, I'm not sure. But Mignini busting (by not objecting to it and saying its merited because of Rudy's remorse) Rudy's sentence from "Life" to "24 years" is how the Fast track discount of 1/3 brought it down to 16 years.

(Also, someone had asked about the sentence in regard to Rudy's thefts & burglaries. As I recall seeing, Rudy got 18 months for the burglaries (or technically attempted aggravated burglary with possession of stolen goods?), but I'm not sure if that will or will not extend his time in jail. I think I first heard it would not. And then just before the final acquittals in March, I thought cassation said it would. Mach would know this stuff.)

The reference to 45 years is just a mistake. I've seen it posted here before but it is meaningless, it doesn't come from anywhere. It's a conjecture from the math, but it has no basis in reality that I'm aware of. The fast track discounts are applied to the sentencing that is available, and Italy tops out at "Life +9months", but in reality the max you can spend in prison is 30 years. Whether for humanitarian reasons, or to save money on aging prisoners, or because its the dignity thing again about getting old, maybe all of the above. But there is no "45 years", that's just pure invention and flatly false, as I understand it.

 

[carbonjam72]

What role did Prosecutor Manuela Comodi have? I do know that Comodi covered for Stefanoni when Stefanoni was shown to lie on the stand or to have misplaced or manipulated records.

Would Comodi have known of suppressed evidence regarding Guede's role or any actual tacit understanding between Mignini, Guede's lawyer, and Guede for leniency for Guede in exchange for his cooperation/support of Mignini's and Comodi's prosecution of Knox and Sollecito?

Its hard to imagine Commodi would not have known about everything that Mignini did, in regard to the trial and the evidence available. It was she who famously said "we decide what's important" - to share with the defense.

And how would it matter if Commodi had consulted with Mignini about not opposing Rudy getting "mitigation" on appeal? If they were working together, I would think she would have to know, and that they would very consciously plan which of them will perform which duties at trial, who will argue, who will question witnesses, etc.

I'm sure Commodi and Mignini would say they were just doing their job. That people would look on it from afar and think it doesn't smell right, would be of little concern to them I imagine. But if you printed that in Italy or said it on Italian TV, I'll bet you'd get prosecuted).

 

[Samson]

Its hard to imagine Commodi would not have known about everything that Mignini did, in regard to the trial and the evidence available. It was she who famously said "we decide what's important" - to share with the defense.

And how would it matter if Commodi had consulted with Mignini about not opposing Rudy getting "mitigation" on appeal? If they were working together, I would think she would have to know, and that they would very consciously plan which of them will perform which duties at trial, who will argue, who will question witnesses, etc.

I'm sure Commodi and Mignini would say they were just doing their job. That people would look on it from afar and think it doesn't smell right, would be of little concern to them I imagine. But if you printed that in Italy or said it on Italian TV, I'll bet you'd get prosecuted).

It is interesting to rationalise institutional behaviour, not just when unfair apportionment of wealth is concerned, but when deprivation of liberty is the lazy side effect.

 

[davefoc]

Stefanoni knew about it and possibly her boss, Bionidi.

Probably there were several people that knew about what went on with the sentencing of Guede. However, my thought was that only the three people I mentioned (Guede, Mignini, and Guede's lawyer) were present during the negotiations that might have led to the deal and only those three people have direct knowledge about it. Regardless, it seems unlikely right now that the truth of what went on with regard to this will become known.

On the details of Guede's sentencing: I have been trying to understand this a little better. As I understand it now:

Summary:
1. Guede convicted of murder and gets "life" (actually 30 years) sentence
2. Because Guede accepted fast track trial conditions his "life sentence"is changed to 30 years (also a 30 year sentence).

Comment: I think this was correct as I stated it. Guede's life sentence was reduced to 30 years because he opted for the fast track trial. From the fake Wiki site on the sentencing:

Under the fast-track system, a prison sentence is reduced by one third, except for a life sentence, which is reduced to 30 years.[15] In this case, Micheli sentenced Guede to 30 years in prison: the fast-track equivalent of a life sentence, and the maximum sentence that can be handed down at a fast-track trial.

The sentencing occurred at the preliminary hearing October 28, 2008. Apparently in the fast track process the judge can just decide to not have a trial and come to a verdict based on the evidence that the prosecutor has supplied. And the judge can impose a sentence based on his verdict at the same preliminary hearing.

3. Guede got a mitigation of 6 years (now the sentence is down to 24 years). This has been explained in the past as the result of some sort of remorse shown by him even though he never admitted to the crime.
4. Guede gets a second fast track reduction of one third (sentence is reduced to 16 years.

Comment: Bizarrely, the above two points seem correct as well:

Guede appealed against the verdict of the Micheli court (as is his right under Italian law). By this stage, Knox and Sollecito's trial had finished, and they had been accorded some generic mitigation factors (eg their young age), giving them sentences, for the murder charge of 24 years. In Guede's case, the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction, but decided to accord him the same mitigating factors ― he was younger than Sollecito. So, his sentence was reduced to 24 years, due to the mitigating factors, and then by a further third, for the fast-track discount. Hence, his appeal resulted in a sentence of 16 years.

I understand that the source of this information is from a pro-guilt site, but it seems like they are attempting to be at least somewhat factual in their reporting of this. I don't know that they are right that the sentence was reduced to 24 years to make Guede's sentence consistent with Sollecito's but for some reason the sentence was reduced by six years at the time of Guede's first appeal and then the fast track trial discount was applied a second time to reduce Guede's sentence to 16 years.

Guede appealed again, but this appeal was rejected and he was forced to pay court costs for the appeal.

As to the effect of his burglary conviction: According to the fake wiki his approximately one year sentence for that crime will be carried out after his sentence for Kercher's murder is complete.

 

[carbonjam72]

Probably there were several people that knew about what went on with the sentencing of Guede. However, my thought was that only the three people I mentioned (Guede, Mignini, and Guede's lawyer) were present during the negotiations that might have led to the deal and only those three people have direct knowledge about it. Regardless, it seems unlikely right now that the truth of what went on with regard to this will become known.

If there were any type of deal, I don't think Rudy would have been invited to the discussion. Rather just his lawyer Biscotti, who would then talk to Guede separately, and likely speaking only in generalities to get Rudy to go along and hope for the best. I wouldn't expect anyone to want to make Rudy a partner in anything.

On the details of Guede's sentencing: I have been trying to understand this a little better. As I understand it now:

Summary:
1. Guede convicted of murder and gets "life" (actually 30 years) sentence
2. Because Guede accepted fast track trial conditions his "life sentence"is changed to 30 years (also a 30 year sentence).

Comment: I think this was correct as I stated it. Guede's life sentence was reduced to 30 years because he opted for the fast track trial. From the fake Wiki site on the sentencing:

--- Quote:
Under the fast-track system, a prison sentence is reduced by one third, except for a life sentence, which is reduced to 30 years.[15] In this case, Micheli sentenced Guede to 30 years in prison: the fast-track equivalent of a life sentence, and the maximum sentence that can be handed down at a fast-track trial.----
The sentencing occurred at the preliminary hearing October 28, 2008. Apparently in the fast track process the judge can just decide to not have a trial and come to a verdict based on the evidence that the prosecutor has supplied. And the judge can impose a sentence based on his verdict at the same preliminary hearing.

3. Guede got a mitigation of 6 years (now the sentence is down to 24 years). This has been explained in the past as the result of some sort of remorse shown by him even though he never admitted to the crime.
4. Guede gets a second fast track reduction of one third (sentence is reduced to 16 years.

No, I think this is wrong. There was no second fast track discount. Rudy's original sentence is recalculated on appeal to take into account his mitigation. So instead of getting "Life" at his first trial (fast track discount down to 30 years), Rudy's re-calculted sentence on appeal is reduced from "Life" to "24 years", and the fast track discount is applied only once to Rudy recalculated sentence of 24 years (which then becomes 16 years.

But there is NO second fast track discount, only a recalculated sentence to which the fast track discount is applied. Ok?

Also, the quote you used from the fake wiki is tricky. The maximum sentence possible at a fast track, is the same as at a regular trial, "Life + 9 months solitary confinement". The fast track discount for Life +9 months", is "Life". But "life" sentence, means the most time served is 30 years.

So a sentence of "Life + 9 months" or "Life" at a fast track hearing, will still result in 30 years of time to be served. But Life +9 becomes just Life. While Life becomes "30 years".

A "30 year sentence at a fast track trial would become "20 years".

The whole point is that Mignini allowed Guede to get a reduction to a numerical sentence, which allowed the fast track discount to kick in and knock actual time of of his sentence.

Comment: Bizarrely, the above two points seem correct as well:
I understand that the source of this information is from a pro-guilt site, but it seems like they are attempting to be at least somewhat factual in their reporting of this. I don't know that they are right that the sentence was reduced to 24 years to make Guede's sentence consistent with Sollecito's but for some reason the sentence was reduced by six years at the time of Guede's first appeal and then the fast track trial discount was applied a second time to reduce Guede's sentence to 16 years. {NO, SEE ABOVE}

Guede appealed again, but this appeal was rejected and he was forced to pay court costs for the appeal.

As to the effect of his burglary conviction: According to the fake wiki his approximately one year sentence for that crime will be carried out after his sentence for Kercher's murder is complete.

I think the ISC added the 18 months to Rudy's sentence just before the acquittals in March. Another reason I interpreted as a move towards exoneration of Amanda and Raf, trying to sweeten the sour taste for the public that at least someone is getting some more jail time.

 

[Bill Williams]

If there were any type of deal, I don't think Rudy would have been invited to the discussion. Rather just his lawyer Biscotti, who would then talk to Guede separately, and likely speaking only in generalities to get Rudy to go along and hope for the best. I wouldn't expect anyone to want to make Rudy a partner in anything.



No, I think this is wrong. There was no second fast track discount. Rudy's original sentence is recalculated on appeal to take into account his mitigation. So instead of getting "Life" at his first trial (fast track discount down to 30 years), Rudy's re-calculted sentence on appeal is reduced from "Life" to "24 years", and the fast track discount is applied only once to Rudy recalculated sentence of 24 years (which then becomes 16 years.

But there is NO second fast track discount, only a recalculated sentence to which the fast track discount is applied. Ok?

Also, the quote you used from the fake wiki is tricky. The maximum sentence possible at a fast track, is the same as at a regular trial, "Life + 9 months solitary confinement". The fast track discount for Life +9 months", is "Life". But "life" sentence, means the most time served is 30 years.

So a sentence of "Life + 9 months" or "Life" at a fast track hearing, will still result in 30 years of time to be served. But Life +9 becomes just Life. While Life becomes "30 years".

A "30 year sentence at a fast track trial would become "20 years".

The whole point is that Mignini allowed Guede to get a reduction to a numerical sentence, which allowed the fast track discount to kick in and knock actual time of of his sentence.


I think the ISC added the 18 months to Rudy's sentence just before the acquittals in March. Another reason I interpreted as a move towards exoneration of Amanda and Raf, trying to sweeten the sour taste for the public that at least someone is getting some more jail time.

This is where I wish Machiavelli would post here again. Yes, I said that.

Your highlighted sentence puts Mignini's action in the "passive" tense. What Machiavelli would always fudge, was when that action was put into the "active tense". Machiavelli would always stick to his guns - Mignini did not directly create the reduced sentences for Guede.... but the point you make is equally germane - neither did he oppose them.

What is amazing reading Machiavelli and other guilters is the "get out of jail free" card they give Mignini. The recent action to give Guede more prisons time has to be seen as a subtle slap in the face to Mignini and others who, literally, almost let Rudy Guede get away with murder....

 

[Planigale]

This is where I wish Machiavelli would post here again. Yes, I said that.

Your highlighted sentence puts Mignini's action in the "passive" tense. What Machiavelli would always fudge, was when that action was put into the "active tense". Machiavelli would always stick to his guns - Mignini did not directly create the reduced sentences for Guede.... but the point you make is equally germane - neither did he oppose them.

What is amazing reading Machiavelli and other guilters is the "get out of jail free" card they give Mignini. The recent action to give Guede more prisons time has to be seen as a subtle slap in the face to Mignini and others who, literally, almost let Rudy Guede get away with murder....

strangely when I read Mignini's court submission I thought this almost could have been written by Mach. Mach always seemed to have insight to Perugian thought processes.

 

[davefoc]

...


No, I think this is wrong. There was no second fast track discount. Rudy's original sentence is recalculated on appeal to take into account his mitigation. So instead of getting "Life" at his first trial (fast track discount down to 30 years), Rudy's re-calculted sentence on appeal is reduced from "Life" to "24 years", and the fast track discount is applied only once to Rudy recalculated sentence of 24 years (which then becomes 16 years.

But there is NO second fast track discount, only a recalculated sentence to which the fast track discount is applied. Ok?

Also, the quote you used from the fake wiki is tricky. The maximum sentence possible at a fast track, is the same as at a regular trial, "Life + 9 months solitary confinement". The fast track discount for Life +9 months", is "Life". But "life" sentence, means the most time served is 30 years.

So a sentence of "Life + 9 months" or "Life" at a fast track hearing, will still result in 30 years of time to be served. But Life +9 becomes just Life. While Life becomes "30 years".

A "30 year sentence at a fast track trial would become "20 years".

The whole point is that Mignini allowed Guede to get a reduction to a numerical sentence, which allowed the fast track discount to kick in and knock actual time of of his sentence.


...

This is interesting and so far I don't think there is enough evidence that has been presented in this thread to sort this out. But I think you are describing one of these two scenarios:

Scenario one
1. Guede is sentenced to 30 years at his first trial. This was not based on any fast track discount. I think you are suggesting that Mignini only asked for the 30 years sentence, but regardless you are claiming that Guede only received the 30 year sentence at his first trial and not a "life" sentence.
2. At Guede's appeal his 30 year sentence was reduced to 24 years (and different ideas about what the basis for that was have been put forth) and then the fast track discount was applied to the sentence for the first time (24 years is reduced to 16 years).

Scenario two
1. Guede does get a "life" sentence at his first trial.

2. When Guede gets a sentence reduction at his appeal this automatically reduces his life sentence to a numerical sentence of thirty years from which whatever the sentence reduction is subtracted. In this case the sentence was reduced to 24 years and then the fast track reduction is applied to that.

If scenario two is correct Guede still essentially got two fast track trial reductions, but they both happen at the appeal. The first changes his sentence from "life" to thirty years and the second applies the fast track reduction to whatever the sentence is reduced to.

And for completeness this was the scenario as I understood it initially.
Scenario three
1. Guede receives a "life" sentence at his first trial which is reduced to a 30 year sentence because of the fast track trial bonus.
2. Guede's sentence is reduced to 24 years at his appeal and then the appeal judge applies a second fast track trial bonus to his sentence that reduces it to 16 years.

 

[christianahannah]

This is where I wish Machiavelli would post here again. Yes, I said that.

Your highlighted sentence puts Mignini's action in the "passive" tense. What Machiavelli would always fudge, was when that action was put into the "active tense". Machiavelli would always stick to his guns - Mignini did not directly create the reduced sentences for Guede.... but the point you make is equally germane - neither did he oppose them.

What is amazing reading Machiavelli and other guilters is the "get out of jail free" card they give Mignini. The recent action to give Guede more prisons time has to be seen as a subtle slap in the face to Mignini and others who, literally, almost let Rudy Guede get away with murder....

I can't speak directly for Machiavelli concerning this subject but I do remember many discussions about it. I will try to put into words a summary of the discussions, however, note that I may not get it quite right.

I am not all certain Mignini was the prosecutor for the second appeal but let's say he was. Why would he appeal the most sentence Rudy had received from Micheli's verdict? Mignini could go no higher in the amount of time Rudy would serve. To effectively see where and if Mignini (or a different prosecutor if that is so) either submitted to or argued against a reduction in prison time we would have to view the transcripts of the appeal hearing. Those may or may not answer this discussion.

So we are on to the final appeal to the ISC. At that time I do believe Mignini was not the prosecutor but was someone else. I can't say if he/she appealed to have a higher sentence added on to Rudy's reduced sentence or not. Again, transcripts of that hearing would be valuable to read. I guess I can read the two motivations if I can locate them again and see if there are any hints contained within.

The 18 months was added on to Rudy's sentence because of the other crime committed apart from Meredith's murder. I doubt Mignini has a problem with Rudy spending a bit more time in prison.

I think I have summarized this as best I can remember from the past discussions. Yes, it would be nice if Machiavelli would visit and clarify this but perhaps this forum isn't the focus of what he is doing now.

 

[davefoc]

If there were any type of deal, I don't think Rudy would have been invited to the discussion. Rather just his lawyer Biscotti, who would then talk to Guede separately, and likely speaking only in generalities to get Rudy to go along and hope for the best. I wouldn't expect anyone to want to make Rudy a partner in anything.

...

I was thinking along these lines when I said it was very unlikely that we would ever know the truth of what went on here. Mignini and Guede's lawyer were experienced at this sort of thing and the most that exchanged between them were some obscure words to the effect that it would go better for Guede if he could provide a few words about AK/RS involvement. As it was, his accusation seems to have been well thought out to be good enough to appease Mignini but vague enough to protect him from evidence that might materialize and prove that he lied.

In a normal trial, a vague accusation like his, especially one not subject to cross examination would have had no value, but Mignini figured out how to deal with that problem.

 

[carbonjam72]

This is interesting and so far I don't think there is enough evidence that has been presented in this thread to sort this out. But I think you are describing one of these two scenarios:

Scenario one
1. Guede is sentenced to 30 years at his first trial. This was not based on any fast track discount. I think you are suggesting that Mignini only asked for the 30 years sentence, but regardless you are claiming that Guede only received the 30 year sentence at his first trial and not a "life" sentence.
2. At Guede's appeal his 30 year sentence was reduced to 24 years (and different ideas about what the basis for that was have been put forth) and then the fast track discount was applied to the sentence for the first time (24 years is reduced to 16 years).

Scenario two
1. Guede does get a "life" sentence at his first trial.

2. When Guede gets a sentence reduction at his appeal this automatically reduces his life sentence to a numerical sentence of thirty years from which whatever the sentence reduction is subtracted. In this case the sentence was reduced to 24 years and then the fast track reduction is applied to that.

If scenario two is correct Guede still essentially got two fast track trial reductions, but they both happen at the appeal. The first changes his sentence from "life" to thirty years and the second applies the fast track reduction to whatever the sentence is reduced to.

And for completeness this was the scenario as I understood it initially.Scenario three
1. Guede receives a "life" sentence at his first trial which is reduced to a 30 year sentence because of the fast track trial bonus.
2. Guede's sentence is reduced to 24 years at his appeal and then the appeal judge applies a second fast track trial bonus to his sentence that reduces it to 16 years.

Yes, to scenario three, except there is no "second fast track bonus". The sentence on appeal replaces or annuls the original sentence of "life", and replaces it with a sentence of 24 years. Then the fast track is applied, only once, to Guede new recalculated sentence.

 

[davefoc]

Yes, to scenario three, except there is no "second fast track bonus". The sentence on appeal replaces or annuls the original sentence of "life", and replaces it with a sentence of 24 years. Then the fast track is applied, only once, to Guede new recalculated sentence.

That sounds like scenario two is exactly what you are describing.

The issue of whether Guede got two fast track bonuses in scenario two is a semantic one. OK maybe not. Perhaps this is what you are suggesting for scenario two:
Scenario TwoB
1. Guede does get a "life" sentence at his first trial without any fast track trial reduction bonus being applied.

2. When Guede gets a sentence reduction at his appeal this automatically reduces his life sentence to a numerical sentence of thirty years from which whatever the sentence reduction is subtracted. This happens for any defendant, fast track or not, when their sentence is reduced. So he hasn't gotten his fast track trial bonus yet, he has just gotten the standard "life" sentence change which happens any time the sentence is reduced at appeal. The sentence reduction is now applied to the thirty year sentence which brings his sentence down to 24 years. And then the fast track trial bonus is applied and that brings his sentence down to 16 years.

Assuming that I have understood it this time, scenario two does seem to be the most likely, but there is a bit of a loose end. Why doesn't Guede get any fast track bonus in the sentence from his first trial?

ETA:
Sorry, this is probably more detail than anybody is interested in, but I was trying to figure out when and where the various reductions happened to get a feel for who was responsible for them. Anyway I have a new idea about what you were saying.
Scenario four
1. Guede does receive a "life" sentence at his first trial which is automatically reduced to a thirty year sentence because of the fast track bonus.

2. The appeal decision undoes the change of "life" to thirty years and starts with a "life" sentence so Guede's fast track bonus is available again. Then the appeal court reduces Guede's sentence which automatically converts the "life" sentence to a thirty year sentence from which the sentence reduction (six years in this case) is subtracted (his sentence is now down to 24 years). At this point the appeals court applies the fast track bonus and Guede's sentence is reduced to 16 years.

 

[Bill Williams]

I can't speak directly for Machiavelli concerning this subject but I do remember many discussions about it. I will try to put into words a summary of the discussions, however, note that I may not get it quite right.

I am not all certain Mignini was the prosecutor for the second appeal but let's say he was. Why would he appeal the most sentence Rudy had received from Micheli's verdict? Mignini could go no higher in the amount of time Rudy would serve. To effectively see where and if Mignini (or a different prosecutor if that is so) either submitted to or argued against a reduction in prison time we would have to view the transcripts of the appeal hearing. Those may or may not answer this discussion.

So we are on to the final appeal to the ISC. At that time I do believe Mignini was not the prosecutor but was someone else. I can't say if he/she appealed to have a higher sentence added on to Rudy's reduced sentence or not. Again, transcripts of that hearing would be valuable to read. I guess I can read the two motivations if I can locate them again and see if there are any hints contained within.
The 18 months was added on to Rudy's sentence because of the other crime committed apart from Meredith's murder. I doubt Mignini has a problem with Rudy spending a bit more time in prison.

I think I have summarized this as best I can remember from the past discussions. Yes, it would be nice if Machiavelli would visit and clarify this but perhaps this forum isn't the focus of what he is doing now.

Thanks for this. Yes, what you wrote is in the ballpark of what I remember. And yes, it would be better if Machiavelli could/would post here.

Yes, transcripts from Rudy's process would be a good thing. Yet, IMO what seems to happen in Italy, particularly in smaller venues like Perugia, is that these things are talked about - if not decided - apart from the hearing where transcripts are taken. What happens in courts sometimes looks like continuations of discussions/fights over wine the night before.

There is also the division into "judicial parties", the one thing (it seems) all of us can agree on. We just make different valuations of "the other guy".

So, Mignini might not have been the prosecutor of record at all stages, but those within the "party of the PMs" (Hellmann's characterization) would surely know what's a stake - if not be in regular contact with those along the way.

It's why I found it particularly disingenuous when Machiavelli would argue at times, "Read the transcripts!" but then at other times claim that someone from the defence (in the Sollecito/Knox trials) was seen in De Nunzio's office during office hours. We're supposed to believe (Machiavelli implies) that the defence was trying to curry favour from the President of the Perugian Appeals Court - even in the absence of transcripts of what could otherwise have been a routine meeting on another matter!

Most surely prosecutors in Rudy's process would have welcomed Mignini into their offices as well.