Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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.

If you are talking about Mignini's submission about Maori and the journalist (Alberto....) then I agree.

Apparently, Mach is tweeting Mignini's points within with abandon. It appears the source of the present, "ISC is getting prepared to overturn the March 27 Marasca/Bruno exonerations" is Mignini himself - although all Mignini is saying is he believes what Marasca/Bruno did was illegal.

Mach takes it to the next level - suggesting that, in fact, the ISC is actually getting ready to do exactly that - reverse March 27. It's hard to imagine such a thing being absent from the front pages of Italian newspapers if true.

 

[sept79]

If you are talking about Mignini's submission about Maori and the journalist (Alberto....) then I agree.

Apparently, Mach is tweeting Mignini's points within with abandon. It appears the source of the present, "ISC is getting prepared to overturn the March 27 Marasca/Bruno exonerations" is Mignini himself - although all Mignini is saying is he believes what Marasca/Bruno did was illegal.

Mach takes it to the next level - suggesting that, in fact, the ISC is actually getting ready to do exactly that - reverse March 27. It's hard to imagine such a thing being absent from the front pages of Italian newspapers if true.

Do the guilters give any thought to how foolish Italian justice will look if the exoneration of AK/RS is once again overthrown ? Ain't going to happen . . .

 

[Planigale]

If you are talking about Mignini's submission about Maori and the journalist (Alberto....) then I agree.

Apparently, Mach is tweeting Mignini's points within with abandon. It appears the source of the present, "ISC is getting prepared to overturn the March 27 Marasca/Bruno exonerations" is Mignini himself - although all Mignini is saying is he believes what Marasca/Bruno did was illegal.

Mach takes it to the next level - suggesting that, in fact, the ISC is actually getting ready to do exactly that - reverse March 27. It's hard to imagine such a thing being absent from the front pages of Italian newspapers if true.

Yes that is what I meant.

I suspect there would be a real issue about announcing one verdict then reversing it. So I do not think this would happen. This would just set an impossible precedent. No one in Italy would know whether when the verdict was announced this was real or if the judges would change their mind later. The ECHR would probably take a dim view. Even a re-referral to another court would be pushing the limits (which I suspect has already passed) of what the ECHR regards as timely justice. We would be looking at proceedings of greater than 8 years with no final decision.

What I think the pro-guilt posters fail to realise is that having argued how good the Italian justice system is, now to argue it is subject to political pressures, corruption and / or incompetence at the highest level does no favours to the argument for guilt. Why should one part be trusted if another is faulty?

 

[Grinder]

What I think the pro-guilt posters fail to realise is that having argued how good the Italian justice system is, now to argue it is subject to political pressures, corruption and / or incompetence at the highest level does no favours to the argument for guilt. Why should one part be trusted if another is faulty?

The PGP have issues. They can't see that alleged DNA found on the knife of a weight of 1/586,000 of a grain of salt isn't the same as the abundant DNA of Rudi's not to mention the palm print, shoe prints and oh yeah, he admitted being there. (Not withstanding his Skype waffle).

They can't see that finding Amanda's DNA in her bathroom or on a knife where she was living isn't of significance. They can't watch the sloppy collection and say it was sloppy.

They rely on a witness high on smack (not that I would ever talk it) and have no issues with him being an alibi if he were correct.

I'm telling you the Italian mind and those PGP just work in their own ways.

 

[davefoc]

...
Yes, transcripts from Rudy's process would be a good thing.

The 106 page Micheli report in Italian of the October 28, 2008 preliminary hearing where Guede was found guilty and sentenced is on-line here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Micheli_Sentencing_Report

There is also an English translation that only covers the first 40 pages here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Micheli_Sentencing_Report_%28English%29

I used Google translate to get to the part that I was interested in.

CONDEMNATION
penalty of 30 years imprisonment and to pay court costs and to pay the costs of continued detention in custody suffered;
having regard to Articles. 29 and 32, 609 h * cp

It seems pretty clear, (but not certain), that Guede was sentenced to thirty years and not "life". There are two possibilities: 1. Micheli just applied the fast track bonus automatically and Guede would have been sentenced to "life" without the fast track bonus or 2. Micheli just sentenced Guede to thirty years and Guede was never subject to a penalty of "life". I think it is the latter, because I couldn't find anything specific in the report where Micheli applies the fast track bonus or sentences Guede to "life" and then modifies the sentence.

It is conceivable that sentencing Guede to thirty years instead of "life" is what set the chain of events in place that led to the greatly reduced sentence. There seems to be no hint in the report (which I didn't read thoroughly) that Guede has used up his fast track bonus. It doesn't seem to have been used up to change his sentence from "life" to thirty years. That would seem to make it so that a reduction of 30 years to 20 years was a necessary outcome of the appeal process with the six year reduction just a little extra reward for Guede in addition to the goodness he received when he was not sentenced to "life" at his first trial.

Regardless, it looks like his lawyer knew how to manipulate the system.

 

[Samson]

The 106 page Micheli report in Italian of the October 28, 2008 preliminary hearing where Guede was found guilty and sentenced is on-line here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Micheli_Sentencing_Report

There is also an English translation that only covers the first 40 pages here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Micheli_Sentencing_Report_%28English%29

I used Google translate to get to the part that I was interested in.



It seems pretty clear, (but not certain), that Guede was sentenced to thirty years and not "life". There are two possibilities: 1. Micheli just applied the fast track bonus automatically and Guede would have been sentenced to "life" without the fast track bonus or 2. Micheli just sentenced Guede to thirty years and Guede was never subject to a penalty of "life". I think it is the latter, because I couldn't find anything specific in the report where Micheli applies the fast track bonus or sentences Guede to "life" and then modifies the sentence.

It is conceivable that sentencing Guede to thirty years instead of "life" is what set the chain of events in place that led to the greatly reduced sentence. There seems to be no hint in the report (which I didn't read thoroughly) that Guede has used up his fast track bonus. It doesn't seem to have been used up to change his sentence from "life" to thirty years. That would seem to make it so that a reduction of 30 years to 20 years was a necessary outcome of the appeal process with the six year reduction just a little extra reward for Guede in addition to the goodness he received when he was not sentenced to "life" at his first trial.

Regardless, it looks like his lawyer knew how to manipulate the system.

The arithmetic seems to work if we say

1. 45 years, which is life
2. 1/3rd discount for fast track gives 30 years.
3. Sits at that till the appeal, in which
4. For helping save Meredith when the others fled, 6 years good behavior goes to 24 years.
5. Fast track discount 1/3rd applies, result 16 years.

I realise this is not correct, but by Italian standards consummately elegant.

 

[davefoc]

delete, see post below or don't if you don't have any interest in this topic.

 

[davefoc]

The arithmetic seems to work if we say

1. 45 years, which is life
2. 1/3rd discount for fast track gives 30 years.
3. Sits at that till the appeal, in which
4. For helping save Meredith when the others fled, 6 years good behavior goes to 24 years.
5. Fast track discount 1/3rd applies, result 16 years.

I realise this is not correct, but by Italian standards consummately elegant.

It does make a certain kind of sense, particularly since the issue isn't of of great importance. I am giving up on this. I thought about trying to forward the issue to Machiavelli but my suspicion is that he may not completely understand the issue either. Somebody with considerable expertise in Italian criminal law and at least some familiarity with the Kercher murder case would be required.

The wording on the Amanda Knox site makes it sound like the situation is pretty simple. Guede benefited from two fast track bonuses, the first that reduced his penalty from "life" to thirty years and the second when the appeals court applied the fast track bonus to the 24 year penalty.

It is based mostly on the papers of the prosecution and only a limited number of witnesses being heard by the court. If found guilty the defendant is granted a reduction of the sentence by one third, a “life” sentence is reduced to 30 years, “life + isolation” is reduced to “life”. (Art. 422 comma 2 c.p.p.).

...

Two weeks after the conviction of Knox and Sollecito in December 2009 the verdict of Guede’s appeal was read. The judges found no new evidence but granted mitigating circumstances and reduced the penalty to 24 years (reduced to 16 because of the abbreviated procedure).

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

But if my reading of the Micheli report is correct, Guede was just sentenced to thirty years and there was no fast track bonus applied in his first trial. But if there was fast track bonus applied to change the sentence to thirty years in the first trial then the application of the fast track bonus in the second trial was Guede's second bight at the apple.

 

[Numbers]

What does "reasonable suspicion" for the grounds of an arrest mean to the ECHR?

There is a definition in ECHR case-law, but deciding whether or not there was indeed reasonable suspicion for an arrest is highly dependent on the details of each case.

Here is a relevant excerpt from: ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN 15172/13 22/05/2014

87. The Court reiterates that in order for an arrest on reasonable suspicion to be justified under Article 5 § 1 (c), it is not necessary for the police to have obtained sufficient evidence to bring charges, either at the point of arrest or while the applicant is in custody (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, § 53, Series A no. 145‑B). Nor is it necessary that the person detained should ultimately have been charged or taken before a court. The object of detention for questioning is to further a criminal investigation by confirming or discontinuing suspicions which provide the grounds for detention. Thus, facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction or even the bringing of a charge, which comes at the next stage of the process of criminal investigation (see Murray v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, § 55, Series A no. 300‑A).

88. However, the requirement that the suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention. The fact that a suspicion is held in good faith is insufficient. The words “reasonable suspicion” mean the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence. What may be regarded as “reasonable” will depend upon all the circumstances (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A no. 182). The length of the deprivation of liberty may also be material to the level of suspicion required (see Murray, cited above, § 56).

89. When assessing the “reasonableness” of the suspicion, the Court must be enabled to ascertain whether the essence of the safeguard afforded by Article 5 § 1 (c) has been secured. Consequently, the respondent Government have to furnish at least some facts or information capable of satisfying the Court that the arrested person was reasonably suspected of having committed the alleged offence (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley, cited above, § 34 in fine).

90. The Court notes that the applicant in the present case complained of the lack of “reasonable” suspicion against him throughout the entire period of his detention, including both the initial period following his arrest and the subsequent periods when his remand in custody had been authorised and extended by court orders. In this connection, the Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a prerequisite for the lawfulness of the continued detention (see, among many other authorities, Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, p. 40, § 4, Series A no. 9, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 44, ECHR 2006‑X). Accordingly, while reasonable suspicion must exist at the time of the arrest and initial detention, it must also be shown, in cases of prolonged detention, that the suspicion persisted and remained “reasonable” throughout the detention.

With respect to the arrests of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba on Nov. 6, 2007, and their subsequent confirmation hearing for the arrests on Nov. 8, 2007, there is information* suggesting that the arrests were not based on good faith reasonable suspicion, and that in particular, the police and prosecutor were aware as of Nov. 8, 2007 or earlier that the DNA profile obtained from the rape kit analysis showed that neither Sollecito nor Lumumba had raped Meredith Kercher, but some other male had. This would have been further confirmation of the unreliability of the coerced statements obtained from Knox in her unrecorded interrogation by the police and PM Mignini, and which she impeached in her Memoriales 1 and 2 of Nov. 6 and 7, 2007. Note that the arrest warrants in their grounds for arrest relied almost entirely on Knox's statements in the Nov. 5/6 interrogation, and a truncation and thus distorted extract from her cell phone text message to Lumumba.

*ETA: See: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/guede-dna-investigation/

 

[Grinder]

Thus, facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction or even the bringing of a charge, which comes at the next stage of the process of criminal investigation

Which is what I've thought all along. After they were arrested and the Lumumba evidence vanished, he should have been released immediately.

When we see Raf's interrogations, perhaps that will shed some light.

As we've I've learned the information even on Amandaknoxcase.com is not even remotely complete and not even annotated to that fact.

What did Raf tell them?

ETA - It's not clear whether things dropping out means the arrest was improper.

 

[Samson]

It does make a certain kind of sense, particularly since the issue isn't of of great importance. I am giving up on this. I thought about trying to forward the issue to Machiavelli but my suspicion is that he may not completely understand the issue either. Somebody with considerable expertise in Italian criminal law and at least some familiarity with the Kercher murder case would be required.

The wording on the Amanda Knox site makes it sound like the situation is pretty simple. Guede benefited from two fast track bonuses, the first that reduced his penalty from "life" to thirty years and the second when the appeals court applied the fast track bonus to the 24 year penalty.


http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/rudy-guede/

But if my reading of the Micheli report is correct, Guede was just sentenced to thirty years and there was no fast track bonus applied in his first trial. But if there was fast track bonus applied to change the sentence to thirty years in the first trial then the application of the fast track bonus in the second trial was Guede's second bight at the apple.

Here is another idea.
I believe Rudy's appeal was finalised after the sentencing of Amanda and Raffaele. At this stage, with Amanda being the killer, and Raffaele her close associate, there was an anomaly. Guede with his lesser offending, was sitting on a longer sentence. This had to be reduced below the level of the other two, which meant 24 years maximum. With this corrected sanction they were then obliged to apply the 1/3rd mitigation, as though this corrected sentence would have been applied in the first place to line up with the other two..

 

[Kauffer]

The 106 page Micheli report in Italian of the October 28, 2008 preliminary hearing where Guede was found guilty and sentenced is on-line here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Micheli_Sentencing_Report

There is also an English translation that only covers the first 40 pages here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Micheli_Sentencing_Report_%28English%29

I used Google translate to get to the part that I was interested in.



It seems pretty clear, (but not certain), that Guede was sentenced to thirty years and not "life". There are two possibilities: 1. Micheli just applied the fast track bonus automatically and Guede would have been sentenced to "life" without the fast track bonus or 2. Micheli just sentenced Guede to thirty years and Guede was never subject to a penalty of "life". I think it is the latter, because I couldn't find anything specific in the report where Micheli applies the fast track bonus or sentences Guede to "life" and then modifies the sentence.

It is conceivable that sentencing Guede to thirty years instead of "life" is what set the chain of events in place that led to the greatly reduced sentence. There seems to be no hint in the report (which I didn't read thoroughly) that Guede has used up his fast track bonus. It doesn't seem to have been used up to change his sentence from "life" to thirty years. That would seem to make it so that a reduction of 30 years to 20 years was a necessary outcome of the appeal process with the six year reduction just a little extra reward for Guede in addition to the goodness he received when he was not sentenced to "life" at his first trial.

Regardless, it looks like his lawyer knew how to manipulate the system.

You are overthinking this. We know that in his first trial Guede's discounted sentence was 30 years because otherwise he would have received a sentence of 20 years, being two thirds of 30, directly.

The way to look at this is simply to forget about the result of the 1st trial sentencing, because it has no bearing on the appeal sentencing. Guede was sentenced to 24 years and received one fast track discount of one third, reducing his sentence to 16 years. It brought his sentence down in line with the decision in Amanda and Raffaele's 1st instance trial (with Guede's final term being substantially less as a result of the "reward" for following the abbreviated fast track route).

The prosecution had influence over these matters only to the extent that there was no prosecution appeal against the appellate court's sentence.

 

[carbonjam72]

You are overthinking this. We know that in his first trial Guede's discounted sentence was 30 years because otherwise he would have received a sentence of 20 years, being two thirds of 30, directly.

The way to look at this is simply to forget about the result of the 1st trial sentencing, because it has no bearing on the appeal sentencing. Guede was sentenced to 24 years and received one fast track discount of one third, reducing his sentence to 16 years. It brought his sentence down in line with the decision in Amanda and Raffaele's 1st instance trial (with Guede's final term being substantially less as a result of the "reward" for following the abbreviated fast track route).

The prosecution had influence over these matters only to the extent that there was no prosecution appeal against the appellate court's sentence.

Exactly right, as I understand it.

In addition though, Mignini also did not object to the defense request for mitigation at Rudy's appeal, and in fact Mignini said mitigation was warranted for Rudy because he had shown remorse. So Mignini not only did not object, but agreed with the suggestion for mitigation raised by Guede's defense at the appeal.

So Mignini argued for "Life" for Rudy in front of Michele, then consented to mitigation for Rudy after Amanda and Raf wre convicted in their first level trial before Massei. Wonder why Mignini had such a drastic change of heart?

 

[christianahannah]

Exactly right, as I understand it.

In addition though, Mignini also did not object to the defense request for mitigation at Rudy's appeal, and in fact Mignini said mitigation was warranted for Rudy because he had shown remorse. So Mignini not only did not object, but agreed with the suggestion for mitigation raised by Guede's defense at the appeal.

So Mignini argued for "Life" for Rudy in front of Michele, then consented to mitigation for Rudy after Amanda and Raf wre convicted in their first level trial before Massei. Wonder why Mignini had such a drastic change of heart?

Somewhere in here, Mignini also managed to imprgnate his wife, who IIUC was over 40 years old at the time. Talk about the "spawn of satan".

I haven't yet read the motivation reports for Rudy but have been looking through various articles concerning his appeal.

One article has the procuratore generale Pietro Catalani (not Mignini though perhaps he helped Catalani ask for the 30 years to be kept) asking for confirmation of Rudy's sentence given by Micheli. There are other articles along this same discussion but here is the link to the article I reference.

http://www.umbrialeft.it/node/28691

 

[carbonjam72]

I haven't yet read the motivation reports for Rudy but have been looking through various articles concerning his appeal.

One article has the procuratore generale Pietro Catalani (not Mignini though perhaps he helped Catalani ask for the 30 years to be kept) asking for confirmation of Rudy's sentence given by Micheli. There are other articles along this same discussion but here is the link to the article I reference.

http://www.umbrialeft.it/node/28691

Hey CHHH,

Thanks for the article. But its really pretty brief, just 1 paragraph. Did Mignini speak as well?

Reason I ask, is that I think I've seen footage of Mignini saying Rudy deserved mitigation because he had shown remorse. Wish I had a cite, but it has to be in the trial transcript if I'm right.

Wonder if we'll see Marasca's report tomorrow, and finally put a period on this whole shebang!

 

[christianahannah]

Hey CHHH,

Thanks for the article. But its really pretty brief, just 1 paragraph. Did Mignini speak as well?

Reason I ask, is that I think I've seen footage of Mignini saying Rudy deserved mitigation because he had shown remorse. Wish I had a cite, but it has to be in the trial transcript if I'm right.

Wonder if we'll see Marasca's report tomorrow, and finally put a period on this whole shebang!

I don't think Mignini spoke or even attended the appeal but of that I am not certain. It doesn't quote him in any of the articles I have read.

Here is another brief article from November 2009. Here Catalani is saying the same as the December 2009 hearing and to not grant extenuating circumstances to Guede. There are longer articles but they say basically the same as the brief ones.

http://www.repubblica.it/ultimora/2...NNA-A-30-ANNI-PER-RUDY/news-dettaglio/3735043

Who can say what tomorrow will bring but i think when the motivations is released there will still be much to discuss so no ending quite yet.

 

[Numbers]

Hey CHHH,

Thanks for the article. But its really pretty brief, just 1 paragraph. Did Mignini speak as well?

Reason I ask, is that I think I've seen footage of Mignini saying Rudy deserved mitigation because he had shown remorse. Wish I had a cite, but it has to be in the trial transcript if I'm right.

Wonder if we'll see Marasca's report tomorrow, and finally put a period on this whole shebang!

IIRC, Guede expressed remorse that he had not helped Meredith after she was injured. He did not express remorse for attacking her.

Regarding his sentence duration, IIRC (and I may be getting it wrong), he received a reduction also because he was the alleged junior partner of Amanda Knox in attacking Meredith, according to the Italian "judicial truth" - procedurally illegally "determined" since Knox and her counsel were not allowed (by Italian procedural law) to participate in the fast-track trial to cross-examine Guede or to dispute the prosecution case.

 

[JREF2010]

What does "reasonable suspicion" for the grounds of an arrest mean to the ECHR?

There is a definition in ECHR case-law, but deciding whether or not there was indeed reasonable suspicion for an arrest is highly dependent on the details of each case.

Here is a relevant excerpt from: ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN 15172/13 22/05/2014



With respect to the arrests of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba on Nov. 6, 2007, and their subsequent confirmation hearing for the arrests on Nov. 8, 2007, there is information* suggesting that the arrests were not based on good faith reasonable suspicion, and that in particular, the police and prosecutor were aware as of Nov. 8, 2007 or earlier that the DNA profile obtained from the rape kit analysis showed that neither Sollecito nor Lumumba had raped Meredith Kercher, but some other male had. This would have been further confirmation of the unreliability of the coerced statements obtained from Knox in her unrecorded interrogation by the police and PM Mignini, and which she impeached in her Memoriales 1 and 2 of Nov. 6 and 7, 2007. Note that the arrest warrants in their grounds for arrest relied almost entirely on Knox's statements in the Nov. 5/6 interrogation, and a truncation and thus distorted extract from her cell phone text message to Lumumba.

*ETA: See: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/guede-dna-investigation/

The interrogation is the reasonable suspicion, right?
The polizia , in my opinion, truly believed in the results they coerced out of the two 20yr olds. Edgardo Giobbi truly believed in his gut-instinct and as he said didnt need any other information, only his watching them and his belief system in his "ouiji board" like powers. Napoleoni and the other incompetents believed in the coerced confession and the rush to judgement too.

I imagine the polizia pack jumping around like excited monkeys, thinking they solved the case before the science was even fully completed. They really believed their own results.

Case closed!

Lumumba is lucky they released him, they could have easily made it a foursome murder, a bigger drunkj drug sex orgy with satanic overtones, and the Heroin junkie and bum super witnesses could have seen more things to help the prosecution.

off topic, but does anyone know how Toto died? was any autopsy done for foul play? mIts just odd the guiltards said he was so "sharp" and "healthy" and he was the Super Witness for the prosecution, and being on Heroin had nothing to do with anything....so how come he died so quickly after being imprisoned?

 

[davefoc]

You are overthinking this.

That seems pretty clear.

We know that in his first trial Guede's discounted sentence was 30 years because otherwise he would have received a sentence of 20 years, being two thirds of 30, directly.

I don't completely agree with the logic, but your conclusion appears to be exactly correct. I found this in the Micheli sentencing report:

Coming then, and finally, to the processing of sanctions, due dell'aggravante contested it must be sent to life imprisonment, without the occurrence of additional charges that could lead to the solitary confinement; resulting replacement with the penalty of 30 years imprisonment, given the option to the summary procedure[rito abbreviato (fast track)]. Achieve by law for costs procedural and to pay the costs of continued detention in custody, as well as additional penalties under Articles. 29 and 32 cp, because of the size of the penalty imposed, and art. 609 h * cp, given the acknowledged responsibility for the crime of sexual violence, even if absorbed in the most serious challenge.

The way to look at this is simply to forget about the result of the 1st trial sentencing, because it has no bearing on the appeal sentencing. Guede was sentenced to 24 years and received one fast track discount of one third, reducing his sentence to 16 years. It brought his sentence down in line with the decision in Amanda and Raffaele's 1st instance trial (with Guede's final term being substantially less as a result of the "reward" for following the abbreviated fast track route).

The prosecution had influence over these matters only to the extent that there was no prosecution appeal against the appellate court's sentence.

A simple way to look at this is that Guede had two bites at the fast track bonus apple. Once from the trial where he went from a "life" sentence to a 30 year sentence and secondly when he went from a 24 year sentence to a 16 year sentence.

But you don't agree. I think your point is that Guede had a single bite from two different apples and the bite from the appeals court fast track apple over rode his bite from the trial fast track apple. I am not completely convinced of this but it's close enough.

So to get back to the thing I was trying to understand when I started asking questions about Guede's sentencing: It looks like the appeals court was completely responsible for the major reduction in Guede's sentence. Micheli gave Guede the maximum sentence he could. I think several people have said approximately that but the underlying facts about Guede's sentencing confused me (obviously) and I wasn't sure they were right.

 

[davefoc]

Here is another idea.
I believe Rudy's appeal was finalised after the sentencing of Amanda and Raffaele. At this stage, with Amanda being the killer, and Raffaele her close associate, there was an anomaly. Guede with his lesser offending, was sitting on a longer sentence. This had to be reduced below the level of the other two, which meant 24 years maximum. With this corrected sanction they were then obliged to apply the 1/3rd mitigation, as though this corrected sentence would have been applied in the first place to line up with the other two..

I think this might have been the situation. I think the fake Wiki said something similar that I quoted above. It is the idea that makes Mignini look the best in this deal. No quid pro quo for Guede to make statements against AK/RS. Guede just got a big sentence reduction because Sollecito and Knox got lower sentences then he did and they weren't eligible for a fast track bonus so he ended up with a lower sentence than they did.

I don't like it because I'm pretty much in the Mignini was the devil camp and anything that doesn't support that meme doesn't make me happy. But if we're going to base our guesses about what went on here on a straight forward interpretation of the facts in front of us, you might be right.

Still, I don't think Guede started doing his anti-AK/RS rif completely out of thin air and I for sure don't think AK/RS were with Guede when he was murdering Kercher. So something made it seem like a good idea to him to include AK/RS in his tale. And my money is that it happened because Mignini told Guede's lawyer that it would be good for Guede to say bad things about AK/RS. And the good thing for Guede that Mignini did was to smooth the way for Guede's appeal to go well for him.