Did he actually get a reduced sentence for the mitigating circumstance of murdering in a group? That seems crazy even by Italian standards. The Charlie Manson mitigation. I was under the impression that he got generic reductions for age/taking a fast track trial/lack of prior serious convictions etc. But I don't actually know since I didn't read any of his sentencing reports.
From the Borsini appeal court judgment:
"While it is not necessary to examine the position of Knox and Sollecito, who are being judged separately, the multiple attacker nature of the murder aggravated by the sexual assault forces us to at least spend some considering them.
We have already discussed the evidence of their presence in the apartment on the evening of 1st November 2007, revealed by the DNA traces of Sollecito on the bra clasp of the victim, of the traces found on the knife in Sollecito’s house where the victim had never been (witness Romanelli) considered compatible with the wounds by the expert witnesses, at least with the deepest one, and having traces of Knox on the handle and Kercher on the blade; supported by the presence of Amanda’s lamp in Meredith’s room (statements of Romanelli and Mezzetti of 7th May 2008); by their lies, including Sollecito’s to Inspector Battistelli to have called the Carabinieri, which instead was found to have been made after the arrival of the Postal Police; from the break in mobile telephone usage of the two, revealed by the logs, between approximately 21:00 of 1st November until the morning of the next day; from the footprint compatible with Sollecito on the bathmat (Consultants Boemia-Rinaldi); the footprints of the two revealed by Luminol; from the discovery of diluted blood stains present on the wash basin and on the bidet containing the genetic material of, other than the victim, also of Knox (see testimony of Stefanoni); from the phrase “I was there” that Amanda let slip out in her intercepted conversation with her parents while in the Capanne prison in Perugia; from the statements (in the third session of questioning by the Public Minister) of Rudi Guede, where he brings Amanda into the scene of the crime for the first time providing more precise details on the wielder of the knife. ...."
The mitigating circumstances are, in part:
"He {the judge of the fast-track trial} also took into account arguments in his {Guede's} favour, put forward by the defense; the lack of previous convictions (no longer sufficient after the introduction of the 3rd paragraph of article 62 bis, introduced with statute no. 125 in 2008),
the fact that it was not him {Guede} that held the knife that inflicted the mortal wound on the victim, the voluntary return to Italy after fleeing to Germany, his young age, the “acute stress disorder” that would justify his lack of aid to the victim and the subsequent escape abroad.
Taking into account such elements, the Court holds such mitigating circumstances can be accepted. ....
In addition,
he {Guede} was the only one of the defendants to apologize to Meredith’s family, even if referring only to his lack of help to her [in her dying moments], as was recognized by the lawyers of the girl’s relatives who participated as civil parties.
Then, apart from the attempt to staunch the flow of blood from the wound and
the proof that it was not he {Guede} that held the knife that was compatible with the worst of the lesions, it should also be remembered that
Guede was the only one, even if in a somewhat fanciful reconstruction of events, to indicate the perpetrators."
Therefore, for the sentencing:
"Taking into account the elements and the circumstances of the crime and, above all else, of the unspeakable suffering inflicted on the victim, the panel holds that it must deliver a judgment in which the mitigating and aggravating circumstances are considered of equal value.
As a result of the aforementioned judgment of equivalence, the sentence applicable becomes that covered in article 575 of the Penal Code. ....
For This Reason {For These Reasons} [P.Q.M.]
The Corte di Assise di Appello of Perugia pursuant to articles 443, 605, 599 of the Penal Code with partial reform of the sentence delivered on 28th October 2008 by the Judge of the preliminary hearing [GUP] at the Tribunal of Perugia against Rudi Hermann GUEDE, appealed by him,
with the generic mitigating circumstances being equivalent to the contested aggravating circumstances,
REDUCES
the punishment of the appellant to 16 years of imprisonment."
Source:
https://borsinibellardi.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/
Thus, the Borsini appeal court regards alleged elements of the alleged "group" nature of the murder/rape as points in favor of reducing Guede's sentence.
For example, Guede named his co-defendents Knox and Sollecito - who were tried separately, and could not contest his statements or other alleged evidence at his trials - as co-perpetrators and denies rendering the knifing fatal to Kercher - these are considered important parts of the mitigating circumstances by the Borsini appeal court. But there was no credible objective evidence of these mitigating factors; for example, the alleged DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito was accepted without being examined by the Borsini appeal court.
There is not, however, a reduction in his sentence simply because it was an alleged group attack. If that were true, Knox and Sollecito would have received such reductions in their provisional convictions by the Massei first-instance or Nencini appeal courts.
