Thanks for the responses Kaosium. It seems like there's enough wiggle room in the facts surrounding this that one can see the situation as Guede got a deal associated with for turning on RS/AK or for some other reason not publically described or Guede just had good lawyers that got him a good but routine deal through no actions of his own other than the ones publically described.
Could be another thing we will never know the truth about. But I don't see him writing that letter on his own naming RS/AK without some kind of quid pro quo and right now that seems like the most likely story to me.
It is kind of an amazing leap that he was convicted of rape and murder and he seems to have gotten a mitigated sentence for saying he was sorry he hadn't done more to stop it. You'd think a prosecutor might have something to say about that unless he had a reason for not challenging it that he didn't release to the public.
I think your last paragraph is the key, and there's where it segues into something I don't know for sure: could there be separate 'truths' between Guede's Court and Raffaele's and Amanda's? In other words could they have hammered Guede for being the sole killer, or at least the one most responsible, at the same time (or a little afterward actually) they went for Raffaele and Amanda as being involved as well?
My
guess is yes there could have been, at the very least they could have pushed for Guede to take responsibility for the evidence against him, notably that he must have been the one most involved in the killing part. That's what they didn't do, they allowed him the fantasy he was just there, but the way it worked out the Michaeli court condemned him for the murder with the possibility others were involved, whereas the Hellmann Court decided that if there were any others they weren't Raffaele and Amanda.
It still remains to be seen if that court will decide the evidence suggests it was just Guede, my
guess is they won't, they'll pretend it was Guede with possibly others, and use Alessi's story as 'datum' as to who it could be, much like Rudy's SC conviction included the 'I was there' bit from the tapped conversation between Amanda and her parents--it was otherwise meaningless except as a data point they could plug into that part of the Motivations as an indication perhaps others were involved.
Personally my
suspicion is this is a 'loophole' created by Mignini. By insisting on prosecuting three people for a crime highly likely to have been perpetrated by one, he had to create the 'evidence' that would be accepted by the court to open up the
possibility others were involved. In Rudy's trial, he kinda crow-barred open the Court's 'truth,' though it didn't actually
mean anything outside he had that loophole now and could tell the press insipid things like Rudy's SC Motivations could somehow also condemn Raffaele and Amanda. That
never made sense to me, and perhaps I spent too much time thinking on it compared to most, but I suspect it was a clue to how this system works and what Mignini was up to.
There had to be a reason for him doing that, and it was picked up by the press and also the victim's family who now apparently are convinced the courts definitely decided more than one person was involved. It also served to misdirect people from noticing he could have insisted Rudy get the maximum sentence allowable under Italian law, and also potentially create the sense of impending doom for the appeal of Amanda and Raffaele in the press which was wholly fabricated and as we now know
completely untrue.
My inclination is that there very well could have been 'separate truths' and that Mignini could have seen to it that Rudy Guede was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and it was Maresca's job to see to it that happened. However they didn't do that mainly to keep alive the fantasy that Mignini's 'theory' was still true, that it was all instigated by Amanda and she was the most to blame.
