Nah, it just means the Byzantine machinations of the Italian Court System don't really interest me and it doesn't matter much that I may have some terminology wrong. I do recognize when my argument is dodged and what I get back amounts to semantic quibbling however.
Everything that happened afterward was based on the evidence Mignini presented in court in Rudy's trial. The result of the rest of his appeals process flowed from the case Mignini brought against him, and also ended up affecting Raffaele and Amanda's trial as well, including that they had to stand trial at all.
My evidence for this can be summed up quite simply from the fact that Rudy was cleared of the theft and Raffaele and Amanda were convicted of it despite the evidence. Again: Rudy left his DNA all over and around the owner of what was stolen, including her purse, and he was the one who really needed money and stuff to sell and they did not. Then there's the recent thefts Rudy was involved in that Mignini failed to prosecute, despite him piling charges on Raffaele and Amanda as well as their families on specious evidential grounds.
Because of the way Mignini prosecuted it! He was the one responsible for adducing the evidence in court and he did so in a way that excused Rudy Guede from participating much in the crime, despite all the evidence that would objectively place him in the forefront (being as he was the only one involved that would kinda figure) but even someone who wanted to include Raffaele and Amanda could have prosecuted the case against Rudy fairly, and Mignini most certainly did not do that.
If it is not possible that means expecting a (final) sentence against anyone that amounts to more than the 16 years Rudy got is basically impossible, and we both know that isn't true. Taking fast track cannot be a guarantee of a mere 16 year sentence.
I’m not saying wrong in semantics; you are wrong on the very substance.
The plain facts are: Knox and Sollecito were convicted and got the
very same sentencing reduction of Guede, however they got it on their first trial, while Guede got mitigation only on his appeal. So
their treatment was more favourable than Guede’s. These are the plain facts.
For some reason you decide to ignore this obvious datum.
You want to make an argument that is: Guede obtained his reduction because he was not found guilty of theft of the cell phones (actually the charge is unlawful appropriation). Such argument is manifestly ludicrous, if you look just how irrelevant this charge was as for Knox and Sollecito’s sentencing. They were found guilty of unlawfully removing the cell phones, while they were found not guilty of removing cash money on grounds of lack of proof. The reason why they were found guilty of this is because they were found guilty of staging, sidetracking (cleaning-up and altering the scene); they are considered guilty of the removal of items only insofar as part of a staging activity. Guede is not charged with staging and cleaning up in the accusation scenario, hence he cannot be logically connected with removing the cell phones.
But this specific action of “theft” was manifestly irrelevant in the sentencing of Knox and Sollecito (the whole charges of the staging activities all together raised the sentencing up to 25 years from 24). However, despite its manifest irrelevancy in their sentencing, something which rests before your eyes, you decide that this is the cause for which Guede got 16 years instead of 30. It’s something totally ludicrous.
Incidentally, I see that because you are having problems in building an argument, you resort to going off topic. It seems that your “actual” arguments is that you just don’t like the prosecution scenario. Because you think Guede’s DNA was “all over” the place, that there was alleged “evidence” that he committed a theft, that the two are good kids etc.
So you are basically resorting to a circular reasoning: you build a theory that there was a deal between Guede and the prosecution, that he was prosecuted in a “different way”, only based on your assumption that you think that Guede should have been accused of being the lone perpetrator and that the other two should be considered innocent. In other words your idea that Guede got only 16 years because of a favourable treatment from the prosecution, is a petition principii, a rationalization through a circular reasoning.
A few side facts: it is not true that Guede’s DNA was found “all over” the murder scene; it was only found in four instances, and the amount of it was incredibly small, in some of them smaller than the knife DNA. Actually in some only a compatibility on the Y-haplotype was found.
There is also no evidence that Guede ever grabbed the cell-phones; his DNA on the external side of Meredith’s purse is certainly no sufficient evidence of theft. There is no DNA of Guede on her wallet nor in the inside of her purse, nor on drawers nor elsewhere where on things burglar should have touched, and one of Meredith’s cell phones was actually elsewhere, in the pocket of her trousers (btw, how could a thieve know that he had two cell phones?).
How about a more likely answer: they won because Mignini tanked the evidence against Rudy in his trial. What are the ones involved in the rest of the fast track process to rely on if the proper evidence is not adduced in the original trial?
There is nothing here that is to be considered "likely" vs. "unlikely": the trial fact are manifest, written in the trial paprs before your eyes.
The prosecution request of 30 years in Guede appeal is before your eyes. The fact that the charge of unlawful appropriation is irrelevant and only related to staging is before your eyes. The fact that the two other suspects got a more favourable outcome (they got the same reduction in their first instance instead of their appeal) is before your eyes.
