Whether they're called mitigations (which amount to reductions) or reductions outright and which step of the abbreviated process they're officially applied doesn't really matter. What does matter is that the way Mignini prosecuted it led to a huge reduction in sentence for Rudy Guede, making true Barbie Nadeau's report of eating with Biscotti, Rudy's lawyer, and him getting a call saying he got a deal for Rudy.
Kaosium, I think you understand that you lost all arguments. You say the logical steps in between how to come to the reduction don't matter; but actually they do matter a lot to your reasoning. They
are your reasoning. And they are wrong.
Now, because you lost them, you want to leap across them to get to a conclusion directly, without any reasoning in between: basically your only assertion is that the Guede final reduction is evidence by itself, you believe it is evidence of a particular "way Mignini prosecuted Guede". Basically you admit you have no argument.
You don't have any evidence that Mignini prosecuted Guede in any different way. You only have evidence of the contrary. But you decide to leap across all the facts, and you kind of deduce the existence of an event "Mignini prosecuted Guede in a particular favourable way" by making it stem directly, and solely, from the simple existence of Guede's final reduced sentencing, and from nothing else.
Now, why wasn't there any appeal to the mitigations or advancing of aggravations in the Rudy Guede case?
Guede got 30 years in the first instance. Do you understand that? 30 years!
they won. You don't appeal something that you won. It would bee like shooting at your foot.
It means the prosecution won their case completely in terms of sentencing. They obtained the maximum. It's almost the maximum that any accused can possibly get in an anbbreviated trial. A life sentencing on abbreviated trial it's something so rare, almost unique, which would require some extreme aggravation, like a cold-minded premeditation by a professional with terrorist purposes, or killing a second person, something like that, something really extreme.
A common criminal doesn't get life on abbreviated trials. Not even a murderer. Normally, not even a terrorist. It's something very rare. And in this case, the scenario was that of a troubled young person who took part in committing a non premeditated murder together with other people, and who returned back to Italy by train to give himself up to the police. This is a common crime. He was not the mastermind and he was not even the person who gave the fatal blow, in the judges' minds.
How can you reasonably expect that he would get more than 30 years despite a short track trial?
Mignini and Comodi obviously did not appeal agaisnt a 30 years sentencing.
But even if they appealed to increase it to life, that wouldn't have changed anything in the reality of events. The Prosecutor General in fact demanded the Borsini Belardi court to confirm the first instance sentencing, 30 years. Had Mignin and Comodi appealed, they (Mignini and Comodi) could have proposed the judge to increase the sentencing to life, but the only difference would have been such phonetic exercise.
The fact is the prosecution general lost their argument for the 30 years sentencing. They lost it. They asked 30 years again (a request that could have been legally founded) and the judges decided otherwise. They lost it because the defence won, and they won partly because Knox and Sollecito got their mitigations too; the judges of Borsini-Belardi court opted for mitigation so the prosecution would have equally lost the argument for a life sentencing (whch would have been legally unfounded).
And that's the proof of it all, Mignini didn't try to prosecute Rudy for the theft, in defiance of the evidence showing that even if Raffaele and Amanda were involved in the murder, Rudy was the one who ended up with the cash.
But what are you talking about, since Mignini charged Guede with theft, and Micheli found him innocent for lack of proof?
And why do you think that a petty offence like theft (which is not theft but even pettier illicit appropriation, since you can't commit a theft in detriment of a dead person) would have been determinant? Guede would have got 30 years anyway, no more than that. Think about that Solelcito and Knox were found guilty of committing sexual violence, and then sidtrackings (staging, cleanup) and calunnia in continuance, and even illicit appropriation, and despite these aggravations they did not get life. And now Crini is requesting to remove generic mitigation, yet he is still not asking for life. And they are even in a regular, expensive and renewed process, not in a short track.
