Kercher Killer Rudy Guede has sentence reduced

[Portofino]

Link here

During the very long, recent thread about the AK/RS verdicts, I expressed the hope that all the misleading information did not have a beneficial effect on the one person who was categorically proven to have been there. It looks like my fears have come true!

Whatever the situation with the other 2, RG is firmly linked to the crime with solid forensic evidence and this must be terrible for Meredith's parents.

I can't belive that version of events, because there is no forensic evidence that supports it, and no realistic motive that explains why they might have done such a thing. I guess that is my position.

I think there are some oddities in timelines which may or may not be explainable. But to stick to the point, why should Guede get his sentence reduced for having a fast track trial?

But he is a shameless liar isn't he? That is perfectly clear. If he had at least told the truth so that MK's family could have a clear picture of what happened to their daughter, but he hasn't, he is only interested in saving his own skin. And that should not have been rewarded. Sickening.

pofaced, I totally agree with you. He KNOWS what happened that night.

If Guede pleaded guilty then why did he always maintain he was in the toilet and why did his lawyer want him aquitted and why did he say in court that he did not murder Meredith Kercher?

I'm confused about why people think he admitted guilt? As far as I was aware there was no charge of rape.

here

video half way down.

'I didn't know who the man was'

'It was a fraction of a second, a flash'

"I want to let the Kercher family know that I did not kill or rape their little daughter. I am not the one who took her life away from them."

And... apparently his lawyers argued in the appeal that the evidence against him, his DNA in the room and on Meredith, was due to contamination.

Aparently his lawyer asked the jury to look at Guede's face and ask themselves if they could see a murderer in it.

I cannot see any reason for having his sentence reduced. If this has been done because Knox and Sollecito have now been found guilty, despite the only firm forensic evidence pointing clearly to Guede, then that is a complete farce.

one report in an Italian paper says he will be out in 5-6 years.

That he wrote a letter to the kerchers telling them that in the short time he 'knew' Meredith he got to know and understand her soul.

I doubt that anyone will ever get the real truth of what happened from Guede.

None of it makes sense to me

If the Jury in both cases accepted the prosecutions version of events, the sex game where Guede took part and held Meredith down, then they surely can't believe any of his story about having caught a glimpse of Sollecito and having heard Knox. They must surely believe hw was a willing participant in a situation where he would have known who the other attackers were?

The letter sounds - well - SICK!

DF, I agree - it either went down as they hypothesised it did, or it didn't. In which case the other trial was a waste of time. They can't have it both ways...

I think they truly think that Knox killed her while the other two were just helping. All because of a Knife with suspect DNA on it

If I were the kerchers, Knox and Sollecito aside, I would be fuming about this.

I was really shocked too to find out his sentence has been halved.

Knox will probably get off with a pardon after her appeal!

As said in the last thread, I just hope everything slots in to place when the courts finally publish the full report.

"Aparently his lawyer asked the jury to look at Guede's face and ask themselves if they could see a murderer in it"

Sorry have i missed something here? Everyone seems to be saying different things. I thought the fast-track system meant no jury.

Just so i can be clear can someone explain to me if I've got the facts right.

1.He opted for a fast-track trial which involves 1 judge,no jury,behind closed doors and 1/3rd off your sentence.

2.This fast-track system is not an admission of guilt nor is a guilty plea a requisite of availing of it.

3.Guede plead not-guilty but was found to be guilty.

4.The judge felt that due to his deceptive nature he did not believe that Guede was entitled to his 1/3rd reduction.

1. on appeal the courts found that he was in fact entitled to his reduction de facto because he availed of the fast-track system.

6.Guede maintains his innocence and intends to appeal again.

I'm very confused by cross-posting as to what has actually happened here and the reasons for the sentence reduction.

Wiki's description of the process:

Fast-track trial
The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated proceeding)[19] consists, basically, of a proceeding where the trial phase is absent.

It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.

Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgement over him.

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgement before the Court of Appeals.

I think that sums it up Mayorquimby although I am not sure about the Jury thing. A Jury has certainly been metioned in reports about the appeal so maybe there was one at the appeal but not at the fast track trial?

Also not sure about your point no. 4.

They are saying that his sentence was cut due to extenuating circumstances. Not sure what they are.

He was convicted in 2008 for sexual assault and murder. here

could the extenuating circumstances be something to do with Knox and Sollecito's convictions?

The Micheli report, released to explain the reasons for finding Guede Guilty, said

"the killing was ?a group crime?. Guede had not himself cut Ms Kercher?s throat. But there was ?cast iron proof? that he had taken part in the murder, even if he did not strike the ?mortal blow?. "

and

"Guede tried to sexually assault Ms Kercher while Mr Sollecito held her down and Ms Knox toyed with a knife against her throat, which she then used to stab her. Judge Micheli said he accepted that there was ?complicity? between the assailants, but said some aspects of the prosecution reconstruction were ?fantasy?. "

and

"Judge Micheli said Guede was ?a liar? and there were ?no extenuating circumstances?. ?Even someone who wanted to believe him would find it impossible,? the judge wrote. He added: ?It is credible that Guede entered the house because he was let into it by someone else, and that someone could only be Amanda Knox.?

and

He said there had been an ?agreed plan? to satisfy ?sexual instincts? which ended in ?murderous intent?. Guede had continued to try to assault Ms Kercher sexually even when a knife was produced "

And

" the statements Guede, who fled to Germany after the murder, had made following his arrest and extradition to Italy were ?nothing more than a colossal accumulation of contradictions and attempts to throw investigators off the track?. "

and

"Judge Micheli said Guede had had ?no intention of saving? Ms Kercher?s life as she lay bleeding to death. In his defence Guede had claimed that he was in the bathroom with stomach pains when Ms Kercher was murdered. The judge said this was untrue."

These are the reasons put forward for Guede's guilt, the motive for the action and the prosecution's presentation of what happened.

I don't see how the extenuating circumstances could be Knox and Solliceto seeing as the theory that they were all three involved was already put forward at the time Guede was tried and he was found guilty on this basis.

So, effectively all he has been granted was the third off his original sentence that he didn't get as the judge didn't feel he was entitled to it? The third representing what he would have received as he chose to fast track?

Am really not sure. I wonder if they have to do another report about the appeal?

I find it so odd that the judge thought Guede's story about being in the toilet when the attack happened was completely untrue but seems to believe everything else he says about being able to identify Amanda Knox and Sollecito and about there being no sign of a break in when he arrived for his so called pre-arranged meeting with Meredith. It's just so barmy.

this is what the migini report said about Guede's story:

"This court considers it not to grant extenuating circumstances, because the elements to consider in favor of the accused would still not suitable to move in the opposite perspective, neither the disconcerting seriousness of criminal acts, nor the weight of the post delictum specific behavior of G. especially when taking into account that he, given the unreliability on which there has been expounded upon, not only misrepresentation but has literally invented a seemingly endless series of nonsense " (sorry for poor translation but you get the gist?

Extenuating circumstances (read on another site) - Guede's age, the fact that he had no previous convictions, impoverished background. These were not allowed at the first trial, but have been allowed on appeal.

Age and no prior criminal convictions also allowed as extenuating circumtances for Knox and Sollecito. As these have already been applied, a further reduction in their senteces seems less than assured.

All three sentenced to 24 years.

An extra year for Sollecito for "staging" the crime (= 25 years). Ditto Knox. Knox also got a further year for for falsely implicating Patrick Lumumba (= 26 years).

Guede's sentence reduced by a third for agreeing to a "Fast track" trial. I'm not saying this is right, but that's just how the law operates in Italy.

blimey. So even though he had been arrested previously, even though he fled the scene, even though he sexually molested the victim (let's call it rape), even though he ran off to another country... they still take his age and background into consideration as an extenuating circumstance. Blimey!

I guess that's how the law is in Italy but it doesn't seem right.

That is a strange system.

The fact he wanted a fast track trial to lessen the sentence he was going to get proves he's guilty.

Fine you get a slight reduction by consenting to being guilty - but to have your sentence halved?? He might as well get out and kill again. He probably will.