www.gbnews.com
www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de
I think the basis of an appeal (in part) could be the seemingly lacking of taking things into account & then failing to look at the totality of the coincidences, instead accepting the defence ticking a box at every junction. The time between the court dates wouldn’t have helped matters. ‘Let’s try a serial offender but make it drawn out with huge chunks of time between court dates’.
Very succinctly put.
Interesting question, some one higher up decided back in July wasn't it that the court was not biased when lifting the arrest warrant, how can it now be decided they basically were.Take HaBs evidence the Welt reported that the court heard that he gave 4 different versions regarding what he had seen on tape how would a new trial determine which were truthful if at all.A mark on CB's leg will not suddenly appear?
As its been dealt with, I think claims of bias will be a non-starter. Difference of opinion won't do, so it'll need to be some obscure point of law.
Really well said. I guess a lot of coincidences doesn’t quite cut it in a German courtroom. I don’t think he didn’t commit these crimes but they certainly weren’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The gaps between court dates didn't help make the case.Very succinctly put.
There is a wider picture covering many bases in prosecutions regarding offences covering many years from 2004 till 2017.
The court did not have the requisite skills to address them.
Having initially jumped on the wrong bandwagon the presiding judge didn't have the wit to jump off when the opportunity presented itself. And by by leaning too much on defence initiatives dismissing all the evidence in all five cases devalued her opinion at a stroke.
Snip
On Thursday morning she faced close questioning in detail about her previous court testimony and possible contradictions in statements given to police in Portugal, Ireland and Germany.
She said Portuguese police did not provide an official translator, she had to ask a friend to assist, in front of whom she didn’t want to explain all details.
...
Questioned about why she went public with her story, Ms Behan said she was inspired by hearing someone else talk on Irish radio about turning a different, difficult experience into something positive.
“I wanted other women to feel there was a safe place they could contact,” she said. “I had nowhere, that was the reason why.”
She kept the details of the attack out of the radio interview but the response – in particular calls to the Rape Crisis Centre – was so strong that Ms B agreed to a second, television interview on RTÉ's The Late Late Show.
In her second four-hour bloc of testimony, with further defence questions in the afternoon, Ms B became emotional at one point and asked for a brief break.
Irish woman says she will ‘never forget’ eyes of alleged rapist and chief suspect in Madeleine McCann case
Hazel Behan (40) told court she feared for her life during ‘hateful, aggressive’ assault in Portugal 20 years agowww.irishtimes.com
So she had to field invasive innuendo from the defence (nope she didn't 'sell' her story - she tried to use it for the common good and succeeded in doing so).
On another front she had to satisfy the interrogation of a very unsympathetic judge.
Perfectly possible that given the fact forensic evidence had been destroyed in Portugal possibly weakening the case - or possibly not given that not all evidence is forensic. But given the conduct of the trial throughout and in particular towards this witness, what level of confidence should have been placed in her opinions.
Very succinctly put.
There is a wider picture covering many bases in prosecutions regarding offences covering many years from 2004 till 2017.
The court did not have the requisite skills to address them.
Having initially jumped on the wrong bandwagon the presiding judge didn't have the wit to jump off when the opportunity presented itself. And by by leaning too much on defence initiatives dismissing all the evidence in all five cases devalued her opinion at a stroke.
Snip
On Thursday morning she faced close questioning in detail about her previous court testimony and possible contradictions in statements given to police in Portugal, Ireland and Germany.
She said Portuguese police did not provide an official translator, she had to ask a friend to assist, in front of whom she didn’t want to explain all details.
...
Questioned about why she went public with her story, Ms Behan said she was inspired by hearing someone else talk on Irish radio about turning a different, difficult experience into something positive.
“I wanted other women to feel there was a safe place they could contact,” she said. “I had nowhere, that was the reason why.”
She kept the details of the attack out of the radio interview but the response – in particular calls to the Rape Crisis Centre – was so strong that Ms B agreed to a second, television interview on RTÉ's The Late Late Show.
In her second four-hour bloc of testimony, with further defence questions in the afternoon, Ms B became emotional at one point and asked for a brief break.
Irish woman says she will ‘never forget’ eyes of alleged rapist and chief suspect in Madeleine McCann case
Hazel Behan (40) told court she feared for her life during ‘hateful, aggressive’ assault in Portugal 20 years ago
So she had to field invasive innuendo from the defence (nope she didn't 'sell' her story - she tried to use it for the common good and succeeded in doing so).
On another front she had to satisfy the interrogation of a very unsympathetic judge.
Perfectly possible that given the fact forensic evidence had been destroyed in Portugal possibly weakening the case - or possibly not given that not all evidence is forensic. But given the conduct of the trial throughout and in particular towards this witness, what level of confidence should have been placed in her opinions.
I don’t think conviction by coincidence passes muster anywhere. Coincidences do happen frequently but that doesn’t make them mean anything, they are only of use if they support facts.
Interestingly we have both hit on the role of the defence lawyers; my reckoning is that their role merits closer scrutiny for the future.
www.news38.de
What a pity the off-duty Portuguese police officer who attended the playground incident was unable to testify to the court due to a malfunctioning video link.
Uh’ok. The verdict is what it is.
