Friday, January 23, 2015
Sorry for the delay in translation
I will try to translate as soon as possible onwards, but my intentions and my abilitys does not work together all the time.
Sorted and look through
So, I have sorted and looked through some of the material which is only about half of the preliminary investigation.
Will order the second part too. Had to break it when they take the copy fee which for this part was in 1268: -
I have subjects and angles for indefinite future ... and I have no hurry.
I promised my brother on his deathbed to take care of this ... and that promise I will keep.
My brother does not rest in peace as it is now.
Since it is so that justice should be transparent as a guarantee that it will go wrong. That's why there are opportunities to develop materials that I have made.
It is not always right and I also have a responsibility to when I discovered it, show it.
Not everyone has a big sister ... so I do it for their sake as well.
There is a small dab of my readers who hope that the blog will peter out, end.
But it will not.
The only thing that can make me set point to this is that the legal system takes its responsibility seriously, fulfills its obligation towards my brother and ends keep this perpetrator behind their back.
... and that the perpetrator be punished.
Will order the second part too. Had to break it when they take the copy fee which for this part was in 1268: -
I have subjects and angles for indefinite future ... and I have no hurry.
I promised my brother on his deathbed to take care of this ... and that promise I will keep.
My brother does not rest in peace as it is now.
Since it is so that justice should be transparent as a guarantee that it will go wrong. That's why there are opportunities to develop materials that I have made.
It is not always right and I also have a responsibility to when I discovered it, show it.
Not everyone has a big sister ... so I do it for their sake as well.
There is a small dab of my readers who hope that the blog will peter out, end.
But it will not.
The only thing that can make me set point to this is that the legal system takes its responsibility seriously, fulfills its obligation towards my brother and ends keep this perpetrator behind their back.
... and that the perpetrator be punished.
2.5 kg preliminary investigation has arrived ...
... confirming what I already told by Constable Frisk.
... and that the police is the one really ugly fish ... not smart ... just ugly.
This my dear readers, I will show in a series of future posts.
Now I'll take me a well earned drink.
Lawyer Kjell-Åke Lundin + Hans Olsson = Gislaveds handels aktiebolag (gislaveds handels ab)
If you dig in the shit , it smells and you usually find more shit ... so also in this case.
Since I moved from the place as soon as I could so I have not got myself an annoying tendency to have comments on other people's life and times, how they make their living, etc. and my interest in my neighbors' lives is zero.
But here it floats up and here I actually have an opinion
Facts taken from public sources such as the tax office, land survey and company info.
Gislaveds handels aktie bolag:
Org. no. 556103-0189
Nils-Gustavsgatan 20
Kjell-Åke Lundin member of the Board
Hans Olsson member
Britt-Louise Olsson alternate
Turnover 1 240 000
Assets 9,042,000
Deficits 223 000 2013 which resulted in 0: - it is well what it calls a 0 taxerare
Property:
Gislaved Hjorten 8 Oscarsgatan 12 a-c
Gislaved Tokarp 1:48'Kulltorpsvägen 8
Gislaved Krokodilen 3 Ängsgatan 15 was sold at the summer of 2014
The company also has three cars:
EYD 711
Chevrolet
S10
Light Blue
STATION WAGON
1996
TLE 718
Volvo
truck
MULTICOLOURED
1986
XTW 033
Renault
Master
Light gray
van
2006
Parent company:
H property invested Gislaved (a holding company)
Kjell-Åke Lundin member of the Board
Hans Olsson member
Britt-Louise Olsson alternate
Now I do not know if they found each other during the legal process or whether they found each other before but this is how it looks now.
I guess this is not illegal in any way but in my eyes it is very distasteful and unethical.
Kjell-Åke Lundin's well-versed in the "circumstances" in this case and to be part of "eating" on the unjust damages Hans Olsson got ... makes me feel bad.
I do not know how common it is for defense counsel gives engage with clients and their "prey".
But ethics is not included in Kjell-Åke Lundin profiling...as we have seen
Sometimes it is so that whites can not just bleats false ... but they stinks, from both front and rear.
Since I moved from the place as soon as I could so I have not got myself an annoying tendency to have comments on other people's life and times, how they make their living, etc. and my interest in my neighbors' lives is zero.
But here it floats up and here I actually have an opinion
Facts taken from public sources such as the tax office, land survey and company info.
Gislaveds handels aktie bolag:
Org. no. 556103-0189
Nils-Gustavsgatan 20
Kjell-Åke Lundin member of the Board
Hans Olsson member
Britt-Louise Olsson alternate
Turnover 1 240 000
Assets 9,042,000
Deficits 223 000 2013 which resulted in 0: - it is well what it calls a 0 taxerare
Property:
Gislaved Hjorten 8 Oscarsgatan 12 a-c
Gislaved Tokarp 1:48'Kulltorpsvägen 8
Gislaved Krokodilen 3 Ängsgatan 15 was sold at the summer of 2014
The company also has three cars:
EYD 711
Chevrolet
S10
Light Blue
STATION WAGON
1996
TLE 718
Volvo
truck
MULTICOLOURED
1986
XTW 033
Renault
Master
Light gray
van
2006
Parent company:
H property invested Gislaved (a holding company)
Kjell-Åke Lundin member of the Board
Hans Olsson member
Britt-Louise Olsson alternate
Now I do not know if they found each other during the legal process or whether they found each other before but this is how it looks now.
I guess this is not illegal in any way but in my eyes it is very distasteful and unethical.
Kjell-Åke Lundin's well-versed in the "circumstances" in this case and to be part of "eating" on the unjust damages Hans Olsson got ... makes me feel bad.
I do not know how common it is for defense counsel gives engage with clients and their "prey".
But ethics is not included in Kjell-Åke Lundin profiling...as we have seen
Sometimes it is so that whites can not just bleats false ... but they stinks, from both front and rear.
My brother...
Equality to the law and legal certainty
Legal security
Benefit of the doubt if there is reasonable doubt.
Yes.
Not as some say every reasonable but just a reasonable doubt.
The concept of reasonable includes not think anyone goes up in smoke, that there is someone like him instead and that these people somehow miss each other down on the Holmen ... or how Court of Appeal Judge Thomas Stahre, Acting Judge of Appeal Gunilla Hansson and the sleeping Juror Lennart His step mean they thought.
If you have such "reasonable doubt" so I recommend Haldol (medicin against psychosis) ... and foil cap on, just in case.
One might ask how the judge would be if the roles were the opposite, that it was Jorgen suspected of having shot Hans Olsson with these evidence.
But the rule of law applies the other way too.
If I am exposed to a crime, justice and police work for me to investigate, arrest and prosecute the culprit ... no matter who I am.
Be my vicarious avenger.
That's the deal for us to be set up on the system.
There are people who are convicted even though they are innocent. I know two definite cases and more where I do not have it confirmed.
But there is not anyone who is at risk, but it is people with no criminal in the past that are most at risk.
A typical example is the Jorgen who was convicted in the District Court for a shooting he did not do.
Each one yourself can do "overtaking test in the dark" to see for yourself how much you look.
Another group at a certain elevated risk is the immigrantmen.
Although these cases do not end up in the press then it to the attention of many people in persons surroundings.
What happens to people's sense of justice system when they get this experience?
... and when they know they probably will not get the same "priority" as victims of other sheep?
What happens to people's loyalty when they feel unfairly treated?
It has a tendency to primarily be loyal to "his family" who are in the same situation and that will probably set more on than you think judiciary does.
I think there are many who are genuinely afraid to testify but I think there are more people who do not want to testify mainly for reasons other than fear though one might say it because it's the easiest ... or not at all.
It's not fair words, beautiful intentions or manifestations but what you do concretely in action, big, small and subtle as the basis for how people assess their surroundings ... at last.
If you do not feel that the system set up for you so you do not set up the system ... so simple it tends to be.
So the consequences are more far-reaching than they at first glance seem to do.
... and then it affects everyone.
Some will not stand ... in silence.
Others do like this ..I..
Benefit of the doubt if there is reasonable doubt.
Yes.
Not as some say every reasonable but just a reasonable doubt.
The concept of reasonable includes not think anyone goes up in smoke, that there is someone like him instead and that these people somehow miss each other down on the Holmen ... or how Court of Appeal Judge Thomas Stahre, Acting Judge of Appeal Gunilla Hansson and the sleeping Juror Lennart His step mean they thought.
If you have such "reasonable doubt" so I recommend Haldol (medicin against psychosis) ... and foil cap on, just in case.
One might ask how the judge would be if the roles were the opposite, that it was Jorgen suspected of having shot Hans Olsson with these evidence.
But the rule of law applies the other way too.
If I am exposed to a crime, justice and police work for me to investigate, arrest and prosecute the culprit ... no matter who I am.
Be my vicarious avenger.
That's the deal for us to be set up on the system.
There are people who are convicted even though they are innocent. I know two definite cases and more where I do not have it confirmed.
But there is not anyone who is at risk, but it is people with no criminal in the past that are most at risk.
A typical example is the Jorgen who was convicted in the District Court for a shooting he did not do.
Each one yourself can do "overtaking test in the dark" to see for yourself how much you look.
Another group at a certain elevated risk is the immigrantmen.
Although these cases do not end up in the press then it to the attention of many people in persons surroundings.
What happens to people's sense of justice system when they get this experience?
... and when they know they probably will not get the same "priority" as victims of other sheep?
What happens to people's loyalty when they feel unfairly treated?
It has a tendency to primarily be loyal to "his family" who are in the same situation and that will probably set more on than you think judiciary does.
I think there are many who are genuinely afraid to testify but I think there are more people who do not want to testify mainly for reasons other than fear though one might say it because it's the easiest ... or not at all.
It's not fair words, beautiful intentions or manifestations but what you do concretely in action, big, small and subtle as the basis for how people assess their surroundings ... at last.
If you do not feel that the system set up for you so you do not set up the system ... so simple it tends to be.
So the consequences are more far-reaching than they at first glance seem to do.
... and then it affects everyone.
Some will not stand ... in silence.
Others do like this ..I..
Damages
Another absurdity we experienced is the damages and how to value suffering.
When Hans Olsson was sentenced in the District Court would he to the"estate" pay damages of 36,438: -
With the estate meant well the closest surviving and it is well above all Jorgen's daughter but also his mother and maybe I would count there.
If you look at the three of us, it will be when 12 146: -.
If you look at my mother and his daughter so there will be 18 219: -.
Hans Olsson received a compensation of 440 000 - for those months he was in custody.
This means that one considers his "suffering" about 24 or 36 times worse than ours.
The worst crime you can be exposed to is that someone murdering your children ... they think everyone emotionally reasonably intact parents can agree with.
How many months would you be willing to sit in custody to avoid going back there, my mother has gone through?
Moreover, when he was released in the Court of Appeal WE had to pay to Hans Olsson legal costs on 1612: 50 each!!!
Do not ask me ... because I have no idea how they intended here and I was too upset judgment to even hurricane care about those piss money.
I do not know how they supposed on rules and practice in this regard.
The only thing I know is that the result is so absurd in reality.
Report from Swedish reality.
The murder in a 9-year childs eyes
My youngest daughter's blog.
In Swedish but its Worth the work to translate it
Mordet på min morbror (the murder of my uncle)
epicblonde.blogspot.com
<3 <3 <3
The district and the discernment
Or when the person suspected of having provided the weapon sitting in council for the Conservatives.
For those of us who sat on åhörarbänken and heard the recorded telephone conversation between FC and Hans Olsson so it was well not very difficult to understand what they were talking about even if they tried to speak in code.
... or seen the person in the right through sensible and so bad at lying.
Yes for many it is so that if you look like, go to and bleats like the rest of us get in the huddle ... then you are ok.
I am a good person and if you look like me, are like me and bleats I .., so you have to be there too.
It's different with those black sheep ... they can not be trusted.
... and so it is pointing the finger ... and reaffirm their worldview.
So also those involved.
They are happy to share an article that Somalis have snatched a bike ... but have never held a mirror in front of his own face.
... or when pointing the finger at someone else, it's four fingers pointing at yourself.
After that Jorgen died, I went and my mother to my grandmother in Lititz.
There were also other relatives. One of them sat in her rocking chair and reiterated "the fucking Yugoslavs."
Of course it was a black sheep who had done this.
I was boiling inside because Jorgen socialized much with "Yugoslavs" and had learned the language. So it was his friends he accused of this.
I kept shut up because it was not the time to discuss anything at all.
It was just that only a few houses away sat offender and bleated in the same way ...
How do you react when when a white sheep in the flock eventually prosecuted?
Yes fraction stuck in my throat ... and it gets quiet.
This song you dont know ... and the map does not match the terrain.
But one should not generalize and there are good reflective people there too.
But they may not sound as loud.
It is better to focus on them and pick up.
As the women's help compound Maria as Hans Olsson through "his motorcycle club" 99% (now disused) wanted to donate money to ... but they said no to the 30 pieces of silver.
Typically a compound of vulnerable women found to have more backbone and integrity than a prick extender club.
Good Maria!
(A little comical to choose such a name to a compound, 99%, whose chairman is demonstrably neither can calculate percent or read the statistics.)
... and all you other who do not bleat just that most others do.
Raise up and know that light is best seen in the dark.
... and rather go on a stolen bike with a black sheep than to bleat false in the fold with the Whites.
Tomas Stahre
Court of Appeal's chairman who voted for free.
You knew you let a murderer.
You had access to the investigation of interrogations.
I have met many "bad guys" in my time, both on the job and in other contexts.
There are some good, most neither and there are real pigs.
... just like in all other groups including lawyers.
Percentage looks probably the same in all groups.
But you are the greatest villain of them all!
For what reasons?
Legal vanity?
You have absolutely no moral authority to judge anyone for anything.
... nothing at all.
You've forfeited.
You knew you let a murderer.
You had access to the investigation of interrogations.
I have met many "bad guys" in my time, both on the job and in other contexts.
There are some good, most neither and there are real pigs.
... just like in all other groups including lawyers.
Percentage looks probably the same in all groups.
But you are the greatest villain of them all!
For what reasons?
Legal vanity?
You have absolutely no moral authority to judge anyone for anything.
... nothing at all.
You've forfeited.
The police
How lost from course can you get?
Their mission is to work for my brother.
It's the police to investigate and provide a basis for prosecution.
When it comes to one that in this case the co-defendant, it is the lawyer thing to point to mitigating circumstances and that the accused actually solved the case.
I think there is a moral right to give such an indicted sentence, and I had thought that conditionally been ok.
The position had I gladly put forward in court even if it does not have any relevance here in Sweden.
But making a half-measure ...
Never trust a cop "advice".
... can we learn from this.
But it is certainly not the police to interfere in it!
... and why should they do so, they make fools's just it.
Be at your assignment ...
Their mission is to work for my brother.
It's the police to investigate and provide a basis for prosecution.
When it comes to one that in this case the co-defendant, it is the lawyer thing to point to mitigating circumstances and that the accused actually solved the case.
I think there is a moral right to give such an indicted sentence, and I had thought that conditionally been ok.
The position had I gladly put forward in court even if it does not have any relevance here in Sweden.
But making a half-measure ...
Never trust a cop "advice".
... can we learn from this.
But it is certainly not the police to interfere in it!
... and why should they do so, they make fools's just it.
Be at your assignment ...
Whats hide...2
As to the "benefit" you put the whole case at stake and qualifies in what must be one of the dumbest cops made in police history.
Penalty value for protecting criminals are fined up to one year in prison,
it is roughly 6 months to 4 years.
In terms of participation in such activity, it is in Brb Chapter 23, section 2 clause:
"Whoever, with intent to commit or encourage crimes,
1. received or money or anything else that payment of a crime or to cover the costs incurred in performing a crime, or
2. acquire, manufacture, leaves, receiving, storing, transporting, compile or take other similar post with something that is particularly likely to be used as an aid in a crime,
In the cases outlined notably sentenced for preparation of the crime, if he is not guilty of a completed crime or attempt.
In cases where it is specially indicated convicted of conspiracy to commit crimes. By conspiracy is meant that someone in consultation with the other decides on the act or someone seeking to incite another or undertakes or offers to execute it.
Punishment for preparation or conspiracy shall be determined under the highest and may be below the lowest limit applicable to the completed offense. Greater punishment than imprisonment for two years may be determined only if prison for eight years or more may follow the completed offense. If the danger of the crime might be fulfilled was minor, shall not be penalized. Act (2001: 348). "
So even if Ib Johansen had the intent to promote the crime in this case murder, it would have been possible, desirable and appropriate to provide a hefty penalty discount to Ib Johansen.
He was able to get 6 months he was sentenced to a district court ... or even lower
Given that the local klantaschlerna not managed to solve the murder, but that it was thanks to Ib Johansen had the conscience and morality to tell the truth ... in the end.
So for what?
Probably none at all ... probably none at all.
Penalty value for protecting criminals are fined up to one year in prison,
it is roughly 6 months to 4 years.
In terms of participation in such activity, it is in Brb Chapter 23, section 2 clause:
"Whoever, with intent to commit or encourage crimes,
1. received or money or anything else that payment of a crime or to cover the costs incurred in performing a crime, or
2. acquire, manufacture, leaves, receiving, storing, transporting, compile or take other similar post with something that is particularly likely to be used as an aid in a crime,
In the cases outlined notably sentenced for preparation of the crime, if he is not guilty of a completed crime or attempt.
In cases where it is specially indicated convicted of conspiracy to commit crimes. By conspiracy is meant that someone in consultation with the other decides on the act or someone seeking to incite another or undertakes or offers to execute it.
Punishment for preparation or conspiracy shall be determined under the highest and may be below the lowest limit applicable to the completed offense. Greater punishment than imprisonment for two years may be determined only if prison for eight years or more may follow the completed offense. If the danger of the crime might be fulfilled was minor, shall not be penalized. Act (2001: 348). "
So even if Ib Johansen had the intent to promote the crime in this case murder, it would have been possible, desirable and appropriate to provide a hefty penalty discount to Ib Johansen.
He was able to get 6 months he was sentenced to a district court ... or even lower
Given that the local klantaschlerna not managed to solve the murder, but that it was thanks to Ib Johansen had the conscience and morality to tell the truth ... in the end.
So for what?
Probably none at all ... probably none at all.
Whats hide in the snow comes up in springtime
Time heals all wounds they say ... but that's not true.
This betrayal, to let my brother's killer, is like an open infected wounds ... it gets worse with time.
So when started cold-case team woke up a little hope that anyone else would look at this case.
After such a long time so changing relationships between people, and that one does not dare tell before maybe you dare tell me now.
So I wrote to Cold-case group.
I told her about the case and that what was lacking was that Ib Johansen admits it was Jorgen they drove to Holmen and that he recognizes him in appearance.
After a while, I get a phone call from one of the police officers involved in this case, Fresh I remember his name and I recognized him at his voice.
He says he is calling on the grounds that I contacted Cold-case group.
He begins by lamenting and retell what happened (as if I would have forgotten it) and all tours.
He said on numerous occasions "but you can of course it here, you're quite familiar with."
I refer the call to my point, that after so long again take up the case and try to obtain an identification ... and that the limitation period for Ib Johansen's involvement reached.
He then tells how difficult Ib Johansen had it (yes there's nothing I been sleepless for). I play sympathetic and fish on.
I insist that after such a long time is worth taking up the case because it just missing an identification acc. it can be ascertained by the Court of Appeal's remarkable judgment.
Then he says:
But now it was so Ib Johansen identified and admitted that it was Jorgen they drove to Park ... but "we" decided that the designation was so "weak" so he could take it back.
!!!
I get way too cold.
What the fuck he says ???
They have therefore advised him / urged him to take it back !!!
"We thought it would keep still."
!!!
123 petrified
Fishing on, show nothing, play with, you do not know if you need him fresh in the future, burns nothing.
I ask what is the hope for this case now?
Acc. him there would be if something new emerged about the discovery of the murder weapon and came up with any of it.
... and an identification is nothing new since it was already made in connection with Ib Johansen told the truth.
The call is ended and I thank you for that he called.
I'm shocked.
What the fuck have they done ???
It's not the police to determine whether a designation is weak or not, it's up to the right.
They have not solved the case, but it was Ib Johansen who solved the access them.
They have urged him to take back the identification of the person they drove to Holmen.
They have thrown ace, tossed conclusive evidence in the trash ... to "help" the informant, an accomplice ... to get away with protecting the criminal instead of aiding and abetting.
What is this?
Misconduct?
Protecting criminal and destruction of evidence?
And then ...
... it has been burned opportunities to trap the killer in a higher court when it came to deal with evidence and identification has already burned when there is a new task.
This is thus the two dishes known about when they have access to the preliminary investigation.
The question the Court of Appeal stated was not a doubt ... you know.
If there was any doubt, the only explanation for this strange Court of Appeal that it came to be about principles.
They probably wanted to slap prosecutors / police on his fingers ... so here we must not do.
It was more important than judging the murderer and give my brother redress !!!
And now I'm so pissed off that I had to take a break ...
This betrayal, to let my brother's killer, is like an open infected wounds ... it gets worse with time.
So when started cold-case team woke up a little hope that anyone else would look at this case.
After such a long time so changing relationships between people, and that one does not dare tell before maybe you dare tell me now.
So I wrote to Cold-case group.
I told her about the case and that what was lacking was that Ib Johansen admits it was Jorgen they drove to Holmen and that he recognizes him in appearance.
After a while, I get a phone call from one of the police officers involved in this case, Fresh I remember his name and I recognized him at his voice.
He says he is calling on the grounds that I contacted Cold-case group.
He begins by lamenting and retell what happened (as if I would have forgotten it) and all tours.
He said on numerous occasions "but you can of course it here, you're quite familiar with."
I refer the call to my point, that after so long again take up the case and try to obtain an identification ... and that the limitation period for Ib Johansen's involvement reached.
He then tells how difficult Ib Johansen had it (yes there's nothing I been sleepless for). I play sympathetic and fish on.
I insist that after such a long time is worth taking up the case because it just missing an identification acc. it can be ascertained by the Court of Appeal's remarkable judgment.
Then he says:
But now it was so Ib Johansen identified and admitted that it was Jorgen they drove to Park ... but "we" decided that the designation was so "weak" so he could take it back.
!!!
I get way too cold.
What the fuck he says ???
They have therefore advised him / urged him to take it back !!!
"We thought it would keep still."
!!!
123 petrified
Fishing on, show nothing, play with, you do not know if you need him fresh in the future, burns nothing.
I ask what is the hope for this case now?
Acc. him there would be if something new emerged about the discovery of the murder weapon and came up with any of it.
... and an identification is nothing new since it was already made in connection with Ib Johansen told the truth.
The call is ended and I thank you for that he called.
I'm shocked.
What the fuck have they done ???
It's not the police to determine whether a designation is weak or not, it's up to the right.
They have not solved the case, but it was Ib Johansen who solved the access them.
They have urged him to take back the identification of the person they drove to Holmen.
They have thrown ace, tossed conclusive evidence in the trash ... to "help" the informant, an accomplice ... to get away with protecting the criminal instead of aiding and abetting.
What is this?
Misconduct?
Protecting criminal and destruction of evidence?
And then ...
... it has been burned opportunities to trap the killer in a higher court when it came to deal with evidence and identification has already burned when there is a new task.
This is thus the two dishes known about when they have access to the preliminary investigation.
The question the Court of Appeal stated was not a doubt ... you know.
If there was any doubt, the only explanation for this strange Court of Appeal that it came to be about principles.
They probably wanted to slap prosecutors / police on his fingers ... so here we must not do.
It was more important than judging the murderer and give my brother redress !!!
And now I'm so pissed off that I had to take a break ...
The crying
But then no more.
Grief, anger, hatred, disappointment ... and now betrayal ... sat like a large hard knot in my mind ... it was choking me.
... and I could not cry.
In the end, I went out ... to the lookout hill ... there was no ... nothing.
Just a great betrayal and an infinite loneliness.
It came as a painful cramp ... ... distorted.
It grew out of me ... ran down the mountain ... Step into the sky ... I cried.
It tasted bitter.
In my deepest cave, I am always alone.
The only sound is my echo.
The only thing that surrounds me is despair convulsive while.
There is no comfort ... just an endless crying.
In my deepest cave, I am always alone.
After the judgement
I was shocked, angry, disappointed and betrayed.
Betrayed by the Swedish legal system.
They had knowingly released a killer, my brother's killer.
But why?
There was more to this that I did not know.
The judgment gave no clue what I could see.
That was until contrived ordbajseri who hid anything else.
I could not let it go just like that.
I had to do something.
So I appealed to the Supreme Court. Not for a moment I thought it would go along way but because someone else would have to take part of it ... read the crap they produced in the Göta Court of Appeal.
I know very well that people in high risk positions cover for each other. You never know when you yourself need to be held behind the back ... or another "service".
If one is not involved in any plot, rooster fight, want to show what furniture should go or just scratching a bit of tail feathers.
Then give one likes to grips with someone else "wrong".
Many have long since forgotten who they serve.
Their work has become their own arena both to shine and tuppfightas on.
There are a lot of shit and fjanterier at the higher elevations ... I've seen a lot.
But it shows you never outwards. Then called the law or anything else.
Yes maybe it was this kind fjanterier that affected the outcome.
For one thing is for sure, it was not the evidence it came ... it is obvious to a logically thinking person.
Yes, and it was refused, of course ... because it involved the assessment of the evidence on ... and so can not be questioned.
This means that in principle can evaluate evidence anyway ... for what reason whatsoever ... and never get it questioned.
An appeal from a relative also has no chance in this limited "incestuous" environment.
... and integrity ... when it really counts ... and costs ... a feature that the vast majority do not possess ... it has been shown throughout history.
This applies Göta Court of Appeal, the rest of the judiciary as well as the general population.
The opposite of integrity is well hypocrisy ... a feature that is much more common.
Betrayed by the Swedish legal system.
They had knowingly released a killer, my brother's killer.
But why?
There was more to this that I did not know.
The judgment gave no clue what I could see.
That was until contrived ordbajseri who hid anything else.
I could not let it go just like that.
I had to do something.
So I appealed to the Supreme Court. Not for a moment I thought it would go along way but because someone else would have to take part of it ... read the crap they produced in the Göta Court of Appeal.
I know very well that people in high risk positions cover for each other. You never know when you yourself need to be held behind the back ... or another "service".
If one is not involved in any plot, rooster fight, want to show what furniture should go or just scratching a bit of tail feathers.
Then give one likes to grips with someone else "wrong".
Many have long since forgotten who they serve.
Their work has become their own arena both to shine and tuppfightas on.
There are a lot of shit and fjanterier at the higher elevations ... I've seen a lot.
But it shows you never outwards. Then called the law or anything else.
Yes maybe it was this kind fjanterier that affected the outcome.
For one thing is for sure, it was not the evidence it came ... it is obvious to a logically thinking person.
Yes, and it was refused, of course ... because it involved the assessment of the evidence on ... and so can not be questioned.
This means that in principle can evaluate evidence anyway ... for what reason whatsoever ... and never get it questioned.
An appeal from a relative also has no chance in this limited "incestuous" environment.
... and integrity ... when it really counts ... and costs ... a feature that the vast majority do not possess ... it has been shown throughout history.
This applies Göta Court of Appeal, the rest of the judiciary as well as the general population.
The opposite of integrity is well hypocrisy ... a feature that is much more common.
The trials from our side
The district court comprised seven full days acc. the program I saved. Can not remember if there were any changes to it.
The Court of Appeal comprised five full days.
A total of 12 full days in this case.
Much, much too much of the time was spent entirely meaningless and irrelevant testimony in particular, the so-called character witnesses.
A character witness is a friend who says that you are a hyvens person and in this case it has no extreme views on criminals.
The defense had quite a long parade of such witnesses ...
Completely useless testimony that does not say anything about anything ... more than they think Hans Olsson is a hyvens guy ... or did anyway then.
And then there was the lawyer's endless cascades of fast, long and incoherent reasoning.
He spun around in a rhetoric skein fast and long and then spin around in another equally long time and then tie them together with a third and a fourth draw a conclusion.
It was neither coherent nor logical but it never came any questions on these cascades of incoherent verbiage, from the Auditors.
... also not limited to the flow ... but he ground and took every opportunity to talk ... long ...
But the worst thing I think was how he was allowed to degrade and insinuate a lot of crap about the witnesses person.
A man who does his duty as a citizen and testify in such a serious case as a murder trial should be treated with respect and dignity.
A witness should not risk character is murdered when they testify in court.
It's testimony to be scrutinized not the person.
Not once had the chairmen balls to hit the gavel when this happened ... not once put the stop.
What a fucking failure!
What do they think the club is for? ... Lick?
Then it was liberating to hear the MB's testimony.
He had been here before and knew the circus he was on.
He could bite off and give comebacks to the orerande defense lawyer.
... and he got us even laugh without for that sake behave unworthy in any way.
Thats was what we needed in this terrible show.
The Court of Appeal comprised five full days.
A total of 12 full days in this case.
Much, much too much of the time was spent entirely meaningless and irrelevant testimony in particular, the so-called character witnesses.
A character witness is a friend who says that you are a hyvens person and in this case it has no extreme views on criminals.
The defense had quite a long parade of such witnesses ...
Completely useless testimony that does not say anything about anything ... more than they think Hans Olsson is a hyvens guy ... or did anyway then.
And then there was the lawyer's endless cascades of fast, long and incoherent reasoning.
He spun around in a rhetoric skein fast and long and then spin around in another equally long time and then tie them together with a third and a fourth draw a conclusion.
It was neither coherent nor logical but it never came any questions on these cascades of incoherent verbiage, from the Auditors.
... also not limited to the flow ... but he ground and took every opportunity to talk ... long ...
But the worst thing I think was how he was allowed to degrade and insinuate a lot of crap about the witnesses person.
A man who does his duty as a citizen and testify in such a serious case as a murder trial should be treated with respect and dignity.
A witness should not risk character is murdered when they testify in court.
It's testimony to be scrutinized not the person.
Not once had the chairmen balls to hit the gavel when this happened ... not once put the stop.
What a fucking failure!
What do they think the club is for? ... Lick?
Then it was liberating to hear the MB's testimony.
He had been here before and knew the circus he was on.
He could bite off and give comebacks to the orerande defense lawyer.
... and he got us even laugh without for that sake behave unworthy in any way.
Thats was what we needed in this terrible show.
Court of appeal
The material is the same except some useless witnesses made by the defense.
Some interviews were taped since last trial, and some were taken again.
At Ib Johansen's testimony listen the presiding thoroughly and given testimony he has decided.
It can be clearly seen and I do not know if he shows it consciously and demonstrative.
It gives me a bad gut feeling.
What gives Hans Olsson of explanation for its activity this Saturday night?
He says he and Stefan Ling got the idea to do a time study of the various monitoring objects, purely spontaneous.
So he leaves the family and heavily pregnant wife 00:30 on a Saturday night ... to do a time study ...
... sure.
What happened when the two dishes aisles, I write more about in a personal reflection.
The three accused would remain in custody was announced when the dishes aisles were over.
Then followed a long wait ... and then came the news ...
... the three defendants released from custody ... and that means an acquittal.
I get the judgment repatriation ... I read and read ... this strange and incomprehensible judgment.
It is satisfied that:
1. "The Court of Appeal is satisfied That Stephen Ling Relatively short time after 01:54 December 20, 1998 havedownloaded The Hans Olsson of Sågargatan / Svarvaregatan and to Hans Olsson HAS called lb Johanssen and Stephen Ling instead Stating The Police That the couple program at Finnveden's car.
2. The Court of Appeal overpriced attach credence to Stephen Ling and Ib Johansen's Consistent evidence That Hans Olsson knew that Jorgen Halper found himself in Lititz When he left his home the night of 20 December 1998. "
3. "The prosecutor's assertion that Hans Olsson before 01:53 at night went by car together with Jörgen Halper to Holmen wins in direct support of Ib Johansen's data.
Indirect win proposition that Hans Olsson been at Holmen also some support by Stefan Ling task that he picked up Hans Olsson at the corner Sågargatan / svaravargatan, which is very close to the path that goes to the Park."
4. "It seems almost impossible that he (Ib Johansen) would describe such for himself troubling events of the night instead passed as Hans Olsson says."
5. "The Court of Appeal finds that Ib Johansen's information about what happened during the night of 20 december1998 deserves credence"
Then comes the strangest units:
• That Ib Johansen and Stefan Ling has knowledge of Jörgen's injuries, tasks that you withheld, dismisses it with that they were not more precisisa than they could "adopt" them.
A shot in the chest and a shot in the head is well so precise it can be for a layman.
What more precisis can it get?
If someone decides to tell the truth, there is not any reason to find more than what you know.
If someone leaves the data that the police left out of the investigative reasons, and he then transmit that information ... is it reasonable to believe that they guessed the task .... and off her game.
• The diffs in time of about 10 min when it comes iakttelserna the two people who Jorgen asked if pushed done in the valley, and when Hans Olsson has seen where and when they are assumed to have been driving towards Holmen.
The witnesses are unsure of the exact time.
"The uncertainty is such that can not be fully established that it was Jorgen Halper who went to Holmen in Ib Johansen's car."
So despite what was previously written to in paragraph 3 which mentions Jörgen's name, so it is considered quite suddenly not established due a time difference in the data of about 10 minutes.
???
10-15 min margin of error is well to expect on a Saturday night. I would be surprised if some would manage to be completely accurate.
Who could it be otherwise, who was standing in the bus shelter?
No other people has been observed in the area during that time.
The bus stop at the Valley on a Saturday night when the time is destiny. There are no buses from there at the time.
But Jorgen wanted to go home and want to find a ride as the bus stop is a good place to stand by, protected from the elements.
How does the Court Think here with Chairman Tomas Stahre the forefront?
Jorgen during the quarter just disappear and that there is a similar but completely different person there?
• It is considered that the time of the shooting is not nearly resolved.
One says "The coroner has admittedly at a rough estimate for 4-5 hours before upphittandet, leading to the conclusion that the bombardment would have occurred some time between three and four at night."
This is downright wrong.
You can read about the testimony of the district court's ruling:
"Jorgen Halper was when they find him cooled.
Håkan Bengtsson (coroner) can not draw any conclusions about how long Jorgen Halper there since he was fired - According to a rough estimate maybe 4-5 hours. "
It's a fucking difference!
I can guarantee that if you lined up all over the forensic skills so no one would conclude that the shooting took place between 3 and 4, not one.
But Thomas Stahre can.
But he might possess abilities that are not forensic have?
A man has heard anything at 02-03.
Another man says he heard some banging at 3, but at a reconstruction and test firing concluded that he probably will not have heard the shot from Holmen in the house where he found himself.
A woman has seen a car at the time, run quickly to the Park and back with about 5 min intervals.
She likes to see a white or gray volvo in the dark, Ib Johansen (a beige I think it was) Ford Taunus.
She did not recognize it at reconstruction.
In what other ways would they have investigated the matter?
They can not have more witnesses than it is for an event in the middle of the night.
• Since writes that "Although there are indications that the act was performed at the place where Jorgen Halper found is that thing not fully understood."
It does not mention any ambiguities just that it is not fully understood.
In which way it would not be fully investigated nor said anything about.
• It also mentions that "it seems unlikely that he (Jorgen) not recognized Hans Olsson, that he did not protest when the car drove to Holmen instead of Gnosjö and that he no protest got out of the car at the solitary Holmen instead of at its residence. "
Whilst has attached credence to Ib Johansen's story about how the evening went by, that Hans Olsson leaned into the car and said "he did not even recognize me."
... and we discover when the morning you will find my brother that he had a knife in his pocket ... not sensed something was amiss.
Any case, they had well agreed when they talked outside at the bus shelter.A man has heard anything at 02-03.
Another man says he heard some banging at 3, but at a reconstruction and test firing concluded that he probably will not have heard the shot from Holmen in the house where he found himself.
A woman has seen a car at the time, run quickly to the Park and back with about 5 min intervals.
She likes to see a white or gray volvo in the dark, Ib Johansen (a beige I think it was) Ford Taunus.
She did not recognize it at reconstruction.
In what other ways would they have investigated the matter?
They can not have more witnesses than it is for an event in the middle of the night.
• Since writes that "Although there are indications that the act was performed at the place where Jorgen Halper found is that thing not fully understood."
It does not mention any ambiguities just that it is not fully understood.
In which way it would not be fully investigated nor said anything about.
• It also mentions that "it seems unlikely that he (Jorgen) not recognized Hans Olsson, that he did not protest when the car drove to Holmen instead of Gnosjö¶ and that he no protest got out of the car at the solitary Holmen instead of at its residence. "
Whilst has attached credence to Ib Johansen's story about how the evening went by, that Hans Olsson leaned into the car and said "he did not even recognize me."
... and we discover when the morning you will find my brother that he had a knife in his pocket ... not sensed something was amiss.
Any case, they had well agreed when they talked outside at the bus shelter.
And that it is "difficult to explain to Hans Olsson hand waiting for 3 years with the vengeance that would be the subject, partly mixed Ib Johansen in a way that he needs to understand that it was Hans Olsson who killed Jorgen Halper.
Could it have been that he had not had any time before, but now it had?
Does this not too far-fetched idea struck right?
... and dad knew he had the small voffsarna.
The sheriff had big ideas about himself and his ability to govern ... at least The Katzenjammer Kids.
Then comes the startling conclusion:
"Overall, the uncertainties so many that there is no reasonable doubt that Hans Olsson committed the offense charged.
The indictment shall be dismissed. "
There is a supplement because 2 of the Court's five members were divergent, one of whom was Judge (the most Palaste) wanted to judge Hans Olsson of murder.
Where they explain their divergent and why.
How the fuck can you come up with that?
It presents logical, clearly erroneous and completely improbable "ambiguities" ... while Ib Johansen's and Stefan Ling vittnessmål gaining credibility.
... 4 totally unreasonable doubt ... will be so many that there is no reasonable doubt that Hans Olsson committed the act.
This is not right somewhere.
... my first thought when I read the verdict.
I do not think for a moment about this. So this has not reasoned.
These forward contrived "doubt" is not credible.
I simply do not believe that reasonably intelligent people have reasoned in this way and come to the conclusion.
... and then it is not my demands on what is normal gifted "particularly high.
There are other reasons for the acquittal that do not arrive here ... I'm convinced.
What it is ... for there is ... will I know many years later ...
... and it will move my otherwise very harsh thoughts about it ... by far
For those who want to study this judgment closer is målnr. B 651-00
Some interviews were taped since last trial, and some were taken again.
At Ib Johansen's testimony listen the presiding thoroughly and given testimony he has decided.
It can be clearly seen and I do not know if he shows it consciously and demonstrative.
It gives me a bad gut feeling.
What gives Hans Olsson of explanation for its activity this Saturday night?
He says he and Stefan Ling got the idea to do a time study of the various monitoring objects, purely spontaneous.
So he leaves the family and heavily pregnant wife 00:30 on a Saturday night ... to do a time study ...
... sure.
What happened when the two dishes aisles, I write more about in a personal reflection.
The three accused would remain in custody was announced when the dishes aisles were over.
Then followed a long wait ... and then came the news ...
... the three defendants released from custody ... and that means an acquittal.
I get the judgment repatriation ... I read and read ... this strange and incomprehensible judgment.
It is satisfied that:
1. "The Court of Appeal is satisfied That Stephen Ling Relatively short time after 01:54 December 20, 1998 havedownloaded The Hans Olsson of Sågargatan / Svarvaregatan and to Hans Olsson HAS called lb Johanssen and Stephen Ling instead Stating The Police That the couple program at Finnveden's car.
2. The Court of Appeal overpriced attach credence to Stephen Ling and Ib Johansen's Consistent evidence That Hans Olsson knew that Jorgen Halper found himself in Lititz When he left his home the night of 20 December 1998. "
3. "The prosecutor's assertion that Hans Olsson before 01:53 at night went by car together with Jörgen Halper to Holmen wins in direct support of Ib Johansen's data.
Indirect win proposition that Hans Olsson been at Holmen also some support by Stefan Ling task that he picked up Hans Olsson at the corner Sågargatan / svaravargatan, which is very close to the path that goes to the Park."
4. "It seems almost impossible that he (Ib Johansen) would describe such for himself troubling events of the night instead passed as Hans Olsson says."
5. "The Court of Appeal finds that Ib Johansen's information about what happened during the night of 20 december1998 deserves credence"
Then comes the strangest units:
• That Ib Johansen and Stefan Ling has knowledge of Jörgen's injuries, tasks that you withheld, dismisses it with that they were not more precisisa than they could "adopt" them.
A shot in the chest and a shot in the head is well so precise it can be for a layman.
What more precisis can it get?
If someone decides to tell the truth, there is not any reason to find more than what you know.
If someone leaves the data that the police left out of the investigative reasons, and he then transmit that information ... is it reasonable to believe that they guessed the task .... and off her game.
• The diffs in time of about 10 min when it comes iakttelserna the two people who Jorgen asked if pushed done in the valley, and when Hans Olsson has seen where and when they are assumed to have been driving towards Holmen.
The witnesses are unsure of the exact time.
"The uncertainty is such that can not be fully established that it was Jorgen Halper who went to Holmen in Ib Johansen's car."
So despite what was previously written to in paragraph 3 which mentions Jörgen's name, so it is considered quite suddenly not established due a time difference in the data of about 10 minutes.
???
10-15 min margin of error is well to expect on a Saturday night. I would be surprised if some would manage to be completely accurate.
Who could it be otherwise, who was standing in the bus shelter?
No other people has been observed in the area during that time.
The bus stop at the Valley on a Saturday night when the time is destiny. There are no buses from there at the time.
But Jorgen wanted to go home and want to find a ride as the bus stop is a good place to stand by, protected from the elements.
How does the Court Think here with Chairman Tomas Stahre the forefront?
Jorgen during the quarter just disappear and that there is a similar but completely different person there?
• It is considered that the time of the shooting is not nearly resolved.
One says "The coroner has admittedly at a rough estimate for 4-5 hours before upphittandet, leading to the conclusion that the bombardment would have occurred some time between three and four at night."
This is downright wrong.
You can read about the testimony of the district court's ruling:
"Jorgen Halper was when they find him cooled.
Håkan Bengtsson (coroner) can not draw any conclusions about how long Jorgen Halper there since he was fired - According to a rough estimate maybe 4-5 hours. "
It's a fucking difference!
I can guarantee that if you lined up all over the forensic skills so no one would conclude that the shooting took place between 3 and 4, not one.
But Thomas Stahre can.
But he might possess abilities that are not forensic have?
A man has heard anything at 02-03.
Another man says he heard some banging at 3, but at a reconstruction and test firing concluded that he probably will not have heard the shot from Holmen in the house where he found himself.
A woman has seen a car at the time, run quickly to the Park and back with about 5 min intervals.
She likes to see a white or gray volvo in the dark, Ib Johansen (a beige I think it was) Ford Taunus.
She did not recognize it at reconstruction.
In what other ways would they have investigated the matter?
They can not have more witnesses than it is for an event in the middle of the night.
• Since writes that "Although there are indications that the act was performed at the place where Jorgen Halper found is that thing not fully understood."
It does not mention any ambiguities just that it is not fully understood.
In which way it would not be fully investigated nor said anything about.
• It also mentions that "it seems unlikely that he (Jorgen) not recognized Hans Olsson, that he did not protest when the car drove to Holmen instead of Gnosjö and that he no protest got out of the car at the solitary Holmen instead of at its residence. "
Whilst has attached credence to Ib Johansen's story about how the evening went by, that Hans Olsson leaned into the car and said "he did not even recognize me."
... and we discover when the morning you will find my brother that he had a knife in his pocket ... not sensed something was amiss.
Any case, they had well agreed when they talked outside at the bus shelter.A man has heard anything at 02-03.
Another man says he heard some banging at 3, but at a reconstruction and test firing concluded that he probably will not have heard the shot from Holmen in the house where he found himself.
A woman has seen a car at the time, run quickly to the Park and back with about 5 min intervals.
She likes to see a white or gray volvo in the dark, Ib Johansen (a beige I think it was) Ford Taunus.
She did not recognize it at reconstruction.
In what other ways would they have investigated the matter?
They can not have more witnesses than it is for an event in the middle of the night.
• Since writes that "Although there are indications that the act was performed at the place where Jorgen Halper found is that thing not fully understood."
It does not mention any ambiguities just that it is not fully understood.
In which way it would not be fully investigated nor said anything about.
• It also mentions that "it seems unlikely that he (Jorgen) not recognized Hans Olsson, that he did not protest when the car drove to Holmen instead of Gnosjö¶ and that he no protest got out of the car at the solitary Holmen instead of at its residence. "
Whilst has attached credence to Ib Johansen's story about how the evening went by, that Hans Olsson leaned into the car and said "he did not even recognize me."
... and we discover when the morning you will find my brother that he had a knife in his pocket ... not sensed something was amiss.
Any case, they had well agreed when they talked outside at the bus shelter.
And that it is "difficult to explain to Hans Olsson hand waiting for 3 years with the vengeance that would be the subject, partly mixed Ib Johansen in a way that he needs to understand that it was Hans Olsson who killed Jorgen Halper.
Could it have been that he had not had any time before, but now it had?
Does this not too far-fetched idea struck right?
... and dad knew he had the small voffsarna.
The sheriff had big ideas about himself and his ability to govern ... at least The Katzenjammer Kids.
Then comes the startling conclusion:
"Overall, the uncertainties so many that there is no reasonable doubt that Hans Olsson committed the offense charged.
The indictment shall be dismissed. "
There is a supplement because 2 of the Court's five members were divergent, one of whom was Judge (the most Palaste) wanted to judge Hans Olsson of murder.
Where they explain their divergent and why.
How the fuck can you come up with that?
It presents logical, clearly erroneous and completely improbable "ambiguities" ... while Ib Johansen's and Stefan Ling vittnessmål gaining credibility.
... 4 totally unreasonable doubt ... will be so many that there is no reasonable doubt that Hans Olsson committed the act.
This is not right somewhere.
... my first thought when I read the verdict.
I do not think for a moment about this. So this has not reasoned.
These forward contrived "doubt" is not credible.
I simply do not believe that reasonably intelligent people have reasoned in this way and come to the conclusion.
... and then it is not my demands on what is normal gifted "particularly high.
There are other reasons for the acquittal that do not arrive here ... I'm convinced.
What it is ... for there is ... will I know many years later ...
... and it will move my otherwise very harsh thoughts about it ... by far
For those who want to study this judgment closer is målnr. B 651-00
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)