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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.