frank-cole
On Time Out
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2021
- Messages
- 543
- Reaction score
- 1,899
I think this is part of the basis for their argument around the court making decisions mid-trial. It’s hard to assess a hearing until it’s over. Admissibility, technicalities & motions haven’t all been decided yet, so it’s more challenging to ascertain the balance of the trial as a whole, including the decisions on whether the motions have taken precedent over exploring all the facts. It’ll be more straightforward to review & make moves once everything is heard. Acquittals seem like a foregone conclusion, very unfortunate for the victims. If many threads of evidence have had many motions go the defences way, then the prosecution will have many threads to base appeals.It is a strange one indeed but as my search engine reveals, not an unusual one as far as German procedures are concerned.
Although I've not taken the time to break the figures down to check how often the forces of law and order (judges) are challenged by the forces of law and order (the prosecution).
Accusations are rife and one or two might even be justified.
Indeed we even had an accusation of bias concerning one of the judges in the first day of the trial CB V the five.
What I'm struggling with is the dropping of all charges
Snip
- while the trial continues hearing evidence
- how is it possible to clear the decks of charges without the whole case collapsing
Impartiality / Lack of bias
Page 7
Judges always aim to avoid being guided by any off-topic considerations when applying the law and searching for justice and the truth. They are aware of their individual traits, their personal development and socialisation. In view of such inevitably subjective imprinting, they strive in any event to achieve the utmost objectivity. They put neither their personal assessments, sympathies or antipathies nor current public opinion above their commitment to democratically developed laws, but critically check their findings, argue from the facts and are open to criticism from third parties.
The fact that the judicial office is basically independent of external controls establishes a particular responsibility. Judges do not consider the independence of their office as a personal right. They are aware of the resulting obligation for their impartiality. Their work is therefore marked by open-mindedness and a willingness to listen to the parties involved, to grasp individual interests and connections and to assess these adequately.
Loading…
www.drb.de
That is a very high standard to strive for and to attain. And I don't think the judge in CB v the five did it justice.
She allowed her court to spend a lot of time in discussion of another case entirely; even to the extent of calling witnesses. She was way off-topic. Now I don't know if that could be classed as bias but it can certainly point to the fact none of it should have happened while she allowed procedures of the trial in which she had no locus to continue. The judge had enough on her plate with the five offences she should have been judging and certainly not on a case for which there isn't even an indictment.
There may indeed be further repercussions from that.
My opinion
This trial will certainly have added value to the prosecution in respect of how some things may run in the MM trial. Keeping CB locked up with no soon-to-be freedom date - enables them to bridge those gaps & fill those loopholes. Because afterall - anybody who wants justice for Madeleine *Surely* wouldn’t not want every piece of evidence put forward.
My thoughts