3 ms·
No. IMO, the moment SZ uncovered that the judge had made that phone call which both parties denied, the case couldn't proceed. Lying witnesses lied plus a lying
by Arnt 7y ago
No. IMO, the moment SZ uncovered that the judge had made that phone call which both parties denied, the case couldn't proceed. Lying witnesses lied plus a lying judge adds up to too much doubt. In dubio pro.
(Didn't the judge refuse to talk about that phone call once its existence was public, too, or am I confusing it with a different case? It's been a few years.)
- Tomte 7y agoI have no idea what you're talking about. There was no judge involved. That's the point. When the justice minister ordered the prosecutor to drop the case (technically, the appeal), the court could not convict, by procedural law.
- Arnt 7y agoThere was a judge involved, Otto Brixner was his name. Brixner sent Mollath off to a padded cell in 2006 for being deranged and confirmed/extended that a couple of times. Then five or six years later it turned out that at least some of the deranged ramblings about tax evasion and white-collar crimes were correct. Further, Brixner had spoken to the relevant investigators before he sentenced Mollath, Brixner denied having done that, and when someone leaked paperwork that proved that Brixner's denial was a lie, he refused to talk about what was said. As I recall, there was also other questions. Wasn't there something about where Mollath's possessions ended up, and Brixner refused to talk about that too? In such a state, Mollath's possible guilt becomes irrelevant. Only an impartial court can sentence, and the border is between "trusted impartiality" and "not trusted". This is why judges are required to recuse themselves if there is a possibility that they may be thought partial, instead of e.g. if they can be proved to be partial, or if the balance of evidence suggests that they may.