September 21, 2012 at 17:54, Updated: September 21, 2012 at 20:18 FOCUS | QUICK JUDGMENT
It is worrying if representatives of the Swedish legal system to agree on a position that it is perfectly in order to mislead the courts. __Thomas OlssonDuring the years 1992 - 2001 recognized Sture Bergwall (aka Thomas Quick) a large number of killings, specifically about thirty pieces. During the years 1994 - 2002 was sentenced Sture Bergwall for eight of the murders he confessed.
Since Sture Bergwall recanted their confessions began erecting cases. Unlike that of an ordinary criminal cases, where the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, it is up to Sture Bergwall to prove that the judges are wrong or should be reconsidered.
In its basic parts, the crucial issue of Quick affair if any new evidence or circumstances justifying reconsideration.
Why then has Sture Bergwall been rising? In the first uprising decision regarding Yenon Levi writes Svea Court of Appeal as follows:
"As also the prosecutor argued, it can not be inferred from the district court judgment and protocol that Sture Bergvall different tasks were presented to the district court to the extent that the district court, in assessing the reliability of his information, fully had the opportunity to consider how these tasks developed and changed during the investigation. "
Similar formulations are rising in all decisions. The explanation for that trial is granted is not to Sture Bergwall withdrawn their confessions, without investigative material withheld from the courts.
Those who question the stature decisions usually refer to that there is compelling evidence of his guilt. Typically, critics argue, thus, that they expect a ten to fifteen different circumstances and then when you treat the one fact that they refer only to the next and so on.
The problem with this form of debatteknik is that, in addition to tire the listener, systematic endeavors to hide the internal context. Road barrier and Zampo are great, but there is actually no evidence at all that the offense was committed - no crime, no murder weapon and no remains.
A discussion of the legal system handling Sure affair ought reasonably to assume stature decisions and, in the first instance, to decide whether they are true or not.
When Göran Lambertz took testified claimed initially that he found compelling evidence Sture Bergvall debt. When the evidence did not prove so convincing he backed that claim that an acquittal was not the same as Sture Bergwall was innocent. When expressed some surprise that one of Sweden's top lawyers questioned the presumption of innocence, backed Göran Lambertz bit more and argued instead that there were reasonable grounds to initiate investigations against Sture Bergwall.
Since Göran Lambertz email correspondence published, it has been confirmed that Goran Lambertz allied itself with the people who were involved in the previous investigation - he is part of their "team" - and that the articles and arguments are part of a media strategy as a "team" worked.
When Göran Lambertz & co now still argue that the evidence is compelling, they are forced simply to ignore what has emerged during the uprising cases.
It Göran Lambertz says is, in fact, that there is something to criticize, because all the absurdities around Sture Bergvall recognition, which was withheld courts of the original trials, has no impact on the review of lawsuits. The reason they do not have any significance is the fact that they withheld from the courts. As the absurdity withheld appeared confessions as convincing. Thus, the courts have ruled Sture Bergwall on the basis of a (seemingly) strong evidence, and then has no defect.
It goes without saying that it is worrying if representatives of the Swedish legal system - judges, prosecutors, police and defense lawyers - agree on a position which means that it is perfectly in order to mislead the courts, because the courts need only consider what is presented during the trial.
In light of his position must Göran Lambertz now give a clear and unambiguous statement of the issue of the rising decisions he considers to be incorrect and the reasons for it. If Göran Lambertz not believe that decisions are incorrect and therefore share courts of appeal, and prosecutors assessments, says he really think it is quite in order to study essential materials withheld from courts when they dropped Sture Bergwall for murder?
Once it is established, we can all return to the central question:
How could this happen?
attorney, agent for Sture Bergwall
TRANSLATED via Googgle: http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/lambertz-maste-ga-tillbaka-till-huvudfragan_7519744.svd
Original Source in Swedish language: http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/lambertz-maste-ga-tillbaka-till-huvudfragan_7519744.svd