We reported yesterday on Prof. Hans Jansen’s testimony in the Geert Wilders trial. Dr. Jansen was questioned again today by Bram Moszkowicz (Geert Wilders’ lawyer) concerning the alleged attempt to influence him by Tom Schalken, one of the judges in last year’s aborted trial.
Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan has been monitoring the trial today, and sends this brief report:
The latest on the Wilders case:
Hans Jansen was very sharp in his testimony.
The DA, Tom Schalken, is on the witness stand now. He claims — what would you guess? — innocence. He merely wanted to “inform” Prof. Jansen accurately.
When a judge strongly “informs” a defense witness, is it a very serious crime in the USA?
Here’s a brief snip from a long trial transcript in Dutch, translated by H. Numan:
| 09:52 | Moszkowicz: | “I am under the impression you had to be persuaded to stay for that dinner.” |
| Jansen: | “That is correct. Sometimes there are evenings when one is invited as cardiologist for a dinner with seven faith healers who all claim that hearts needs love for healing. I would rather not attend that sort of dinner. | |
| “Only members of the left-wing church were present. That is not a recommendation.” |
2 comments:
In hoc signo vinces†
Ethics and etiquette have long since fled the court rooms of Europe just as faith has fled the churches.
Plausible Deniability? Perhaps?
Languages with double meanings can be so hard to pin down after the fact. Can't the?
Post a Comment