Hence my legal curiosity as to the Danish provisions. We need a Danish LashL
Agreed; a lot of our speculation is based on what we individually understand from Common Law, which has been shown in a number of ways in this thread to differ from Danish law. It would be helpful for a Danish lawyer to authoritatively analyze this trial.
The steaming pile of sycophantic poo can be thought of different ways depending on the particulars of Danish appeals. We know the judges at various points disallowed some lines of questioning, but we can't say confidently on what specific legal grounds. We know, for example, that in Common Law some of them would be inappropriate in the oral argument for an appeal, but may have been appropriate in the trial
per se. Until we read the judges' ruling, we simply cannot know.
Further, much is made of the supposed astonishment of the judges, which is attributed to the reaction of seeing a building collapse at "free fall speeds." Naturally I think that attribution is entirely speculative. I speculate in contrast that the judges may have been astonished at Harrit's legal ineptitude. It's a Truther article of faith that people who see WTC 7 fall must have a strong emotional response to it. The much-exaggerated significance of that event is the cornerstone of today's Truther movement.
And naturally the claimed significance of that evidence has to be greatly exaggerated so that the quite-likely dismissal of the claim has more rhetorical value. I'm sure the Truthers are gearing up to write off the likely dismissal on appeal as a purely political move -- that they were visibly shaken by Harrit's oh-so-damning evidence, but simply couldn't bring themselves to accept the implications of ruling on his behalf.
I'm beginning to understand the appeal of Legaltainment
TM.
)
