By d4veCAT: Video evidence, postponed by Supreme Court

Video evidence has been postponed by Supreme Court till the end of the trial, after all the police witnesses have repeatedly made descriptions of people's reactions to their violent attacks on polling stations on 1 October 2017 that have little to do, if anything, with what was recorded by dozens of voters on site: an English translation of a thread on this issue.
 Click here if need be to access the whole text


https://twitter.com/d4veCAT/status/1118413980471648256?s=19

1. At the #CatalanTrial, day after day, defence lawyers have to listen as police officers recount a version of the events of 1 October 2017 that differs wildly from the objective video evidence viewed by the lawyers in court (and by us at home) on laptop screens.

 #judiciFarsa

2.  But, perversely, the judges refuse to allow this video evidence to be shown to the witnesses. All the video evidence will be viewed by the judges further down the line when there are no witnesses present. What will be the format of this marathon video session?

3. Nobody knows. Will defence lawyers be given the chance to pause each video in order to point out the outrageous lies told in court by public servants? Will these liers be held to account? Will the judges be paying attention as polling stations & whirling batons merge into one?

4. Not only do the judges refuse to allow videos to be shown but also they refuse to allow the defence lawyers to ask the witnesses questions based on this objective evidence.

5. If a defence lawyer attempts to point out the contradiction between what the witness says & what the lawyer can see on their screen, the judge steps in:

''You can only ask the witness about what they saw. You can't take for granted that the evidence in the video images is proven.''

6. ''That's to be decided when we view the video evidence. At the moment it's the version of a witness under oath against yours and that cannot be.

This is perverse. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The objective of this trial must be to find out the truth.''

7. Anybody can see that the fairest and most efficient way of doing that is to compare (on the spot with the witness present) the recalled version of events with the objective video evidence. This is what happens in other trials. Yet in this extremely high-profile trial it does not.

8. The impression one gets is that an attempt is being made to build a false narrative of events, sustained over several weeks by a succession of carbon-copy witnesses who parrot the same terminology and go unchallenged by objective evidence. When will @fairtrials show some interest?