|
Post by nanna on Aug 26, 2008 19:12:42 GMT -5
Here's today's video with English subs:
Many thanks to Ivan and Tihkon for everything you do for us!
|
|
|
Post by tihkon2 on Aug 26, 2008 19:16:20 GMT -5
Right back atcha babe! Carla really is awesome, isn't she? I'm liking her more and more and hope she appears more in the boys' storyline.
|
|
|
Post by synapticmisfire on Aug 26, 2008 19:43:18 GMT -5
Oh man, Carla's expression in the last second or two there is priceless - so very "Carla Von Lahnstein - Super Lesbian to the rescue!". She's totally imagining her own theme music.
I do love the idea of casually buying a publishing company, though. Must be fun to be a countess...
|
|
louisa
Junior Member
Thanks to rayslady for the Merlin slashiness!
Posts: 463
|
Post by louisa on Aug 26, 2008 19:43:22 GMT -5
I have stayed up to watch this tonight!! Despite liking the playfulness and affection between my boys in the previous episode, I wanted so badly to beat Axel to a pulp for Axel to stop being so smug and arrogant and irritating that it kind of spoiled it for me Today, however, I am feeling much more optimistic. Although I hope that Axel won't try and sue for libel (is he that stupid/mean/pig-headed?). I am liking Carla's involvement though. I hope her friendship with Ollian continues after this story arc has ended, partly because I think they need to widen their circle of friends. And having such a powerful friend is a bonus! With regards to the boxers over trousers as mentioned above, I have to say it no longer has any appeal to me . I guess when you spend your days working with teenagers who show more than a small bit of their boxers (try most of it!) the only desire I have is to firmly pull their trousers up and put braces on them. Now I sound like mum. Anyway, thank you Nanna for the subs! I've been up far too long now but I can go to bed happy. x
|
|
lala
New Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by lala on Aug 26, 2008 19:43:26 GMT -5
Thanks so much everybody!
Carla's face at the end reminded me of a line from Will&Grace... "Gay love, I miss it."
:-p
|
|
|
Post by psionycx on Aug 26, 2008 20:01:46 GMT -5
Why do I hear the Wonder Woman theme music in my head when I look at Carla?
The decisive factor was probably Axel's lame attempt to hit on her. Honestly, does he think that any women find his personality attractive? Somehow I can imagine never-married women in their 60's turning their noses up at him.
Gregor needs to wear a t-shirt more often. Maybe a size smaller. Or something in lycra.
The bizarre acoustics of No Limits strike again. Axel pretty much admitted his guilt and made threats in the middle of a crowded bar. Yet they are without "witnesses"!
Thanks to our board heroes as always!
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Aug 26, 2008 20:13:06 GMT -5
I kinda cringed for our boys here. They are just sooo not in Carla's league and vice versa. I could never picture them actually being friends. Maybe Olli and Carla on occasion through Lars/Charlie, but other than that, just... no. It's just so out of this world wrong for Carla. I'd rather see Carla revive her (and Nathalie's and Ansgar's) relationship with Gregor. But then again, Carla worships her dear Leonard, so that probably won't happen till after Leo and Sarah are married and off.
|
|
|
Post by mona on Aug 26, 2008 20:27:53 GMT -5
She's like an older sister. I could imagine Carla and Olli being friends though. They have the same personality (kinda). Carla likes commitment but she's also someone who goes dancing and having fun in clubs. But Christian and Carla as friends? Never! She seemed more comfortable when she talked with Olli anyway. Well, and as Sophias cousin he is family as well. I'm happy Christian and Olli are staying away from the castle. It's just trouble to hang out there.
|
|
restenergy
Full Member
Olli forever (and Christian, too)
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by restenergy on Aug 26, 2008 23:35:49 GMT -5
Oh, I'd never suspect that Christian and Olli would hang out much at the castle. Maybe something on the grounds with Judith and Consti, but nothing like that brunch all that often. They did seem like ducks out of water. On the other hand, I could see Carla and Olli being friends in other settings, and maybe interacting with Olli and Christian now and then. Maybe it might be a bit more of a mentor kind of relationship, not anything like a career mentor or such, but something more toward an older sister sort of thing. I'd like to see them together now and then even when this particular story is done, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by evilgeniuslady on Aug 27, 2008 1:31:26 GMT -5
Oh man, Carla's expression in the last second or two there is priceless - so very "Carla Von Lahnstein - Super Lesbian to the rescue!". She's totally imagining her own theme music. I have such a crush on Carla, just based on this episode. Wouldn't it be fun to have a girlfriend who could swoop in like that and buy a publishing house, just so you could get to do the right thing? *swoon*
|
|
hari3669
Junior Member
Avatar courtesy of the one and only evilgeniuslady
Posts: 223
|
Post by hari3669 on Aug 27, 2008 6:22:14 GMT -5
Thanks Nanna and Tihkon! And I guess I agree with everyone else here: Go Carla!!!
|
|
|
Post by jsg03jd on Aug 27, 2008 12:27:57 GMT -5
Question: why doesn't Olli, the VICTIM, qualify as a witness to testify against Axel? Am confused.
Oh yean, and ditto to psionycx: Axel made admissions to Olli and Christian as well. Those could be used against Axel, at least in courts in the U.S.
|
|
restenergy
Full Member
Olli forever (and Christian, too)
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by restenergy on Aug 27, 2008 12:55:06 GMT -5
Testimony about such an admission might be allowed in U.S. courts, but it how much weight it would have before a jury is another matter. And the defense against it should be fairly easy. Of course they would say that, they've already accused Axel of attacking Olli. And if one were to bring in other witnesses to such an admission, especially ones not so directly tied to Olli, I would easily see the defense claiming that Axel, having been humiliated in the boxing ring by loosing to Christian, took advantage of the attack against Olli to brag. His ego, you see, got the better of him and he claimed that he had done it in order to recover from his humiliation in the eyes of fellow boxers. It might be enough to raise doubts about the admissions, and without any witnesses of the attack itself (other than Olli) or other physical evidence, probably would lead to a reasonable doubt about the case.
In any case, testimony about admissions (or denials) is more of a reinforcing or doubt creating part of a case. When I was on a federal jury, we heard testimony about one of the defendants denials of wrong doing. The witness was a defense witness. A few on the jury were somewhat inclined to believe that testimony, but it was never given a great deal of weight in our deliberations. It just seemed only marginally connected with the case itself and not particularly important.
Of course, things probably are significantly different in the German system. Even so, I don't think testimony, especially from Olli and Christian, about Axel admitting he'd done it, is all that important or strong. And I don't think a prosecutor would be any more likely to proceed on this case even with that in the mix. On the other hand, if someone had seen Axel on the street at about the time of the attack (or, say, Gregor returning saw him walking in the neighborhood) it might be a different matter.
|
|
aldebaran
Full Member
Halunke, Ich liebe Dich so sehr!
Posts: 1,506
|
Post by aldebaran on Aug 27, 2008 14:53:40 GMT -5
I agree with you guys about Carla. She rocks! I just love her. And it was cool for me to hear a song that I like a lot when O&C went to Carla's office: "Foundations" by Kate Nash. Maybe it's just me - but I think there is definitely something sexy about seeing the waistband of a guy's boxers peeking above his jeans - although in Gregors case there is just a bit TOO much showing. I remember in the mid-nineties this became a HUGE fashion trend in the gay clubs.... ~ floats off on a nostalgia trip~ Mid-90s? Then you should see gay (but not only) clubs now! At least in Italy, there's plenty of guys with underwear peeking from the top of their jeans.
|
|
|
Post by Bonobochick on Aug 27, 2008 15:19:40 GMT -5
Question: why doesn't Olli, the VICTIM, qualify as a witness to testify against Axel? Am confused. Oh yean, and ditto to psionycx: Axel made admissions to Olli and Christian as well. Those could be used against Axel, at least in courts in the U.S. I think there still needs to be [physical] evidentiary support, even with an admission of guilt esp. to non-officers of the court, to tie with the claim in order to initiate prosecuting for a crime. At this point, it's all 'he said, he said'.
|
|
|
Post by evilgeniuslady on Aug 27, 2008 16:07:31 GMT -5
Let's look at what evidence there actually is: - Olli was injured. There's medical records to prove it, and from what we know it's not contested at all.
- There are no witnesses other than Olli for what happened at No Limits.
- Axel has a reason for hating Christian and Olli, since Christian beat him at the match. This could work against him in court, and give him a plausible reason to attack Olli, but it could also work for him, since it could be spun as Olli projecting his boyfriend's "enemy" onto the "unknown" assailant. Maybe he only thought it was Axel because that was what made sense in his head? (Yes, I know that's not what happened, but I recently spoke to a policeman who said that most victims of assault and/or rape won't be able to identify their attacker - they'll usually describe him as "dark, tall, demon-like" or something like that. A good defense lawyer could easily spin Olli's confused state after the attack to mean that he'd projected Axel's face onto his attacker).
- Axel's "confession" to Christian and Olli doesn't mean anything - they're already negatively disposed against him. Had they gotten the statement on tape that would be one thing, but as it is it's only word against word.
- Axel may have spat on the floor, but unless the police knew to look for it they wouldn't have taken any samples for DNA testing. It's a bar, there's bound to be sticky substances all over the floor from spilt beer and such, so unless Olli told them about the spitting they wouldn't have the first clue what to look for. I'm guessing Olli was too confused to even think about telling them. Besides, even if they had taken a sample, all that would have done was place Axel at No Limits, and he's been there plenty of times in broad daylight, so that doesn't really accomplish anything.
- Same thing with possible fingerprints on the broken glass. All that does is place Axel at the scene, and that doesn't help Olli's case much.
In short: The only hard evidence is a medical report, stating that Olli was injured. The rest is all word against word, and if Axel has no prior record then I'm guessing he's getting the benefit of the doubt. The prosecution will only press charges if they feel there's a reasonable chance of getting a conviction, which, you know, as much as I want them to triumph over the scumbag, I have to say that it's not a very solid case - if I had been the prosecutor I think I would have made the same decision. And now I'll go be a law nerd somewhere else. Excuse me...
|
|
|
Post by jsg03jd on Aug 27, 2008 16:33:15 GMT -5
Except that Axel's confessions qualify as admissible hearsay in U.S. courts and can be used against Axel. Yes, a jury (do German courts use juries?) can give whatever weight it wants to to such admissible hearsay, but it's still admissible testimonial evidence. And the outcomes of a lot of cases -- civil or criminal -- are not determined by physical evidence, i.e., the proverbial smoking gun, but by circumstantial evidence. And even if Axel has no record, that should not play a part in deciding to prosecute him because records of prior crimes are inadmissible evidence in the first instance and for the most part they could at best demonstrate habitual bad conduct.
I just think there IS enough to determine that probable cause exists in that Axel committed a crime against Olli. One look at Olli's face (caked in make up though it may be) coupled with the medical records and the testimonial evidence from Olli and others who heard Axel's confession should have been enough to warrant an indictment. Again, that's in the U.S. legal system. Maybe Germany has a different inquisitorial system where a quasi-adjudicative process screens whether a criminal action may proceed against an accused, and the complainant's role is more minimal than in the U.S.
Just odd all around to me. There seems to be enough corroborative evidence to at least get Axel indicted if not necessarily convicted. Still confused. Oh well, better to focus on the love story than on a legal system with which I am not familiar at all :-)
|
|
restenergy
Full Member
Olli forever (and Christian, too)
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by restenergy on Aug 27, 2008 16:44:15 GMT -5
I agree that there isn't a complete lack of evidence. There even be a possibility of conviction. The question is what kind of evidence and how much of a probability of conviction there may be. As much as I'd like to see justice done and Axel convicted for the beating of our dear Olli, I agree with EGL. If I were the prosecutor, I think I'd make the decision to drop the case, too. The likely success of the prosecution is just too low given the evidence available, even if the judge would allow the prosecution to go forward (and even that might be questionable given the evidence). The decision on this has to rest not on the evidence that the crime took place (which I think is very solid) but that this particular individual did it (which I think isn't all that strong, really, even though we do indeed know it was him and even if police and prosecutors believe it was him, too).
|
|
|
Post by evilgeniuslady on Aug 27, 2008 17:08:51 GMT -5
Except that Axel's confessions qualify as admissible hearsay in U.S. courts and can be used against Axel. Yes, a jury (do German courts use juries?) can give whatever weight it wants to to such admissible hearsay, but it's still admissible testimonial evidence. I know that some legal systems don't allow hearsay at all, but I can't remember if the German system is one of them (I have a feeling that it might be, but I'm not sure). I do know that in Denmark, a simple assault case like this wouldn't come anywhere near a jury, unless it was appealed to a higher court, and maybe not even then. Instead it would be tried at a court consisting of one legally educated judge and two laymen. Even if hearsay is admissable, it's still only Olli's and Christian's hearsay, and they're too heavily involved to really count (I'm assuming here that No Limits' weird accoustics struck again, and noone but those actually talking to Axel heard what he was saying). Maybe Germany has a different inquisitorial system where a quasi-adjudicative process screens whether a criminal action may proceed against an accused, and the complainant's role is more minimal than in the U.S. That's exactly it. The complainant's role is basically reduced to that of a witness, and he has absolutely no say in whether or not charges are pressed in a criminal case. The prosecutor is the only one who can decide whether or not to go ahead with a case (again assuming the German system is the same as the Danish). So yes, I guess it simply comes down to having different legal systems. All I can say is that, especially when adjusted for the heightened soap reality, it doesn't seem that implausible to me that the charges would be dropped. That's just the way the system works - a very pragmatic approach, I suppose - and while it may mean that scumbags like Axel walk free, it also provides a great deal of protection against the system, so that innocent people aren't constantly dragged through pointless cases.
|
|
|
Post by aussie54 on Aug 27, 2008 17:42:47 GMT -5
Thinking about this some more, I realised that Axel probably has plenty of people giving him an alibi ... a group of boxing buddies who'd swear black and blue that he was with them at the time.
|
|
|
Post by brownsugar on Aug 27, 2008 20:53:42 GMT -5
It just seems to me there should be enough evidence regarding fingerprints, skin residue, sweat and clothe fibers. Also Axel actually confessing to the beating and making further threats in a crowded NoLimits would warrent an insent arrest. I guess the judicial system is different in Germany to that in the US. In the US there would be enough evidence to indict Axel based on a hate crime.
|
|
|
Post by jsg03jd on Aug 27, 2008 23:51:30 GMT -5
It doesn't even have to be a hate crime. It's plain assault, battery and arguably attempted murder if the events at nolimits took place in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by tyranamiros on Aug 28, 2008 0:16:03 GMT -5
Also if Axel kept the baton used in the beating, that could tie him to the crime.
In the US there would certainly be enough evidence for the Grand Jury (for charges to be filed), even if there was not enough for a conviction. But I know that most Continental European systems work rather differently from the American (Common Law vs. Civil Law and all that). It's too bad they can't do a cross-over with CSI: Dusseldorf.
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Aug 28, 2008 0:33:27 GMT -5
What does that prove? That Axel was at No Limits. And Axel has been at No Limits plenty of times before. He could have left his prints at any of those times. It would be another thing if they for example found the baton with his prints and Olli's blood on it. Or Axel's shirt with blood spatter on it. But just his prints at No Limits? No Limits is a public place and one that he has frequented before. It's also a question of proving that it was more than a normal bar brawl that got out of hand. And yes, Axel would probably have no trouble finding people who would give him an alibi. Which is not to say that a case like that would be hopeless. You'd just need a district attorney who is convinced of the case enough and who gets the police to do a long in depth interogation which goads Axel into a confession (I mean, have you seen Axel? Nobody can convince me that it would be that hard to get him to trip up) I'm not completely sure how it is in Germany, but I think Austria doesn't have a jury, but uses three "layman judges" (who like jurors are random people, but I think they have less power; there are two laymen judges and two professional judges but it often seems like the Schöffen are there only pro forma and are usually intimidated enough by the proceedings that they go along with whatever the professional judges say). de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6ffenWikipedia doesn't give much details on how it is in Germany but mentions that there Schöffen are elected for 5 or 10 years and they are used in the "Strafgerichtsbarkeit" which I think covers violent crimes. It also mentions that the state level cours have three professional judges and two Schöffen (all their votes have the same value, but as you can see the professional judges outnumber the laymen judges). It mentions that juries haven't been used in centuries and it is therefore a "Schwugericht" in name only. ETA: Found it. You have the different levels. Lowest Level is Strafrichter (one judge) for cases with penalties up to 2 years. Next level Schöffengericht, one judge, two laymen judges to penatlies up to 4 years. Next level little and the big Strafkammer. Little is one judge and two Schöffen, big one is three judges, two Schöffen. They also have the Schwurgericht (also three judges, 2 Schöffen) who only deal with crimes that lead to somebody's death. (in comparison Austria has higher cases where you have juries where like in the US the jury has to decide guilt or innocence and judge decides the punishments; but it's only for certain types of violent crimes. ) Anyway, Strafprozess: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafprozess_(Deutschland)Schwurgericht: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SchwurgerichtBTW, for anybody who is interested, you can see a German Law and Order tv show over here on RTL now: rtl-now.rtl.de/indg.php?film_id=7074&player=1The story is about a man who contacted women in chat rooms, met with them, raped them, killed one and abducted an undercover police officer. You can see the district attorneys have a lenghty conversation whether they have enough to go to trial. They establish that the fact that he admits that he met with all these women and contacted them via the chats is not enough. Nor is various fibre evidence of the women on him because he could have gotten their hair or what else on him casually. They finally settle on going to trial anyway because some of the things he said implied insider knowledge of the crime. (section 2, around 18 minute mark) At the trial you can see that all the victims are considered witnesses, including the attacked policewoman. In the rape case it's he said/she said. And the police office didn't see her attacker clearly before he knocked her out even though he is the one she met with because of the undercover chat. The case only really gets off the ground when they convince the wife to take back the alibi she attested to the guy and it ends in typical drama fashion with the guy confessing on the stand when the attorneys figure out the motive.
|
|
|
Post by evilgeniuslady on Aug 28, 2008 3:11:27 GMT -5
Skin residue? For all that we know, Axel never touched Olli, he only used the baton. The baton? Yes, that might tie Axel to the crime, but we don't know what happened to it. Axel might have hidden it with some of his boxing buddies - I'm sure they'd be more than willing to help him get away with the gay bashing.
There's also the "CSI effect" to consider. Even though CSI is a brilliant show, it's nowhere near showing the actual working conditions of the police. Finger prints and DNA analysis are costly, and the police has to consider carefully exactly what evidence they need to secure. Scraping the entire floor of No Limits for spit samples? Yeah, that's not going to happen, unless it's a murder case. Not even on CSI would you see the forensic experts go over a place like No Limits inch by inch to secure DNA samples from someone who is already known to frequent the place - especially not if it's a simple assault (yes, it's violent and dangerous, but it's still "just" an assault, with no lasting consequences that we know of).
Axel is known to frequent No Limits. The only evidence that could tie him to the crime itself as far as I can see, instead of merely placing him at the crime scene, would be the baton, impartial eye witnesses, or a confession (to someone other than Christian and Olli), neither of which are available.
Not knowing the German criminal law, I'm guessing the maximum penalty for assault with a baton is 4-6 years (that's what it is in Denmark), so we're probably looking at a case that would be tried with one judge and two laymen (Schöffen), according to Lola's information. That means we're nowhere near a grand jury that could be persuaded with a passionate speech and hearsay evidence. Sure, the case could still have been tried, and maybe a different prosecutor would have decided to do so, but I can understand why they decided to drop it. It's really not a very solid case as it stands right now, especially not if Axel's boxing buddies are providing him with an alibi.
|
|