Bommeleeër Trial: 2014

[SydneyLux]

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

Prince Jean would have nothing to gain by being involved in such a plot and everything to lose (his reputation and his freedom for one thing). The motives of those who were involved in the bombings according to what I've read on this forum were to increase law enforcement funding and to shift the political power more to the right or to have a more conservative government in Luxembourg.

Only the bold part is the proposed motive of the accused, the other part would be a possible motive for a Stay Behind operation. I think it's understandable that many people doubt that those currently accused did the bombings for the above motive which seems very weak and general. Everyone within the BMG and/or police could have done it for that reason.

[Marengo]

luxarazzi has two new articles about the trial.

1) Luxarazzi : Louis Giscard d'Estaing Summoned

Louis Giscard d'Estaing is summoned by the court. G d'E is the alibi of Prince Jean, as they were hunting in France.

- Is this the G d'E son who was rumoured to have dated princess Margaretha? Or is that his elder brother, who is now married to a Jkvr. Sickinghe?

2) Luxarazzi : Prince Guillaume As Bommeleeër? Or Not?!

And another article showing the confusion: was it Jean, Guillaume or Jean after all who was seen?

- It is curious that nobody came forward to say that they have seen the prince. People heard from other people ... etc. Not a very strong case it seems.

[SydneyLux]

Prince Jean, his former wife Hélène Vestur and Prince Guillaume gave their testimonies today

Luxarazzi : Hélène Vestur's Testimony

Luxarazzi : Prince Guillaume's Testimony

http://lux-arazzi.blogspot.de/2014/02/prince-jeans-testimony.html

[Al_bina]

Thanks for the udpates!
The testimonies have not added anything interesting to the case. Some people may question reasons/causes for giving up the succession rights. As far as I understand, there is no solid evidence or witnesses linking Prince Jean to the alleged crime. I am not sure how admissible hearsay is.
Hopefully the case will be dismissed due to lack/absence of elements of the crime.

[Moonmaiden23]

Al-bina I agree with you, it should be dismissed. It is the flimsiest most bizarre "case" against HRH imaginable.

I am not sure something like this would have ever come to trial here in the U.S.!

[marine2109]

The brothers of the Grand Duke Henri deny their connection with the bombings of 80 in Luxembourg at the trial of the case 'Bommeleeër'

Los hermanos del gran duque Enrique niegan su relación con los atentados de los ochenta en Luxemburgo en el juicio sobre el caso 'Bommeleeër'

https://translate.google.com.tr/tran...cal%2F&act=url

[Marengo]

It seems a weak case indeed. But better to get to the bottom of it so the episode can be resolved once and for all. It seems that they are focussing on one specific date (when Jean was supposed to be seen)
and not on all dates of the bombings (20 bombs within 20 months).

The testemonial of Helene Vestur is interesting. She confirms what many always assumed, namely that the late GDss Josephine-Charlotte was very much against the wedding of Jean and her. It seems that GD Henri and GDss Maria Teresa have a different opinion since Vestur was invited to the weddings of Guillaume and Félix. Vestur must be a thorough lady btw, still keeping her agenda from 28 years ago.

Prince Guillaume apparently lost much of his memory due to his coma. Sadly enough he has no recollection of his wedding or the births of his eldest three children.

[Fürstin Taxis]

Imo it´s ridiculous, I bet some just wanted to stir up trouble. Luxembourg is also a small country, to see one of the RF members is not unusual.

[SydneyLux]

Originally Posted by Marengo

It seems a weak case indeed. But better to get to the bottom of it so the episode can be resolved once and for all. It seems that they are focussing on one specific date (when Jean was supposed to be seen) and not on all dates of the bombings (20 bombs within 20 months).

This. Of course it has never been a strong case against Prince Jean but there also isn't a strong case against those put on trial. There is no concrete evidence against them, more of a trial based on circumstantial evidence. I found it very striking that when Hélène Vestur told that all the rumours and implications were hard on the family and especially the children, one of the accused said that he understood how they felt and was sorry as it is the same with his family. There is no one who (possibly falsely) claimed to have seen either of the accused at one of the sites of the bombings.

I have been following the case for the past year, sometimes more closely and at other time more losely and it feels like a web of a gazillion different things and it's very difficult to distinguish right from wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a cover up for something or someone, a great number of evidence has vanished over the years and so it is very much based on witness statements and hearsay. There is more than one person - among others Beffort who claimed to have seen Prince Jean at the airport - who say that either police forces or people from the secret service came to them and threatened them not to tell anyone about what they had seen. I doubt very much that the real Bommeleeër will ever be found.

The whole thing had pretty much died down during the 1990's and early 2000's until RTL showed a documentary in 2005 which brought up new witness statements, among them the one of Beffort. After that, the public started to ask questions and that police and prosecution pretty much had to find someone who was behind the bombings. During the trial, every lead there ever was is now coming up again. There have been about 140 days of court hearings thus far and there is no end in sight. Even if it was what seemed like a ridiculous case, I am happy that the police investigated into the claims of someone saying to have seen Prince Jean at the airport and did not let it fall under the table because he was the brother of the Grand Duke. I hope that his name has been cleared once and for all now and that maybe, just maybe whoever did it will be found. The Luxembourgish police has actually started investigations into a possible involvement into three other persons in the case.

[Moonmaiden23]

The problem is that the shadow of suspicion will now always hang over the princes, and by association the entire GD Family even if/when Jean and Guillaume are cleared.

So the damage from this farce has been done, and it is permanent imo.

[SydneyLux]

But the damage has been there since the first rumours started during the 1980's and the bad way the grand ducal court handled them back then. Something is probably going to stay forever and that's very unfortunate but I'm still glad that they were willing to give testimonies even before the court said that they had to.

[MarcosFenn]

Originally Posted by Marengo

..

Prince Guillaume apparently lost much of his memory due to his coma. Sadly enough he has no recollection of his wedding or the births of his eldest three children.

Even without memory loss owing to a medical condition, yet for middle-aged witnesses to give accounts of events three decades ago is highly likely to involve lapses and omissions, even in good faith.

As someone who has passed 50, I know that my own faculties are such that my memories of 30 - 40 years ago may well be clear and intense in some details, but they should not be regarded necessarily as more reliable than other people's recollections.

In some jurisdictions, someone who has medically certified memory problems may be deemed by a court to be 'unable adequately to instruct counsel', which means that they have no proper means of avoiding incriminating themselves: this must apply equally to the hypothetically innocent as to the hypothetically guilty. In other words, their involvement in an adversarial legal case is unlikely to prove useful.

Look at all the books that have been written about Dealy Plaza, Dallas, TX, November 22, 1963, with accounts of those who were there. Many people's stories will have been given in good faith, yet what may be honest recollections do differ materially in details.

I even heard of someone recently having started a law-suit about the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. Frankly, this kind of thing seems an abuse of the legal process.

Rather than paying for and prioritizing expensive, high profile investigations of events which occurred decades ago, with subpoenas being used as weapons, there must come a time when it becomes more appropriate for such investigations to be regarded as coming within the remit of historians and archivists.

[Marengo]

Prince Jean invited the press to talk about the trial on Monday:

Luxarazzi : Prince Jean Invites Press

[Al_bina]

Hopefully Prince Jean will succeed in dispelling rumours.

[SydneyLux]

Originally Posted by Marengo

Prince Jean invited the press to talk about the trial on Monday

He talked to the press for about 70 minutes. Unsurprisingly, there are no major new information.

Luxarazzi : Prince Jean Talks to Press