Breivik judge plays solitaire during witness testimony in court

[mac338]

Source: [url]http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Breivik+judge+caught+playing+solitaire+court/6725884/story.html#ixzz1wplB5OP6[/url]

[QUOTE]OSLO - One of the five judges in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in twin attacks in Norway last year, was caught on camera playing solitaire online during proceedings on Monday.In a screen capture published on the website of newspaper Verdens Gang, one of the three lay judges hearing the case, Ernst Henning Eielsen, can be seen playing the card game on his computer as a Swedish professor testifies to the court.
"The judges are attentively following what is being said and what is being presented to the court," an Oslo court spokeswoman, Irene Ramm, told AFP.
"There are different ways of staying focused," Ramm said, adding that Eielsen did not deny having played a game of cards.
On July 22, 2011, Breivik first bombed a government building in Oslo, killing eight people, before going on a shooting rampage on the nearby island of Utoeya where the ruling Labour Party's youth wing was hosting a summer camp.
He killed 69 people in his island massacre, most of them teens, with the youngest having just celebrated her 14th birthday.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://thehiberniatimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Breivik-Judge.jpg[/IMG]

[MegaErathia]

Big deal.

[Scottismelol]

Arrest that man! How dare he play solitaire in court!

[Sgt-NiallR]

Seems kinda unprofessional...

[Thlis]

I think the real crime is that he's playing it on a flash webpage rather than the game application.

[Thomas45]

He's judging one of the biggest cases in European affairs he shouldn't be playing games.

[Bobie]

if it helps him stay focused, and nothing's really being said/he's not getting involved in the trial, why should it matter?

unless he's doing it during an important moment. then thats kinda bad

[AceOfDivine]

Not surprising. It's not like judge needs to pay attention in such a case. The outcome is obvious.

[jaykray]

I remember reading that solitaire was invented to help people get to sleep, I guess it could help clear your mind of other things and focus on what someone is saying.

[znk666]

The verdict is already obvious,i am not surprised...

[Hidole555]

Reminds me of this.

[video=youtube;XijzELLGGmY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XijzELLGGmY[/video]

[Used Car Salesm]

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36194489]Not surprising. It's not like judge needs to pay attention in such a case. The outcome is obvious.[/QUOTE]

I think it's kind of unprofessional, but yeah. It's not like anyone is questioning the outcome at this point.

I dunno how this trial system works, but in a basic US jury trial it's not that necesscary for a judge to pay attention to all of the testimony. Witnesses and their testimony is there for the benefit of the jury in making their decision, judges don't use it to decide the outcome of a case.

[Secrios]

As a heart surgeon, I like to play Dark Souls.

[Lazore]

[QUOTE=jaykray;36194591]I remember reading that solitaire was invented to help people get to sleep, I guess it could help clear your mind of other things and focus on what someone is saying.[/QUOTE]

Wrong, it was developed for windows, some old version, so people can easily learn and get used to drag and drop function (which was kinda new at that time)

[jaykray]

[QUOTE=Lazore;36195193]Wrong, it was developed for windows, some old version, so people can easily learn and get used to drag and drop function (which was kinda new at that time)[/QUOTE]
I can't tell if you're joking :tinfoil:

[AlphaGunman]

[QUOTE=Lazore;36195193]Wrong, it was developed for windows, some old version, so people can easily learn and get used to drag and drop function (which was kinda new at that time)[/QUOTE]

do you seriously think microsoft invented solitaire or something

[BigOwl]

Yes, Brevik should be let free now!!

Who cares.

[Collin665]

[QUOTE=Lazore;36195193]Wrong, it was developed for windows, some old version, so people can easily learn and get used to drag and drop function (which was kinda new at that time)[/QUOTE]

Wrong, patience games date back several hundred years ago. The windows version is just one variant.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_patience_games[/url]

[Contag]

[QUOTE=AlphaGunman;36195246]do you seriously think microsoft invented solitaire or something[/QUOTE]

No, but putting it on a computer with a drag and drop component was novel.

[aznz888]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIuYiTqdLLs[/media]

[Lizzrd]

[QUOTE=BigOwl;36195251]Yes, Brevik should be let free now!!

Who cares.[/QUOTE]Are you fucking dense?

[Banhfunbags]

[QUOTE=Hidole555;36194748]Reminds me of this.

[video=youtube;XijzELLGGmY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XijzELLGGmY[/video][/QUOTE]

That's Spider Solitaire

[fruxodaily]

[QUOTE=Lazore;36195193]Wrong, it was developed for windows, some old version, so people can easily learn and get used to drag and drop function (which was kinda new at that time)[/QUOTE] .. or you know, it was played in real life before computers took over the household

[Lankist]

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36194489]Not surprising. It's not like judge needs to pay attention in such a case. The outcome is obvious.[/QUOTE]

Uhh, foregone conclusions are the embodiment of a miscarriage of justice.

Innocent until proven guilty. All cases should be treated with the same rigid standards of evidence and skepticism, no matter how obvious they appear to a layman. You can make excuses for the trial of one of the worst stains on that nation's recent history, but those excuses will not carry over when such a lax attitude toward the justice system starts catching others in its lazy grasp. And that attitude never ends with one case.

There is absolutely no excuse for a judge to say "I know the verdict" at any point prior to the conclusion of the trial. To do so is to fail at the very purpose of having a judge.

[Zambies!]

I thought that witnesses weren't supposed to influence the case for the judge though?

[Lankist]

[QUOTE=Zambies!;36200280]I thought that witnesses weren't supposed to influence the case for the judge though?[/QUOTE]

Eyewitness testimony is only influential when accompanied and corroborated by physical evidence.

It gives insight into the crime, the criminal's motives and the more intricate details of how all of the pieces fit together. It is worthless on its own merit, but very valuable when accompanying higher forms of evidence.

For instance: let's say you have a dead body and a smoking gun with the suspect's fingerprints on it. Alone, that's reasonable evidence, but it's much more damning when you have multiple people who can testify by saying "I saw the suspect shoot the victim with that firearm."

Alternatively, it can help exonerate an innocent suspect, depending on the nature of the contradictory evidence. If you have a weapon with multiple sets of fingerprints, a witness can say "It was not that man that shot the victim."

i.e. it's worthless on its own and immensely valuable when it independently conforms to physical evidence.

[[Seed Eater]]

I can see the point on the focusing thing. If I'm listening to a video when I'm playing Minecraft, I can recall word for word everything said whenever I go near the area I heard it, even a year after it happened.

[Collin665]

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36200468']I can see the point on the focusing thing. If I'm listening to a video when I'm playing Minecraft, I can recall word for word everything said whenever I go near the area I heard it, even a year after it happened.[/QUOTE]

Spatial memory is the strongest memory that humans have.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci[/url]

[Virtanen]

big deal, I can listen and do things at the same time

[smurfy]

[QUOTE=Lankist;36200127]Uhh, foregone conclusions are the embodiment of a miscarriage of justice.

Innocent until proven guilty. All cases should be treated with the same rigid standards of evidence and skepticism, no matter how obvious they appear to a layman. You can make excuses for the trial of one of the worst stains on that nation's recent history, but those excuses will not carry over when such a lax attitude toward the justice system starts catching others in its lazy grasp. And that attitude never ends with one case.

There is absolutely no excuse for a judge to say "I know the verdict" at any point prior to the conclusion of the trial. To do so is to fail at the very purpose of having a judge.[/QUOTE]

The outcome isn't even obvious, the point of the trial is to determine whether he's fit for prison or should be sent to a psychiatric institution