Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton set the pace in a session when the track was damp but not really wet, although it did rain during the session. The cars featured a significantly updated package. Third quickest was Fernando Alonso in his Ferrari, ahead of Michael Schumacher, Sergio Perez and Nico Hulkenberg. Nico Rosberg was seventh with the top 10 completed by Felipe Massa, Pastor Maldonado and Romain Grosjean.
Kamui Kobayashi was 11th ahead of Sebastian Vettel, Valtteri Bottas (who spun off at the end of the session in Bruno Senna’s Williams) and Daniel Ricciardo. Kimi Raikkonen was 15th ahead of Jules Bianchi (in Paul di Resta’s Force India), Jean-Eric Vergne, Vitaly Petrov, Heikki Kovalainen, Mark Webber (who was taking things easy), the Marussias of Charles Pic and Timo Glock and the HRTs of Pedro de la Rosa and Dani Clos (in for Narain Karthikeyan in the session).
Never mind Joe the greyness may yet be blown away by the dramatic attempted arrest of BE actually on the grid. Though of course he would demand to see their passes and have them escorted off the premises. This in a weird reverse echo of Spain, where the FIA officials were once escorted off by the friendly local police. Were you there then Joe?
No
Is it just my imagination – or does that wing look like it has enough room for an enclosed fan/turbo snail of some sort?
http://www.formula1.com/wi/0×0/sutton/2012/d12ger542.jpg
Joe, I hate to say it, but I no longer believe Bernie has anything to worry about from the Germans. For months I’ve been on the fence regarding his possible prosecution, no longer. Bernie has cleared the hurdle, there is no question that he has immunity from German prosecution – full stop.
This fact has been rumored for ages and reported for quite some time, but rarely in the detail that was provided today. The BBC reported it a month ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18522111
Your friend Christian Sylt reported it all the way back in October of last year.
http://www.pitpass.com/45173-Ecclestone-admits-to-buying-Gribkowskys-silence
Today, Deutsche Welle made Bernie’s immunity absolutely clear.
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16113380,00.html
“The Formula One commercial boss received immunity from prosecution on the basis of his own testimony, but prosecutors could still launch a case based on other evidence.”
Launch a case based on “other evidence”? That’s a laugh.
It almost never happens. That is because he’s immunized from anything he spoke of to the prosecutor. A youth offender might walk into the trap of not mentioning all his crimes, but Bernie’s a very canny man with excellent legal representation. Of course he talked about all the things for which he could risk German prosecution. Why else would someone like Bernie give immunized testimony? Once he discussed his role in those affairs, he was immunized from prosecution for his role.
In general, the only way to prosecute someone who has been so immunized is to prove they provided false testimony. Why would anyone lie when testifying under immunity? There are a few potential reasons, but for Bernie one stands out. This immunity grant only covers Germany. Were he asked about something that could implicate him in crimes *outside* Germany, he may not have been inclined to provide the truth.
Still, that’s quite a high hurdle. The Germans would have had to have – for instance, asked him about something that would implicate him for tax fraud in the United Kingdom. Further, the Germans would have to prove that his response was a lie.
The German investigation of Bernie is probably just a formality to cover their collective asses. The Gribkowsky judge clearly wasn’t happy that Bernie was going to walk free. He indicated that Bernie shared much of the culpability in the crime. One imagines the judge could have refused the immunity grant, but he didn’t In a few months time, I expect the prosecutor will drop the case for lack of usable evidence, “usable” being the key word.
It seems that the UK tax authorities will provide Bernie’s only remaining risk of prosecution. That said, I see absolutely no evidence that the UK government is inclined to prosecute their octogenarian “Horatio Alger”. Far more likely would be a quiet financial settlement for an undisclosed amount.
Are you sure that these people have checked German law on immunity? It is not like other legal systems.
I freely admit that my experience is solely in that of US law, and to a lesser extent, UK law.
That said, I have talked with some that are far more familiar with German law than I am. Based on the immunity grant, they tell me they would be very surprised were Bernie to be charged.
We obviously talk to different German lawyers
Firstly, sorry for posting this in the wrong thread. (just realized)
I hope your attorney contacts are right. Clearly the judge would like to see Bernie charged. In the US, that wouldn’t generally be cause for the immunized individual to be concerned. Immunity here is a nearly impenetrable doctrine.
I’ve tried to do some independent research on immunity grants in Germany, not being a speaker of the language makes it rather tough sledding.
Could you share the opinion given to you by your German legal contacts?
I have told you already. There is no such thing.
Sorry, I must have missed your previous discussion of the topic.
To clarify, from your understanding – immunized testimony isn’t permissible within German jurisprudence?
If so, and I’m not doubting you, this would mean that the BBC, Deutsche Welle, and any number of reputable domestic Germany news agencies have gotten things very wrong.
Hmmm, I understand what you’re trying to argue, BUT when did “immunity from prosecution on the basis of his own testimony” change into “immunity from prosecution for anything that he happened to mention in his testimony”?
Sure, if they decide to prosecute him, it seems that they cannot mention what he said during Gribkowsky’s trial to use against him during his own trial, but surely they could prosecute him on the basis of (a) the paper trail of payments through the various companies and (b) Gribkowsky’s own evidence that Ecclestone bribed him? They don’t need his own confession.
You seem to be saying that because he mentioned it, they can’t prosecute him for it, but that’s not the same thing at all, is it?
In practical terms, my description is how it works in the US.
Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that. The prosecutor has to prove not only that they didn’t use the immunized individual’s testimony, but that the immunized testimony didn’t lead to the revelation of any other evidence to be used against the immunized defendant.
That is a very high hurdle for any prosecutor to bound, so they largely don’t even try. Generally, the prosecutor has already come to terms with the fact that they will not be able prosecute the immunized individual when they offer an immunity grant.
It’s a trade. The prosecutor is trading immunity for testimony, usually in order to land a bigger fish. Further, if prosecutors regularly prosecuted immunized individuals, such testimony would dry up making it a lot harder for them to prosecute crimes.
Also consider that a proffer is often made in advance of such testimony. This makes the prosecution fully aware fully aware of the trade they’re making in advance of the immunity grant.
All very entertaining but not relevant in Germany