Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
As we said, the claim is old music, therefore not sensational. Nor are the claims concerning Spain new.

We will certainly discuss Marina Litvinenko's submission that are the source of this "sensational" claim. The submission was discussed during the hearings yesterday. Off hand, Marina Litvinenko supports the unsubstantiated claims made by her husband -- and many ex-Soviet bloc exiles in London --that Russia is a mafia state that actively uses organized crime to further its supposed aims.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Fri Dec 14th, 2012 at 06:04:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in the written submissions from Berezhovsky, Lugovoy and Marina Litvinenko (or rather, from their respective lawyers), concerning which scenarii should be examined by the inquest.

  • Shorter Berezhovsky : he affirms that the only evidence or allegations implicating him in Litvinenko's death come from Lugovoy. He affirms that Lugovoy is a criminal on the run; and that legal precedent indicates that testimony from a criminal on the run is not admissible, therefore the judge must throw out the Berezhovsky scenario. A self-evident crock of shit.

  • Shorter Marina : she favours the investigation of the "Putin did it" and "Russian mafia did it" scenarios, arguing that the two are indistinguishable; she argues against the pursuit of the Berezhovsky scenario; she argues against the "MI6 did it" scenario, but concedes that it must be considered, if another interested party (i.e. Lugovoy) insists on it, and that consideration of this, or of any liability of the British state for failing to protect her husband (as an MI6 agent) would require a "Article 2 Middleton inquest" (enhanced inquest?).

  • Shorter Lugovoy : "Raison d'état" (judicial restraint) can not be invoked to refuse to examine any scenario; the judge may not rule out any scenario based on "non-disclosed material", i.e. any evidence (implicitly, MI6 investigations) which the judge wants to use to exclude any line of inquiry, i.e. British scenario, would need to be communicated to interested parties. Unsurprisingly, he is in favour of investigating the Berezhovsky scenario; he doesn't want the "Spanish Mafia" (surprising characterisation) scenario ruled out; he is in favour of investigating the British and Russian scenarii, and wants to see the evidence.

On balance, this is going to be fun.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Dec 14th, 2012 at 09:46:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in the Counsel to the Inquest's submission, there is a discussion of whether a jury is required for the inquest. Although the council argues against a jury, it seems to me that one is required, on the grounds of a work-related "accident, poisoning or disease".

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Dec 14th, 2012 at 10:34:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
informs the judge that he shouldn't listen to anyone else, if he wants to exclude any particular line of inquiry (hint hint British scenario) he should just go right ahead and do it, because he's the boss.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Dec 14th, 2012 at 11:25:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series