Litvinenko's final frame-up? | 34 comments (34 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Several interesting elements (none / 1)

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 ]

One more remark, (none / 1)

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 ]

Oh and the Met's counsel (none / 0)

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 ]

Litvinenko's final frame-up? | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Southern Irish disinterest in Northern Ireland affairs

The end is Nigh?

Leinster's demise and Munster's hope

Joe Biden. America's Interventionist Hero

The law of conservation of transness

Recent Diaries

Southern Irish disinterest in Northern Ireland affairs

Incident Ukrainian War Display Gets Int'l Attention

German Climate Activists Group Outlawed

Leinster's demise and Munster's hope

Joe Biden. America's Interventionist Hero

Targeted Assassinations: a Bankrupt Strategy

The end is Nigh?

Hijacking Peace by Zelensky for War Escalation

UA Drone Attack On Moscow

Rightwing Operation New EU 'Enlightenment’

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - May 2023

May 2023

The law of conservation of transness

US Provoked Conflict In Europe

U.S. Will Be Ousted From Middle-East

Settler Extremism Blessed by Jerusalem Leaders

Occasional Series