Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Well, he was known for purchasing stuff that was legal from a known vendor of stuff that was not.

If I buy my booze from a place that also peddles coke, then I'm not sure I have that strong a case for disputing a search warrant.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 01:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wait till statisticians find a correlation between downloading pictures of cats and zoophilia... And if they can't find evidence against you, that shows you are even more perfidious: you must have destroyed it.

A prosecutor needs a REASONABLE initial suspicion based on facts that you have committed an offence. If they can prove that you have bought booze and have no hint that you bought illegal substances, the judge MUST NOT issue a search warrant. (You can't dispute a search warrant except retroactively, by the way.)

Here is a professor of criminal law, very upset, finding clear words, dissecting this outrage better than I can, although interviewed with shockingly prejudiced questions. She calls the behaviour of the prosecution illegal and a violation of fundamental rights.

His behaviour may be improper (what is he doing with pictures of naked minors?) but propriety must not interest the prosecution or the judge. There is no hint that he broke the law. That's all that counts.

by Katrin on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 02:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Uh, did you actually read the comment you're responding to? I'm not talking about statistical correlations between legal and criminal habitus. I'm talking about investigating people who gave money to a convicted criminal.

Or do you see no difference at all between buying legal products from some random merchant, and buying legal products from someone whose main revenue stream comes from selling illegal products?

Is it enough for probable cause? I'm inclined to say "no," but I can see the merits of the opposite case as well.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 05:46:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not sure that you had an argument if you could prove that E. knew the site also sold illegal material. I doubt that anyone can.

And please note: I am not arguing that Edathy can't be guilty. I am arguing that there is no evidence for a search warrant or for making the case public. The behaviour of prosecution and judge is outrageous, and I don't want a judiciary like that.

by Katrin on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 05:57:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
or for making the case public

It wasn't the prosecutor or the judge who made it public, in fact the former was shocked that basically all details came out.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Feb 16th, 2014 at 05:08:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then it was the police. The press wasn't present by chance when the search took place. There was a photo of the inside of Edathy's flat published. This isn't an investigation where one or two unfortunate things happened. It is a series of outrageous things violating the rights of the suspect.
by Katrin on Sun Feb 16th, 2014 at 07:04:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That the police would publish it should come as no surprise. They're serial offenders when it comes to strengthening a weak case by whipping up a press lynch mob.

And something really ought to be done about that. Something involving somebody getting fired every time they have one of these "unfortunate leaks."

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Feb 16th, 2014 at 09:30:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series