Talk:Široka Kula massacre

Dane Serdar

If Dane Serdar was tried in absentia, retried and then acquitted because "none of 12 witnesses could confirm" his involvement, that means, by the jurisprudence of any civilised nation, that he is considered exonerated. Am I wrong here?? Quis separabit? 22:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer nor a native speaker of English. If I used a wrong term please change it. The legal system in croatia allows trial in absentia but it also guarantees a new trial if the convicted person requests so immediately upon his/her arrest or extradition (whichever applies) to Croatia. Immediately upon such a request, presiding judge of the court which convicted him/her is legally required to nullify the original trial (or its part pertaining to the individual in question, if more than one person was tried then). If the new trial does not result in a conviction, the individual's criminal record will contain no mention of the conviction made in absentia. Hope the explanation helps to determine which expression is correct here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

"(RSK) police estimated that the bodies of approximately forty Croat civilians were thrown into the pit." (as per ). so if 41 people were killed in the Široka Kula massacre, then only one was a Serb. Therefore shouldn't "some Serbs" (killed) be "one Serb"?? Quis separabit? 22:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Knin District Court (RSK at the time) judge quoted Gračac police report saying "estimated more than 40 bodies of Croats". (Mind you, the report also says that nobody had descended into the pit at the time yet to inspect its contents in 1992 when the report was drawn up.) It is undoubtedly determined that at least four victims were Serbs (Rakić and his three children). The latest count of 41 victims (per cited HRT report) hinges on retrieved bodies (the Golubnjača Pit is quite deep) and witness testimonies because some victims were thrown into burning houses and it is not entirely impossible that the number of victims is final. Also the RSK police clearly says "estimated" which does not really allow one to interpret their statement as "exactly 40". They may have been wrong, there may have been less than 40, and there may have been more than 41 victims overall - The presented info on 41 victims total (including 4 Serbs - Rakić's wife was reportedly a Croat woman) is what reliable sources claim right now. To claim anything beyond that would be WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Široka Kula massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 23:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• No DABs and external links are good.
• Do you know why the one guy who voluntarily returned was acquitted?
  • The source implies the prosecution failed to prove its case. But it does not say how. Croatian legislation grants right of retrial for anyone convicted in absentia as long as they request so upon their arrest. I suspect the original defence attorney (presumably appointed by the court) was not as thorough as the one hired by the defendant - but this is just my guesswork, there's not a peep on what was different between the two trials. I added info that the acquittal was based on lack of evidence presented against the defendant (as noted in the source).--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Clarify that all of the Serbs tried in absentia never served any prison time.
  • Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Any idea why the Serb trial took so long?
  • The trial did not start until 2010 despite the investigation 19 years earlier on. Added info to clarify this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Put English-language titles in title case.
  • Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Otherwise, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. I believe I have addressed the issues you raised here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)