Assange hasn’t been charged with rape, as the High Court recently ruled:

Paragraph 149: “It is clear on the extrinsic evidence that a decision has not been taken to charge him. Under Swedish law the decision will only be made after he has been questioned again. Under Swedish procedure, that decision is made at the conclusion of the investigation and, according to the evidence before the Senior District Judge…”

Paragraph 150: “In our judgment, the fact that under the criminal procedure of Sweden he may be required to answer further questions before a decision is made to charge him or the fact that the full file has not yet been provided is not definitive…”

a hint of wizball in there…

this websites continual attacks on Assange, who lets remember hasn’t been found guily of anything, are pretty stinky.

@1. David Traynier: “Assange hasn’t been charged with rape…”

That is legally true. Assange will be extradited to Sweden to answer questions, the answers to which will determine whether he is charged.

In non-legal English, Assange is evading a charge of rape by his decisions to avoid questions by Swedish investigators.

I kept getting the police officers to thump him. Is that not how you’re supposed to play it?

Charlieman,

Assange and the Ecuadoran Government have made several offers for Assange to be questioned via Skype or in the Ecuadoran embassy. The Swedish authorities have refused to do so, saying only that this would be ‘inappropriate’. There is no reason why they cannot question Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy or via video link. This is allowed under the terms of the Mutual Assistance Framework. Indeed, in 2010 Swedish police officers traveled to Serbia to interview a suspect.

According to the Swedish emeritus Professor of International Law, Ove Bring, there are no legal obstacles to questioning Assange in the UK. Instead, he believes it’s “a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system”. Bring also believes the charges against Assange would probably have to be dropped after any interview since ”the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime”. (http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5235707)

This is a conclusion that looks even more likely if it’s true that the broken condom given to the Swedish authorities by one of the complainants doesn’t actually have any of Assange’s DNA on it (http://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom–report-20120916-260vs.html).

It should also be noted that Assange has already faced questioning once on this -after which the case was dropped.

Personally, I would like to see the Swedish authorities follow past practice and interview Assange in the UK or guarantee that they won’t send him to the US.

First, he cannot trying to evade something that does not exist. He has not been charged, so he is not evading any charges, and even if he had, you cannot evade them since they are not physical; unlike arrest or extradition.

He is avoiding being extradited to Sweden. Although I think he has perfectly good reason to do this, ignore my opinion, consider the opinions of all the Latin American countries that have backed him on this. Yet their opinions are routinely ignored.

I cannot imagine a similar game for Bradley Manning, or Nelson Mandela, it would be deemed bad taste, which is precisely what this one is to anyone who bothers to look into the evidence of the situation it is mocking.

Hundal parading his vacuity again.

@2: “who lets remember hasn’t been found guily of anything”
@5: “he cannot trying to evade something that does not exist.”

Who do you think you are fooling with this silly attempt at legal trickery? Assange hasn’t been found guilty because there’s been no trial yet, because he ran away and then jumped bail. He’s been very active in avoiding justice.

@pjt

Assange did skip bail, that’s undeniable. Many would say he had good reason to do so. It is wrong to say that, before that, he “ran away”.

In 2010, when the investigation waas reinstated, Assange made himself available to answer the allegations for five weeks. After that, he requested – and was granted – permission to leave Sweden. That is not running away.

@pjt

Assange did skip bail -that’s undeniable -although some might argue that he had good reason to do so.

It’s not accurate to say that he ‘ran away’ before this, however. In 2010, after the investigation was reinstated (after being closed on August 21 by the Chief Prosecutor who found the rape allegations to be ‘groundless’), Assange made himself available to answer the allegations for five weeks. He then requested, and was granted, permission to leave Sweden. That is not “running away”.

[7] ‘there’s been no trial yet, because he ran away’ – slippery character assange – manages to evade a manhunt by living in the open for 5 weeks then when he finally goes to the airport he is assisted onto the plane by the swedish secret service.

According to this report, ‘Julian Assange finally made tracks on 27 September 2010. As is known now, he was followed for every footstep by three separate Swedish intelligence agencies: FRA, MUST, and SÄPO. They tracked him to the Arlanda international airport north of Stockholm and grabbed his backpack as soon as he checked in. (The backpack’s never been recovered.)
And in a curious twist, Marianne Ny’s office issued a warrant for Assange a few hours earlier – at 14:15 to be exact.
And in an even curiouser twist, the ensuing alert didn’t stop Assange from leaving. The alert should have gone right to ‘border and customs’ at the airport, yet no one stopped him, and the spooks made back into town with the backpack’.
http://rixstep.com/1/20120903,00.shtml

Sounds like they really wanted to arrest Assange while they had him in Sweden.

David Traynier,

Assange hasn’t been charged with rape, as the High Court recently ruled:

Sunny didn’t claim Assange has been charged with rape.

You cite the High Court, which said,

“Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.”

@David Traynier #8 & 9:

After that, he requested – and was granted – permission to leave Sweden.

Evidence for this assertion please; the story I heard (it’s laid out in the various court judgments) was that he left while his lawyer ran interference for him.

David Traynier,

In 2010, when the investigation waas reinstated, Assange made himself available to answer the allegations for five weeks. After that, he requested – and was granted – permission to leave Sweden. That is not running away.

I’m not sure he was given permission to leave, rather that he was informed there were no legal measures preventing him from leaving – not quite the same thing.

Anyway, there is no evidence when he left, iow how it fits into the timeline of events. But:

” He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.”

“Ms Ny contacted Mr Hurtig and asked to interrogate his client. Mr Hurtig cannot say for certain whether that was on 21st (as Ms Ny says in her written information) or 22nd September. The 28th September was suggested as a date for interrogation. ”

“There is no direct evidence as to when Mr Assange left Sweden. Mr Hurtig says he was told it was on 27th September…”

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

So the prosecutor contacts Assange’s lawyer on 22 September at least, requesting an interiew on 28 September. And Assange leaves Sweden, according to his lawyer, on 27 September.

“Mr Hurtig says he was unable to make direct contact with his client between Ms Ny asking for a interview on 21st or 22nd September and 29th September. By this time he says he client was no longer in Sweden.”

“r Hurtig in an unreliable witness as to what efforts he made to contact his client between 21st, 22nd and 29th September (see transcript pages 122-132). He has no record of those attempts. They were by mobile phone, but he has no record. He cannot recall whether he sent texts or simply left answer-phone messages. ”

To be fair the “unreliable witness” Hurtig may well be telling the truth about his incompetence in regard to his client, and Assange may well have had no idea that the prosecutors wanted to talk to him.

@UKLiberty

Sunny wrote:

“Frustrated that you can’t help Julian Assange while he’s at the Ecuadorian embassy trying to evade charges of rape?”

There are no charges of rape to avoid.

@ 13. Robin Levett

It’s reported here although in Swedish. You can google translate the page, however.

http://www.dn.se/debatt/assange-fick-klartecken-att-lamna-sverige

The relevant passage is:

I ett brev daterat den 14 september 2010 frågar Julian Assanges dåvarande advokat, Björn Hurtig, Marianne Ny om det finns några hinder för Julian Assange att resa utomlands, eftersom Julian har brådskande affärer där. I en skrivelse den 24 november 2010 från Marianne Ny till Svea hovrätt skriver hon följande:

”…i svaret till advokat Hurtig om det fanns några lagliga hinder för Julian Assange att lämna Sverige svarade jag att det inte fanns det.”

In a letter dated September 14, 2010 asking Julian Assange’s former lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, Marianne Ny if there are no obstacles for Julian Assange to travel abroad, as Julian has urgent business there. In a letter dated 24 november 2010 from Marianne Ny, the Svea Court of Appeal, she writes the following:

“… In answer to the lawyer Hurtig if there were no legal obstacles for Julian Assange to leave Sweden I replied that there was not that.”

So, basically, Assange -or his representative- asked the appropriate authorities if there was any legal reason why he should not leave and they said ‘no’. To say that this is the not the same as giving permission is quibbling over semantics. Saying that one has no reason to detain someone amounts to permission to leave by any reasonable interpretation.

@David Traynier #14:

You are aware that 14 November 2010 was nearly 7 weeks after Assange left Sweden?

My apologies; #16 should read:

You are aware that 24 November 2010 was over 8 weeks after Assange left Sweden?

Just to drive the point home – your claim was that he was “granted permission to leave Sweden”. Are you suggesting that on 27 September 2010 he was aware that nearly 8 weeks later the prosecutor would acknowledge that he was free to leave as the situation stood at the time of his departure (which is somewhat different to giving permission)?

Semantic quibbles aside, his lawyer was informed on 15 September that there were no measures preventing Assange leaving Sweden. On 21/22 September, his lawyer was informed that the prosecutor wanted to interview Assange on 28 September. Apparently Assange left the country on 27 September.

“It’s not accurate to say he ran away…”

It must be a close thing between Scientologists and Assangists as to who patrols the net with the most paranoia.

Robin @17, I think something has been lost in translation.

I think the dn.se article says Ny told Svea Court of Appeal that she told Hurtig in response to his letter on 14 September there were no legal obstacles to Assange leaving the country.

“On 15th September Ms Ny told him there were no “force measures” preventing Julian leaving the country.”
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html (Westminister Magistrates’ Court)

On 24 November Svea Court of Appeal considered Assange’s appeal against “an order of the Stockholm District Court made on 18 November 2010 that Mr Assange should be arrested in absentia.”
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html (High Court)

Google Translate isn’t great, you can get the gist but can’t rely on it.

[20] I think paranoia might have been reduced significantly had the swedish authorities not acted so exceptionally in this case.

From the very outset when the first prosecutor leaked allegations of sex crimes to the MSM, to assange not being detained by spooks when he flew out of the country on 27th September despite a recently issued warrant.

Of course secret service agents confiscated assange’s computer at the airport, presumably to see if there was anything incriminating on it (such as visits to porn sites, etc) – what a coup that would have been, eh – assange caught red handed trawling sites reeking of sexual impropriety.

There is simply no equivalent case on record that measures up to the way assange has been treated, from the outrageous mismanagement of the investigation, heavy handed use of a EAW, solitary confinement, and then house arrest in the UK, to the current unappetising siege of the bolivian embassy.

What a fantastic message regarding diplomatic immunity that sends out – stationing half of the british police force around a small country’s embassy.

And now we hear the first complainant presented a sperm free condom to the police (which some have claimed was no more than a ruse to allow Nye to revisit the case).
http://rt.com/news/assange-condom-no-dna-277/

Given the extraordinary interest, and international scrutiny how, or perhaps more importantly, why, did complainant ‘A’ produce a condom which did not contain assange’s DNA?

Yes, assange can certainly expect exactly the same treatment as any other alleged rapist if returned to sweden.

I’ve tried the game but it skips the first level where I’m supposed to assault someone in their sleep.

I’ll stick to Grand Theft Auto, thanks.

a&e,

There is simply no equivalent case on record that measures up to the way assange has been treated, from the outrageous mismanagement of the investigation, heavy handed use of a EAW, solitary confinement, and then house arrest in the UK, to the current unappetising siege of the bolivian embassy.

Why are the police laying siege to the Bolivian embassy? Who is in there?

There is, of course, no siege at all – this is melodrama propagated by his supporters.

As for solitary confinement: ‘”Nonces” are traditionally targets of physical abuse from their prison inmates, and so usually go on Rule 45 (formerly Rule 43), the rule that enables the segregation of vulnerable prisoners from the other prisoners for their own safety.’

Or he was given the luxury of his own cell.

As for house arrest: what house arrest?

No equivalent case? A number of EAWs have been issued for alleged sexual offences. But AFAIK no-one subject to the EAW is (a) someone in the public eye like Assange or (b) sought asylum in a foreign embassy.

And normally AFAIK they are carted straight to a cell, they are not given the best legal representation at the hearing, and are then delivered immediately to the requesting country.

I remember the Anti-Bush game from 2004, which was a side scrolling shooter/platformer.
Clearly didn’t change owt.
It doesn’t help that Bradley Manning would have been a far more suitable contender for protagonist than Julian, given that Wikileaks essentially fulfils the role the news media is supposed to fill, till it discovered that nodding along to the government and printing heaps of celeb shite makes it far more money for less effort, so Julian is more editor than whistleblower.
Then there’s the whole rape contention as well!

Also, I’m pretty sure if your aim is to make games as a form of serious journalism, then wouldn’t a point and click adventure/puzzle game be more suitable than a platformer?

[24] name one single case with such flimsy prima facie evidence, and serial official blunderings prior to it’s issue.

Each new development in the story points to assange being treated in a highly exceptional way.

‘Luxury of his own cell’ – now you are starting to sound like a daily mail churno!

a&e,

[24] name one single case with such flimsy prima facie evidence, and serial official blunderings prior to it’s issue.

In response to a similar comment from you along these lines in an older thread, I posted a list of 21 EAW cases about sexual offences, including one where the alleged offence took place 27 years before this decision was handed down:

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/783.html

There is nothing unusual about EAWs for sexual offences. There is nothing unusual about official ‘blunderings’ (if indeed there were any in thi case).

Each new development in the story points to assange being treated in a highly exceptional way.

You haven’t studied EAWs or the previous system, so you have no real idea whether it’s exceptional or not (I don’t either, but I’m not making the claim). So why do you have that opinion?

What does seem exceptional is that he was allowed to argue his case all the way to the Supreme Court, with the benefit of the best legal representation, as well as bail provided by his supporters.

‘Luxury of his own cell’ – now you are starting to sound like a daily mail churno!

I think I’d rather have a cell to myself. And if he was attacked by other prisoners or forced to share a cell with some broken-nosed, drug addicted, murdering giant, I suppose you wouldn’t complain about that. You wouldn’t write,

“There is simply no equivalent case on record that measures up to the way assange has been treated, from the outrageous mismanagement of the investigation, heavy handed use of a EAW, confinement with common criminals in cramped and overcrowded jail, and then house arrest in the UK, to the current unappetising siege of the bolivian embassy.”

[27] thanks for the link UKL, but you seem to misunderstood the point I am making – I am not arguing that EAWs have not been issued for sex cases, I am saying that it is an abuse when they are issued on such flimsy prima facie evidence.
I have heard it said that no comparable case exits (although maybe somebody can disprove this claim) – obviously I have not read the judgements on every EAW ever issued for alleged sex crimes.

Of course the EAW would never have been needed in the first place without some grade A bungling – let’s not forget, the police interviewed assange and had more than enough time to round him up when he was still in sweden (if they really wanted to).

Forget all the cloak & dagger nonsense about Hurtig, no criminal investigation, certainly not one so serious that an international warrant becomes necessary, should rely on the whims of the accused’s lawyer, or the ability to deal with a mobile phone.

And as we now know the spooks were more interested in assange’s computer than detaining assange when waving him goodbye at the airport.

I mean what have the swede’s got – certainly not any dna to corroborate the first complainants allegations about a split condom.
The 2nd complainant did produce a condom containing assange’s dna, but she did not complain of rape, and in fact seemed unaware that she had been raped until instructed by her lawyer (if we take the various transcripts and purported statements at face value).

Now given the gross mishandling of the case, and of course the absence of any convincing evidence one might have thought Nye, or one of her team would have taken the trouble to visit London to conduct further interviews to establish if there was indeed a case to answer (an arrangement acceptable to assange) – but no, Nye insisted on the EAW route, so here we are with the Met clocking up hours of overtime, while britain runs the risk of tarnishing the importance of diplomatic immunity.

I wonder if these various elements are included in the electronic game – such as an option to storm the bolivian embassy?

@a&ecn #22:

Not again.

assange not being detained by spooks when he flew out of the country on 27th September despite a recently issued warrant.

Give it a rest; Ny had only decided to arrest him on that day.

There is simply no equivalent case on record that measures up to the way assange has been treated, from the outrageous mismanagement of the investigation, heavy handed use of a EAW, solitary confinement, and then house arrest in the UK, to the current unappetising siege of the bolivian embassy.

The EAW was the only way to get Assange back to face the charges, as his subsequent conduct proves.

He wasn’t placed in solitary confinement.

He wasn’t placed under house arrest.

The Ecuadorian (not Bolivian) embassy has not been besieged.

@a&ecn #28:

Now given the gross mishandling of the case, and of course the absence of any convincing evidence one might have thought Nye, or one of her team would have taken the trouble to visit London to conduct further interviews to establish if there was indeed a case to answer (an arrangement acceptable to assange)

Could you provide a full list of crimes and, perhaps more importantly, potential Defendants where the investigation is improper unless made in circumstances and on terms acceptable to the potential Defendant? Is the list any longer than “rape” and Julien Assange”?

@UKL #21:

Thanks – that’ll teach me I really should go back to as primary sources as possible.

[29] ‘Ny had only decided to arrest him on that day’ – yes, what a coincidence, the very day assange just happened to be at the airport with several branches of the secret service monitoring his every move.

Of course it would have been expecting too much for the spooks to detain him – anyway, it sounds like they were too busy checking out what sites assange had visited on his laptop, perhaps hoping to find the kind of material that would have excited right wing hawks.

You then say – ‘Could you provide a full list of crimes and, perhaps more importantly, potential Defendants where the investigation is improper unless made in circumstances and on terms acceptable to the potential Defendant? – yes, that’s easy, cases with virtually no prima facie evidence and a series of procedural disasters that make a mockery of the phrase ‘police investigation’ – will that do?

Where has this three security services followed him to the airport claim cone from? Beyond Rixstep, I mean.

Jesus. The point is that they didn’t decide to arrest him until they learned from Hurricane that he couldn’t contact his client. Until that point they were satisfied to agree with him a mutually convenient date for interview. Check the short timeline I posted above.

It isn’t immediately suspicious to me that the security services didn’t arrest him, assuming they were following him; there wasn’t an arrest warrant at that point, and they might not even have the power of arrest, our MI5 doesn’t.

“On 27th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested ” – agreed facts, supreme court

@aecn 32:

yes, that’s easy, cases with virtually no prima facie evidence and a series of procedural disasters that make a mockery of the phrase ‘police investigation’ – will that do?

Well, the first condition means Assange gets no say, of course…

Are you really going to persist with this claim that any potential Defendant is entitled to set the terms of investigation of his alleged crime? Really?

[35] you don’t make it easy, do you, robin?
I am not suggesting that defendants should set their own agenda – I am suggesting that instruments like the EAW should be used proportionately – this would mean having stuff like meaningful evidence to back up it’s use.

Needless to say dna free condoms do not count – any thoughts on this claim by the way?

@a&ecn #36:

you don’t make it easy, do you, robin?

That’s not my objective; I’m fed up with all the special pleading going in in defence of Saint Julien.

I am not suggesting that defendants should set their own agenda – I am suggesting that instruments like the EAW should be used proportionately – this would mean having stuff like meaningful evidence to back up it’s use.

And the EAW has been used proportionately in Saint Julien’s case. We don’t know the full extent of the evidence available to the prosecutor, although it’s true that the blessed one’s lawyers have released at least some of it into the public domain. We do know that both complainants have made statements that, if accepted as true, would be enough to convict him on several counts of rape.

You argue that he was entitled to insist upon being interviewed by videolink, which he was prepared to do, and not by his returning to Sweden, which he was not prepared to do. What is that but setting the terms of the investigation?

a&e,

I have heard it said that no comparable case exits (although maybe somebody can disprove this claim) – obviously I have not read the judgements on every EAW ever issued for alleged sex crimes.

What have you “heard said”, precisely? That EAWs are not issued on the essentially because someone made a serious complaint about another person? Well, I showed you that is untrue, and we are talking about an offence over two decades old, which speaks to your angle about the flimsiness of evidence.

@32. the a&e charge nurse: “Of course it would have been expecting too much for the spooks to detain him – anyway, it sounds like they were too busy checking out what sites assange had visited on his laptop, perhaps hoping to find the kind of material that would have excited right wing hawks.”

This is a new claim to me. Do you have any sources, please?

Incidentally, it sounds bizarre to me that any computer forensics investigator would expect to find anything during a cursory examination of Assange’s laptop. We can assume that Assange would have encrypted his home directory — standard minimum practice — and if any examination took place, it would have been a misguided attempt to spook Assange.

[39] Charlieman – see @11

UKL @38 – I do not have an unimpeachable source, while any opinion piece suggesting as much will no doubt be dismissed by you as pro-assangist.

Robin @37 – why are you bad mouthing assange?
By all means criticise me, or my comments about the case, but surely we can at least agree that assange remains innocent until proven guilty?

@26. the a&e charge nurse: “Each new development in the story points to assange being treated in a highly exceptional way.”

Every way we turn, those of us who believe that Assange is being treated fairly face a new challenge.

When resident in Sweden, Assange was released following questions because no decision to prosecute him had been made: this is allegedly evidence that Swedish investigators did not take the allegations seriously. The other option would have been to incarcerate Assange in order to question him later: would you wish that everyone who needs to answer questions is banged up?

When resident in Sweden, Assange was allowed to keep his passport and no migration block was ordered: again, this is allegedly evidence that Swedish investigators did not take the allegations seriously. If Assange had been denied exit from Sweden, the argument would have been that the case had been pre-judged.

In those two examples, Swedish authorities made decisions because they trusted Assange. They believed his promises to attend investigative interviews. An awful lot of what follows is the consequence of Assange failing to meet his promises.

Plus his grandstanding at the first EAW hearing — where do you live? — which was almost guaranteed to send him to clink. There are thousands of career criminals on bail today because they listened to their lawyers and chose not to piss off the bench.

—
With patience, it would be possible to draw a flow chart from the arguments presented by Assangists. At every point at a diamond question, with three possible outcomes, Assangists have a response to all of the Yes/No/Undetermined options.

Validity or pertinence of the response is irrelevant. Assangists require us to turn circles around a flow chart diamond, and when they lose the argument they present a new diamond to run around.

This is clever debate technique but it does not allow Assangists to deny the fundamental: Assange is not a man of his word.

a&e,

UKL @38 – I do not have an unimpeachable source, while any opinion piece suggesting as much will no doubt be dismissed by you as pro-assangist.

Why don’t you just post it so we can all make our own minds up?

(42) UKL – points 16-19
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opinion-Sven-Erik-Alhem

Having now played the damn game it’s even worse than I thought, it doesn’t really get it’s point across all that well, the ‘game’ isn’t really related to what it’s trying to say at all. I’m not sure how they thought this would raise awareness of the dangers of challenging power by leaking. “The Assangenist plays like a poor man’s version of Super Mario Bros.” Is unfortunately apt, it doesn’t even use the game as an excuse to shoehorn in exposition.

Meanwhile, web games like defend the land, which is a critique of the essentialist standards of the michigan womyn’s music festival where transwomen are not welcome, hammer their point across very quickly and decidedly. I also recommend the UNHCR’s refugee games which put the players in the shoes of a refugee fleeing from tragedy in their home nation by asking them to make the choices that someone fleeing would be forced to make. Rather than say, jumping on the heads of coppers. (I should note that ‘go to the UNHCR refugee camp and claim to be a refugee’ when the option comes up tends to always be the path to the ‘happy ending’, so, political games contain bias shock.)

@40. the a&e charge nurse: “Charlieman – see @1″

Err, yes. There is a link to http://rixstep.com/1/20120903,00.shtml which contains some unusual claims.

“They [special agents!] tracked him to the Arlanda international airport north of Stockholm and grabbed his backpack as soon as he checked in. (The backpack’s never been recovered.)”

“A member of that congregation was thought to have revealed why the police were really there, and forwarded this information to Julian Assange, who was delayed because of the theft of his three computers at the Swedish airport the previous week.”

We are assumed to believe that a computer engineer who designed a system for distributing data anonymously across the internet was encumbered by the loss of a computer? We should assume that in order to defeat Assange special agents! will crack the encryption algorithms that they use in their daily business? There is no “government key” to open encrypted data unless it is planted, and I assume that Assange would make a sensible choice about how to encrypt his data.

This thing about three laptops is another example of grandstanding. You only need one computer, one terminal, in order to connect to thousands of others. The essential stuff will be in Assange’s head — the passwords that allow him to jump from one server to another.

But loss of computers doesn’t matter.

If Assange is as brilliant or competent as proclaimed, nothing can be found from lost or stolen computers. If he loses a PC, the consideration is “who pays for the new one”.

@a&ecn #40:

why are you bad mouthing assange?

I’m not. The reference to Saint Julien is to the way that you put him on a pedestal upon which you would not put anyone else accused of rape.

By all means criticise me, or my comments about the case, but surely we can at least agree that assange remains innocent until proven guilty?

We can agree that; but you come across as if, he is proven guilty, you will still protest his innocence and claim that he was framed by the USA.

#43:

Do remember that Alhem was given incorrect information by the defence team. This is part of the account given by the District Judge of Alhem’s oral evidence before him:

He made it clear that the statement of Ms Ny does not correspond with the information he had been given by Mr Hurtig. Ms Ny “is allowed to seek an EAW – there is no doubt about that”. On the account given by Ms Ny it would have been a reasonable reaction to apply for an EAW. “Certainly, I would have done the same myself”.

Note the part I have italicised.

We know from the English Court judgments that several of the witnesses called by Assange’s lawyers had prepared their written evidence on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the facts. It is to the judgments that you must look to see what they said once they had been apprised of he facts – and Alhem’s evidence there was unequivocal – if things had happened the way Ny said they had happened, he too would have sought an EAW.

(42) UKL – points 16-19
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opinion-Sven-Erik-Alhem

That’s about the issue of proportionality, not your claim that there is “no comparable case”, which was what I asked you to support. We would learn in the hearing that this defence witness Alhem was misled by Assange’s lawyer Hurtig about the case. We’ve been over this so many times! Why do you persist in repeating it?

Sven-Eric Alhem emphasised the imperative for an early interview with the suspect of a rape allegation. He said that if it was not possible to hold an early interrogation hearing than he too would have issued an EAW. Again his expert opinion is based on facts that in the event were wrongly stated. He had not been told of the efforts made by Ms Ny to arrange an interview in September. He told me that on the account given by Ms Ny it would have been a reasonable reaction to apply for EAW. first extradition hearing before Westminster Magistrates’ Court, my emphasis. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

We’re playing a game called Whack-A-Myth, where the same myths keep popping up on screen and we have to whack them away over and over again.

[46] I do not put assange on a pedestal as you claim (reverting to your religious analogies again, I see). In fact, I had no particular feelings about assange one way or the other, at least to begin with (although I am pro-wikileaks).

The basic problem for me is that the reported facts, or the story if you like, does not stack up (the deleted tweets, the post assault partying, the absence of a specific allegation that rape took place, the dna free condom, etc).

Obviously the likes of you, UKL & Charlieman see it differently, but doesn’t it bother you slightly that the EAW was issued following an investigation that has been improperly conducted – I mean how can we know what was truly said if the interviews with the complainants were not even recorded?

@a&ecn #48:

Obviously the likes of you, UKL & Charlieman see it differently, but doesn’t it bother you slightly that the EAW was issued following an investigation that has been improperly conducted – I mean how can we know what was truly said if the interviews with the complainants were not even recorded?

Let’s get this straight; are you saying that the complainants were verballed? That they signed statements that did not reflect the evidence that they gave to the police?

@a&ecn #48:

..and, just to clarify; I am more bothered about the repeated misrepresentation of the facts and the law, and the blatant special pleading, indulged in by the Assangistas. If you want me to believe that there is something to be worried about in the taking of the complainant’s statements, give me chapter and verse that does not emanate from that sources.

@47. ukliberty: “We’re playing a game called Whack-A-Myth, where the same myths keep popping up on screen and we have to whack them away over and over again.”

All we have to hit them are facts and evidence. What we can’t change is the wall of pseudo knowledge that denies facts and evidence.

When evidence demonstrates that I am wrong, I acknowledge it. My mistaken belief does not mean that I am an idiot, just that I am a normal frail human being.

[47] yes and we even have to whack away each new one as it emerges.

For some people until a judge says so it never happened.

[49] the second complainant did not sign her police statement at all.

Meanwhile another myth to swat
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/17/assange_case_police_report/

@a&ecn:

Is it then your contention that Assange’s UK legal team is grossly incompetent?

A couple of curious things about the Register article posted by A&E @54: one, it cites a Daily Mail article based on a 100 page PDF that found its way on to the Internet in February 2011, so quite why they chose to run a story about it on 16 September 2012, I don’t know. The other curious thing is how the report found its way to the Internet. The copy I have (downloaded from wlcentral.org) says on the first page,

Dear Jennifer [Robinson, Assange's legal adviser in UK],

On request from my client Mr Julian Assange, I hereby send You the following documents. Please notice that the documents are legally privileged information for Mr Julian Assange and nobody else.[signed Bjorn Hurtig, his Swedish lawyer]

I have also seen a copy without that first page, which was published by Nordic News Network.

Well, that’s by the by, what what does the report say? It’s in Swedish, so god knows. But apparently it says that the test they ran wasn’t sensitive enough to identify DNA from the condom due to its condition. The person talking about the test says he is going to send it off for another test, which will take two weeks.

So the problem for the Register, Daily Mail, A&E, and everyone else who says, “Aha! No DNA” appears to be that this 100 page PDF found its way to the Internet before those two weeks were up.

And the story goes that mitochondrial DNA was found by that second test.

Myth swatted?

In any case, it remains that the proper venue for such arguments is at a criminal trial in Sweden, not on the Internet or at extradition hearings.

[54] ‘Is it then your contention that Assange’s UK legal team is grossly incompetent’ – no, I just think it goes to show that the intentionality of a instrument like the EAW and it’s actual application do not always match up in the real world (yes, I know there are counter arguments, and some that regard it’s use here as perfectly appropriate).

I know at one point UKL was wavering about whether or not the standard of evidence should be tested more thoroughly in a british court before authorising extradition (I think it was in the context of pending extraditions to the USA).

[55] this debate has never been about a single, deal breaking piece of evidence – it is the sum of them, especially the processes surrounding them.
Maybe there are very good reasons why dna cannot be found in a condom recently ejeculated into – the story here seems to be that assange tore the end of the condom mid-sex, the couple carried on despite this, after ejeculating the woman then saved the condom before producing it post kray fish party – I mean who ask questions about something like that, eh?

You still seem reticent to swat away the ‘myth’ about the improperly conducted police interview, or the fact that the second complainant did not sign her police statement.

If you do not want to answer those questions could you least take a guess as to why, after being sexually assaulted by assange woman A did not take it upon herself to warn the second complainant (when assange was making a play for her) that he had acted in the way that he had acted?

@a&ecn #57:

So:

1 You consider that there are issues, such as signatures to the witness statements, that have a fundamental bearing on the extent to which the statements can be relied upon;

2 Assange’s UK legal team, despite asking the Divisional Court to go behind the wording of the warrant and consider the statements supporting it, and despite advancing arguments based upon pretty close examination of that wording, did not rely in argument on one of the statements being unsigned – didn;t even mention it, so far as I can see.

If then you are correct that the issue is an important one, Assange’s legal team was incompetent for not picking it up and raising it with the Divisional Court. If however they are not incompetent, which is your expressed belief, then they correctly disagree with you as to the existence/importance of this issue.

It’s make your mind up time; is the issue important (legal team incompetent); or are the legal team competent(issue unimportant)? The clock is running.

@a&ecn #57 (again):

<blockquote.Maybe there are very good reasons why dna cannot be found in a condom recently ejeculated into

This rather illustrates UKL’s point. He’s just gfinished telling you that upon use of a more sensitive test, Assange’s DNA was apparently found; so why are you still advancing an argument reliant upon it not being there?

Let’s try that again:

@a&ecn #57 (again):

Maybe there are very good reasons why dna cannot be found in a condom recently ejeculated into

This rather illustrates UKL’s point. He’s just finished telling you that upon use of a more sensitive test, Assange’s DNA was apparently found; so why are you still advancing an argument reliant upon it not being there?

[58] ‘If however they are not incompetent, which is your expressed belief, then they correctly disagree with you as to the existence/importance of this issue’ – the significance of this strand is context dependent.

The absence of a signature, just like the absence of a tape recorder, or the absence of proper procedure when police interviews were being conducted were not sufficient grounds to stop the EAW from being authorised – but if the case is tried in a swedish court then I assume the defence team will enquire as to why the second complainant did not wish to sign the statement, just as there will be questions about the quality of police interviews (such as lack of a verbatim transcript).

In no small measure the credibility of this case rests on what people are alleged to have said, especially given the paucity of forensic evidence contradicting the accused’s version of events – yet there is not even a definitive record of the complainant’s story, just a narrative written up by a female police officer who had been friends with complainant A for 2 years.

Of course in some people’s minds these elements are just myths – I look forward to more desperate swatting.

[59] did the collection of evidence comply with even basic procedures, or was the condom self produced days or even weeks after the event (maybe there was even some sort of condom exchange scheme when the two women met up before going to the police).

‘At the crime scene, investigators should make every effort to locate any used condom and its foil package. If a condom is recovered, the traces from the victim on the outside and the seminal fluids from the assailant on the inside would have the greatest evidentiary value. If investigators find an empty condom packet, they first should try to recover any latent prints from the outside. The inside of the package probably will not contain prints, but may contain lubricant, spermicide, and particulate residues. Investigators should wipe the inside with a clean cotton swab. The traces on this swab will serve as the standard for comparison with traces recovered from the victim and the suspect’ – did any of this happen?
http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/forensic-science-a-csi/trace-a-dna/22-condom-trace-evidence-a-new-factor-in-sexual-assault-investigations

Does it sound credible that a woman could be sexually assaulted, save the torn condom used in the assault, go to a crayfish party with the alleged assailant, then attend further social events with him before finally going to the police some time later but only after comparing notes with another woman, who despite attracting the interest of assange, was not warned about his history of (alleged) sexual violence.

Mitochondrial dna – what a joke.

a&e,

You still seem reticent to swat away the ‘myth’ about the improperly conducted police interview, or the fact that the second complainant did not sign her police statement.

I don’t know anything about those two things other than what is claimed by Assange’s supporters, who don’t seem to have a good run of it in the things I’ve bothered to look into. Such information seems to be based on an out-of-date document apparently leaked by the defence to the internet. But sure, I’ll go look into that.

“You mean, you won’t just believe my claim that I haven’t supported?”

No, sorry but I won’t just believe it.

Why do the three Swedish courts uphold the arrest warrant and say there is probable cause (iow a reasonable belief ta crime was committed)? What issues did they raise with the evidence? Tell us.

[63] for the final time this not about being ‘an assange supporter’ such labels are used to avoid deflect attention away from the credibility of the accusations being made.

Even if we ignore the fact the US would very much like to provide assange with his own version of the bradley manning experience many commentators simply cannot make sense of the version of events put forward by the complainants, and are certainly raising eye brows about the alleged handling of the case – from action being taken against the first prosecutor (whose name escapes me) for making inappropriate disclosures to the MSM, to other purported anomalies which have already discussed at length.

yes, here we are, ‘Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand was the prosecutor on duty on Friday evening. She’s now under investigation by the justice ombudsman. Kjellstrand is the one who issued a top priority arrest warrant for Julian Assange.
Kjellstrand didn’t arrive at her crucial decision after due process. She didn’t even review the police report. All she did was talk to a member of the police department about it – she never bothered to look at the report.
The prosecutor’s office will never reveal the identity of a suspect to the public. And they didn’t this time either. But Expressen somehow got wind of the case and rang up the prosecutor’s office and asked if Julian Assange had been arrested.
The prosecutor on duty was the same Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand. She verified Julian Assange was in fact being sought (‘hunted’) for rape. But Expressen already had the whole story – they only asked her to corroborate’.

The first prosecutors being investigated by the ombudsman – not exactly an ideal procedural start, is it?
http://rixstep.com/1/20100822,00.shtml

a&e, let us look at the complaints you raise in this thread alone:

dealt with in previous threads on LibCon:

house arrest: false
solitary confinement: presumably rule 45, i.e. normal
surrounding the BolivianEcuadorian embassy with half the British police force: there are five police officers in front of the embassy
Assange was treated exceptionally badly: on the contrary, he was treated with exceptional civility
first prosecutor leaked sex crimes to MSM: no evidence the prosecutor leaked it
no equivalent case: no support for the claim; 2mins with BAILII to find 21 EAW cases about sexual offences in the last year or so alone (these are the ones that made it past the first extradition hearing, not all EAWs)
EAW is disproportionate: three UK courts say it isn’t
defence witness Alhem: points based on his witness statement for the first extradition hearing, in the hearing it was established he had been misled by Assange’s lawyer Hurtig and wasn’t aware of all facts
deleted tweets: a question for the criminal trial
post assault partying: a question for the criminal trial
absence of a specific allegation rape took place: the word rape isn’t required to allege rape; description of conduct that constitutes rape is required

new arguments (iirc):

three security services followed Asange to airport: no credible evidence to support this; regardless, no argument as to why this should be an obstacle to his extradition
suspicious they didn’t arrest him at airport: No discussion of their powers of arrest; there was no arrest warrant at this time
no DNA in condom: based on out-of-date document given to defence; no information on second test

—

11 old arguments that have been dealt with and amount to nothing.

3 new arguments, one that is based on out-of-date information, two that need fleshing out, if we’re kind.

a&e,

The prosecutor’s office will never reveal the identity of a suspect to the public. And they didn’t this time either. But Expressen somehow got wind of the case and rang up the prosecutor’s office and asked if Julian Assange had been arrested.
The prosecutor on duty was the same Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand. She verified Julian Assange was in fact being sought (‘hunted’) for rape. But Expressen already had the whole story – they only asked her to corroborate’.

Two points:

1. I already agreed in principle the prosecutor shouldn’t have confirmed the story.

2. More importantly for me, how did Expressen already have the whole story? You appear to assume absent evidence that the police or prosecution told them.

we can add this to new arguments if you like. Four new arguments then; three that need fleshing out.

oh sorry, it isn’t a new one, it’s an old one already in my list.

Three new arguments; two that need fleshing out; one is out-of-date therefore amounts to nowt.

@a&ecn #65:

Your cite is from rixstep; can we have something rather more solid to go on?

Having said that:

Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand was the prosecutor on duty on Friday evening. She’s now under investigation by the justice ombudsman.

Has anyone introduced you to the idea that being under investigation isn’t the same thing as being guilty?

In any event, we know where the complaint came from – Johann Binninge.

eg:
http://www.skandinaviflorida.com/web/sif.nsf/d6plinks/JEIE-88KFY2

Kjellstrand is the one who issued a top priority arrest warrant for Julian Assange.

Which was countermanded by Finné the next day. Ny was the one who issued the relevant arrest warrant for Assange, after she had re-opened the investigation, reviewed the evidence, and given Assange a chance to make good his lawyer’s assurance he would appear for interview.

Oh, by the way; do you still say that the Swedes should have arrested him immediately? Because that is part of what Kjellstrand is criticised for.

[68] I honestly think you should let others to decide how well anomalies, or concerns about the case have been dealt with – as it is it sounds like you are congratulating yourself for reiterating the official line.

It is the cumulative effect of these discrepancies allied to the way the allegations emerged that keep nagging at those who feel the reason for this case is primarily to discredit assange, and by extension wikileaks, rather than convict, or extradite him.
The motives for such manouvres can only be speculated about, but may involve right wing elements in europe and of course in the US.

Providing his defense lawyer is not heavily intoxicated I do not see how a meaningful case can be made against assange once his team are free to cross examine the evidence (what little of it there seems to be).
If he does end up sweden I think it is most likely asssange will be kept in solitary for as long as possible before charges against him are eventually dropped without ever going to court.

@a&ecn #71:

<blockquote.The motives for such manouvres can only be speculated about, but may involve right wing elements in europe and of course in the US.

Right-wing elements like the left wing Marianne Ny, who personally decided to re-open the investigation, you mean? The Marianne Ny who was criticised by an Assange witness for being too wedded to Social Democratic party principles?

If he does end up sweden I think it is most likely asssange will be kept in solitary for as long as possible before charges against him are eventually dropped without ever going to court.

You might think that; but Swedish law requires that the trial commence within 2 weeks of charge if the Defendant is in custody and that it thereafter proceed without adjournment. It’s all the the English judgments (see in particular on this the DJ decision); when are you going to read them?

[68] I honestly think you should let others to decide how well anomalies, or concerns about the case have been dealt with – as it is it sounds like you are congratulating yourself for reiterating the official line.

It is the cumulative effect of these discrepancies allied to the way the allegations emerged that keep nagging at those who feel the reason for this case is primarily to discredit assange, and by extension wikileaks, rather than convict, or extradite him.

The value of each of your complaints in the list has turned out to be zero, and the sum of any number of zeroes is zero.

You’re saying, there are so many complaints that there must be something to it. I think Cylux in previous threads pointed out this is called throwing spaghetti at the wall with the hope something sticks.

And we’ve been cleaning the spaghetti off the wall but then you get the spaghetti out of the bin and chuck it on the wall again.

That’s what my list is about. I think I should have created it sooner.

[72] ‘when are you going to read them’ – when am I going to read them, I seem to remember it was you asking questions (and asking more than once) about who first made disclosures to the MSM about the allegations.

The answer was in the same judgement you now refer me to!
Whats up, can’t you remember every line off by heart – after all, its only 16,000 words (or something like that).

Now, you say that the trial must commence within two weeks of charges being made, but you make no mention of remand.
As I’m sure you already know there is no maximum period of pre-trial detention in Sweden. Guidelines suggest that an individual cannot be held for longer than the length of sentence they are likely to receive (which I think is 4 years for so called ‘minor’ rape).

It is likely that Assange will be held in isolation and barred from communicating with anyone other than his lawyers. He may be subjected to a range of restrictions such as:
*isolation: meaning that he is held in his cell for up to 23 hours a day;
*no visits from anyone other than his lawyer or a priest;
*restrictions on phone calls and written correspondence;
*limited contact with other detainees; and
*lack of access to newspapers, radio and television.

There has been international criticism of these conditions. The Council of Europe has reported ongoing concerns about remand conditions in Sweden and that many people feel that they are
prevented from contacting family members to ‘break’ them.
(Report to the Swedish Government on the visit to Sweden carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 9 to 18 June 2009, 11 December 2009, p.25).

Continue to discount the possibility of US influence if it makes you happy.

{73) ‘The value of each of your complaints in the list has turned out to be zero’ – then why has it exercised you so much, eh?

And still not willing to comment on the lack of a verbatim transcript I see, or the fact that the interview was carried out by a friend of one of the complainant, and not only that but carried out when both women were in the room together.

Perhaps you accidentally missed these points of your list.

*adds to the list: kept indefinitely in solitary in Sweden, false has to be tried in two weeks; Marianne Ny is right-wing, false she’s a lefty*

Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand was the prosecutor on duty on Friday evening. She’s now under investigation by the justice ombudsman.Out-of-date information, investigation dropped.

page 16
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48534586/Witness-Statement-of-Bjorn-Hurtig-Exhibit-BH-1

Added to list.

And still not willing to comment on the lack of a verbatim transcript I see, or the fact that the interview was carried out by a friend of one of the complainant, and not only that but carried out when both women were in the room together.

Perhaps you accidentally missed these points of your list.

I’m waiting for you to support your claims about those issues.

As I recall, the “both women in same room” claim is false.

But give us a cite eh?

A&e @74, please make clear what you copy+paste from other documents and provide a link so we can read the originals, otherwise it makes you appear to be a bullshitter. In this case, you appear to have copied something by Fair Trials International, but inadvertently neglected to cite it, specifically:

there is no maximum period of pre-trial detention in Sweden. Guidelines suggest that an individual cannot be held for longer than the length of sentence they are likely to receive [etc]

http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/Sweden_QA.pdf

(70) ‘Oh, by the way; do you still say that the Swedes should have arrested him immediately? Because that is part of what Kjellstrand is criticised for’ – look, this debate is now descending into petty point scoring.

Lets imagine assange had pinned a woman to the bed at knife point – do you think he would have been flying out of sweden 7 weeks later while prosecutor Ny was furiously trying to text his lawyer?

Of course not, the lax, and largely incompetent investigation was driven by the fact the women’s version of events were not sufficiently compelling for the authorities to act decisively at an early stage.

Once word circulated that the leader of wikileaks was embroiled in a sex scandal other forces came to bear – that is my belief, anyway, although I understand others have drawn very different conclusion.

@a&ecn #74:

‘when are you going to read them’ – when am I going to read them, I seem to remember it was you asking questions (and asking more than once) about who first made disclosures to the MSM about the allegations.

The answer was in the same judgement you now refer me to!

You’ll have to help me. The DJ’s decision records Alhem as sayign that “The prosecution should not have confirmed to the media that Mr Asange was considered a likely
suspect of rape. That disclosure was unlawful.”

He also records the defence’s closing submission that: “There was an unlawful prosecution disclosure to the media on 20th August 2010 that Mr Assange was the suspect in a rape investigation.”

which refers back to Alhem’s claim that the prosecutor confirmed facts stated to her were true. The judgment does not record who allegedly made the original disclosure.

As for the comment on the conditions under which he could be held on remand and the likely length, it would be helpful if you could give a cite when you quote verbatim from a document (in this instance from Fair Trials International).

In quoting from it, you ignore the fact that the Swedes have pointed out that they want to carry out the final interview before charge; they are at a pretty advanced stage, just before indictment.

As for:

Continue to discount the possibility of US influence if it makes you happy.

I’m not prepared to assume it as a default. The case that the US want him in Sweden has always been that they want to extradite him from there. It has been comprehensively shown that if they want to extradite him, the best way is to do so from here.

As for the charges themselves: why would a left-wing public prosecutor in Sweden want to do the US’s dirty
work by charging Assange with rape if she didn’t believe that there was something in it?

If you can come up with some logical argument as to the US’s involvement, then we can talk about it. So far, apart from the non-issues around extradition, it has been at the level “The US wants revenge for Wikileaks, so they must be behind it”, and/or based upon a misunderstanding of the political issues to which Sundberg-Weitman was alluding.

(79) wasn’t sure how to link to a pdf document without a web address – I think it was Robin who implied assange faced no more than two weeks in isolation (any thoughts on that).

Anyway which bit are you actually disputing – the fairtrials document simply makes generic points about the swedish legal system.

The triumphalism over Kjellstrand is misplaced – the incident was 2 years ago (so unsurprisingly has moved on) – still, an investigation of a prosecutor by the ombudsman hardly inspires confidence.

@a&ecn #80:

<blockquote.‘Oh, by the way; do you still say that the Swedes should have arrested him immediately? Because that is part of what Kjellstrand is criticised for’ – look, this debate is now descending into petty point scoring.

“Now”? It always has been on your side. I simply want you to remain consistent.

The complaint was specifically that Kjellstrand issued a warrant based solely upon the claims of the complainant recounted to her by the police. Your complaint was that the attitude taken by the prosecutors was indicative of a view that the alleged offences weren’t that serious, or that there wasn’t much of a case to answer; that if they really believed that he might have done what was alleged, they would have arrested him immediately. When however you find out that someone has complained that the original prosecutor acted too precipitately by seeking his arrest at an early stage, you leap upon that complaint as a valid criticism of the prosecutor’s conduct. Do you really not see the contradiction in your position here; and indeed the hole in your argument that these circumstances create?

@a&ecn #82:

an investigation of a prosecutor by the ombudsman hardly inspires confidence.

But when the complaint is that the prosecutor was over-zealous, it doesn’t support an argument (ie yours) that we can draw conclusions about the seriousness with which the prosecutors regarded the case from their lack of zealotry.

Again, one might even suppose that, prosecutors being only human, this complaint, made the day after the issue of a warrant, may have played a part in making them reluctant to issue a further warrant while Assange was apparently co-operating; which would prevent any conclusions being drawn from the lack of a subsequent warrant until 27 September.

a&e,

The triumphalism over Kjellstrand is misplaced – the incident was 2 years ago (so unsurprisingly has moved on) – still, an investigation of a prosecutor by the ombudsman hardly inspires confidence.

Jesus.

Hold the front page, stop the extradition.

Anyway which bit are you actually disputing – the fairtrials document simply makes generic points about the swedish legal system.

Give me a chance to read it eh? Not going to dispute something I haven’t read.

a&e,

Lets imagine assange had pinned a woman to the bed at knife point – do you think he would have been flying out of sweden 7 weeks later while prosecutor Ny was furiously trying to text his lawyer?

No, but that wasn’t the accusation was it? The accusation was different, therefore the outcome was different.

Of course not, the lax, and largely incompetent investigation was driven by the fact the women’s version of events were not sufficiently compelling for the authorities to act decisively at an early stage.

Apparently, you neglect to consider the authorities acted appropriately based on the evidence they had available at the time(s). For example, an arrest warrant may not have been granted for (a) such an accusation while (b) there was no indication Assange wouldn’t cooperate.

a&e,

There has been international criticism of these conditions. The Council of Europe has reported ongoing concerns about remand conditions in Sweden and that many people feel that they are prevented from contacting family members to ‘break’ them.
(Report to the Swedish Government on the visit to Sweden carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 9 to 18 June 2009, 11 December 2009, p.25).

Continue to discount the possibility of US influence if it makes you happy.

You think the US is behind ongoing remand conditions in Sweden?

[81] ‘The judgment does not record who allegedly made the original disclosure’ – no it says “The prosecution should not have confirmed to the media that Mr Asange was considered a likely suspect of rape’.

You see, Robin, that is was is called wrong, blabbing to sweden’s version of the Daily Heil, about who is or isn’t a suspect in a rape case – it was certainly wrong enough for the ombudsman to investigate – not off to a very good start are we, but I mustn’t go to far because UKL will become very angry that the poor old swedish authorities are being impugned again.

Now, turning to your second point – I think Kjellstrand should have read the files, then decided if there was sufficient prima facie evidence that multiple sex offences having been committed.
Assuming she thought yes, then she should have followed procedure which was to ensure that a proper investigation was carried out, and the nature of this investigation was commensurate with the seriousness of the charges (rape + molestation).

What is so hard to understand about that – and why keep lauding the swedes when they couldn’t even switch a tape recorder on during the police interviews?

I am not drawing attention to Kiellstrand because she thought there was a case, and that assange should have been brought in at the beginning (assuming she truly believed the complainants – as I’m sure she would have done given the knife wielding scenario) I’m drawing attention to her because she blabbed to the MSM, yet did so without being sure about how the investigation would immediately pan out.

Whatever happened to the phrase ‘no comment’.

(87) ‘You think the US is behind ongoing remand conditions in Sweden?’ – no, but I do think they are exerting whatever influence they can to maximise assange’s discomfiture – I’m sure I’ve said that many times.

I mean what do you expect – a link to a website called ‘we are out to extradite assange to guitmo’ – for now we will just have to content ourselves with numerous US right wingers calling for assange’s death
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fab1IsCZzY&feature=related

@a&ecn #88:

I entirely agree that Kjellstrand should not have confirmed that Assange was a rape suspect; there is no argument between us on this. The argument was then that your claim appeared to be that the prosecution had leaked the facts, when it is clear that someone else leaked the facts and Kjellstrand had merely confirmed Assange’s involvement when the facts were recited to her.

That complaint was not the original complaint, though; the original complaint by Binninge was of trigger-happy issuing of a warrant; that inter alia she had issued the warrant when she “had not even heard from the suspect”.

Now, turning to your second point – I think Kjellstrand should have read the files, then decided if there was sufficient prima facie evidence that multiple sex offences having been committed.

Assuming she thought yes, then she should have followed procedure which was to ensure that a proper investigation was carried out, and the nature of this investigation was commensurate with the seriousness of the charges (rape + molestation).

And which of these did she not do?

Bear in mind that the Swedish prosecutors said that what she did was standard practice(3/4th line on page 25 of Exhibit MS5) :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48534658/First-Witness-Statement-of-Mark-Stephens-Exhibit-MS-5

What is so hard to understand about that – and why keep lauding the swedes when they couldn’t even switch a tape recorder on during the police interviews?

I’m not lauding the Swedes; I’m pointing out the inconsistencies in your position (and trying to ignore your continual assumptions of facts not sufficiently evidenced).

I am not drawing attention to Kiellstrand because she thought there was a case, and that assange should have been brought in at the beginning (assuming she truly believed the complainants – as I’m sure she would have done given the knife wielding scenario) I’m drawing attention to her because she blabbed to the MSM, yet did so without being sure about how the investigation would immediately pan out.

Tough. The original complaint by Binninge was the one about precipitate action.

a&e,

I mustn’t go to far because UKL will become very angry that the poor old swedish authorities are being impugned again.

You may have missed the point I was trying to make. I don’t complain about the principle of criticising specific things the police or prosecutors did (assuming the people can support their claims, obv.) or specific criticisms of the criminal justice system (assuming there is some thought behind them) but the general smearing, the traducing of the entire Swedish criminal justice system by people (including Swedish people) who knew absolutely nothing about it until this thing started and probably remain ignorant about it today. We’ve even got people like Craig Murray saying “the most likely scenario is that it’s been cooked up well in advance and that verdict will be guilty”. It’s not Iran or North Korea. They know absolutely nothing about the system but nevertheless have a low opinion of it just because their hero is in trouble and because people they believe say the system is corrupt, flawed or whatever. There is no independent thought, no looking into it. It’s stupid and unjustified. Why can’t they just lend their moral support? Why can’t they just say, “Assange is innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Unless and until that happens, he has my full support”? That would be perfectly reasonable. Instead we have an internet army of people smearing an inoffensive country.

—

And you complain about the behaviour of the prosecutors- what about the behaviour of people associated with Assange? Leaked defence bundle, deceiving defence witnesses, spreading falsehoods about the case in the media. Meanwhile he’s on Twitter using the WikiLeaks account to say the letter Hague sent to the Ecuadorian embassy (which I think was misconceived but anyway) gave tacit approval for the attack on the US embassy in Libya, retweeting articles that equate say Chen Guancheng with Julian Assange, and using the account to smear people like David Allen Green who dare voice their disagreeable opinions.

(italicised words are quoted from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/criminal/opinion/files/110510/appendix_2_-_comparative_research_en.pdf by Fair Trials International. Blockquoted words are from a&e’s post @74, quoting the Fair Trials International document I linked to @79, http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/Sweden_QA.pdf)

Now, you say that the trial must commence within two weeks of charges being made, but you make no mention of remand.
As I’m sure you already know there is no maximum period of pre-trial detention in Sweden. Guidelines suggest that an individual cannot be held for longer than the length of sentence they are likely to receive (which I think is 4 years for so called ‘minor’ rape).

Sweden:There is no maximum period of pre-trial detention in Sweden. However, if no legal action has been taken within 14 days, a new remand hearing is required.
…
Pre-trial detention may only be imposed on a person who is reasonably suspected on probable cause of committing an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year
or more. Furthermore there must be a reasonable risk that the person will:
flee or otherwise evade legal proceedings or punishment;…
Germany:Lengthy periods of pre-trial detention from three years to five and a half years have been found by the ECtHR to comply with the ECHR, as the German courts had provided adequate reasons for imposing detention and had dealt with the cases expeditiously.
Ireland:There is no legal limit to the amount of time a defendant can spend in pre-trial detention in Ireland, although time limits do apply in proceedings before lower courts…
Luxembourg:There is no legal limit to the length of pre-trial detention in Luxembourg…
Portugal:In Portugal the maximum length of pre-trial detention (before conviction at first instance) is two years and six months…
Spain:The maximum period of pre-trial detention in Spain is four years…

Sweden doesn’t seem out of line with the rest of Europe in that regard.

It is likely that Assange will be held in isolation and barred from communicating with anyone other than his lawyers. He may be subjected to a range of restrictions such as:
*isolation: meaning that he is held in his cell for up to 23 hours a day;
*no visits from anyone other than his lawyer or a priest;
*restrictions on phone calls and written correspondence;
*limited contact with other detainees; and
*lack of access to newspapers, radio and television.

The difficulty here is that there is no comparison with other countries, unlike with the pieces about detention periods. In any case, such restrictions are applied to about half of the detainees, according to the the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, via FTI. The point being that if they are applied to Assange it doesn’t mean he is special, it just means he is one among the 50%.

(Report to the Swedish Government on the visit to Sweden carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 9 to 18 June 2009, 11 December 2009, p.25).

Which the government of Sweden commissioned. (is there a follow-up report to see if anything has progressed over the past three years?)

On Fair Trial International’s account, Sweden doesn’t seem the illiberal rogue state people appear to be insinuating. It doesn’t seem as if Assange will be subjected to restrictions because of who he is, but is reasonably likely to be subjected to the same restrictions as half the detainees.

This does not seem like a sufficient obstacle to extradition to me. But if Assange’s supporters think it’s a sufficient obstacle to Assange’s extradition, I hope they will be consistent and campaign against other extraditions to Sweden.

[73] ‘The value of each of your complaints in the list has turned out to be zero, and the sum of any number of zeroes is zero’ – well I know that you are aware of purported police transcripts, and if you have read them you will know that the second complainant did not sign the version of events recorded by woman A’s mate, a ‘narrative’, rather than verbatim account.
The interview concludes, ‘The interrogation was neither read back to Miss X nor reviewed for approval by her but Miss X was told she had the opportunity to do this later’ – so no recording, or no signature to demonstrate approval, or agreement with the police woman’s version of the story.
http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml

Be that as it may I can’t help thinking there is an even more important issue, one that might points very strongly to the unlikely nature of the the first complainants accusations.

We know from the EAW that the first two crimes were allegedly committed on 13th August, i.e;
[1] Unlawful coercion, and
[2] Sexual Molestation.

The purported police interview contains references to a condom that was tampered with during intercourse on this date (13th Aug) – it is claimed woman A ‘is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broken the condom at the tip and thereafter continued the sex with the resulting ejaculation’ – in other words the broken condom allegation.

We also know that at some later date the same complainant produced condom which was tested for assange’s dna.

Putting all this together the following sequence emerges.
Woman A meets assange for the first time – a few hours later she has sex with him – during this very first encounter she alleges sexual coercion and molestation took place – a torn condom is evidence of these alleged crimes – the condom is stored in some unspecified place – she does not go the police immediately to report what happened but instead attends a crayfish party with assange, then later tweets how great the night was – she accompanies assange to further social functions, and then another party.
One week after the event she reports assange to the police, but does not take the condom, neither can she remember where she left it.

Why would anybody save a condom, presumably for future forensic testing while partying with the alleged offender – or why wasn’t it produced at he police station on 20th August when the allegations were first reported – I mean have you ever heard of anybody socialising with the person who has just abused them while at the same holding onto a damaged condom to corroborate accusations that are to be made at some later date.

Honestly now, does any of that sound even vaguely credible?

@a&ecn:

You’re ignoring a crucial fact. Both victims were Wikileaks volunteers. They were conflicted – do they (assuming they’re telling the truth) remain loyal to Wikileaks/Assange, a cause into which they have invested a great deal of energy and emotion, or do they turn him in and prevent someone else suffering the same treatment. I would imagine that learning that he’d done the same thing to another Wikileaks volunteer would tip the balance.

[93] conflicted to the extent that woman A felt unable to alert woman B that assange was capable of sexual violence (if her allegations are to be believed).

A text message from woman A to friend indicate that she must have been aware that woman B was at also risk – the text read “He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”

But even if woman A was conflicted, at least to begin with, she could not have been by the time she made her allegations known the police a week after the incident – yet for some reason she did not make available a key piece of evidence to corroborate her version of events (the torn condom).

She knew she still had it (the condom) but could not remember exactly where she had left it – how is it possible to forget where you left a torn condom used by the man who recently coerced and molested you.

Do you really think we can explain away such matters because the woman was conflicted – even by the time she was accusing assange of sex crimes?

A&e, I think you misapprehend what happened. Robin @94 provides a credible view.

Agreed facts before the Supreme Court UK:
During his visit he had sexual intercourse with two women [AA and SW]. After AA and SW spoke to each other and realised that they had both had intercourse with the Appellant during the currency of his visit in circumstances where respectively they had or might have been or become unprotected against disease or pregnancy, SW wanted the Appellant to get tested for disease. On 20th August 2010 SW went to the police to seek advice. AA accompanied her for support. The police treated their visit as the filing of formal reports for rape of SW and molestation of AA.

the condom is stored in some unspecified place … Why would anybody save a condom

“Stored”, “saved”, or put in the bin after use?

why wasn’t it produced at he police station on 20th August when the allegations were first reported

Did she realise she might need it when she went to the police station?

Why is it difficult to believe one woman on her own might be reluctant to make a complaint about a man, especially a man she admires, yet on discussing the man with another woman who says she had a similar experience then decide to make a complaint after all?

The interview concludes, ‘The interrogation was neither read back to Miss X nor reviewed for approval by her but Miss X was told she had the opportunity to do this later’ – so no recording, or no signature to demonstrate approval, or agreement with the police woman’s version of the story.

Didn’t Robin respond to that earlier?

Yes, @55, you reply @58, he @59, you @62. Christ, no wonder I get deja vu when reading these threads, you repeat the same points in the same bloody thread…

@a&ecn #95:

[93] conflicted to the extent that woman A felt unable to alert woman B that assange was capable of sexual violence (if her allegations are to be believed).

That would be after she found out Assange and woman B had had sex? Or are you suggsting that she should, to be credible, have got up on stage at the Wikileaks conference to warn all the other women present?

Newsflash: even Swedish women are human.

[92] it seems to me we are increasingly talking at cross purposes – my reference to the fair trials document was to throw light on conditions in sweden regarding pre-trial detention, but I do not suggest that it should be a block to extradition.
I mentioned it because Robin implied that the case would smoothly proceed to court after just 2 weeks (the required timescale once charges are issued) but he neglected to mention how long it might be in theory before the case reached this stage (hence the report).

Anyway, from all that I have read I have a very strong feeling that the case will never get to trial (leaving aside the political asylum issue for a moment).
My reading is that assange, if extradited will spend time in solitary in sweden before the whole thing is dropped.
The case is so riddled with holes that even an internet blogger like me can see how desperately unpromising it would be for any prosecution lawyer.

I have maintained all along that the real agenda is to discredit assange, and by extension wikileaks (through the fortuitous development of sordid sex allegations) – this campaign went ahead even though it meant exploiting, and irrespective of the cost, to the women themselves.

Moving on, I am afraid your post @96 demonstrates how soon you run out of ideas once removed from the comfort of cutting & pasting what judges have said.
The item you link to says (in substance) – assange had sex with the women, the women met and discussed this fact then went to the police to complain about it – I mean, really, is that as far as it goes for you?

You then feign to not understand why omitting a crucial item of forensic evidence (the torn condom) when reporting a sex crime to the police further undermines the credibility of the complainants version of events.
What’s even more incredible is the fact woman A cannot recall where the contaminated condom was left – ‘in the bin’ you shout, rather like a 5 year old attending a christmas pantomime.

So by your own words – woman A is molested/coerced by assange, waits for a week before going to the police, yet when she does go fails to take with her crucial forensic evidence – during the police interview admits to not knowing where the torn condom is, then mysteriously retrieves it from the bin (or where ever else it has been fermenting) – and this must have been at some point after 20th August (so more than a week after the alleged assault took place).

In the meantime she sends a text to her friend suggesting that assange has eyes for woman B – the text does not say to her friend that she had a traumatic experience with him, nor does it say that the second woman may be at risk of similar treatment as well – no it seems woman A was too busy fretting over ‘the cashmere girl’ and whether or not assange was planning to have sex with her.

Turning to Robin @99 – no I do not think woman A should have got up at the conference as you ludicrously put it – but the text message DOES demonstrates that woman A was aware of woman B and was also aware that assange had sexual intentions towards her.
Yet the woman who had just been coerced/molested by assange (allegedly), and who had left a torn condom in some unspecified place only took it upon herself to comment on the fabric of sweater the next victim wearing.

@a&ecn #100:

The case is so riddled with holes that even an internet blogger like me can see how desperately unpromising it would be for any prosecution lawyer.

…and yet none of the holes you so desperately cling to occurred to the eminent and in your view competent UK legal team expensively assembled in his defence.

Oh dear. A&e, you really missed the point of my quote at 96 didn’t you?

On 20th August 2010 SW went to the police to seek advice. AA accompanied her for support.

Why would anyone think of taking “crucial forensic evidence” – and I think you are asking a lot of alleged victims in any case – when her purpose is more to seek advice than complain a crime has been committed?

this campaign went ahead even though it meant exploiting, and irrespective of the cost, to the women themselves.

Your concern for the women is welcome but surprises me, given your repeated insinuations they conspired to set up Assange.

The case is so riddled with holes that even an internet blogger like me can see how desperately unpromising it would be for any prosecution lawyer.

From here it looks like you’ve inferred a ton of stuff and imagined a lot of other stuff.

On your criticism she waited a week:

1. Again, Robin made the point that she decided to go to the police after conferring with the other woman;

2. But your suspicion arising from this is shitty given as much as a fifth of women will delay in reporting for a week or more (see Home Office report, A gap or a chasm: Attrition in reported rape cases).

Lastly, I don’t know why you object to my suggestion the condom may be have disposed of in a bin, as opposed to your “saved” or “stored” in some other receptacle, and later retrieved from the bin (or bin liner / bag) as opposed to being “mysteriously” retrieved. You know you’re not supposed to flush them down the toilet, I hope?

a&e,

I mentioned it because Robin implied that the case would smoothly proceed to court after just 2 weeks (the required timescale once charges are issued) but he neglected to mention how long it might be in theory before the case reached this stage (hence the report).

As I quoted @92 from FTI,

There is no maximum period of pre-trial detention in Sweden. However, if no legal action has been taken within 14 days, a new remand hearing is required where they will have to justify keeping him inside. The problem for him is that the court might well be persuaded of “a reasonable risk that the person will flee or otherwise evade legal proceedings or punishment”.

[101] ‘yet none of the holes you so desperately cling to occurred to the eminent and in your view competent UK legal team expensively assembled in his defence’ – what are you talking about?
Assange’s team were not expected to try the case in the UK, they were fighting the EAW on technical grounds – the strength of the case once it had satisfied Ny was not the issue at the stage of the EAW hearing.

[102] Why would anyone think of taking “crucial forensic evidence”.

Because they are making such serious allegations, one of which was that assange tore the condom mid-sex, then continued to have intercourse (allegedly).
The obvious question to follow such an allegation is – do you still have the condom, better still do you have it with you now (since you have already met with the other complainant to prepare your story, and it is now a week since the alleged crime took place) – the answer must have been, no, it’s not with me, the condom is still at home somewhere, but I don’t know where.

If she didn’t know where it was how did she still know it was still at home unless it had been placed somewhere – and if she did place it somewhere what could the motive have been – in the meantime she was too busy partying with assange, and providing hospitality for him to think any further about it in any great detail.

[102] ‘From here it looks like you’ve inferred a ton of stuff and imagined a lot of other stuff’ – rubbish, I am quoting verbatim from purported police interviews and text messages.

Robin tried to suggest the women were strangers to each other prior to the subsequent (alleged) rape of women B (the penetration while asleep accusation).
The text proves otherwise, and some might it think it follows that a gentle warning might have been more appropriate as opposed to comments about the fabric of woman B’s sweater (assuming the coercion/molestation accusations are to be believed).

Despite all of this, and even after the women met to discuss their experiences, they merely go along to the police for advice.
Is it in any way credible that they are so unsure of what happened to them that they need to be informed by a third party that sex crimes have been committed – we do know (if we believe the police interview) that woman B did not sign her statement, and neither did she complain of rape – she was later informed of this fact by her lawyer.

a&e, they didn’t go to the police with the purpose of making serious allegations. What about this don’t you understand? They went with the purpose of seeking advice from the police for woman A. So I ask again, why would anyone take “crucial forensic evidence” if their purpose is to seek advice?

You are looking at the situation with the benefit of hindsight, instead of attempting to see it from their viewpoint at the time.

we do know (if we believe the police interview)

What you think you know is based on the 100 pages that found its way to the internet, which is not the entirety of the police / prosecution case file.

a&e,

the answer must have been, no, it’s not with me, the condom is still at home somewhere, but I don’t know where.

If she didn’t know where it was how did she still know it was still at home unless it had been placed somewhere – and if she did place it somewhere what could the motive have been

Blimey. Maybe the bin in her house was full and she put the bin bag outside / in a wheely bin for the garbage truck?

Really suspicious!

[105] seeking ‘advice’ about what exactly – I mean woman A claims her arm, and legs were pinned and that assange tore a condom mid-sex then continued with penetration, in other words she alleges she was sexually assaulted by him.

I assume you are persisting with this nonsense about ‘advice’ because there is no meaningful rebuttal to dubious claims about the whereabouts of a torn condom (amongst other things).

You have now moved on to suggesting that the condom might have been left in a wheely bin, implying woman A must have rummaged through a weeks worth of domestic rubbish, including remaindered parts of crayfish in order to retrieve it.

Do you know if the police accompanied her in order to undertake this unenviable task – or do you think she was left alone then asked to drop in with it if ever she needed a bit more ‘advice’.
I expect if the police decided against accompanying her they would have instructed her to wear marigold gloves in order to avoid the risk of contaminating assange’s mitochondrial dna?

Assange’s defence lawyers must be quaking in their boots at the thought of having to explain away this sort of stuff.

Yes, okay, but what’s Assange’s view on wind turbines?

@a&ecn #100:

I mentioned it because Robin implied that the case would smoothly proceed to court after just 2 weeks (the required timescale once charges are issued) but he neglected to mention how long it might be in theory before the case reached this stage (hence the report).

Well, actually, Robin didn’t. Robin assumed that you were aware (but spelled out in a subsequent post when it appeared that you weren’t) that the reason that the UK Courts felt able to treat Assange as “accused of an offence” in Sweden so as to make an EAW appropriate is that the interrogation he is to undergo is one which immediately precedes indictment. Ms Ny takes the view that an indictment is appropriate, and the purpose of the interrogation is to put that to Assange and see whether he can dissuade her.

That being the case, this stage will be over quickly, and we will be into the trial countdown. Since Assange has demonstrated that he is a clear flight risk, he will be held in custody; which means in turn that his trial follows within 2 weeks of indictment – or no much more than 2 weeks after the interrogation.

@104:

Assange’s team were not expected to try the case in the UK, they were fighting the EAW on technical grounds – the strength of the case once it had satisfied Ny was not the issue at the stage of the EAW hearing.

But the team clearly considered possible abuse of process relevant to the EAW; before the DJ they came up with a list of 5 abuses that they considered were sufficiently serious as to justify refusal of extradition. They also sought to argue that the facts alleged in the warrant did not reflect the complainants’ interviews, but did not proceed.

#104:

Robin tried to suggest the women were strangers to each other prior to the subsequent (alleged) rape of women B (the penetration while asleep accusation).

Pardon me while I swallow; there seem to be a lot of words in my mouth, and I can’t for the life of me work out how they got there…

Let’s consider this.

Complainant A is a Wikileaks volunteer. She is committed to the cause. It would not be unlikely that she has just a bit of hero-worship for the leader of the organisation, a bit of a celebrity, who is in Sweden for the conference; and she spent last night with that hero, that celebrity. Something of a coup, perhaps. Certainly were the genders reversed, you couldn’t have got the man off the ‘phone to his mates about it.

To complicate matters, however, on her account, she had a great deal of trouble getting Assange to accept that “No, unless you use a condom”, means precisely that – and he finished the act without one, and there are at best serious question marks over how that happened.

She is conflicted – what to do? She might even still be working out in her own mind what happened – was she not clear enough in her refusals? Is she sure that Assange, a man she looked up to, would be capable of deliberately breaking the condom in that way?

She also, if the tweet is genuine, was aware that there were other women interested in Assange; in taking the place she took the previous night.

Bear in mind that even Swedish women are human. Are you really saying that a reluctance to tell someone who may or may not be about to bed Assange about what happened reflects upon credibility. Look at it from complainant B’s point of view; she’s got her eyes on Assange, and then the woman he was with last night comes up to you and tells you what happened. Do you think (a) “A’s been very helpful. What a fool I’ve been, I won’t go to bed with the celebrity leader of the organisation I’ve spent years supporting, and that she’s just bedded”; or (b) “A is just jealous. She’d say anything to scare off the competition”?

As I said, in shorthand – even Swedish women are human, and can be conflicted. I have no idea what thought processes A actually went through, but your insistence that not telling B is clear evidence against her credibility does you no credit.

a&e,

[105] seeking ‘advice’ about what exactly

As I posted @92, SW wanted the Appellant to get tested for disease. On 20th August 2010 SW went to the police to seek advice. Presumably she sought advice about coercing him to take a test for disease? It seems a reasonable inference.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/81043014/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

assume you are persisting with this nonsense about ‘advice

Um… it’s one of the facts agreed by defence and prosecution.

You have now moved on to suggesting that the condom might have been left in a wheely bin, implying woman A must have rummaged through a weeks worth of domestic rubbish, including remaindered parts of crayfish in order to retrieve it.

Take a step back and review your comments to the thread. You keep banging on about the condom, you’re suspicious because the woman has it, you use words like “stored” or “saved” or “held on to”, in “some unspecificed place”, implying some receptacle from which it was later “mysteriously retrieved”.

All I provided was what seems to me a reasonable alternative explanation for what happened to it after it was used: it was put in the bin.

Get a grip mate.

[109] ‘That being the case, this stage will be over quickly, and we will be into the trial countdown’ – first you say ‘quickly’, and then you say two weeks – so at best, assange can expect at least a further month in solitary (2 weeks on remand, then two weeks after charges are brought) – assuming Ny is ever crazy enough to take such a leaking case to trial, of course?

Added to the week in spent on remand at Wandsworth I make that 5 weeks assange will have to endure in solitary – not quite in the same league as Bradley Manning, perhaps, but at least something to satisfy the hawks, short of the extra judicial killing they have been pleading for on TV.

Your analysis of woman As behaviour makes no mention of the fact she kept a condom, forgot where she left it, then made it reappear some time after her advisory consultation with her friend in the police – perhaps she was too star struck to think clearly about the best way to store a torn condom post sexual assault.

[110] ‘You keep banging on about the condom’ – and you keep failing to understand it’s significance in terms of the credibility of woman A’s version of events (and have been unable to give a reasonable account as to how it might fit into the overall story, exemplified by your risible wheely bin comments).

If the woman were only interested in the legality of forcing assange to take an hiv test, then the person best placed to deal with such an enquiry would have been a lawyer, not the mate of one of the complainants who conducted the subsequent police interview.

And if it really was just about an hiv test then why make reference to being pinned down, or tearing condoms mid-sex, or the act of penetration while one of the complainants was asleep – they are straight forward allegations of sex crimes.

Given the gravity of such charges, and of course the international backdrop to the case it is important to establish any objective evidence to corroborate the women’s version of events but each snippet that finds it’s way onto the internet makes it seem less, and less likely that any of it will stand up in a court of law.

The obvious weaknesses in the case only fuels the notion that certain people are out to make assange’s life as unpleasant as possible (for obvious reasons) – and that this is what it is really about, rather than the swedes, or anybody else, being unduly concerned about the women themselves.

@a&ecn #111:

Your analysis of woman As behaviour makes no mention of the fact she kept a condom, forgot where she left it, then made it reappear some time after her advisory consultation with her friend in the police – perhaps she was too star struck to think clearly about the best way to store a torn condom post sexual assault.

I think I’ll leave that as an exercise for the student. Suffice it to say that it’s not a clincher either way.

Look, I think both UKL and I get that you really, really, really don’t want to believe that there is any possibility that there is anything to the claim against Assange, and we get that you will seize on any scrap to bolster that belief. Looking back on this in a few years’ time, you’ll wonder why you could have been so obsessive about it.

I’ve got to tell you, it looks really odd that you don’t find it credible or a “reasonable account” that she put a used condom in a bin!

And if it really was just about an hiv test then why make reference to being pinned down, or tearing condoms mid-sex, or the act of penetration while one of the complainants was asleep

eh?

woman: police officer, can you coerce someone into taking STD tests?

police: why, what happened?

woman: I won’t say.

police: well, we can’t help you then, sorry.

– they are straight forward allegations of sex crimes.

You still miss that particular point. She described his conduct. His alleged conduct would constitute a crime if it occured as described.

Added to the week in spent on remand at Wandsworth I make that 5 weeks assange will have to endure in solitary – not quite in the same league as Bradley Manning, perhaps, but at least something to satisfy the hawks, short of the extra judicial killing they have been pleading for on TV.

If the case is as weak as you think it is, he’s had his freedom restricted for many months for no reason.

Of course it might be that it isn’t at all as weak as you think it is.

correction:
If the case is as weak as you think it is, he restricted his freedom for many months for no reason.

Of course it might be that it isn’t at all as weak as you think it is.

[113] ‘you’ll wonder why you could have been so obsessive about it’ – yes, I’ve thought about that, but I’m sure my output has been matched by your’s and UKL’s – I suppose that’s what happens if you think a wrong has been done.

But to be clear – I have said repeatedly that had decisive action been taken at the outset, the sort of action one would expect following allegations as serious as rape and sexual molestation (especially since it involved two women) then there would have been an entirely different complexion to this case.

For all the reasons we have gone over, ad nauseam, culminating in the granting of political asylum this case became something more than the sum of its parts – in the light of these developments I have said several times that none of the protagonist can really expect to receive justice (although some sort of theatre might play out in sweden eventually).

I think searching questions became inevitable given the circumstances surrounding the investigation, as well as the reported communications of the complainants – I have done little other than report what’s already out there apart from adding my own t’penneth here and there.

I do not discount the possibility that assange committed sex crimes but I do think the case against him seems very weak.
I just wish all of this could have been properly tested in the immediate aftermath of the allegations.

Finally I very much value the observations and education provided by UKL, but the net by it’s nature is often a combative environment.

@a&ecn 116:

But to be clear – I have said repeatedly that had decisive action been taken at the outset, the sort of action one would expect following allegations as serious as rape and sexual molestation (especially since it involved two women) then there would have been an entirely different complexion to this case.

whereas UKL and I take note of all the circumstances; including the unusual nature of the rape, and the fact that Assange isn’t accused of dragging women off the street or threatening them at knifepoint. At risk of going round the circuit again, I’d point out that decisive action was taken at the start, and the prosecutor who took it got taken off the case because Assange’s buddies complained about that action.

Governments should not have ‘secrets’. Nor should corporations. In a world where everything is known – the ability to perform ‘wrong’ is curtailed. It is a simple idea. Those who disagree, can only do so for an equally simple idea – the wish to be able to deceive, in order to retain an ability to do wrong.

An article based only upon the evidence, with all of documents available to download..
http://marthamitchelleffect.co.uk/#/assange-case/4568506448

@stjarna verkare #118:

Governments should not have ‘secrets’.

I take it that you disagree with criticism of Kjellstrand over her contacts with Expressen, then?

An article based only upon the evidence, with all of documents available to download..
http://marthamitchelleffect.co.uk/#/assange-case/4568506448

An article consisting of inaccuracies, imprecisions, falsehoods, misinterpretations, hearsay, unsupported claims, information based on the police file that found its way to the internet that we know isn’t the complete file, information irrelevant to the allegation…

Oh I love this bit:

“[Ny's] attempt to arrange an interview consisted of just three SMS messages sent to a disregarded mobile phone of Björn Hurtig, Julian Assange’s Swedish attorney.”

It was Hurtig’s phone! He had to read out his messages during the extradition hearing! But it’s Ny’s fault he disregarded it, right?

What an extraordinary performance. UK liberty, charlieman and Robin Levett have had a thankless task on this thread trying to reason to someone who is behaving like little more than a robotic fantatic with his hands over his ears.

In future how are those who have made such dafties of themselves by insisting that the investigation should be conducted completely according to the wishes of Mr Julian Assange, not the British or Swedish courts, going to comment, with any crediblity, on any other court case, anywhere, ever again?

They’ll have to, if they are as principled as they claim, insist loud and long that the terms of any criminal investigation from henceforth ought to be dictated by the suspect, and that his or her innocence or guilt should be (or indeed already has been) decided not in a court of law at all – we don’t need those anymore, do we?) but on the internet, and preferably by themselves.

I can understand Assange himself going into such absurd and patently nonsenical logical contortions in order to get himself off the hook. He doesn’t want to go to court. Fine. What’s really worthy of note is that a loud minority of other individual have decided to shred whatever exists of their own reputation for sanity and reasoning ability, and all for the sake of Julian. Very sweet, just don’t lend him any money: you’ll never get it back.

I didn’t used to agree with a&e nurse on everything, but I always thought he or she was at least broadly sane and reasonable in his arguments. What appears to be on show here is a mix of blind faith and wilful refusal to accept what has been patiently explained to him over and over. As ukliberty noted, it’s the same disproven myths over and over and over again. Weird.

I don’t mean that as an attack on a&e nurse, I just wish he or she would come to his or her senses on this.

In any case, thank you very much Robin, ukliberty and charlieman (and anyone else I missed who has been trying to talk a&e nurse down from the dizzy heights) for an informative and indeed instructive demonstration of how arguments can work when they contain facts not tired myths, and operate according to logic rather than mere conviction.

[121] well at the risk of sounding like a fanatic with my fingers in my ears I stand by everything I said.

I think the case against assange is very weak.
I think the investigation was badly mishandled.
I think the authorities are exploiting the women to get to assange.
I do not think the case will go to trial if assange is extradited (not least because after 2 years, and with no verbatim transcripts it will be nigh on impossible to establish what did or didn’t happen in August 2010).
I do not know if the US can get to assange via sweden but I’m sure they will continue to explore every avenue to secure him.

As a matter of interest since assange, like anybody else, is entitled to claim asylum, are you equally supportive of ‘due process’ in this instance?

“I think the case against assange is very weak.
I think the investigation was badly mishandled.
I think the authorities are exploiting the women to get to assange.”

That’s all fine as opinion, but you don’t seem to grasp that it’s up to courts, not you, to decide on Assange’s innocence or guilt. Your opinion on this is about as valuable as my opinion, straight off the top of my head, about what could be done to improve the effectiveness of the Large Hadron Collider.

Neither you, nor I, nor self-elected experts like Craig Murray – know all the facts in this case. That is what trials are for. And an actual trial is what you want to prevent. Hence you and others suddenly deciding that the justice system of Sweden, hitherto held up as a model of progressive fairness, is after all like that of some corrupt dictatorship.

All that’s holding that ‘reasoning’ together is the conviction of yourselves and others that Assange must be in the right, so that trying to bring him to court on criminal charges is self-evidently suspect and corrupt and illegitimate.

“As a matter of interest since assange, like anybody else, is entitled to claim asylum, are you equally supportive of ‘due process’ in this instance?”

Absolutely. And as has been pointed out over and over, Assange is claiming asylum for reasons – to evade an ordinary criminal charge – that are not covered by existing asylum laws. He has had ‘due process’ from the authorities in the UK – and he responded by jumping bail.

The amount of shameless logical nonsense his defenders have offered in this case is extraordinary. Never before have I seen the ‘argument’ offered that someone shouldn’t be charged because he hasn’t yet been convicted, or that he shouldn’t be arrested because he hasn’t yet been charged. How do you think it normally works – you know for ordinary people? With conviction first, then charges, then arrest?

“I do not think the case will go to trial if assange is extradited (not least because after 2 years, and with no verbatim transcripts it will be nigh on impossible to establish what did or didn’t happen in August 2010).”

that may be the case, but again, your opinion there has no more inherent value than anyone else’s, since you are neither an expert or officer in Swedish law. So what makes you assume some authority in this? The fact that you are suspicious of the US government?

I don’t know if Assange is innocent or guilty. I don’t claim to know. I think there’s a stronger case for that being decided by a Swedish court than by you or I or anyone else on the internet simply deciding a verdict according to our personal sympathies.

Next up – Lamia on why Mo Farah should be stripped of his gold medals because, “well, I think he probably cheated. It’s obvious, isn’t it? And I watched some of the Olympics, so I’m an expert. They should run the doping tests again, and I can read about them on the internet, and if I don’t like the results I’ll just pronounce him guilty anyway, because if it looks like he’s clean, then that will just be proof of a UK government conspiracy.”

[123] oh, and just to add – I am not suggesting for one moment there is not another way to see the case, or that anybody has to agree with my particular take on it.
I am not even saying that assange could not have committed a sex crime, although he has always denied having done so, and the story, such as it is, begs a number of questions.

Where possible I have linked my opinions to evidence (allowing for the imperfect state that exists outside of the realms of officialdom) and when I do not have evidence, such as the possible influence of hawks I have said so.

Recent events in this country tells us that sometimes one should be rather wary of accepting the official version of a complicated case at face value.
Lies, and corruption are possible at a high level – and don’t forget it might take decades to unearth what really went on behind the scenes.

At the risk of repeating myself, this entire debate would have been redundant had the swedes nailed their colours to the flag and taken assange in – this is the very least that should have happened within a week of Ny reopening the case given she believed there was sufficient evidence to issue a EAW after he left sweden.

a&e,

I do not think the case will go to trial if assange is extradited (not least because after 2 years, and with no verbatim transcripts it will be nigh on impossible to establish what did or didn’t happen in August 2010).

Again re transcripts – you only know what’s in the 100 page file that found its way to the web. You (and I) have no idea what additional information the police may or may not have. How then can you come to such a conclusion?

Where possible I have linked my opinions to evidence (allowing for the imperfect state that exists outside of the realms of officialdom) and when I do not have evidence, such as the possible influence of hawks I have said so.

Recent events in this country tells us that sometimes one should be rather wary of accepting the official version of a complicated case at face value.
Lies, and corruption are possible at a high level – and don’t forget it might take decades to unearth what really went on behind the scenes.

But a problem here is that a lot of Assange’s defenders’ opinions are based on falsehoods, misinformation, out of date information, and ignorance. To make matters worse, some of this appears to have originated from the defence team! The thing is, you are not considering suspicious things about the defence.

Earlier, I was going to post something about just one sentence by Glenn Greenwald by way of example but I was writing over five long paragraphs to explain exactly what was wrong with it (three very arguable if not false premises, only one of which led to the conclusion anyway if it was correct). But the essence of my complaint is that basically people are making shit up. Ultimately that’s what it is – making it up as they go along.

At the risk of repeating myself, this entire debate would have been redundant had the swedes nailed their colours to the flag and taken assange in – this is the very least that should have happened within a week of Ny reopening the case given she believed there was sufficient evidence to issue a EAW after he left sweden.

But – again – she obtained the arrest warrant because she couldn’t get in touch with him. Again – your complaint is essentially that they did not exert disproportionate and/or unnecessary force in the first instance. The Swedes cannot win in either scenario.

[123] ‘That’s all fine as opinion, but you don’t seem to grasp that it’s up to courts, not you, to decide on Assange’s innocence or guilt’ – err, you, do realise I am just expressing a personal opinion, and obviously a minority one on this thread – but as far as I know, my opinion has absolutely no bearing on what does, or does not take place within various european judicial systems.

You claim that I am expounding the view that the swedes handling of this case is somehow synonymous with their entire legal system. I’m not, I just saying that they have made a dogs dinner out of this one – this may be because of good old fashioned incompetence, or it may be because of something more sinister.

You then say ‘Never before have I seen the ‘argument’ offered that someone shouldn’t be charged because he hasn’t yet been convicted, or that he shouldn’t be arrested because he hasn’t yet been charged’ – again, this is patent nonsense – the authorities had well over a month to charge and detain assange while he was still in sweden – personally I do not buy excuse that it was hurtig’s fault that he finally left the country.

To be clear these are simply personal opinions – they will not affect what happens at the equadorian embassy, they will not affect the so called ‘secret indictment’ being prepared in the USA, and they will not effect sweden’s decision to pursue, or finally drop the case against assange.

I understand that not all opinions are palatable – my own preference is skip past those that are irritating, or upsetting, or sometime if I feel strongly enough I will try and engage with the substantive points and see where that leads to, but in this case there is probably not too much that can be added that has not already been said?

[125] ‘your complaint is essentially that they did not exert disproportionate and/or unnecessary force in the first instance’ – well, we will just have to disagree about this, UKL.

In what way is it disproportionate, assuming the authorities were in anyway convinced that the two women were either raped or subject to coercion/molestation by the same man within days of each other.

If the police really believed assange raped one and coerced the other why on earth would they grant him liberty to attack more women (unless they somehow knew he was only a two victim sort of abuser).

Remember, if the allegations are taken at face value, assange had committed two horrendous sex crimes within a week of touching down in sweden, he was also a flight risk (given he was a non-national).
I suppose the only logical conclusion was to leave him at large?

a&e,

the authorities had well over a month to charge and detain assange while he was still in sweden – personally I do not buy excuse that it was hurtig’s fault that he finally left the country.

1. How can they charge him? Tell us how the Swedish criminal justice system works. What is the process?

2. I don’t understand what you mean about Hurtig. We know he received the messages – he read them out in court and subsequently he accepted he replied to Ny.

In what way is it disproportionate, assuming the authorities were in anyway convinced that the two women were either raped or subject to coercion/molestation by the same man within days of each other.

You’re trying to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand, you say the case is really weak. On the other, you say they should have banged him up immediately. Try to get a coherent, internally consistent case together.

http://khelenebergman.blogspot.fi/2012/10/the-constitutionel-state-of-sweden-is.html?spref=tw