2,008 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar”

• 

  Clark September 20, 2012 at 22:38

  Arbed, if it’s really sensitive, my GPG Public Key is here:

  http://www.killick1.plus.com/public-keys/clark-public-key

  I’ll confirm here when I’ve received your e-mail. Many thanks.

• 

  Arbed September 20, 2012 at 23:29

  Thanks Clark – writing to you now. Won’t be too long.

• 

  Clark September 21, 2012 at 01:40

  Arbed, thanks, got that, going off-line now, bed time. Thanks.

• 

  Göran Rudling September 21, 2012 at 01:58

  Jemand,

  “Anyone who is familiar with even basic jurisprudence knows that charging, or indicting, is a transition from investigation to a commitment to prosecute.”

  Shortening
  “charging is a transition from investigation to a commitment to prosecute”

  Are you trying to argue that charge and indictment are the same?

  If so what is the name in England for the process before charge/indictment?

  And if you are very wrong on this, what will you do?

• 

  Göran Rudling September 21, 2012 at 02:03

  Arbed,third time around

  “I’ve posted this before but here’s the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s most recent statement (24 August 2012) in English, so people can see for themselves that the Swedish Prosecution Authority themselves are saying that Assange has not been charged (and in fact, if you read between the lines, is nowhere near being charged: “and any subsequent interviews, as required…”[paraphrase, from memory]):”

  I’ve read the info from the prosecutors in the link. I am sorry, cannot find any information that is saying that Julian has not been charged. Can you please point it out to me?

  Just show the lines that says Julian has not been charged.

  http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/

• 

  Göran Rudling September 21, 2012 at 02:17

  Villager,

  “Is this true? Are charging and indictment perfectly synonymous? Or is an indictment a “formal” charge?

  Of course charge and indict are totally different things. You are right and Arbed is seriously ignorant, as usual.

  Arbed is just full of a lot of hot air. Would be a perfect hot air balloonist.

  Let’s see how long it takes for him to admit that he seriously wrong.

• 

  Göran Rudling September 21, 2012 at 02:20

  ARBED ARBED ARBED ARBED

  Charge and indict are not the same as you foolishly believes.

  ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG

• 

  Göran Rudling September 21, 2012 at 02:33

  Villager,

  But there’s something strange about the term ‘preliminary’ investigation, when there is no ‘final’ investigation. So it doesn’t sound preliminary at all, just one continuum of an investigation. Am i right?

  No. I’ve written two posts about this. It is very very difficult to understand the legal process if you translate the words literary. What I did in the first post was to show the similarities in Sweden’s and England’s procedures. Looks like you haven’t read it. Do.

  Preliminary investigation stage is corresponding the stage in England when a person is charged. When a suspect is in preliminary investigation it is the same as charged with a crime.

  First paper was just making the translations showing that Julian Assange’s lawyers looked in dictionaries rather than comparing processes.

  Second paper is from professor Wong who defines the Pros. Auth. view. In the second paper it is very easy to see when a person is charged in Sweden according to European law.

  Professor Wong

  “The distinction between the overall process of prosecution (lagföring) and the actual act of prosecuting a person through indictment may be a source of confusion for foreign lawyers who only have access to translated texts of the Swedish legislation.”

  Think you get it now. Read the papers it will save you lot of time

  1st paper to read
  http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/julian-assange-is-charged-there-is-no-doubt-about-it/

  2nd to read
  http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/was-assanges-legal-team-incompetent/

• 

  CE September 21, 2012 at 02:35

  Assange, ironically, is now a prime example of someone who is rich, powerful and elusive enough to avoid proper scrutiny and justice, something which is quite opposite to the values behind the important work of his WikiLeaks.

• 

  Göran Rudling September 21, 2012 at 02:49

  Arbed,

  Oh, I forgot. One more point, about the risk of the death penalty applying. As I’ve said above, there’s plenty of ‘non-political’ offences in that Congressional Research Service survey for the US to choose for its extradition request from Sweden. But also remember how Bradley Manning was original charged with 8 offences and a few months later it was bumped up to 22? There’s nothing to stop exactly the same thing happening with Assange once he’s on US soil. Nothing.

  You legal turkey. Can you just answer two questions? Just two?

  Was Bradley Manning extradited?

  If he wasn’t, do you agree that what you write is rubbish?

• 

  Göran Rudling September 21, 2012 at 02:52

  Shisei:

  “For Assange it is not at an advanced stage: he hasn’t been heard yet after the case has been closed.”

  The preliminary investigation is in advanced stage as far as I know. Contradict me please.

  The only remaining person is the man himself.

• 

  Shisei September 21, 2012 at 03:55

  Göran

  Only a biased investigation can be advanced without the statement of the suspect.

• 

  Villager September 21, 2012 at 04:08

  Is the term indict used commonly in UK legal processes, or it just charge, or both?

  Anyone?

• 

  Göran Rudling September 21, 2012 at 04:09

  Arbed,

  And, as regards Goran’s assertion that the UK High Court found that Assange had been charged, paragraphs 22 and 35 of the Agreed Facts make it quite clear that no, Assange has not been charged.

  You have already demonstrated that you don’t have any knowledge of the English criminal procedure. You cannot discriminate between charge and indict. You are a legal turkey. Your knowledge of the Swedish criminal procedure is even less.

  You read “Agreed facts and Issues” and you pick out words that you do not have any idea of what they mean. And you try to create arguments not even knowing that the “Agreed facts and Issues” does not in any way change the High Court ruling. What the hell is wrong with you?

  You arguments are absolutely worthless. Give up. You are just demonstrating your total ignorance. And you believe that you in any way can contradict or argue with me. To hell with you.

  22 Statements issued by the Respondent throughout September, October and November confirmed that the investigation was ongoing and that no decision had been taken to charge or prosecute. Investigations were being undertaken and witnesses were interviewed.

  35 Statements issued by the Respondent throughout September, October and November confirmed that the investigation was ongoing and that no decision had been taken to charge or prosecute. Investigations were being undertaken and witnesses were interviewed.

  I will use the paragraphs you pointed to explain some important things that you do not know and I suspect you never will.

  What is of interest in para 22 and 35 is that the people who wrote them aren’t that familiar with Swedish Criminal Procedure either but they seem like geniuses compared to you. How do I know? In the Swedish Criminal Procedure a “decision to charge” does not exist. Never has in 100 years. In order to make the paragraphs comprehensible you have to take out “charge or” from both paragraphs. I’m not sure if get anyway.

  No decision to prosecute has been taken. Get it?

  I put an excerpt from Professor Wong’s article below if you can read. But please don’t touch the keyboard any more.

  “Clearly, being ‘charged with a criminal offence’ cannot mean the act of prosecution according to Swedish domestic law. The concept has an autonomous meaning, and the Swedish Supreme Court has had an opportunity to examine at which stage of the criminal proceeding in Sweden, a person would be considered as being ‘charged’ according to the autonomous meaning of the ECHR. There is no doubt that – at the latest – a person will be considered ‘charged’ when he or she is suspected of crime on reasonable grounds. The question is whether a person may be considered as being ‘charged’ at an earlier stage. In a case concerning the appointment of a public defence counsel, the Supreme Court stated in general that a person should be treated as ‘charged with a criminal offence’ when ‘the authorities have taken some measure with the consequence that a person’s situation is substantially affected by the fact that there is a criminal suspicion against him’.”

  How a person would be considered being charged with a crime has nothing to do with a decision to charge. Get it Moron.

  a person will be considered ‘charged’ when he or she is suspected of crime on reasonable grounds. Do you understand?

  Now comes the interesting question that I doubt you can answer correctly?

  Is Julian suspected of a crime on reasonable grounds?

  The answer is NO.

  An arrest warrant is issued for his arrest because he is suspected of a four crimes on probable cause. A higher suspicion and a stronger legal measure.

  And what does that mean pinhead?

  Is Julian Assange considered to be charged with a crime.

  YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

  Julian Assange’s lawyers are ignorant of the Swedish legal system. It was no surprise they lost in three courts. And most of Julian Assange’s supporters are ignorant too. But you stand out as the worst of them all.

  I just wish you could stand in my shoes just once, because then you would see what a pathetic idiot you are.

• 

  Shisei September 21, 2012 at 04:16

  Göran

  The line you want from Arbed that says Assange is not yet charged is (at least for non-Swedes)

  “If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange…”

  IF IF IF IF IF IF

• 

  Villager September 21, 2012 at 04:36

  “or it just charge”….read ‘or is it just charge’…

  Viewed holistically, boy is the situation Assange in complex. No easy solutions. Perhaps that’s why everyone’s grappling with it. What will be, will be. That applies to all of us.

  I do feel sorry for Assange not being able to see the light of day. And wondering if, how and when he ever will.

  I’m surprised there isn’t a signature campaign in the UK to pressure the Govt to allow him safe passage to Ecuador. Is there insufficient public opinion support?
  —
  Arbed, would the risks of extradition to the US be any lesser from the UK? (hypothetical question)

• 

  Shisei September 21, 2012 at 09:08

  Göran

  you should apoligize to Arbed. Your post 4:09 is incredibly rude.

• 

  Jemand September 21, 2012 at 09:57

  @Goran

  This relates to UK/Commonwealth and mostly US. 

  A charge (noun) is a process in which the police will formally accuse you of a specific crime, usually in the police station, with an explicit understanding that the matter WILL be prosecuted. Police will NOT charge someone unless they intend to prosecute. The charge represents a decision made AFTER an investigation when enough evidence, including witness statements, gives them confidence that an offence has been committed and a prosecution can succeed. If there is any further investigation, it usually supports the charge. Police do not want to lay charges if they think there is any reasonable possibility of having to later withdraw the charges. Flip-flopping is BAD practice.

  The accused MUST be present to be charged. The accused is questioned and given an opportunity to provide a statement PRIOR to being charged. Charges in absentia do not make sense as the accused might be dead, the wrong person or have something to say that undermines the charge. Withdrawing and reinstituting charges is BAD practice, police only want to issue charges ONCE. They can only prosecute the charge in court ONCE. When charged, the accused must be brought to trial within a reasonable period of time otherwise a prosecution can FAIL.

  When charged, a person will be either remanded or bailed to appear as soon as possible before a court which determines whether the charge is valid including all the formal details. A committal or other hearing might be scheduled.

  An indictment is the same thing as a charge. The term is used in a different jurisdiction (court) or for a different crime (associated with a court) usually in the US. There is no significant differences for the purposes of this discussion. It’s clearer to use “charge”.

  There are minor variations to the above depending on the offence and the jurisdiction, but in every case in the US and Commonwealth, a charge is a statement to an accused that he WILL be prosecuted, notwithstanding some unexpected eventuality or offer to do a deal.

  The important point in relation to the use of the term “charge” is that it means the prosecution has  COMMITTED TO PROSECUTING the charge and cannot easily or inexplicably withdraw it. Unless of course it is in some flunky country that has a shitty justice system.

  I wrote this in a hurry, so if anyone with more info would kindly fill in the gaps, or tidy up the wording, please do.

• 

  Arbed September 21, 2012 at 09:57

  Shisei 9.08am

  Oh, don’t worry. I think it actually helps people here see the wood from the trees, don’t you?

  For fun sometimes, I idly muse about that psychological concept called projection: where the things you say out loud – what comes out of your mouth – are really the things you are trying to tell yourself (or your subconscious is); the things you need to hear yourself.

  Personally, I don’t think you can win an argument by taking two words out of someone else’s citation (paragraph 22 of the Supreme Court Agreed Facts – note, that means agreed by the Swedish Prosecution Authority) and saying “there, now it works”. And then entirely skip over the source they provide for “crystal clarity” – paragraph 5 here:

  http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/julian-assange-v-swedish-prosecution-authority.html

  In full, so nobody misses it this time:

  “Ms Rose has raised a further point which has validity. Para 83 of the judgment refers to offences of which Mr Assange “stands charged”. This is not accurate as charges have not yet been brought against Mr Assange. The judgment will be corrected to read “offences in respect of which his extradition is sought”.

  Note to Villager: You were asking whether the words ‘charge’ and ‘indict’ are synonymous. Yes, they are – the only difference is British English vs US English. From the OED:

  Definition of indict
  verb
  [with object] chiefly North American

  formally accuse of or charge with a crime: his former manager was indicted for fraud

  Thesaurus entry for indict:

  Main Entry:
  indict  [in-dahyt] Show IPA
  Part of Speech: verb
  Definition: accuse
  Synonyms: arraign, censure, charge, criminate, face with charges, finger*, frame*, impeach, incriminate, inculpate, prosecute, summon, tax
  Antonyms: absolve, acquit, exonerate

  Hope that helps.

• 

  Villager September 21, 2012 at 10:50

  Thanks for clearing that up Arbed, yes it seems you’re right i generally associate the word indict with the US.

  Having lived in the UK for a decade and a half over varying time periods, somehow i recall it is the word charge that generally held currency.

• 

  Arbed September 21, 2012 at 11:03

  Villager 4.36am

  Ooh, you’ve asked the big one there. Ok, I’ll have a go…

  So many people point out that extradition would probably be easier from the UK than Sweden – it’s seen (at least by UK citizens) as more of a poodle to the US; its extradition treaty is more lopsided in favour of the US, etc.

  There is, of course, the issue of the US/Sweden bilateral treaty having a Temporary Surrender clause which the US/UK treaty doesn’t. However, many people argue that there is something similar in the UK one. Personally, I don’t know how much validity that assertion has so, for argument’s sake, let’s say there is and discount that as a reason per se to argue why extradition via Sweden is easier than direct from the UK. (I want to stress, though, I’m only taking the Temporary Surrender clause issue out of the equation here to make a point; it could well be a valid factor.) So, assuming a legal equivalence on what could be called the ‘interruptability’ of an unrelated criminal investigation/ prosecution for the purposes of extradition for something else entirely, you’re left with assessing the differences in the quality and rigour of the respective justice systems. Which we’re all having a lovely time exploring on this thread…

  Some might argue that what we’re learning here about how the Swedish justice system works in practice does indicate it’s a bit more mallable than the UK’s. But those of us who watched closely as the Assange case progressed through the UK courts and were horrified at the way the courts’ interpretation of the 2003 Extradition Act totally mashed all the protections of defendants’ rights built into it (in order to push a politically desired result through) would probably consider that a moot point too.

  A second point is that onward extradition from Sweden would require the UK’s consent, ie it would require the agreement of two nations rather than just one. This is much less of a bar than people realise as the decision could be the sole decision of the Home Secretary, and hers alone. The 2003 Extradition 2003 has a protection built into it called ‘specialty’ under Section 58, that is, it ensures an individual can only be extradited to one country – in the case of Assange, Sweden. Once legal proceedings in that country have been completed, the individual is given a 45-day leave, during which they are free to go where they want. Assange should, therefore, be free to travel to any other state – including the UK, Ecuador or Australia – once legal proceedings against him are completed in Sweden.

  However, specialty can be waived by the country granting the initial extradition request – in this case the UK – thereby allowing an individual to be extradited to a third country. This is the guarantee – that the Home Secretary will NOT waive specialty – which Ecuador seems unable to persuade the UK to give. Some commenters have argued that any decision by the Home Secretary to agree Assange’s onward extradition from Sweden to the US would be subject to judicial review in the UK courts (as if, judging by how they’ve behaved so far in his case, that could offer any comfort at all…). Not necessarily so, according to the fine detail of Section 58 of the Act:

  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/58

  So, here’s my personal view on the “wouldn’t it be easier from the UK than Sweden” question, and it’s purely a matter of ‘politics’.

  I believe the reason the US didn’t/doesn’t apply direct to the UK for extradition is that:

  1) they hadn’t had time to prepare a case for extradition that was strong enough to bear scrutiny by the time the Swedish had already got theirs in, ie. it was Cablegate – published 27 November 2010 – which really got the US upset; the Swedish EAW was already issued on 26 November.

  And 2) for the US to then ask Britain for extradition when there’s already an opposing one in existence would put their ‘greatest ally’ in a really awkward position politically, having to choose between the two: go with Sweden and piss off your “special relationship” ally, the US; or go with the US request and piss off the huge percentage of your voting public who are opposed to the UK/US extradition treaty anyway (it’s HATED here in England) and 50% of your population (women). Plus putting one extradition request on top of another would bung the whole thing up for YEARS in the courts. That’s why it’s not being done from Britain – BECAUSE the UK is the ‘greater ally’.

  Does that make sense?

• 

  Arbed September 21, 2012 at 11:11

  PS. “and 50% of your population (women)”

  Sorry, I didn’t put that very clearly. What I meant was that I think British women overwhelmingly would like the allegations answered (well, everyone would, actually), but most simply can’t get their heads around why on earth the prosecution is refusing to do the questioning. They don’t see or know about the complexities of the Swedish system over here, they just look at it from the perspective of how the British system works, obviously. What would get 50% of the population/women really irate, though, is if the UK govt was asked to choose between a US and a Swedish extradition and the government chose against the one dealing with crimes against women; that would have a very potent symbolism, don’t you think?

• 

  Villager September 21, 2012 at 11:11

  Goran,

  I have seen you on these threads very closely now, but i haven’t seen you lose your shirt as you are doing with Arbed.
  What’s up? Are you just having a bad day? If so, that’s understandable, you’re human after all. Plus maybe you’re a bit shortchanged on your sleep?

  More to the point, please reconsider whether Julian is actually charged. Or as a commenter on your blog said he is ‘provisionally charged’? There seems to be some validity to that. Now you may suggest that under the Swedish system he is charged. At what point did he become charged? Was it when Ny declared that she was ready to prosecute based on the evidence supporting probable cause, subject to further interviewing Julian? That juncture was only reached because he was not in Sweden. Had he been, he would not have been ‘charged’ in the middle of the to-and-fro of interviews, would he? She would’ve waited till all the evidence was in and weighed.

  In order for the EAW to stand up, she stated what i alluded to above. If she hadn’t perhaps it wouldn’t have. She had to make a call publically at that time, but it doesn’t have to add-up to a charge.

  So please reconsider. I hope you are not overreaching yourself.

• 

  Villager September 21, 2012 at 11:21

  Goran, an afterthought, anyway, why is it so important whether Assange is charged or not?

• 

  Arbed September 21, 2012 at 11:55

  CE 2.35am

  Can I ask where you get the idea that Assange is rich and powerful please?

  According to a Rolling Stone interview, he’s completely bankrupt. From pages 5 and 6 of that interview:

  What forms has the pressure taken?
  My personal bank account was shut down, and some of our people have also had their personal bank accounts closed. Many people have lost their jobs – even those who were quite indirectly connected. The person who registered our Swiss domain name lost their job when Bloomberg reported their name on the record. One of the board members of the German charity that collects donations for us lost their security contract with the Swiss stock exchange. The stock exchange even put in writing that the cause was his affiliation with us. The Tor Project, which protects people around the world from being spied on or censored, lost some $600,000 to the U.S. government, as a result of one of their people, Jacob Appelbaum, having filled in for me once at a conference in New York. This type of indirect pressure has been applied to a great many people.

  How expensive has the legal battle been?
  We have many legal cases. This personal case, the Swedish extradition case, I have to pay for myself. I don’t think that is right. Actually, I think the organization should pay for it.

  Why?
  It is unquestionable that the case has been politicized as a result of my role in the organization. However, to avoid the attack that the funding would be spent on this case, which is effectively used by our opponents to assassinate my character, it’s completely separate. Which means that I’m now completely bankrupt as a result.

  Completely bankrupt?
  Yeah. There have been all sorts of strange complications, such as that the previous lawyers managed to get hold of all my book advances and keep them. So I have not received a cent from any publicity that I’ve done.

  There’s a rumor that you have £3.3 million in your bank account that you’re keeping.
  Yeah, sure. Our opponents like to spread these rumors to deny us our donations.

  So that’s not true?
  It’s absolute nonsense. They spread rumors that I’m living in a mansion, they spread rumors that I’m homeless. Two years ago, fabricated documents were spread saying that I traveled first class and lived in a castle in South Africa, and I’ve never even been to South Africa. If you want to attack an organization, how do you attack it? You attack the cash flow and leadership. The character assassinations are dangerous, but taken as a whole, they’re absurdly comical. We have, on the one hand, some 700,000 references to me being an anti-Semite, and on the other hand, some 2.5 million references to me being a member of the Mossad. I’m accused of everything from being a cat torturer to being a rapist to being overly concerned about my hair to being too rich to being so poor that my socks are dirty. The only ones I have left now to look forward to are some kind of combination of bestiality and pedophilia.

  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/julian-assange-the-rolling-stone-interview-20120118#ixzz276DhK2CO

  Personally, I tend to believe this. It’s the UK taxpayer who’s footed the bill for all the Swedish Prosecution Authority/Crown Prosecution Service costs for an extradition case which lasted 18 months. Assange had to pay all his own costs. Apparently, the $80,000 in the Swiss bank account that was Assange’s personal ‘fortune’ from work prior to Wikileaks got returned, but I guess that would be swallowed by his legal costs. And I think he got about £450,000 as an advance on the autobiography deal but that went straight into an escrow account held by Mark Stephens’ legal firm. Assange fell out with Stephens when he found out their £650,000 bill was vastly overcharging him, then Stephens snaffled the escrow account. Jennifer Robinson left Stephens’ firm in protest, but continues to work for Assange pro bono. Garzon has said he’s working pro bono too. I don’t know if Michael Ratner is as legal counsel over in the States, but as Ratner is President of the Centre of Constitutional Rights over there, it’s possible. The ACLU does a lot of pro bono cases, I think.

  Then Assange fell out with the autobiography’s publishers because he wanted to totally restructure the book after the first draft, and thought he had their agreement to this, but they went ahead with publishing the rough draft they’d receive from Andrew O’Hagan’s (the ghost writer) researcher. And Mark Stephens got the escrow money.

  Assange seems to fall out with a lot of people. Must be a very awkward cuss, I suppose. Then again, he does seem to get shafted a lot.

  He can’t have made any money personally from Wikileaks. It’s a non-profit surviving on donations from the public. And they don’t sell the stuff they publish; all the media partner deals have involved no money at all. I’ve seen somewhere that Assange has said he has no objection in principle to Wikileaks either buying or selling its info (newspapers and journalists do that all the time, after all) but they haven’t done so far.

  And powerful? As an individual? What, like a politician or something, you mean?

• 

  Villager September 21, 2012 at 11:58

  Arbed,

  Yes it makes loads of sense. Thank you for your responses and time.

  What is your take on Assange’s UK legal team in those EAW hearings. Do you think they argued strongly and did the best job anyone could?

  Do you think Ny’s statement that she was ready to prosecute, subject to or if…etc etc, was deliberately manipulated, despite all the early evidence in the public domain pointing to a weak case, in order to secure enforcement of the warrant? Did she overextend herself? Could she in all honesty have made that declaration BEFORE interviewing Assange further?

  I’m trying to understand your comment of “mashed all the protections of defendants’ rights built into it (in order to push a politically desired result through) …”

  Thanks

• 

  technicolour September 21, 2012 at 12:26

  Just breaking in to add an interesting website from the Pirate Party rep, which gives quite a lot of sobering background on the flavour of modern Sweden. Have also been reading Stieg Larrson’s journalism; much the same.

  http://falkvinge.net/

• 

  Villager September 21, 2012 at 12:28

  Nice to see you TC. off for a bit now…

• 

  Arbed September 21, 2012 at 13:00

  Villager 11.58am

  Hi, to answer your questions in order:

  1) I didn’t think Ben Emmerson (now in the running to be the new Head of the European Court of Human Rights – not sure if he got the job, to be honest, but he was frontrunner for it, so he’s not shaky by any means) did a fantastic job at the High Court – but, then again, not nearly as bad as the actual High Court judgment which resulted makes it appear. The tortuous legal knots the judges go through to make ‘dual criminality’ work (only as regards the description of the allegations as written [by Marianne Ny, remember] on the face of the EAW, remember – that’s important to note) are a wonder to behold. Example: they did try to make it look as if they had studied the underlying evidence (although, officially, EAW law – based on an imperative to place “mutual recognition” of European justice systems as equivalent as far as possible – they’re barred from taking any underlying evidence into account) by introducing (at paragraph 94 of the judgment, if you want to look it up) the fact that the forensic report suggested the tear in the “deliberately torn” was NOT cut with scissors or a knife and was most likely the result of wear and tear. As we know now, the judges have totally ‘overlooked’ the rather more startling forensic result that said condom had no DNA, male or female, on it. Makes you wonder exactly what document they were looking at, doesn’t it? Did Ny withhold the page with the DNA result on it from the file she submitted to the UK court? We don’t know, of course, because we don’t know what’s in the evidence file she submitted to Assange’s defence team. Bjorn Hurtig hinted in his testimony (when told by Clare Montgomery (CPS, for Sweden) that the reason Assange’s presence in Sweden for questioning might be needed so that the prosecutor could, for example, take a DNA sample to match to forensic evidence of the condom) “well, that depends if it’s ever been worn”… But, more to the point, in the judgment this paragraph 94 is buried in the middle of paragraph after paragraph looking at various precedents in UK law about rape cases involving ‘deception’. The judges are seriously arguing that ‘deception’ could be the result of wear and tear? Do you see what I mean?

  Dinah Rose was brilliant. And the legal submission to get the Supreme Court case re-opened was superb, a really, really watertight argument based on existing ECJ rulings, plus lots of other good stuff. The Supreme Court rejected on very dubious grounds, in my view. And, of course, Marianne Ny tried to get the CPS to get the Supreme Court to cancel the 14-day window they’d given Assange to appeal to Europe (she asked for it to be reduced to ZERO days) and have him taken into custody in the UK straightaway. Doubtless she did this as soon as she’d had a chance to read that submission to get the SC case re-opened (you remember it was submitted on 13 June and the SC refused it 9am the following morning, the 14 June).

  Try to block someone’s only remaining avenue – and legal right – to appeal to Europe? No wonder Assange fled to the Ecuadorian embassy as soon as he heard this. Persecution, political or otherwise, is about right – that’s what I’d call it too.

  Answer to your second question is simple. Yes, she did deliberately manipulate her statement to the UK court. (Again, good example: You have a forensic report in your possession on 25 October 2010 which shows there is no DNA, male or female, on evidence presented by one of the complainants. Do you a) think this may bring the credibility of that complainant’s story into question, or b) write up all that complainant’s allegations on an EAW extradition warrant issued on 26 November as “sexual assault”, “unlawful coersion” and “sexual molestation”?).

  No, she could NOT have legitimately put forward the idea that “criminal proceedings” were advanced enough for her to decide on prosecution BEFORE questioning Assange. Here’s the relevant testimony by two witnesses for the defence at the District Court. There’s no transcript of the proceedings, unfortunately, so these are just copied from live tweets made by Federico Cocco from the courtroom on the day:

  Brita Sundberg-Weitman (former Swedish judge): the decision to prosecute can only be taken after the preliminary investigation has closed.
  and
  Sven-Erik Ahlem (former Swedish chief prosecutor): The last thing that happens as part of the preliminary investigation is that the suspect has a right to see all the material collected and also comment on whether he/she wants to hear more witnesses.
  JJ (Assange junior lawyer): The prosecutor cannot make the decision on whether to prosecute until then?
  SEA: That’s correct, unless there’s a risk of prescription (?)

  Despite that evidence, the District Court Justice Riddle bought Marianne Ny’s statement wholesale in his judgment. But I think that says more about the behaviour of the UK courts in this case. What do you think?

• 

  John Goss September 21, 2012 at 13:07

  Arbed 20/09/12 @ 8.55 p.m. What an excellent piece of research my friend. It is a lot of reading but clearly shows the United States of America, that great bastion of democracy, is after the closure and outlawing of Wikileaks and the imprisonment of its founder. I said in an earlier comment that Hague had already done the deal with the US. There will be no request for extradition. The FBI will just arrest him, and Sweden will turn a blind eye, as the UK did when complicit in MOSSAD’s arrest of Mordechai Vanunu. No wonder Hague was pulling his hair (singular) out when Assange outwitted him!

Comments are closed.