|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 9, 2016 16:36:38 GMT
Assange gave an interview to the BBC Today programme in 2010, in which he put his side of the case. John Humphrys: Why won't you go back to Sweden?
Julian Assange : I was there for some five weeks after these initial allegations were made. They were dropped within 24 hours of them first being made. The most senior prosecutor in Stockholm reviewed them and they were dropped. Then politician Claes Borgstrom became involved, other forces became involved and the case, the investigative part of the case, was taken up again. We waited some four/five weeks to be interviewed, so I could put my side of this case forward, and that did not happen.
I asked: "OK, I have things to do, I had only planned to be in Sweden for one week, it's time to leave. Is there any problem with that?" For the first three weeks, the Swedish prosecution refused to answer whether it was ok to leave or not. So caught there in limbo. Finally, grudgingly admitted that there was no reason to keep me there. And at that stage I went about my normal course of work. news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stmAssange came to Sweden in August 2010. Between 13 and 18 August there was a sequence of alleged incidents of sexual abuse against AA. There was also an allegation of rape in respect of SW. On 20 August 2010 both AA and SW went to a police station. As a result of what the police were told, a criminal investigation was commenced into sexual molestation. On 31 August 2010, Assange was questioned about the allegations, which he denied. This interview is important, as it meant that from this stage he knew of the allegations against him. Following this interview, the Swedish prosecutor decided to proceed with the investigation. On 22 September 2010, messages were left with Assange’s lawyer saying that Assange was now required for “interrogation”, the second stage interview before a prosecution. (Assange’s Swedish lawyer was later to falsely maintain that the prosecutor had not tried to contact him. When this was exposed as incorrect, he then claimed that he was not able to pass the messages on to his client.) On or about 27 September 2010, Assange left Sweden for England. It is not clear whether Assange was aware of the request for interrogation. However, his Swedish lawyer confirmed that Assange could return in October 2010. This offer is declined by the prosecutor, as Assange was then required sooner. The Swedish prosecutor proceeded to obtain a warrant for Assange’s arrest on 20 November 2010. Assange instructed his Swedish lawyer to challenge the warrant and it is appealed to the Court of Appeal of Svea. On 24 November 2010 the appeal court upheld the warrant. The significance of this is that the allegations giving rise to the warrant have already been tested in the Swedish legal system. On 26 November 2010 the prosecutor issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). This EAW is certified by the UK serious crime agency on 6 December 2010. The following day Assange surrendered himself to a London police station. Assange instructed his English lawyers to challenge the EAW, and a hearing was held before the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales on 7 and 8 February 2011. Assange’s barrister attacked the extradition on a number of detailed grounds. However, in a detailed judgment handed down on 24 February 2011, it was decided that the EAW was valid and that the alleged offences would constitute offences both in England and Sweden. The Chief Magistrate also heard witnesses on behalf of Assange. Under cross-examination, it became clear that Assange’s own Swedish lawyer had misled the court and Assange's other witnesses over whether the Swedish prosecutor had been in contact to request interrogation before Assange left Sweden. In a scathing passage of the judgment , the Chief Magistrate even accused Assange's Swedish lawyer of “a deliberate attempt to mislead the court”. |
|
|
|
Post by unclejunior on Feb 9, 2016 17:50:28 GMT
Ah Minge old boy ,you do you realise that despite your admirable and surgical rebuttal of the Rapey Aussiie,s case so far ,that in Bert,s messed up brain where Political Trumps rule the roost that anti USA rancour ranks way above simple rape charges either in Sweden or anywhere else ....wiki leaks and its damage to American interests around the world beats all that is on offer here....so Assange is perceived as a white Mandella by his supporters.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 9, 2016 17:59:07 GMT
He was not 'eluding Ny' since she had given him permission to leave Sweden. Can't you read, not even your own quote? Hurtig told the extradition hearing that he had been wrong to assert that the prosecutor Marianne Ny had made no active attempt to interview Assange between her appointment to the case, on 1 September last year, and 27 September, when Assange left the country with her permission.Assange was a visitor to Sweden and not a resident. As the head of an international organization, he wouldn't want to be hanging around indefinitely in Sweden. That's Hurtig's claim. Given he's been exposed as at best rather forgetful and muddled (at best), I'd treat it with caution. There is no actual evidence Ny cleared Assange to leave. It has actually been stated, in court, that his lawyer was advised he was going to be arrested. Mr. Assange says he stayed in Sweden for five weeks after the allegations first arose, waiting in vain to be questioned, and finally left after receiving permission from Ms. Ny.
Ms. Montgomery disputed this claim in court Monday. She said Mr. Assange's Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, was told on Sept. 15 that his client was "not subject to any restraint and could leave Sweden." But sometime after Sept. 15, Ms. Ny contacted Mr. Hurtig and asked him to arrange an interrogation with Mr. Assange. Mr. Hurtig said he could not make contact with his client, according to Ms. Montgomery.
On Sept. 27, Ms. Ny told Mr. Hurtig that she intended to issue an arrest warrant for Mr. Assange, Ms. Montgomery said. That same day, Mr Assange left Sweden, she said.
link Assange did not want to leave Sweden at that time. He actually had a residency application in process at the time he left. Funny that Assange should decide to abscond from a country he had decided he wanted to live and work in, on the same day his lawyer is told of the arrest warrant. Not at all elusive. |
|
bertruss2
New Member
https://wallpapercave.com/w/wp3765741
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by bertruss2 on Feb 9, 2016 23:30:40 GMT
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 10, 2016 4:04:21 GMT
A media interview with Julian Assange, conducted on 21st December, 2010, isn't terribly compelling evidence. What would you expect him to say? "I decided to leg it when I realised I was going to get into strife from maybe raping them birds?"
Top marks for finding a source even less impartial than Assange's lawyers!
Carry on flailing. You're making OH look clever by comparison, so you're doing some good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 10, 2016 11:44:38 GMT
Sweet mother of mercy he'll be quoting Assange's mum next.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2016 13:31:34 GMT
Bill Stickers Is Innocent.
|
|
bertruss2
New Member
https://wallpapercave.com/w/wp3765741
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by bertruss2 on Feb 10, 2016 13:34:03 GMT
So, are you this 'impartial source', with the ability to see into the bedrooms of Swedish women and give your impartial report on what goes on there, even if it's in the dark and under the sheets? Or, perhaps, this is your crackpot reversal of Sharia law, and you consider that the testimony of a man is worth nothing at all but, when women speak, they are to be believed totally.
Not that Assange has a case to answer, since three out of the four complaints have lapsed, and the fourth has not resulted in any charge being made either. But your motto is 'Guilty without trial or charge', it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 10, 2016 14:12:18 GMT
So, are you this 'impartial source', with the ability to see into the bedrooms of Swedish women and give your impartial report on what goes on there, even if it's in the dark and under the sheets? Or, perhaps, this is your crackpot reversal of Sharia law, and you consider that the testimony of a man is worth nothing at all but, when women speak, they are to be believed totally. Not that Assange has a case to answer, since three out of the four complaints have lapsed, and the fourth has not resulted in any charge being made either. But your motto is 'Guilty without trial or charge', it seems. You are so off kilter with all this it's frankly embarrassing. The issue of guilt or innocence is to be decided by the court. For reasons best known to himself Assange is trying to get out of that. As the judge put in the summing up of the extradition hearing:
If there have been any irregularities within the Swedish system, then the right place for these to be examined and
remedied is the Swedish trial process. Sweden is a member of the European Union and has undertaken to abide
by ECHR obligations. None of these points raised by the defence establishes an abuse of process. No charges have been made because that's not how the swedish system works. Again from the judge: 1. The proceedings in Sweden are at the preliminary investigation stage. The preliminary investigation does not come to an end until evidence is served on Mr Assange or his lawyer and there is an interrogation of Mr Assange with the opportunity for further enquiries. Thereafter there is a decision as to charge. If charged the trial is likely to take place shortly thereafter. So they can't charge him until he's interviewed but he's to busy playing with something in his cupboard. |
|
bertruss2
New Member
https://wallpapercave.com/w/wp3765741
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by bertruss2 on Feb 10, 2016 16:17:50 GMT
Why should there be a trial? You must think that Sweden is Stalinist Russia. If somebody made a complaint against you, would you expect to be put on trial automatically.
What he is trying to get out of is extradition to Sweden. He was questioned by the police at the time of the complaints and he was not asked to do anything else at that time. Since then, the Swedish prosecutor has refused to question him in England, although it's quite usual to interview people who are in other countries.
Since he has been granted political asylum in Ecuador and the UN Working Group has ruled in his favour, the European Arrest Warrant is not valid.
That's all something to be argued over by the lawyers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 10, 2016 16:35:48 GMT
Why should there be a trial? You must think that Sweden is Stalinist Russia. If somebody made a complaint against you, would you expect to be put on trial automatically. Are you 6 years old? Somebody makes a complaint against me, the CPS decide if I have a case to answer. If they decide I do, I go to court where I'm tried and my innocence or guilt is established. Either that or I bugger off out the country and they apply for an extradition warrant. Or I hide in a cupboard. The prosecution in this case have decided there is a case to answer. This has been tested extensively in 2 English courts of law, where the merits or not of the case were extensively tested by Assange's legal team. On both occasions it was deemed there was a case to answer. On both occasions it was deemed that the allegations would constitute an offence under English law. here is their judgement. There aren't any particularly difficult words in it, but if you're struggling do ask.
In our view, therefore, the description was fair and accurate; the offence was, for the reasons we have given an offence under the law of England and Wales; the requirement of dual criminality was satisfied. I'm genuinely embarrassed for you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2016 16:42:32 GMT
I understand all the verbage in most of the posts above but, for me anyway, if the accusations of rape are coming from a third party after the alleged victims have denied rape, it all seems very peculiar to me; and that there is an alternative agenda from those making the accusations. This would explain why Assange is reluctant to go to Sweden to address these accusations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 10, 2016 16:50:46 GMT
I understand all the verbage in most of the posts above but, for me anyway, if the accusations of rape are coming from a third party after the alleged victims have denied rape, it all seems very peculiar to me; and that there is an alternative agenda from those making the accusations. This would explain why Assange is reluctant to go to Sweden to address these accusations. The Assange US extraditon line is a red mullet of the first water. If the UK extradite him to Sweden and if the US apply for extradition it then has to satisfy both the Swedish courts and the UK courts that extradition should take place. I.e the US would have a far better chance of extraditing him from the UK than Sweden because they would only have to clear one legal system. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2016 17:00:26 GMT
Ah, right. So it's just that Sweden wants him to answer to rape charges even though the victims have said he didn't. I read that many posts back but thought it a bit absurd. Which is why I imagined there'd be an alternative reason to get him in the dock. What a waste of money and time.
|
|
bertruss2
New Member
https://wallpapercave.com/w/wp3765741
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by bertruss2 on Feb 10, 2016 17:07:04 GMT
You are confusing the validity of the European Arrest Warrant with any further action in relation to the reasons for the warrant. English courts ruled that the Swedish prosecutor was entitled to question Assange about allegations of sexual offences. They didn't say, obviously, that there would be a court case.
Incidentally, it would be helpful if you gave a link to the stuff you're quoting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 10, 2016 17:08:24 GMT
Ah, right. So it's just that Sweden wants him to answer to rape charges even though the victims have said he didn't. I read that many posts back but thought it a bit absurd. Which is why I imagined there'd be an alternative reason to get him in the dock. What a waste of money and time. Frankly, if it is as absurd as made out, in all likely hood he could have trotted over there and got the first plane back. However if your prepared to go to the lengths JA has to avoid it including locking yourself in a cupboard for years it would suggest there is rather more to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 10, 2016 17:10:04 GMT
You are confusing the validity of the European Arrest Warrant with any further action in relation to the reasons for the warrant. English courts ruled that the Swedish prosecutor was entitled to question Assange about allegations of sexual offences. It didn't say, obviously, that there would be a court case. Incidentally, it would be helpful if you gave a link to the stuff you're quoting. I'm confusing you with somebody worth arguing with. |
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 10, 2016 17:23:28 GMT
Not that Assange has a case to answer, since three out of the four complaints have lapsed, and the fourth has not resulted in any charge being made either. Once more, with feeling. He has not been charged with an offence yet because the Swedish system does not permit a charge to be laid until after the final interrogation by the prosecutor. This has not taken place because he is cowering in the Ecuadorian embassy. |
|
bertruss2
New Member
https://wallpapercave.com/w/wp3765741
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by bertruss2 on Feb 10, 2016 17:31:27 GMT
However if your prepared to go to the lengths JA has to avoid it including locking yourself in a cupboard for years it would suggest there is rather more to it. That 'rather more to it' is the suspicion of dirty tricks by American intelligence agencies, the failure of the Swedish government to give a guarantee that Assange won't be taken to America and the Grand Jury in Alexandria, Virginia which is said to be preparing to prosecute Assange over Wikileaks. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Feb 10, 2016 17:44:53 GMT
However if your prepared to go to the lengths JA has to avoid it including locking yourself in a cupboard for years it would suggest there is rather more to it. That 'rather more to it' is the suspicion of dirty tricks by American intelligence agencies, the failure of the Swedish government to give a guarantee that Assange won't be taken to America and the Grand Jury in Alexandria, Virginia which is said to be preparing to prosecute Assange over Wikileaks. The Swedish Govt can't give a guarantee, because it governed by international law and international law would negate any guarantee given by the Govt. If the US applied for extradition and it would be dealt with by the Swedish Courts on merit and any guarantee given by the Govt would be worthless. It's a totally spurious notion and one assange is probably aware of. |
|
