Text messages sent by the two women who accuse Julian Assange of sexually assaulting them refer to revenge and financial gain in messages that undercut the veracity of their claims, attorneys for the WikiLeaks founder said on Tuesday. Testifying in Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in east London, defense witness Björn Hurtig said he …
'“In my opinion [Ny] should then have made sure Assange was given the opportunity to give his version of the events in detail,” Alhem said'
Ironic, given that, ostensibly, the purpose of the extradition is to make sure he does exactly that.
"Ironic, given that, ostensibly, the purpose of the extradition is to make sure he does exactly that"
Unfortunately for your sense of irony, that is what extradition under a European Arrest Warrant exactly isn't for.
@Steen Hive? HUH?
Do you really understand what is going on in this hearing?
Here. Let me break it down for you...
Julian Assange allegedly committed RAPE while in Sweden. He left the country before they could charge him.
Sweden then issues an EAW which forces Assange to surrender himself to the UK Government.
Assange is in the process of fighting the extradition.
It is ironic because the defense is saying that Assange was not given the chance to give his side of the story to the Swedes. He would have been had he stayed in Sweden.
"Prosecutors there have said they want him available for questioning"
I was speaking specifically of the purpose of the extradition as expressed by those requesting it, not the defined purpose of an EAW.
As the Swedes still have yet to charge Assange with a crime, the defined purpose of an EAW does not appear, IMHO, to apply. This is one of the few points of the defense case with which I agree.
Ironic that you would FAIL me for not applying a definition which, by definition, should not be applicable.
Trolly troll, troll lol lol lol
Back under your bridge Gumby.
Icon for the Python thief, not me.
Again... I think you fail to understand the terms you use. And of course, there's this term... RIF (Reading is Fundamental)
The reason I'm here is that the bulk of the commentards deny the truth and praise St. Julian of Assange. I guess growing up on sound bites has limited your capacity to fully comprehend all of the facts presented.
So lets start correcting your mistakes.
RAPE is one of the 32 crimes where during an extradition hearing that the courts do not have to consider the duality of the crime. Even the defense acknowledges this and trotted out an expert on English law which concluded that what Assange was accused of in Sweden would fail to meet English law's definition of RAPE. To which the Swedes replied... and I'm paraphrasing...
Its nice that the witness is an expert on English Law, however the crime occurred in Sweden, and its what Swedish law determines to be rape is what counts, not to mention that RAPE is on the list of 32 defined crimes where duality does not have to be tested. And also that the charge carries a term of 4 years in prison therefore meets the requirements.
As to leaving the country before he could be charged... See the post where I quote the article (and provide a reference) where Assange's own ATTORNEY IN SWEDEN, under oath admitted that Assange ducked the investigator's attempts to interview him and then left the country.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your delusional views on the world. Or that your patron saint of smeg heads allegedly actually did the crime.
And yes, the capitalization is intentional because its a crime that you seem to brush aside so casually. That is the charge Assange faces in Sweden...
I really wish you would have read the Skeletons for the defense and from Sweden.
Lets try this one more time...
In the skeleton, the Swedes say the following:
1) The person who authorized the EAW has the authority to do so.
2) The purpose of the EAW is so that they can prosecute Assange in Sweden
3) Assange will be charged with Rape which under the treaty is one of the 32 crimes for which duality does not apply. And the crime of Rape carries a 4 year sentence.
4) The Swedish criminal procedure requires that Assange be interviewed before he is formally charged.
5) Sweden will abide by their obligations and if the US does charge Assange and requests extradition, the death penalty has to be off the table. Which BTW is the same condition that he would have in the UK so that is a moot point. (And also a non-starter since the question of death penalty was never on the table.)
Now does that make sense?
To me, it does.
Re: @ Ian Michael Gumby
"I see you're still busy being completely wrong in your role as chief Assange eStalker."
"[..] FUCKING IDIOT [...]"
Aside from the fact that you have not assembled evidence of a 'course of conduct' (as required under the protection from harassment act 1997, which you can find online BTW), IMG has not made any approaches to the twit, Assange. Moreover, should IMG be an 'eStalker', then you will find there are probably some 20 million of them, if Jules' assessment of the hits is accurate. But you knew that, didn't you? You were just impotently pounding the keys, shouting at the screen, and behaving like a child in an adult's body, whilst mummy downstairs was preparing your lunch.
You should listen to the appropriate court reports more often, or get out more. You are wrong. His Swedish lawyer had to eat humble pie in the court room and admit that the Swedish authorities tried repeatedly to contact him and that he didn't respond. By then it was too late because Julian, whose lawyer had been warned that a warrant was out for his arrest, had fled the country. That and his nomadic lifestyle are why he is currently under restrictions, including daily reporting.
I find myself wondering how much his mummy is to blame. Take a look through the square window and tell me what you think:
"Assange’s mother believed that formal education would inculcate an unhealthy respect for authority in her children and dampen their will to learn. “I didn’t want their spirits broken,” she told me. In any event, the family had moved thirty-seven times by the time Assange was fourteen, making consistent education impossible. He was homeschooled, sometimes, and he took correspondence classes and studied informally with university professors. But mostly he read on his own, voraciously. He was drawn to science. “I spent a lot of time in libraries going from one thing to another, looking closely at the books I found in citations, and followed that trail,” he recalled. He absorbed a large vocabulary, but only later did he learn how to pronounce all the words that he learned."
By the way, it is rather gratifying to observe your ad hominem language. It means to me that you are, in the face of the data assembled by IMG, unable to respond at a level commensurate with his intellectual abilities, and thereby left unable to do anything but stamp your feet, swear and use UPPER CASE RANTS. Do PlEaSE GrACe us with some mixed rant and some l33t speek: i rceommmenD th4t uu try so/\/\ethnig lao|\|G tehs3 lines see!?!?!??!?!?? easy peasy!!!!!!
Re: Irony, much?
How's your sense of irony today then:
"Assange's apparent gung-ho attitude in an early meeting to naming U.S. informants stunned his media collaborators, the new book claimed.
The title said he told international reporters: 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.'"
<Robocop>And remember, we care</Robocop>
I'll try using smaller words.
In court, under oath, Assange's lawyer admitted that while he was in contact with the Swedish Authorities he failed to relay the request for an interview to his client Assange.
Apparently Assange was out of communication with his lawyer for 6 days while he was leaving the country.
Oh, how convenient.
During the investigation back in 2010 Assange had applied to Sweden to enter the country to face his accusers. On 21st August 2010 the charges were dropped by Sweden at the same time Sweden was ALSO deciding whether to let Assange enter. This is hard fact released by the prosecution to the media, including the BBC at the time.
The reasons the Swedish head prosecutor gave for dropping the charges was………..
…… (direct quote) "the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr. Assange was not suspected of rape” (unquote)………
It wasn’t until the release of the US documents that the Swedish prosecution obtained new evidence from the alleged victims and reinstated those charges again. In turn the alleged victims made contact with each other and decided to become rich and famous just before supplying that evidence. Again this was all made public over the last month or so by everyone involved.
Strange how you never mentioned this lot, very strange indeed.
This is a fit up, it shouts it in the loudest terms possible. No one in their right mind would go back to Sweden under these circumstances, not in a million years.
Problem with Gumby's views...
Rape is also questionable when the plaintiffs are seen as being untrustworthy. In this case everyone basically knows this is a beat up for American entrapment & probably few want to be involved. Whilst the authorities in Sweden have their designs on Assange the people on the ground have left him to his own devices. I think most believe this rape case to be a joke & makes a mockery of real rape...
"Do you really understand what is going on in this hearing"
I certainly do, perhaps (almost definitely) more than yourself - in no small part because I am fluent in Swedish.
That aside, Assange doesn't need to be present in Sweden to be charged with rape, but he does need to be charged with rape to be extradited from the UK to Sweden under a European Arrest Warrant for that offence. geddit?
Marianne Ny, the Allmänåklagare made a total, unmitigated politicised, leaked balls of this - and if Assange even has a case to answer in Sweden (looking doubtful) HER malfeasance will be the cause of the whole circus collapsing.
@Rex Alfie Lee
"Rape is also questionable when the plaintiffs are seen as being untrustworthy. In this case everyone basically knows this is a beat up for American entrapment & probably few want to be involved. "
I think I stand by my comment:
"Sorry but as a whole, the comment tards make Karl Pilkington look like a Mensa candidate."
It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks about the veracity of the accusers. Its what the Swedish Police and Prosecutors believe. They are the ones who are bringing the charges against Assange. Then its up to the jury/judge to determine the veracity of the complaint. Not to confuse you with big words, but that's called a trial. Assange doesn't want to go to trial and face his accusers. This is why he fled the country of Sweden. This is why Assange has hired a bunch of lawyers to argue that he shouldn't return to face trial. Unlike you, I believe in the legal system. Sure they can get it wrong sometimes, but without laws or government, we would live in chaos and anarchy.
So forgetting about things like due process and the law, you further complicate your bizarre view of the world that is really disturbing. I guess its a life of watching action movies where the CIA has spies everywhere and they all have nifty high tech gadgets. Clearly you give the US Government and its Alphabet Soup of Agencies way too much credit. Heck, if they can't find Osama bin Laden, what makes you think they could pull off such a stunt against good ol St. Julian in such short notice?
(I wouldn't want to burst your bubble because you were probably in diapers when Clinton was in office and decimated the Human Int budget for the CIA...)
One other poster, Scorchio!!, has done his homework. He's actually done a lot of digging and found out more about Assange's past than all of the commentards who follow St. Julian of ASSange.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Assange for what he is and why he's so fscked up. Putting the fact that he's an Aussie aside, having no structured education, poor parenting and no father figure... it doesn't take a genius why he's a sociopath.
And since you want to propagate the myth of St. Julian, why don't we ask some questions... like does Julian have ties to the Iranian government? Was Assange behind the leaks sent to Al Jezeera where they started their own short lived leak site?
I'd be lying if I said I knew the answer to those questions. And while Dan Goodin would chastise me for even suggesting these talking points, I would remind him that they are more plausible than anything you or the other commentards have said or accused the US of doing.
"Prosecutors there have said they want him available for questioning"
That not a reason for an extradition. It falls far, far short of even the most basic of human rights values.
Ah Dennis... Lest ye forget...
This isn't the first article on the hearing and in the other article, I believe I covered that issue ad nauseum.
But since you clearly can't read, let look at what the Swedish Skeleton has to say to answer the old accusation that Assange hasn't been charged...
"11. The defence asserts that the EAW was issued for the purpose of interrogation and not for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. However there is no equivocal statement or ambiguity in the warrant to substantiate this assertion. On the contrary the EAW, read as a whole, makes it plain that the warrant is issued for the purpose of a criminal prosecution."
"19. As is apparent from the extremely limited evidence on Swedish procedural law laid before the court by the defence; the case is still formally at the stage of preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation may not in practice be completed until there has been a meeting and interrogation of the accused person. The only exception to this right is where such a process can have not value. See section 18 of the Manual for Swedish Prosecutors exhibit MS/2. The fact that some further pre-trial evidential investigation in Sweden might result in no trial taking place does not mean that Mr Assange is merely suspected as opposed to being sought for the purpose of a contemplated prosecution, see Patel v. The Office of the Attorney General, Frankfurt  EWHC 155 (Admin) para 45. An application for detention and arrest (such as upheld in this case by the Svea Court of Appeal) can only be made if there is probably cause to establish the commission an offence by the accused person (see section 1 in chapter 24 of the Manual).
20. Although the prosecution does not consider further information is required to substantiate the purpose of the EAW, it has submitted supplementary information, namely Marianne Ny’s statement, confirming that the EAW was issued for the purpose of conducting the criminal prosecution of Mr Assange."
This should put to rest the commentards lack of understanding of what the EAW says and blows away the assertions made by the defense.
News flash this just in...
Sometimes it pays to read the links that Goodin put in his article...
From the Independent:
"Julian Assange's lawyer told a court yesterday that prosecutors attempted to interview the WikiLeaks founder over sexual assault allegations while he was still in Sweden.
Bjorn Hurtig's admission contradicts his previous claim that the Swedish authorities had only asked to speak with Mr Assange after he had left the country. The lawyer admitted under cross-examination that he was mistaken to suggest that he had heard nothing from prosecutor Marianne Ny until after Mr Assange had left the country.
He accepted that he was in regular contact via text message and telephone with Ms Ny, but had forgotten to include the fact in his witness statement. In that document, he said that Ms Ny had not attempted to contact Mr Assange for five weeks – when Mr Assange, 39, was no longer in Sweden. "
The point here is that its an admission that Julian bailed during the investigation.
There's more and while you can't trust everything you read in the press, the cross examination did some damage to Assange's case.
The more questions asked... the more the truth gets out.
Re: News flash this just in...
"The point here is that its an admission that Julian bailed during the investigation."
Thanks for that. Kind of makes my researches redundant really. I will add these though, for the benefit of the poster whose name I recall is David Wilson:
Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said there was no reason that Assange should not be sent overseas to answer the case against him.
She outlined how prosecutors tried more than 10 times over one week last September to arrange an interview with Assange before he left the country.
Assange Fled Sweden After Arrest Threat - WSJ.com
LONDON—A legal firefight began here over whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden in a sexual-misconduct case, with Swedish prosecutors asserting that Mr. Assange left their country the day his lawyers learned that an arrest warrant was going to be issued for him.
By bolting Sweden without appearing for interrogation, however, Assange forced the Swedes and British to launch an international legal effort that has created precisely the kind of media extravaganza he hoped to avoid.
So far, as the Radio 4 news bulletin between 17 and 18.00 last night and your more recent revelations appear to show, his legal counsel denied being approached by the Swedish authorities but has, on closer inspection of his mobile phone records, been forced to recant. Last night I speculated this is because he sniffed a subpoena, which for young commentards without legal knowledge, is a way of forcing him to divulge records that MIGHT result in him being prosecuted for perjury. There are other puzzling and perhaps even disturbing aspects about the defence counsel's behaviour that I have observed, and it is also disturbing to note that the PR effort thus far appears to conform with Assange's style of public communications.
For sure it is now ever more clear that this man is not as snow white as he would have us believe. The sight of him on the steps outside the courthouse, apparently deliberately manufacturing a silent pause that might lead viewers to believe that he was holding back a tear, whilst his barrister looked on like a troubled father might, was a fairly nauseating experience and is, I contend, typical of this man's manipulative behaviour.
While I like the reporting, I thought that one important fact that wasn't mentioned was that defense was attempting to try the Swedish case here in the appeals hearing.
Granted its a good defense tactic for the longer run.
The odds of this working in the appeal hearing are slim to none.
The hearing is to determine that the EAW is in fact valid. If so then the case can be tried in Sweden.
The reason the defense team would try this stunt is so that evidence that they want to be in the public eye prior to trial can be put out in the press.
I would have hoped that you would have picked up on this tactic and outed the defense for what they are trying to do.
Maybe they might send you to Sweden to cover the trial... :-)
Just to look at both sides, I strongly suspect that:
""revenge" and taking “economic advantage""
Could mean a text message along the lines of:
"He did X to me, I'll f'ing have him for it, he'll pay for it"
@AC Re: Revenge...
This is really a moot point.
The only reason the defense is trotting this out is that they couldn't get this tidbit out in to the press otherwise.
IMHO, the defense knows that this has no bearing on the extradition hearing and its a way to call in to question the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. In short, the defense is trying the case in public as a way to bring pressure on the courts.
What is meant by those texts is unknown. What you have is a defense lawyer who is repeating what he said he saw on those texts while under police supervision where he could not take notes. So the fact that Assange even claimed that they did not have access to the evidence (text messages) was also shown to be false.
Re: @AC Re: Revenge...
"This is really a moot point.
The only reason the defense is trotting this out is that they couldn't get this tidbit out in to the press otherwise."
(No Moot courts here please!)
Whilst most defences - and prosecutions too, for that matter - try to slip out stuff, through the courts and into the press, there is something particularly Julian Assange about the quasi leak way of going about this matter of extradition, in the form of pre-trial trial hearing. I suspect this will come back to bite him.
His response to his predicament reminds me of an old Russian folk tale; late one night a forester is walking home in the frost. He comes across a black bird, fluttering weekly on the forest path, dying from cold. He picks it up, puts it inside of his jacket, next to his breast, and he walks on. Arriving at home, in the moon he sees the steam rising from his dung heap, makes a hole in it, puts the bird in, and he wedges it there. A couple of hours later the bird wakes and, feeling strong, it begins to sing. A passing fox notices this tasty snack, warmed up for him with the forester's help, and eats it. The moral of the story is that it is not always your enemies who put you in it, it is not always your friends who pull you out of it, and there is no point in singing about it when you are up to your neck in it.
This applies to St Jules in so many ways. Hoist by his own petard I do hope.
That was kind of my point, I was just trying to get people to consider that the face value of what Assange's lawyer said could have two very different meanings.
There seem to be a lot of people who won't look at both sides in the case and are automatically presuming that it's all a giant conspiracy, rather than critically looking at what little evidence is making it to the public domain from both sides.
So, is this paragraph from El Reg entirely wrong/fictitious then, and if not how does it fit into the version of events that you've given us?
"Assange's attorneys also presented testimony from former Swedish prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem, who said prosecutors should have questioned Assange sooner after deciding to reopen their investigation. The case was initially closed shortly after the assault allegations were made. Prosecutor Marianne Ny later reversed that decision."
Did Assange leave the country before or after the case was closed? If he left before then I think you have an interesting point. If the case was closed already when he left then he was entirely at liberty to do so, surely?
>> Did Assange leave the country before or after the case was closed? etc etc etc
Using the search engine of your choice it takes less than 20 seconds to answer your own question and render your post moot. Probably less time than it took you to compose your comment.
(I'm not going to tell you the answer as I'm capricious)
@Bernard M. Orwell
You really should read the link that I included with my post. From the same article:
"Mr Hurtig denied that it was he who told Mr Assange to leave the country, warning that he risked being arrested. And he also denied that he had told Ms Ny that Mr Assange had no intention of returning to Sweden to be interrogated. Mr Assange is wanted in Sweden over allegations that he sexually assaulted two women in August. He denies the accusations. Yesterday's extradition hearing, sitting at Woolwich Crown Court in London, heard that Ms Ny had first spoken with Mr Hurtig on 15 September, when she agreed there was nothing to stop Mr Assange leaving Sweden. But six days later she contacted Mr Hurtig requesting an interview with Mr Assange. But despite Ms Ny and Mr Hurtig being in regular contact, the lawyer was not able to speak to his client to arrange for him to be interviewed before he left Sweden on 27 September – the same day a Swedish arrest warrant was issued against him."
So what you end up with is a Swedish lawyer doing CYA, under oath...
If you followed the time line... On the 15th, there wasn't enough evidence. But on the 21st, Ny requested an interview. Somehow for 6 more days the lawyer couldn't contact Assange which is when he left the country?
EAW is a vile instrument and can easily be used to summon anybody anywhere for almost anything
The EAW is truly a vile instrument.
Well then I guess you really don't want to go to Poland then.
Why not do what we do?
As I recall we send police to interview suspects in foreign countries...
If all they want is to interview him to get his side then surely that can be done in an English olice Station without all this expense of the extradition hearings?
Wouldnt this be more cost efficient for them and us and then allow them to decide whether they want to proceed with charges in which case an extradition hearing would be more suitable?
A littlecommon sense please!!
@AC Why not pay attention?
Look... El Reg was kind enough to point to a link which contains all of the court filings of the case.
Rather than listen only to the self serving garbage that is trotted out by Assange's defense cartooneys, why not try and read the actual documents filed by the Swedish prosecution?
The EAW is in fact valid because they intend to prosecute Assange.
Your 'can we please have a little common sense' rant really shows that you're not paying attention.
Sorry but as a whole, the comment tards make Karl Pilkington look like a Mensa candidate.
The Ian Michael Gumby show
I note with amusement the increasing frustration of IMG and co and their descent into ad hominem abuse of other commentards who challenge his lengthy and tedious diatribes. It surely must be obvious to all readers by now that Ian is not a person but a team, which is how he is able to spend unlimited time researching and posting around the clock. I look forward to a future El Reg article identifying the US Federal Government agency responsible for this inept COINTELPRO exercise.
@PT Does the truth hurt?
Its not just me, but other posters who routinely get down voted by the commentards who can't grok what is happening around them.
I guess St. Jullian of ASSange is the patron saint of commentards.
I mean how many times have link and quotes been provided to news articles, court documents that contradict your view(s) on the world.
Julian was a bad little boy, and he's got to go back and face his own mess.
What don't you understand?
Every point raised by the defense in their appeal of the EAW have been cleanly refuted and shot down.
Remember the burden of proof is on the defense and not on the Swedes. The EAW is considered lawful until the defense can show that it is not.
The defense raised the issue that the person who issued the EAW lacks the authority.
The Swedes countered that and showed that she had the authority to issue the EAW.
The defense argued that Assange hadn't been charged and that the EAW was invalid because it was to bring him back for interrogation. The Swedes clearly denied this was the case and said that the intent is to prosecute Assange. In addition under Swedish law, they can't officially charge Assange until they interrogate him. (And yes this is all laid out in the skeleton.)
The skeleton also goes out and defines the charges against Assange, that he is going to be charged with Rape and that it carries a sentence of 4 years, which means that how the Swedes define Rape is enough and no matter how many expert testimonies that Assanage's lawyers trot out to show that what Assanage wouldn't be considered Rape under English Law, it what the Swedes considers that counts.
So you and other commentards staunchly defend your patron saint, in light of all of this information.
There's more and the longer we wait, the more information leaks out.
"Defense witness Geoffrey Robertson testified"
Assange is definitely on the ropes when his QC has been reduced to x-examining himself ";0))
PS @ Ian Walpole Grumpboy, ~ "I believe I covered that issue ad nauseum" ~ Never truer words spoken, I have puked several times reading the tripe you post!
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...
- Vid Mysterious BEAM outside London Googleplex ZAPPED