Author Topic: juilan assange rape chardge.  (Read 1451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8920
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2019, 12:00:PM »
Here is the full indictment.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1037-julian-assange-espionage-act-indictment/426b4e534ab60553ba6c/optimized/full.pdf

He faces 18 counts of -

Conspiracy to Obtain, Receive, and Disclose National Defense Information.
Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion.


Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15523
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2019, 11:32:AM »

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2020, 08:04:PM »
https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange   

    The interview linked above is a must read for anyone with an opinion on Julian Assange. With the suppressed and barely reported ongoing Kangaroo proceedings unfolding this last couple of weeks in Assange's extradition hearing, Nils Melzer's interview linked above is an eye opening expose of the dark machinations of the UK and US deep state with a willing helping hand from their Swedish counterparts.
     Craig Murray, who has been fortunate/unfortunate enough to witness the proceedings, as one of Assange's five family and friends allowed access, has filed reports day by day that should be read by all. The UK justice system prostituting itself to the US and overseeing this unjust sham should be humiliating to anyone who believes we are an independent sovereign state.
     Murray's day by day reports of the days proceedings are true journalism, something that will never be read in our free press who long ago gave up any pretence of speaking truth to power in favour of the much easier and better remunerated career path of telling lies on the behalf of power. They also unmask the brutality of the UK state and the lawlessness of our regime.
     Melzer's interview, linked at the top, should be read especially by those who believe Assange to be a rapist/narcissist/etc. , or whatever else you have been brainwashed into believing just because lots of people kept on saying it.
     His credentials and integrity are beyond question and his findings are not reasonably arguable. Here is a taster of the interview below. The full interview is excellent and revealing.

1. The Swedish Police constructed a story of rape
Nils Melzer, why is the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture interested in Julian Assange?
That is something that the German Foreign Ministry recently asked me as well: Is that really your core mandate? Is Assange the victim of torture?

What was your response?
The case falls into my mandate in three different ways: First, Assange published proof of systematic torture. But instead of those responsible for the torture, it is Assange who is being persecuted. Second, he himself has been ill-treated to the point that he is now exhibiting symptoms of psychological torture. And third, he is to be extradited to a country that holds people like him in prison conditions that Amnesty International has described as torture. In summary: Julian Assange uncovered torture, has been tortured himself and could be tortured to death in the United States. And a case like that isn’t supposed to be part of my area of responsibility? Beyond that, the case is of symbolic importance and affects every citizen of a democratic country.

Why didn’t you take up the case much earlier?
Imagine a dark room. Suddenly, someone shines a light on the elephant in the room – on war criminals, on corruption. Assange is the man with the spotlight. The governments are briefly in shock, but then they turn the spotlight around with accusations of rape. It is a classic maneuver when it comes to manipulating public opinion. The elephant once again disappears into the darkness, behind the spotlight. And Assange becomes the focus of attention instead, and we start talking about whether Assange is skateboarding in the embassy or whether he is feeding his cat correctly. Suddenly, we all know that he is a rapist, a hacker, a spy and a narcissist. But the abuses and war crimes he uncovered fade into the darkness. I also lost my focus, despite my professional experience, which should have led me to be more vigilant.


Fifty weeks in prison for violating his bail: Julian Assange in January 2020 in a police van on the way to London’s maximum security Belmarsh prison. Dominic Lipinski/Press Association Images/Keystone
Let’s start at the beginning: What led you to take up the case?
In December 2018, I was asked by his lawyers to intervene. I initially declined. I was overloaded with other petitions and wasn’t really familiar with the case. My impression, largely influenced by the media, was also colored by the prejudice that Julian Assange was somehow guilty and that he wanted to manipulate me. In March 2019, his lawyers approached me for a second time because indications were mounting that Assange would soon be expelled from the Ecuadorian Embassy. They sent me a few key documents and a summary of the case and I figured that my professional integrity demanded that I at least take a look at the material.

And then?
It quickly became clear to me that something was wrong. That there was a contradiction that made no sense to me with my extensive legal experience: Why would a person be subject to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges ever having been filed?

Is that unusual?
I have never seen a comparable case. Anyone can trigger a preliminary investigation against anyone else by simply going to the police and accusing the other person of a crime. The Swedish authorities, though, were never interested in testimony from Assange. They intentionally left him in limbo. Just imagine being accused of rape for nine-and-a-half years by an entire state apparatus and by the media without ever being given the chance to defend yourself because no charges had ever been filed.

You say that the Swedish authorities were never interested in testimony from Assange. But the media and government agencies have painted a completely different picture over the years: Julian Assange, they say, fled the Swedish judiciary in order to avoid being held accountable.
That’s what I always thought, until I started investigating. The opposite is true. Assange reported to the Swedish authorities on several occasions because he wanted to respond to the accusations. But the authorities stonewalled.

What do you mean by that: «The authorities stonewalled?»
Allow me to start at the beginning. I speak fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.

«The woman’s testimony was later changed by the police» – how exactly?
On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a Stockholm police station together with a second woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange, but he had not been wearing a condom. She said she was now concerned that she could be infected with HIV and wanted to know if she could force Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was really worried. The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. Even before questioning could be completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was shocked and refused to continue with questioning. While still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.»

What does that mean?
S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.

Two rapes?
Yes, because there was the second woman, A. A. She didn’t want to press charges either; she had merely accompanied S. W. to the police station. She wasn’t even questioned that day. She later said that Assange had sexually harassed her. I can’t say, of course, whether that is true or not. I can only point to the order of events: A woman walks into a police station. She doesn’t want to file a complaint but wants to demand an HIV test. The police then decide that this could be a case of rape and a matter for public prosecutors. The woman refuses to go along with that version of events and then goes home and writes a friend that it wasn’t her intention, but the police want to «get their hands on» Assange. Two hours later, the case is in the newspaper. As we know today, public prosecutors leaked it to the press – and they did so without even inviting Assange to make a statement. And the second woman, who had allegedly been raped according to the Aug. 20 headline, was only questioned on Aug. 21.

What did the second woman say when she was questioned?
She said that she had made her apartment available to Assange, who was in Sweden for a conference. A small, one-room apartment. When Assange was in the apartment, she came home earlier than planned, but told him it was no problem and that the two of them could sleep in the same bed. That night, they had consensual sex, with a condom. But she said that during sex, Assange had intentionally broken the condom. If that is true, then it is, of course, a sexual offense – so-called «stealthing». But the woman also said that she only later noticed that the condom was broken. That is a contradiction that should absolutely have been clarified. If I don’t notice it, then I cannot know if the other intentionally broke it. Not a single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could be detected in the condom that was submitted as evidence.

   

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2020, 08:37:PM »
  And more from the Nils Melzer interview;

  5. A prison sentence of 175 years for investigative journalism: The precedent the USA vs. Julian Assange case could set
What does it mean when UN member states refuse to provide information to their own Special Rapporteur on Torture?
That it is a prearranged affair. A show trial is to be used to make an example of Julian Assange. The point is to intimidate other journalists. Intimidation, by the way, is one of the primary purposes for the use of torture around the world. The message to all of us is: This is what will happen to you if you emulate the Wikileaks model. It is a model that is so dangerous because it is so simple: People who obtain sensitive information from their governments or companies transfer that information to Wikileaks, but the whistleblower remains anonymous. The reaction shows how great the threat is perceived to be: Four democratic countries joined forces – the U.S., Ecuador, Sweden and the UK – to leverage their power to portray one man as a monster so that he could later be burned at the stake without any outcry. The case is a huge scandal and represents the failure of Western rule of law. If Julian Assange is convicted, it will be a death sentence for freedom of the press.

What would this possible precedent mean for the future of journalism?
On a practical level, it means that you, as a journalist, must now defend yourself. Because if investigative journalism is classified as espionage and can be incriminated around the world, then censorship and tyranny will follow. A murderous system is being created before our very eyes. War crimes and torture are not being prosecuted. YouTube videos are circulating in which American soldiers brag about driving Iraqi women to suicide with systematic rape. Nobody is investigating it. At the same time, a person who exposes such things is being threatened with 175 years in prison. For an entire decade, he has been inundated with accusations that cannot be proven and are breaking him. And nobody is being held accountable. Nobody is taking responsibility. It marks an erosion of the social contract. We give countries power and delegate it to governments – but in return, they must be held accountable for how they exercise that power. If we don’t demand that they be held accountable, we will lose our rights sooner or later. Humans are not democratic by their nature. Power corrupts if it is not monitored. Corruption is the result if we do not insist that power be monitored.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2020, 08:48:PM »
You’re saying that the targeting of Assange threatens the very core of press freedoms.
Let’s see where we will be in 20 years if Assange is convicted – what you will still be able to write then as a journalist. I am convinced that we are in serious danger of losing press freedoms. It’s already happening: Suddenly, the headquarters of ABC News in Australia was raided in connection with the «Afghan War Diary». The reason? Once again, the press uncovered misconduct by representatives of the state. In order for the division of powers to work, the state must be monitored by the press as the fourth estate. WikiLeaks is a the logical consequence of an ongoing process of expanded secrecy: If the truth can no longer be examined because everything is kept secret, if investigation reports on the U.S. government’s torture policy are kept secret and when even large sections of the published summary are redacted, leaks are at some point inevitably the result. WikiLeaks is the consequence of rampant secrecy and reflects the lack of transparency in our modern political system. There are, of course, areas where secrecy can be vital. But if we no longer know what our governments are doing and the criteria they are following, if crimes are no longer being investigated, then it represents a grave danger to societal integrity.

What are the consequences?
As the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and, before that, as a Red Cross delegate, I have seen lots of horrors and violence and have seen how quickly peaceful countries like Yugoslavia or Rwanda can transform into infernos. At the roots of such developments are always a lack of transparency and unbridled political or economic power combined with the naivete, indifference and malleability of the population. Suddenly, that which always happened to the other – unpunished torture, rape, expulsion and murder – can just as easily happen to us or our children. And nobody will care. I can promise you that.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #35 on: September 25, 2020, 11:20:PM »
   Copied below is Craig Murray's report of day17 of the Assange Kangaroo court hearing. This is what is passing as justice in the UK whilst the "Vichy press" look the other way despite the huge significance of the hearing to freedom of speech and investigative journalism. Having successfully propagandised enough of the public into believing that Assange is some narcissistic rapist they now barely bother reporting on the proceedings, only occasionally breaking this silence to misrepresent/lie about the most blatant in your face travesty of justice that I can recall in my lifetime. At least there is usually a fig leaf of plausibility, even the most gossamer thin veil to cover the injustice. With these hearings any pretence of fairness or justice is simply discarded and only a display of raw, lawless power remains.
    Onto Murray, who in my view is documenting history with his daily reports. So much at stake and so few even know or care.
   



When on Tuesday Edward Fitzgerald QC produced this charge sheet in court, it did not appear to be news to the prosecution. James Lewis QC panicked. Rather too quickly, Lewis leapt to his feet and asked the judge that it should be noted that he had never said that there was no razor blade. Fitzgerald responded that was not the impression that had been given. From the witness box and under oath, Kopelman stated that was not the impression he had been given either.

And it was most certainly not the impression I had been given in the public gallery. In repeatedly asserting that, if the razor blade existed, it would be in the medical notes, Lewis had, at the very least, misled the witness on a material question of fact, that had actually affected his evidence. And Lewis had done so precisely in order to affect the evidence.

Panicking, Lewis then gave the game away further by making the desperate assertion that the charge against Mr Assange had been dismissed by the Governor. So the prosecution definitely knew rather more about the events around the razor blade than the defence.

Baraitser, who was aware that this was a major car crash, grasped at the same straw Lewis was clinging to in desperation, and said that if the charge had been dismissed, then there was no proof the razor blade existed. Fitzgerald pointed out this was absurd. The charge may have been dismissed for numerous reasons. The existence of the blade was not in doubt. Julian Assange had attested to it and two prison warders had attested to it. Baraitser said that she could only base her view on the decision of the Prison Governor.

However Baraitser may try to hide it, Lewis attacked Prof Kopelman over the existence of the blade when Lewis gave every appearance afterwards of a man who knew full well all along that there was compelling evidence the blade did exist. For Baraitser to try to protect both Lewis and the prosecution by pretending the existence of the blade is dependent on the outcome of the subsequent charge, when all three people in the cell at the time of the search agreed to its existence, including Assange, is perhaps Baraitser’s most remarkable abuse of legal procedure yet.

After his evidence, I went for a gin and tonic with Professor Kopelman, who is an old friend. We had no contact at all for two years, precisely because of his involvement in the Assange case as a medical expert. Michael was very worried he had not performed strongly in his evidence session in the morning, though he had been able to answer more clearly in the afternoon. And his concern about the morning was because he had been put off by the razor blade question. He had firmly understood Lewis to be saying that there was no razor blade in prison records and Michael had therefore been deceived by Julian. If he had been deceived, it of course would have been a professional failing and Lewis had successfully caused him anxiety while in the witness box.

I should make plain I do not believe for one moment the government side were not aware all along the razor blade was real. Lewis cross-examined using detailed prepared notes on the razor blade and with all the references to it tabulated in Kopelman’s report. That this was undertaken by the prosecution without asking the prison if the incident were true, defies common sense.

On Thursday Edward Fitzgerald handed the record of the prison hearing where the charge was discussed to Baraitser. It was a long document. The Governor’s decision was at paragraph 19. Baraitser told Fitzgerald she could not accept the document as it was new evidence. Fitzgerald told her she had herself asked for the outcome of the charge. He said the document contained very interesting information. Baraitser said that the Governor’s decision was at paragraph 19, that was all she had asked for, and she would refuse to take the rest of the document into consideration. Fitzgerald said the defence may wish to make a formal submission on that.

I have not seen this document. Based on Baraitser’s earlier pronouncements, I am fairly certain she is protecting Lewis in this way. At para 19 the Governor’s decision probably dismisses the charges as Lewis said. But the earlier paras, which Baraitser refuses to consider, almost certainly make plain that Assange’s possession of the razor blade was undisputed, and very probably explains his intention to use it for suicide.

So, to quote Lewis himself, why would this not be in Dr Daly’s medical notes?

Even that startling story I did not consider sufficiently powerful to justify publishing the alarming personal details about Julian. But then it happened again.

On Thursday morning, Dr Nigel Blackwood, Reader in Forensic Psychiatry at Kings College London, gave evidence for the prosecution. He essentially downplayed all of Julian’s diagnoses of mental illness, and disputed he had Asperger’s. In the course of this downplaying, he stated that when Julian had been admitted to the healthcare wing on 18 April 2019, it had not been for any medical reason. It had been purely to isolate him from other prisoners because of the video footage of him that had been taken and released by a prisoner.

Fitzgerald asked Blackwood how he knew this, and Blackwood said Dr Daly had told him for his report. The defence now produced another document from the prison that showed the government was lying. It was a report from prison staff dated 2.30pm on 18 April 2019 and specifically said that Julian was “very low” and having uncontrollable suicidal urges. It suggested moving him to the medical wing and mentioned a meeting with Dr Daly. Julian was in fact then moved that very same day.

Fitzgerald put it to Blackwood that plainly Assange was moved to the medical wing for medical reasons. His evidence was wrong. Blackwood continued to assert Assange was moved only because of the video. Dr Daly’s medical notes did not say he was moved for medical reasons. The judge pulled up Fitzgerald for saying “nonsense”, although she had allowed Lewis to be much harder than that on defence witnesses. Fitzgerald asked Blackwood why Assange would be moved to the medical wing because of a video taken by another prisoner? Blackwood said the Governor had found the video “embarrassing” and was concerned about “reputational damage” to the prison.

So let us look at this. Dr Daly did not put in the medical notes that Assange had concealed a razor for suicide in his cell. Dr Daly did not put in the medical notes that, on the very day Assange was moved to the medical wing, a staff meeting had said he should be moved to the medical wing for uncontrollable suicidal urges. Then Daly gives Blackwood a cock and bull story on reasons for Assange’s removal to the medical wing, to assist him in his downplaying of Assange’s medical condition.

Or let us look at the alternative story. The official story is that Healthcare – to quote Ross Kemp where “security is on another level” – is used for solitary confinement, to hold prisoners in isolation for entirely non-medical reasons. Indeed, to avoid “embarrassment”, to avoid “reputational damage”, Assange was kept in isolation in “healthcare” for months while, according to four doctors including on this point even Blackwood, his health deteriorated because of the isolation. While under Dr Daly’s “care”. And that one is the official story. The best they can come up with is “he was not sick, we put him in “Healthcare” for entirely illegitimate reasons as a punishment.” To avoid “embarrassment” if prisoners took his photo.

I am going to write to Judge Baraitser applying for a copy of the transcript of Lewis cross-examining Professor Kopelman on the razor blade, with a view to reporting Lewis to the Bar Council. I do wonder whether the General Medical Council might not have reason to consider the practice of Dr Daly in this case.

The final witness was Dr Sondra Crosby, as the doctor who had been treating Julian since his time in the Ecuadorean Embassy. Dr Crosby seemed a wonderful person and while her evidence was very compelling, again I see no strong reason to reveal it.

At the end of Thursday’s proceedings, there were two witness statements read very quickly into the record. This was actually very important but passed almost unnoticed. John Young of cryptome.org gave evidence that Cryptome had published the unredacted cables on 1 September 2011, crucially the day before Wikileaks published them. Cryptome is US based but they had never been approached by law enforcement about these unredacted cables in any way nor asked to take them down. The cables remained online on Cryptome.

Similarly Chris Butler, Manager for Internet Archive, gave evidence of the unredacted cables and other classified documents being available on the Wayback machine. They had never been asked to take down nor been threatened with prosecution.


Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2020, 05:40:PM »
I wonder why he turned down the pardon offer?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/assange-offered-pardon-if-he-helped-resolve-speculation-about-russian-n1240424

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWwcumVCM6s
    Speculation on my part, but I would suspect that the pardon came with too many strings attached.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2020, 05:44:PM »
    And to add to the above, Assange and Wikileaks have been consistent in not naming whistle blowers. He obviously has principles that are alien to those offering the "pardon".

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8920
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2020, 06:29:PM »

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11509
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #40 on: September 26, 2020, 06:49:PM »
At the risk of incurring an alien / flying saucer attack by David, it seems Richard Hall thinks Assange is fake.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8920
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2020, 07:09:PM »
At the risk of incurring an alien / flying saucer attack by David, it seems Richard Hall thinks Assange is fake.


That dose not surprise me at all. Are you having second thoughts about this guy yet?

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2020, 11:00:PM »
At the risk of incurring an alien / flying saucer attack by David, it seems Richard Hall thinks Assange is fake.
    Richard Hall is free to think as he believes. There are literally thousands of credible voices who disagree who have and are facing very real retributions for their involvement. The attack on freedom of speech currently unfolding is more deserving of attention than Richard Hall's thoughts on the matter.
    You should read Craig Murray's day to day reports if you want to know what is happening, Roch. The time spent would be much more productive than reading/listening to Rich Halls misinformation on the matter.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #43 on: September 26, 2020, 11:42:PM »
    https://bridgesforfreedom.media/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Tab-17-Statement-of-Clive-Stafford-Smith-14.07.20.pdf
    Read the above statement. It is shocking and speaks of the very real impact that Assange and Wikileaks have had on the criminal actions of the US. The statement is Clive Stafford Smith's witness statement in the Assange hearings.
    There are Guantanamo Bay detainees who have ended up being released after leaks from Wikileaks have helped their defence, who Clive Stafford Smith represents. A truly free press would have already led with this and what it reveals. Stafford Smith is founder of Reprieve and a hugely significant voice. The media ignoring this whole trial reveals, more than anything else, that they are propaganda mouthpieces for the powerful. Turn them off, stop buying their papers or reading their lies on behalf of the powerful and support instead the truly independent voices out there. Pilger, Jonathon Cook. Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett's brave reporting from Syria. Larry Romanoff, the recently deceased Andre Vltchek, Philip Giraldi, Pepe Escobar to name just a handful of the many real journalists out there who dare to speak uncomfortable truths.
     The internet never forgets, they say. When it comes to journalists, this is true and should always be noted by the reader. We have watched history unfold for the last, how ever many years we've been around. What did the journalist in question have to say about these historic events as they unfolded. If they still have a job in mainstream journalism, then it is a fair wager that you will not find a war or "liberal intervention" that they were not in favour of. The internet never forgets and neither should we because their support and failure to speak truth comes at the cost of millions of lives, countless millions of displaced refugees and countries and their infrastructures destroyed.
      Please bother to take the time to read Clive Stafford Smith's statement linked above. It will horrify any reader, as it should.
   

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8920
Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2020, 12:17:AM »
    Richard Hall is free to think as he believes. There are literally thousands of credible voices who disagree who have and are facing very real retributions for their involvement. The attack on freedom of speech currently unfolding is more deserving of attention than Richard Hall's thoughts on the matter.
    You should read Craig Murray's day to day reports if you want to know what is happening, Roch. The time spent would be much more productive than reading/listening to Rich Halls misinformation on the matter.


But what about the space aliens abducting our sheep?