Jeremy Bamber Forum

OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other high profile cases => Topic started by: nugnug on May 22, 2019, 10:23:AM

Title: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2019, 10:23:AM
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/05/the-missing-step/
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 22, 2019, 04:58:PM
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/05/the-missing-step/
Isn't this just a technicality and shouldn't he return to Sweden to answer the rape charges?
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2019, 05:41:PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0mHsGnaTPA
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 22, 2019, 07:57:PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0mHsGnaTPA
These allegations should be tested in a court of law, not YouTube. The woman is doing her gender no favours at all by comparing rape to DUI. However based on the following evidence I probably wouldn't have found him guilty of rape had I been on the jury. https://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on May 23, 2019, 10:50:PM
These allegations should be tested in a court of law, not YouTube. The woman is doing her gender no favours at all by comparing rape to DUI. However based on the following evidence I probably wouldn't have found him guilty of rape had I been on the jury. https://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/
   The allegations don't even pass the threshold to be tested in court. The allegations are a clear and blatant fabrication. Events since the allegations first surfaced and Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy have made plain for all to see that the Americans are determined to get their hands on Assange for exposing their criminality and this has nothing to do with fabricated allegations in Sweden.
    Anyone still duped by the inconsistent lies pumped out about Assange is probably beyond reasoning with. The recent US and UK violations of diplomatic premises are unprecedented and expose their desperation. Russian, Venezualan and Ecuadorian Embassies have been violated in the last two or three years. These violations of long established and observed protocols of the Vienna Convention are shocking and dangerous for our own diplomats abroad. The US are also credibly accused of being behind the raid on the North Korean Embassy in Madrid. They also violated the diplomatic immunity of Evo Morales presidential plane when he headed back to Bolivia after visiting Russia and it was believed that Edward Snowden was on board. These conventions are observed by all countries in the world and even Iran and Saudi Arabia who have cut off diplomatic relations with each other still protect each others diplomatic premises and have an arrangement of inspections. US and UK are resorting to thuggery and in doing so put diplomats everywhere at risk. Along with the US we are trashing the Vienna convention and protocols that are observed by even the most despotic regimes. Nobody should be cheering this on.
    That the US and UK conspired to bully and coerce Ecuador to withdraw Assange's asylum should tell you that there is something larger at play. The unprecedented denial of passage for asylum from the Embassy, the 24 hour surveillance and millions of pounds spent on this surveillance can't really have been about all about the weak allegations in Sweden and the extra charges levelled today by the US surely make that clear.
     The persecution of Julian Assange is an all out attack on free speech and real journalists everywhere conducted by US and UK. It should shame us all.
   
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2019, 02:56:PM
   The allegations don't even pass the threshold to be tested in court. The allegations are a clear and blatant fabrication. Events since the allegations first surfaced and Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy have made plain for all to see that the Americans are determined to get their hands on Assange for exposing their criminality and this has nothing to do with fabricated allegations in Sweden.
    Anyone still duped by the inconsistent lies pumped out about Assange is probably beyond reasoning with. The recent US and UK violations of diplomatic premises are unprecedented and expose their desperation. Russian, Venezualan and Ecuadorian Embassies have been violated in the last two or three years. These violations of long established and observed protocols of the Vienna Convention are shocking and dangerous for our own diplomats abroad. The US are also credibly accused of being behind the raid on the North Korean Embassy in Madrid. They also violated the diplomatic immunity of Evo Morales presidential plane when he headed back to Bolivia after visiting Russia and it was believed that Edward Snowden was on board. These conventions are observed by all countries in the world and even Iran and Saudi Arabia who have cut off diplomatic relations with each other still protect each others diplomatic premises and have an arrangement of inspections. US and UK are resorting to thuggery and in doing so put diplomats everywhere at risk. Along with the US we are trashing the Vienna convention and protocols that are observed by even the most despotic regimes. Nobody should be cheering this on.
    That the US and UK conspired to bully and coerce Ecuador to withdraw Assange's asylum should tell you that there is something larger at play. The unprecedented denial of passage for asylum from the Embassy, the 24 hour surveillance and millions of pounds spent on this surveillance can't really have been about all about the weak allegations in Sweden and the extra charges levelled today by the US surely make that clear.
     The persecution of Julian Assange is an all out attack on free speech and real journalists everywhere conducted by US and UK. It should shame us all.
   

i found a bit about kier starmers involvment in all this i will post it later.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 24, 2019, 09:27:PM
   The allegations don't even pass the threshold to be tested in court. The allegations are a clear and blatant fabrication. Events since the allegations first surfaced and Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy have made plain for all to see that the Americans are determined to get their hands on Assange for exposing their criminality and this has nothing to do with fabricated allegations in Sweden.
    Anyone still duped by the inconsistent lies pumped out about Assange is probably beyond reasoning with. The recent US and UK violations of diplomatic premises are unprecedented and expose their desperation. Russian, Venezualan and Ecuadorian Embassies have been violated in the last two or three years. These violations of long established and observed protocols of the Vienna Convention are shocking and dangerous for our own diplomats abroad. The US are also credibly accused of being behind the raid on the North Korean Embassy in Madrid. They also violated the diplomatic immunity of Evo Morales presidential plane when he headed back to Bolivia after visiting Russia and it was believed that Edward Snowden was on board. These conventions are observed by all countries in the world and even Iran and Saudi Arabia who have cut off diplomatic relations with each other still protect each others diplomatic premises and have an arrangement of inspections. US and UK are resorting to thuggery and in doing so put diplomats everywhere at risk. Along with the US we are trashing the Vienna convention and protocols that are observed by even the most despotic regimes. Nobody should be cheering this on.
    That the US and UK conspired to bully and coerce Ecuador to withdraw Assange's asylum should tell you that there is something larger at play. The unprecedented denial of passage for asylum from the Embassy, the 24 hour surveillance and millions of pounds spent on this surveillance can't really have been about all about the weak allegations in Sweden and the extra charges levelled today by the US surely make that clear.
     The persecution of Julian Assange is an all out attack on free speech and real journalists everywhere conducted by US and UK. It should shame us all.
   

I'm not sure I agree with this. You conveniently forget the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, which at the time I feared augured ill for the future. It was proceeded by the Salisbury novichok tragedy. As for Julian Assange, the gist of the video is that rape in Sweden requires a lower threshold of proof and it's up to a Swedish jury to decide, not that woman on YouTube. I think a deterioration in Assange's mental health and his concomitant behaviours within the embassy was the cause of Ecuador revoking his honorary citizenship, and not pressure from any Western government as you assert.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on May 24, 2019, 10:00:PM
I'm not sure I agree with this. You conveniently forget the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, which at the time I feared augured ill for the future. It was proceeded by the Salisbury novichok tragedy. As for Julian Assange, the gist of the video is that rape in Sweden requires a lower threshold of proof and it's up to a Swedish jury to decide, not that woman on YouTube. I think a deterioration in Assange's mental health and his concomitant behaviours within the embassy was the cause of Ecuador revoking his honorary citizenship, and not pressure from any Western government as you assert.

sweedish do not have jurys in rape trails its heard by one judge

normaly inn secret.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 24, 2019, 10:35:PM
sweedish do not have jurys in rape trails its heard by one judge

normaly inn secret.
Yes it seems they have juries for freedom of the press issues. I'm not sure if it's just one lay jury though who decides.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on May 24, 2019, 11:58:PM
I'm not sure I agree with this. You conveniently forget the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, which at the time I feared augured ill for the future. It was proceeded by the Salisbury novichok tragedy. As for Julian Assange, the gist of the video is that rape in Sweden requires a lower threshold of proof and it's up to a Swedish jury to decide, not that woman on YouTube. I think a deterioration in Assange's mental health and his concomitant behaviours within the embassy was the cause of Ecuador revoking his honorary citizenship, and not pressure from any Western government as you assert.
   I didn't forget the Litvinenko poisoning, it has no relevance to the Julian Assange issue. As far as the Salisbury incident is concerned, you display your lack of real knowledge of the issue by referring to it as the "novichock tragedy".
    There was much going on in Salisbury around Skripal that day and if you really want to unravel the discrepancies in the ever evolving official narrative then I highly recommend the excellent Blogmire. It is a blog written by Rob Slane who is a resident of Salisbury. He followed it from the beginning and there is so much that you don't know, evidenced by your inappropriate labelling of the incident, that it is impossible to know where to begin with you. There are also many excellent comments on each section. It is linked here:  https://www.theblogmire.com/category/novichok/ 
    If you want to discuss it I would be happy to, but on a separate thread rather than divert the issue from Assange, suffice to say that the official narrative is ludicrous. You would benefit from reading sites that challenge the obvious holes, lies and dmsa notices.
    Anyway Litvinenko and Skripal aside, both of whom I didn't mention, which parts of my summary are you disagreeing with. Are you untroubled by the new approach to diplomatic premises and Vienna Conventions taken by the UK and US governments?
    It is troubling that there are still those who are easily whipped up about supposed outside threats. It is as if masses of people fail to pay attention and learn from history even as it happens around them.
   From Saddam, Gaddafi and onwards to Assad there are dupes who are willing to fall for the deceptions and justify setting ourselves up as some sort of World police protecting other countries by attempting to remove various leaders. Never does it occur that we should leave countries to choose or overthrow their own leaders. You are extremely naive and uninformed on geopolitics, Steve, which is fair enough if it's not your interest, but I would refrain from commenting if I were you. The real reasons for our many interventions are out there and well documented and understood but obviously not in anything that you read.
    But back to Assange and the latest charges by the US under the Espionage Act which carry possible/probable 170 years or more. The latest charges seem to have belatedly woken some of the media who perhaps now realise that this is an all out attack and threat to journalists and publishers everywhere. Having spent the last 7 years or more smearing Assange and basically being complicit in the attempts to neuter free speech comes the belated realisation that they are, and have been, on the wrong side of history. You haven't come to that realisation yet, apparently.
   
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on May 25, 2019, 12:26:PM
funy there reponing the investigation now times have they reoponed and closed this investigation.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 25, 2019, 08:30:PM
   I didn't forget the Litvinenko poisoning, it has no relevance to the Julian Assange issue. As far as the Salisbury incident is concerned, you display your lack of real knowledge of the issue by referring to it as the "novichock tragedy".
    There was much going on in Salisbury around Skripal that day and if you really want to unravel the discrepancies in the ever evolving official narrative then I highly recommend the excellent Blogmire. It is a blog written by Rob Slane who is a resident of Salisbury. He followed it from the beginning and there is so much that you don't know, evidenced by your inappropriate labelling of the incident, that it is impossible to know where to begin with you. There are also many excellent comments on each section. It is linked here:  https://www.theblogmire.com/category/novichok/ 
    If you want to discuss it I would be happy to, but on a separate thread rather than divert the issue from Assange, suffice to say that the official narrative is ludicrous. You would benefit from reading sites that challenge the obvious holes, lies and dmsa notices.
    Anyway Litvinenko and Skripal aside, both of whom I didn't mention, which parts of my summary are you disagreeing with. Are you untroubled by the new approach to diplomatic premises and Vienna Conventions taken by the UK and US governments?
    It is troubling that there are still those who are easily whipped up about supposed outside threats. It is as if masses of people fail to pay attention and learn from history even as it happens around them.
   From Saddam, Gaddafi and onwards to Assad there are dupes who are willing to fall for the deceptions and justify setting ourselves up as some sort of World police protecting other countries by attempting to remove various leaders. Never does it occur that we should leave countries to choose or overthrow their own leaders. You are extremely naive and uninformed on geopolitics, Steve, which is fair enough if it's not your interest, but I would refrain from commenting if I were you. The real reasons for our many interventions are out there and well documented and understood but obviously not in anything that you read.
    But back to Assange and the latest charges by the US under the Espionage Act which carry possible/probable 170 years or more. The latest charges seem to have belatedly woken some of the media who perhaps now realise that this is an all out attack and threat to journalists and publishers everywhere. Having spent the last 7 years or more smearing Assange and basically being complicit in the attempts to neuter free speech comes the belated realisation that they are, and have been, on the wrong side of history. You haven't come to that realisation yet, apparently.
   
Everybody knows that Russia was behind the Salisbury attack except you. Where did the novichok come from? Do you think the assassins of Alexander Litvinenko bought polonium at B&Q? Why are you separating diplomatic law from international law, which Russia has clearly broken by invading Crimea.

I'll let members make their own minds up, thank you.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on May 25, 2019, 10:12:PM
Everybody knows that Russia was behind the Salisbury attack except you. Where did the novichok come from? Do you think the assassins of Alexander Litvinenko bought polonium at B&Q? Why are you separating diplomatic law from international law, which Russia has clearly broken by invading Crimea.

I'll let members make their own minds up, thank you.
   The Salisbury incident wasn't even a novichock attack and you would know this if you bothered to read the OPCW reports. Where novichock is mentioned is in UK govt. statements and briefings and then parroted by a compliant media. All informed people, those who have called out previous lies on Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Venezuala and Iran, understand full well that UK intelligence agencies are neck deep in the Salisbury theatre. Novichock use has not been confirmed and I challenge you to find a source confirming its use. An actual source, not a report of one. The, highly compromised, OPCW would not go so far and merely confirmed that the agent used was the same one that the UK govt. had asked them to confirm. This information was confidential and not released.
    So to sum up, Steve. The UK govt. claimed that Russia had used chemical weapons, namely novichock, in Salisbury. After at first refusing to involve the OPCW they succumbed to pressure from other countries who were being asked to expel diplomats and impose other sanctions on Russia. However, rather than ask the OPCW to conduct a full FFM(fact finding mission), the UK govt. simply asked the OPCW to confirm that the agent used was the same as the agent that the UK govt. had asked them to confirm. The information of what the agent was is confidential between the OPCW and the UK govt.
     The effects and symptons displayed by the victims rule out novichock as does their still being alive. The whereabouts of the supposed victims and the dmsa notices issued by the UK govt. should also alert those paying attention that something is badly amiss with the UK govt. narrative.
    As for your diversions re international/diplomatic law and Crimea. Again I would invite you to open a thread if you want a serious discussion of these matters. The Crimeans themselves seem perfectly happy to be part of Russia and I fail to see why you would have issue with the self proclaimed will of the Crimeans. Do you think that the Crimeans want to be part of Ukraine? Do you not believe in self determination?
    What does this have to do with Assange and the cavalier attitude of UK and US governments towards diplomatic premises and the Geneva conventions. You really should be more concerned about your own government's transgressions of international law which are many and dwarf those of your perceived bogey men. Diplomatic law is part of international law, Steve and I would confidently wager that your knowledge of both would comfortably fit on the back of a postage stamp and still leave room for the Lord's Prayer.
    Expand your reading, Steve, or stick to commenting on things that you have at least a passing acquaintance with. You have so far demonstrated that you have a less than passing acquaintance with the Salisbury incident, Crimea, Litvinenko's poisoning and Swedish law not to mention the whole Assange affair which is what the thread is supposed to be about. That you have managed to display such a wide breadth of misunderstanding into less than a couple of handfuls of sentences is impressive but not in a good way.
     Do you disagree that the charges put forward by US are a danger to journalists and publishers everywhere? If you do disagree then perhaps you would care to explain how every media outlet that publishes US govt. leaks would be different to Wikileaks and Assange. The use of the Espionage Act against Assange was discussed and dismissed by the Obama administration for this very reason. I don't believe that you understand the implications of Assange being extradited to the US or the UK complicity in this attack on journalism and free speech or the use of the Espionage Act. Others fortunately do hence the rowing back of many media outlets now that the extra charges have been made.
    I doubt that any reply will address the questions raised but don't worry, I will be sure to remind you of them should you fail to do so. 
     
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 26, 2019, 03:04:AM
  The Salisbury incident wasn't even a novichock attack and you would know this if you bothered to read the OPCW reports. Where novichock is mentioned is in UK govt. statements and briefings and then parroted by a compliant media. All informed people, those who have called out previous lies on Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Venezuala and Iran, understand full well that UK intelligence agencies are neck deep in the Salisbury theatre. Novichock use has not been confirmed and I challenge you to find a source confirming its use. An actual source, not a report of one. The, highly compromised, OPCW would not go so far and merely confirmed that the agent used was the same one that the UK govt. had asked them to confirm. This information was confidential and not released.
    So to sum up, Steve. The UK govt. claimed that Russia had used chemical weapons, namely novichock, in Salisbury. After at first refusing to involve the OPCW they succumbed to pressure from other countries who were being asked to expel diplomats and impose other sanctions on Russia. However, rather than ask the OPCW to conduct a full FFM(fact finding mission), the UK govt. simply asked the OPCW to confirm that the agent used was the same as the agent that the UK govt. had asked them to confirm. The information of what the agent was is confidential between the OPCW and the UK govt.
     The effects and symptons displayed by the victims rule out novichock as does their still being alive. The whereabouts of the supposed victims and the dmsa notices issued by the UK govt. should also alert those paying attention that something is badly amiss with the UK govt. narrative.
    As for your diversions re international/diplomatic law and Crimea. Again I would invite you to open a thread if you want a serious discussion of these matters. The Crimeans themselves seem perfectly happy to be part of Russia and I fail to see why you would have issue with the self proclaimed will of the Crimeans. Do you think that the Crimeans want to be part of Ukraine? Do you not believe in self determination?
    What does this have to do with Assange and the cavalier attitude of UK and US governments towards diplomatic premises and the Geneva conventions. You really should be more concerned about your own government's transgressions of international law which are many and dwarf those of your perceived bogey men. Diplomatic law is part of international law, Steve and I would confidently wager that your knowledge of both would comfortably fit on the back of a postage stamp and still leave room for the Lord's Prayer.
    Expand your reading, Steve, or stick to commenting on things that you have at least a passing acquaintance with. You have so far demonstrated that you have a less than passing acquaintance with the Salisbury incident, Crimea, Litvinenko's poisoning and Swedish law not to mention the whole Assange affair which is what the thread is supposed to be about. That you have managed to display such a wide breadth of misunderstanding into less than a couple of handfuls of sentences is impressive but not in a good way.
     Do you disagree that the charges put forward by US are a danger to journalists and publishers everywhere? If you do disagree then perhaps you would care to explain how every media outlet that publishes US govt. leaks would be different to Wikileaks and Assange. The use of the Espionage Act against Assange was discussed and dismissed by the Obama administration for this very reason. I don't believe that you understand the implications of Assange being extradited to the US or the UK complicity in this attack on journalism and free speech or the use of the Espionage Act. Others fortunately do hence the rowing back of many media outlets now that the extra charges have been made.
    I doubt that any reply will address the questions raised but don't worry, I will be sure to remind you of them should you fail to do so. 
   

There is more than a suspicion that Russia was behind the novichok attack, not the oligarchs, not a rogue player, but authorized by Putin himself. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/16/russian-spy-poisoning-attack-novichok-chemist

You seem happy for international borders to be changed by force. It reminds one of the 1930s and Adolf Hitler's attempt to reunite ethnic Germans. A thread has already been started here, despite what you assert. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6518.0.html

I don't have a problem with some of the information released by Julian Assange or Edward Snowden. The problem is that this was all spewed out haphazardly and could not possibly have been read fully by the perpetrators before release.  https://www.apnews.com/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb

I made a mistake about juries in Sweden. If you'd read previous posts of mine I'd stated never to underestimate nugnug.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on May 26, 2019, 07:39:AM
There is more than a suspicion that Russia was behind the novichok attack, not the oligarchs, not a rogue player, but authorized by Putin himself. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/16/russian-spy-poisoning-attack-novichok-chemist

You seem happy for international borders to be changed by force. It reminds one of the 1930s and Adolf Hitler's attempt to reunite ethnic Germans. A thread has already been started here, despite what you assert. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6518.0.html

I don't have a problem with some of the information released by Julian Assange or Edward Snowden. The problem is that this was all spewed out haphazardly and could not possibly have been read fully by the perpetrators before release.  https://www.apnews.com/b70da83fd111496dbdf015acbb7987fb

I made a mistake about juries in Sweden. If you'd read previous posts of mine I'd stated never to underestimate nugnug.
   You clearly haven't read never mind digested the implications of the OPCW report on Salisbury. A report in the Guardian is not evidence of novichock being used so I repeat the challenge to produce evidence of novichock use. The OPCW were only able to confirm that the agent detected in the samples collected were the same as they were asked to confirm by the UK govt. They were not asked to confirm novichock and nor have they. These are facts, Steve. I know that your limited reading and knowledge of the whole saga means that you didn't know this, but it is true nonetheless. The exact nature and details of the substance that the UK govt. asked for confirmation of are confidential.
    The scientists at Porton Down have also never confirmed novichock use. It is far more likely that the victims were attacked with BZ not novichock. There are far more relevant questions that you should want answering. Where are the Skripals now? Why is there a "d notice" issued by the UK govt. almost immediately after the incident preventing the media from mentioning or discussing Pablo Miller? Do you even know who Pablo Miller is or Christopher Steele or Orbis Intelligence and why and how they are connected to Sergei Skripal? Of course you don't. You have just bought the official narrative despite its many changes as new facts emerged and despite the many unexplained inconsistencies.
    Your idiotic assertion that I am happy for borders to be changed by force is based on what exactly? What force was used in Crimea? How many deaths/injuries? You appear to believe that the Crimeans should be part of Ukraine and not Russia, so how do you propose to do this given the Crimeans overwhelmingly want to be part of Russia. I doubt that you know the first thing about the history of the Crimean peninsula. It was gifted to Ukraine in the 1950's by Krushchev. Both were part of the Soviet Union and it was internal bureaucracy. The people of Crimea have made pretty clear their own views and no force was necessary. Force would certainly be required to unite Ukraine and Crimea so who is the one advocating force to change borders.
     The thread that you link to is the "Russia Worrying" thread and the debate on there, much of which I contributed, demonstrates pretty clearly our relative knowledge and understanding of international law and the wider geopolitical picture. Your contributions then, as now, consisted largely of just mentioning things that you'd heard of but had no understanding of. Which things, specifically, did Assange release that put anyone in danger? Unless you can specify a cable or email that he shouldn't have released, I am going to have to assume that you are just repeating talking points you've heard others say.
     It is noticeable that those media outlets that have been leading the charge in the Assange smear campaign have suddenly changed tack now that the Espionage Act has been used. You really don't understand the implications of what the US charges mean to journalism and journalists everywhere. There is not a publisher, media outlet or journalist anywhere who would be safe.
      Change the US to Russia or China and ask yourself if you would support either of those in attempting to get their hands on a foreign journalist who had published their leaked secrets. Concern yourself with the crimes and war crimes exposed rather than the vilification of those brave enough to expose them.
 
 
       
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on May 28, 2019, 05:33:PM
icant blame anybody for not wanting to face trail bya single judge in a secret court.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 28, 2019, 07:43:PM
icant blame anybody for not wanting to face trail bya single judge in a secret court.
There would be some other excuse even if it were a jury trial.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on May 28, 2019, 10:46:PM
There would be some other excuse even if it were a jury trial.
    Have you considered the possibility that what you call "excuses" might be legitimate concerns.
     When JA first entered the Ecuadorian Embassy his excuse (as you would call it) or legitimate concern (as even his critics at the time are now being forced to admit) was that the US had in place a secret Grand Jury and that charges for Assange publishing US war crime secrets would be laid as soon as he stepped foot on Swedish soil.
     I am aware that your knowledge of Swedish extradition arrangements with the US is probably limited but suffice to say that extradition from Sweden would have been less troublesome than from the UK.
     At the time Assange and those who support his freedom of expression and speech were labelled as "conspiracy theorists" for believing that the US had a secret Grand Jury in place to charge Assange with espionage. The sexual allegations were used to label supporters as "rape apologists". It should by now be apparent, to even the most dim witted, that the reason for Assange's asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy was because of legitimate concerns about torture and trumped up charges in the US.
    Events have surely shown that the whole Assange saga is a chilling attempt to silence free speech. You must be one of the last people still drinking the kool aid on this one.
    Are you aware of Chelsea Manning's current predicament and the reasons for this. Inform yourself before commenting further, Steve. Supporting the persecution of Assange puts you on the side of war mongers, war criminals and their apologists.
     
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on May 29, 2019, 06:24:PM
well sweden hadent acully chared him with rape they only wanted him for qustioning they later did qustion him in the embasy and droped the chardges but now for some reson want to re oprn them dispite having no knew evdence.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 29, 2019, 10:58:PM
    Have you considered the possibility that what you call "excuses" might be legitimate concerns.
     When JA first entered the Ecuadorian Embassy his excuse (as you would call it) or legitimate concern (as even his critics at the time are now being forced to admit) was that the US had in place a secret Grand Jury and that charges for Assange publishing US war crime secrets would be laid as soon as he stepped foot on Swedish soil.
     I am aware that your knowledge of Swedish extradition arrangements with the US is probably limited but suffice to say that extradition from Sweden would have been less troublesome than from the UK.
     At the time Assange and those who support his freedom of expression and speech were labelled as "conspiracy theorists" for believing that the US had a secret Grand Jury in place to charge Assange with espionage. The sexual allegations were used to label supporters as "rape apologists". It should by now be apparent, to even the most dim witted, that the reason for Assange's asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy was because of legitimate concerns about torture and trumped up charges in the US.
    Events have surely shown that the whole Assange saga is a chilling attempt to silence free speech. You must be one of the last people still drinking the kool aid on this one.
    Are you aware of Chelsea Manning's current predicament and the reasons for this. Inform yourself before commenting further, Steve. Supporting the persecution of Assange puts you on the side of war mongers, war criminals and their apologists.
   
You can't have an individual unilaterally deciding whether they will obey the law or not, or civilization as we know it would break down. It's true there are concerns over the US judiciary(in recent days we've had Nancy Pelosi accusing the country's chief lawyer, the United States Attorney General William Barr of lying to Congress), we've had the miscarriages of justice involving IRA prisoners in the 1970s and 1980s and many other cases, but Assange should be extradited to Sweden to answer these rape charges.


I don't like your tone towards me gringo in recent posts and if you commit personal attacks on me again I will ask Mike to ban you. Failing that I'm leaving myself.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on May 30, 2019, 12:45:AM
You can't have an individual unilaterally deciding whether they will obey the law or not, or civilization as we know it would break down. It's true there are concerns over the US judiciary(in recent days we've had Nancy Pelosi accusing the country's chief lawyer, the United States Attorney General William Barr of lying to Congress), we've had the miscarriages of justice involving IRA prisoners in the 1970s and 1980s and many other cases, but Assange should be extradited to Sweden to answer these rape charges.


I don't like your tone towards me gringo in recent posts and if you commit personal attacks on me again I will ask Mike to ban you. Failing that I'm leaving myself.
   There are not and never have been any rape charges. Assange has never been charged with rape and my pointing out your lack of knowledge on the issues at hand is legitimate debate. Crying about the tone that I am, in your view, taking towards you is pathetic. I have asked you questions and you have shown that you know very little about the case.
     So far you have diverted the issue with asides about Litvinenko, Salisbury and now IRA miscarriages from the 70's, Nancy Pelosi and the US AG allegedly lying to congress. Nothing to do with Assange's charges and extradition.
    If you don't like my tone then ignore me. Making threats about telling tales and asking for members who you disagree with to be banned is childish and doesn't reflect well on you. Grow up.
    Your failure to address the Espionage Act charges and what the implications of these charges mean for journalists worldwide shows your lack of understanding of what is going on. The secret Grand Jury wasn't a conspiracy dreamed up by "rape apologists". You should be troubled by the persecution of Assange. That you aren't demonstrates that either you are poorly read and informed or an apologist for war mongers and criminals.
    Would you also be ok with extraditing him to Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran or any country anywhere? just because he had published leaked documents of any of those governments. If those countries were now threatening charges carrying possible death or 175 year sentences despite the charged person not being a citizen of the country, would you still support extradition?
    You would call out Russia et al. if they were attempting to extradite Assange for publishing secrets about their war crimes. You need to apply the same standards to your own government and those of our allies. The UK and US governments have scored a massive own goal with their behaviour and stomped on international law and Vienna Conventions in their thuggish behaviour. You should be ashamed to be still defending their actions.
     
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 30, 2019, 07:19:AM
  There are not and never have been any rape charges. Assange has never been charged with rape and my pointing out your lack of knowledge on the issues at hand is legitimate debate. Crying about the tone that I am, in your view, taking towards you is pathetic. I have asked you questions and you have shown that you know very little about the case.
     So far you have diverted the issue with asides about Litvinenko, Salisbury and now IRA miscarriages from the 70's, Nancy Pelosi and the US AG allegedly lying to congress. Nothing to do with Assange's charges and extradition.
    If you don't like my tone then ignore me. Making threats about telling tales and asking for members who you disagree with to be banned is childish and doesn't reflect well on you. Grow up.
    Your failure to address the Espionage Act charges and what the implications of these charges mean for journalists worldwide shows your lack of understanding of what is going on. The secret Grand Jury wasn't a conspiracy dreamed up by "rape apologists". You should be troubled by the persecution of Assange. That you aren't demonstrates that either you are poorly read and informed or an apologist for war mongers and criminals.
    Would you also be ok with extraditing him to Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran or any country anywhere? just because he had published leaked documents of any of those governments. If those countries were now threatening charges carrying possible death or 175 year sentences despite the charged person not being a citizen of the country, would you still support extradition?
    You would call out Russia et al. if they were attempting to extradite Assange for publishing secrets about their war crimes. You need to apply the same standards to your own government and those of our allies. The UK and US governments have scored a massive own goal with their behaviour and stomped on international law and Vienna Conventions in their thuggish behaviour. You should be ashamed to be still defending their actions.
   

For goodness sake I've been a teacher for 30 years and one might assume therefore that I could withstand intimidation. It's you who can't take any alternative point of view and who is playing the man not the ball. I mentioned the cases I did which I thought you would have been pleased about because they buttress your case that all the judiciary everywhere is corrupt, but notwithstanding a few high profile miscarriage of justice cases does not mean that the rule of law in general should not be followed in the democracies of the USA and Sweden.


There were allegations of rape or sexual assault made against Assange by two Swedish women in 2010. I have my doubts about the evidence from the video nugnug posted and other documents quoted here but the point is he should not be allowed to wriggle out of these charges just because he might be extradited to America should the Swedish judiciary decide once they have him on their soil. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48249486

I have stated previously that I didn't have a problem with some of the documents that were released; it was the willy-nilly nature of them being put in the public domain which I objected to. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37165230

The state of Assange's mental health is a concern to many. For an individual to begin smearing his own faeces on a London embassy's walls there is evidently something wrong, and it may be up to the doctors in the final analysis to consider whether he is fit to stand trial for any of the alleged crimes. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/29/assange-is-reportedly-gravely-ill-and-hardly-anyones-talking-about-it/
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on May 30, 2019, 04:26:PM
For goodness sake I've been a teacher for 30 years and one might assume therefore that I could withstand intimidation. It's you who can't take any alternative point of view and who is playing the man not the ball. I mentioned the cases I did which I thought you would have been pleased about because they buttress your case that all the judiciary everywhere is corrupt, but notwithstanding a few high profile miscarriage of justice cases does not mean that the rule of law in general should not be followed in the democracies of the USA and Sweden.


There were allegations of rape or sexual assault made against Assange by two Swedish women in 2010. I have my doubts about the evidence from the video nugnug posted and other documents quoted here but the point is he should not be allowed to wriggle out of these charges just because he might be extradited to America should the Swedish judiciary decide once they have him on their soil. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48249486

I have stated previously that I didn't have a problem with some of the documents that were released; it was the willy-nilly nature of them being put in the public domain which I objected to. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37165230

The state of Assange's mental health is a concern to many. For an individual to begin smearing his own faeces on a London embassy's walls there is evidently something wrong, and it may be up to the doctors in the final analysis to consider whether he is fit to stand trial for any of the alleged crimes. https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/29/assange-is-reportedly-gravely-ill-and-hardly-anyones-talking-about-it/
    It is the highlighted part that is the issue, and always has been though, Steve.
    Extradition to the US would be to be complicit in what is an unprecedented assault on journalistic freedom worldwide and everyone should stand against this. The allegations against Assange fall apart the more you read and find out, as you have found with the video etc. and were always  just a tool to smear Assange.
    The allegation of "wiily nilly" release of the documents has been made many times by Assange opponents over the years but never substantiated. It was reported in many outlets that the leaks had put agents in danger.  Despite these reports not a single person has come to harm because of the revelations. There is also the not inconsiderable problem that "willy nilly" publishing should surely not be a crime punishable under the US Espionage Act. Who decides whether something has been editorialised or censored appropriately or not? That is a very slippery slope.
     I asked previously whether you would support any other government if the US was replaced by China, Russia or the Saudi's. The question is rhetorical as nobody in their right mind would support any of those countries against a whistleblower and a journalist. The point of the rhetorical device is to emphasise just what is being condoned by support of the US and UK governments here.
    Chelsea Manning's plight should be causing outrage and both she and Assange, who have both shown much courage in telling unpalatable truths and have paid and are both still paying a heavy price for their bravery, should be supported by everyone who believes in even the most basic of freedoms.
    To be on the side of the US government on this is supporting despotism. 
   
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on June 01, 2019, 03:30:AM
    Worth watching to the end, an interview with Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture. His report just released is devastating to the reputations of the governments of the US, UK, Ecuador and Sweden. The lies of the Assange affair are being exposed. 18 minutes interview and it really does contain a few truth bombs, not the least of which is the active collusion of these four governments in the persecution of one man:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErW1taJEPrs


         

     

     
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on June 01, 2019, 04:49:AM
     The excellent Craig Murray as always worth a read: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/


Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on June 01, 2019, 03:03:PM
     Craig Murray with a new piece today:  https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

   I think more people are waking up to the reality in front of them. It is becoming more difficult to remain blind to the egregious breaches of international law and treaties that the UK is guilty of. The media are barely reporting the UN report, which tacitly confirms the implication of complicity of the press and institutions of the four countries involved in the persecution of one man.
   Nils Melzer is correct to say that this needs to stop and stop now.
   Craig Murray is correct, in my view, that the UK has now earned the status of Rogue State. 
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on June 02, 2019, 02:11:PM
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/31/swedish-sex-pistol-aimed-at-assange/?fbclid=IwAR2PyLS8MKixp2ewiFn5M5YCj64gPKttLsXFiA2dDjDXIxOVBYsX00RPUdo
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on June 02, 2019, 08:51:PM
from johnathn cook

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/31/endless-procedural-abuses-show-julian-assange-case-was-never-about-law/
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on June 03, 2019, 08:13:PM
https://youtu.be/ys4Wk4PYf4c
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on June 05, 2019, 10:19:AM
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: David1819 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 (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.

Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: nugnug on August 26, 2019, 11:32:AM
https://youtu.be/VCaO2OYAXL0
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo 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.

   
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo 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.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo 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.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo 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.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: David1819 on September 26, 2020, 04:10: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.nbcnews.com/news/world/assange-offered-pardon-if-he-helped-resolve-speculation-about-russian-n1240424)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWwcumVCM6s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWwcumVCM6s)
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo 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.nbcnews.com/news/world/assange-offered-pardon-if-he-helped-resolve-speculation-about-russian-n1240424)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWwcumVCM6s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWwcumVCM6s)
    Speculation on my part, but I would suspect that the pardon came with too many strings attached.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo 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".
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: David1819 on September 26, 2020, 06:29:PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcqiheHqrL0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcqiheHqrL0)
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Roch 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.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: David1819 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?
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo 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.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo 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.
   
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: David1819 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?
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on September 27, 2020, 12:55:AM
     I am much more concerned with the very real phenomenon of the US government abducting innocent members of the public from the street. Reproduced below is an excerpt from Day 13 0f the trial. The Guardian led with "Assange in outburst in court" or something like this. Portraying Assange as the villain of the peace. It is beyond belief what is being exposed and the media are cowed into silence.


 Judge Baraitser said she was not going to determine if the US had pressurised Germany or if el-Masri had been tortured. Those were not the questions before her. Mark Summers QC said that it went to the question of whether Wikileaks had performed a necessary act to prevent criminality by the US Government and enable justice. Lewis responded that it was unacceptable to the US government that allegations of torture should be made.

At this point, Julian Assange became very agitated. He stood up and declared very loudly:

“I will not permit the testimony of a torture victim to be censored by this court”

A great commotion broke out. Baraitser threatened to have Julian removed and have the hearing held in his absence. There was a break following which it was announced that el-Masri would not appear, but that the gist of his evidence would be read out, excluding detail of US torture or of US pressure on the government of Germany. Mark Summers QC started to read the evidence.

Khaled el-Masri, of Lebanese origin, had come to Germany in 1989 and was a German citizen. On 1 January 2004 after a holiday in Skopje he had been removed from a coach on the Macedonian border. He had been held incommunicado by Macedonian officials, ill-treated and beaten. On 23 July he had been taken to Skopje airport and handed over to CIA operatives. They had beaten, shackled, hooded and sodomised him. His clothes had been ripped off, he had been dressed in a diaper, shackled to the floor of an aircraft in a cruciform position, and rendered unconscious by an anaesthetic injection.

He awoke in what he eventually learned was Afghanistan. He was held incommunicado in a bare concrete cell with a bucket for a toilet. He was held for six months and interrogated throughout this period [details of torture excluded by the judge]. Eventually in June he was flown to Albania, driven blindfold up a remote mountain road and dumped. When he eventually got back to Germany, his home was deserted and his wife and children had left.

When he made his story public he was subject to vicious attacks on his character and his credibility and it was claimed he was inventing it. He believes the government sought to silence him. He sought a local lawyer and persisted, eventually getting in touch with Mr Goetz of public TV, who had proven his story to be true, traced the CIA agents involved to North Carolina and even interviewed some of them. As a result, Munich state prosecutors released arrest warrants for his CIA kidnappers, but these were never executed. When Wikileaks issued the cables the pressure that had been brought on the German government not to prosecute became plain. [The judge did not prevent Summers from saying this.] We therefore know the US blocked judicial investigation of a crime. The European Court of Human Rights had explicitly relied on the Wikileaks cables for part of its judgement in the case. The Grand Chamber confirmed that he had been beaten, hooded, shackled and sodomised.

There had been no accountability in the USA. The CIA Inspector-General had declined to take action over the case. The ECHR judgement and supporting documentation had been sent to the office of the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia – precisely the same office that was now attempting to extradite Assange – and that office had declined to prosecute the CIA officers concerned.

A complaint had been made to the International Criminal Court including the ECHR judgement and the Wikileaks material. In March 2020 the ICC had announced it was opening an investigation. In response US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had declared any non-US citizen who cooperated with that ICC investigation, including officers of the ICC, would be subject to financial and other sanctions.

Finally, el-Masri testified that Wikileaks’ publication had been essential to him in gaining acceptance of the truth of the crime and of the cover-up.

In fact, the impact of Mark Summers’ reading of el-Masri’s statement on the court was enormous. Summers has a real gift for conveying moral force and constrained righteous anger in his tone. I thought the testimony had a definite impression on Judge Baraitser; she showed signs not of discomfort or embarrassment, but of real emotional distress while she was listening intently. Subsequently, two different witnesses, each situated in separate sections of the court from me, both in separate and unprompted conversations with me, told me that they thought that el-Masri’s testimony had really gotten through to the judge. Vanessa Baraitser is after all only human, and this is the first time she has been forced to deal with what this case is actually about.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Roch on September 27, 2020, 02:33:AM

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

No, why should I?
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: David1819 on September 27, 2020, 01:40:PM
No, why should I?

Twin Towers destroyed by an energy weapon from space, Aliens abduct sheep and Assange is a CIA/NSA agent.

Need I say more.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on September 27, 2020, 01:47:PM
At the risk of incurring an alien / flying saucer attack by David, it seems Richard Hall thinks Assange is fake.
   What evidence does he provide for this remarkable claim?
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: David1819 on September 27, 2020, 02:26:PM
   What evidence does he provide for this remarkable claim?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2WSI_M15-k&feature=emb_logo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2WSI_M15-k&feature=emb_logo)

Grab your popcorn
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Roch on September 27, 2020, 05:01:PM
Twin Towers destroyed by an energy weapon from space, Aliens abduct sheep and Assange is a CIA/NSA agent.

Need I say more.

I thought it was Dr Judy Wood who advocated the energy weapon theory. Hall has probably given her a platform. I think the issue with animal mutilations and the like has been followed since 1977's 'Strange Harvest' was filmed in USA. As for Assange, I haven't got the popcorn out for that one yet. It didn't really pique my interest.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: Roch on September 27, 2020, 05:08:PM
    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.

I note your advice on this. Tbh, it is not an issue I have followed or focused much attention on. I do remember questioning whether the sexual assault claims in (Sweden?) were an attempt to blacken his name. However, I also recall plenty people seemed think they were credible allegations. I don't recall what happened with it.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on September 27, 2020, 05:21:PM
I note your advice on this. Tbh, it is not an issue I have followed or focused much attention on. I do remember questioning whether the sexual assault claims in (Sweden?) were an attempt to blacken his name. However, I also recall plenty people seemed think they were credible allegations. I don't recall what happened with it.
    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.

How did the two women know each other?
They didn’t really know each other. A. A., who was hosting Assange and was serving as his press secretary, had met S. W. at an event where S. W. was wearing a pink cashmere sweater. She apparently knew from Assange that he was interested in a sexual encounter with S. W., because one evening, she received a text message from an acquaintance saying that he knew Assange was staying with her and that he, the acquaintance, would like to contact Assange. A. A. answered: Assange is apparently sleeping at the moment with the “cashmere girl.” The next morning, S. W. spoke with A. A. on the phone and said that she, too, had slept with Assange and was now concerned about having become infected with HIV. This concern was apparently a real one, because S.W. even went to a clinic for consultation. A. A. then suggested: Let’s go to the police – they can force Assange to get an HIV test. The two women, though, didn’t go to the closest police station, but to one quite far away where a friend of A. A.’s works as a policewoman – who then questioned S. W., initially in the presence of A. A., which isn’t proper practice. Up to this point, though, the only problem was at most a lack of professionalism. The willful malevolence of the authorities only became apparent when they immediately disseminated the suspicion of rape via the tabloid press, and did so without questioning A. A. and in contradiction to the statement given by S. W. It also violated a clear ban in Swedish law against releasing the names of alleged victims or perpetrators in sexual offense cases. The case now came to the attention of the chief public prosecutor in the capital city and she suspended the rape investigation some days later with the assessment that while the statements from S. W. were credible, there was no evidence that a crime had been committed.

But then the case really took off. Why?
Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement from S. W.


The original copies of the mail exchanges between the Swedish police.
What did the policewoman change?
We don’t know, because the first statement was directly written over in the computer program and no longer exists. We only know that the original statement, according to the chief public prosecutor, apparently did not contain any indication that a crime had been committed. In the edited form it says that the two had had sex several times – consensual and with a condom. But in the morning, according to the revised statement, the woman woke up because he tried to penetrate her without a condom. She asks: «Are you wearing a condom?» He says: «No.» Then she says: «You better not have HIV» and allows him to continue. The statement was edited without the involvement of the woman in question and it wasn’t signed by her. It is a manipulated piece of evidence out of which the Swedish authorities then constructed a story of rape.

Why would the Swedish authorities do something like that?
The timing is decisive: In late July, Wikileaks – in cooperation with the «New York Times», the «Guardian» and «Der Spiegel» – published the «Afghan War Diary». It was one of the largest leaks in the history of the U.S. military. The U.S. immediately demanded that its allies inundate Assange with criminal cases. We aren’t familiar with all of the correspondence, but Stratfor, a security consultancy that works for the U.S. government, advised American officials apparently to deluge Assange with all kinds of criminal cases for the next 25 years.

2. Assange contacts the Swedish judiciary several times to make a statement – but he is turned down
Why didn’t Assange turn himself into the police at the time?
He did. I mentioned that earlier.

Then please elaborate.
Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later, after the accusation that he had raped S. W. was no longer being pursued. But proceedings related to the sexual harassment of A. A. were ongoing. On Aug. 30, 2010, Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. He was questioned by the same policeman who had since ordered that revision of the statement had been given by S. W. At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didn’t want to read about his statement again in the press. That is his right, and he was given assurances it would be granted. But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name.


The Swiss Professor of International Law, Nils Melzer, is pictured near Biel, Switzerland.
Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials?
This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will. On the basis of the revised statement from S.W., an appeal was filed against the public prosecutor’s attempt to suspend the investigation, and on Sept. 2, 2010, the rape proceedings were resumed. A legal representative by the name of Claes Borgström was appointed to the two women at public cost. The man was a law firm partner to the previous justice minister, Thomas Bodström, under whose supervision Swedish security personnel had seized two men who the U.S. found suspicious in the middle of Stockholm. The men were seized without any kind of legal proceedings and then handed over to the CIA, who proceeded to torture them. That shows the trans-Atlantic backdrop to this affair more clearly. After the resumption of the rape investigation, Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick. Three weeks later, his lawyer finally wrote that Assange really had to go to Berlin for a conference and asked if he was allowed to leave the country. The public prosecutor’s office gave him written permission to leave Sweden for short periods of time.

And then?
The point is: On the day that Julian Assange left Sweden, at a point in time when it wasn’t clear if he was leaving for a short time or a long time, a warrant was issued for his arrest. He flew with Scandinavian Airlines from Stockholm to Berlin. During the flight, his laptops disappeared from his checked baggage. When he arrived in Berlin, Lufthansa requested an investigation from SAS, but the airline apparently declined to provide any information at all.

Why?
That is exactly the problem. In this case, things are constantly happening that shouldn’t actually be possible unless you look at them from a different angle. Assange, in any case, continued onward to London, but did not seek to hide from the judiciary. Via his Swedish lawyer, he offered public prosecutors several possible dates for questioning in Sweden – this correspondence exists. Then, the following happened: Assange caught wind of the fact that a secret criminal case had been opened against him in the U.S. At the time, it was not confirmed by the U.S., but today we know that it was true. As of that moment, Assange’s lawyer began saying that his client was prepared to testify in Sweden, but he demanded diplomatic assurance that Sweden would not extradite him to the U.S.

Was that even a realistic scenario?
Absolutely. Some years previously, as I already mentioned, Swedish security personnel had handed over two asylum applicants, both of whom were registered in Sweden, to the CIA without any legal proceedings. The abuse already started at the Stockholm airport, where they were mistreated, drugged and flown to Egypt, where they were tortured. We don’t know if they were the only such cases. But we are aware of these cases because the men survived. Both later filed complaints with UN human rights agencies and won their case. Sweden was forced to pay each of them half a million dollars in damages.

Did Sweden agree to the demands submitted by Assange?
The lawyers say that during the nearly seven years in which Assange lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy, they made over 30 offers to arrange for Assange to visit Sweden – in exchange for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S. The Swedes declined to provide such a guarantee by arguing that the U.S. had not made a formal request for extradition.

What is your view of the demand made by Assange’s lawyers?
Such diplomatic assurances are a routine international practice. People request assurances that they won’t be extradited to places where there is a danger of serious human rights violations, completely irrespective of whether an extradition request has been filed by the country in question or not. It is a political procedure, not a legal one. Here’s an example: Say France demands that Switzerland extradite a Kazakh businessman who lives in Switzerland but who is wanted by both France and Kazakhstan on tax fraud allegations. Switzerland sees no danger of torture in France, but does believe such a danger exists in Kazakhstan. So, Switzerland tells France: We’ll extradite the man to you, but we want a diplomatic assurance that he won’t be extradited onward to Kazakhstan. The French response is not: «Kazakhstan hasn’t even filed a request!» Rather, they would, of course, grant such an assurance. The arguments coming from Sweden were tenuous at best. That is one part of it. The other, and I say this on the strength of all of my experience behind the scenes of standard international practice: If a country refuses to provide such a diplomatic assurance, then all doubts about the good intentions of the country in question are justified. Why shouldn’t Sweden provide such assurances? From a legal perspective, after all, the U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with Swedish sex offense proceedings.

Why didn’t Sweden want to offer such an assurance?
You just have to look at how the case was run: For Sweden, it was never about the interests of the two women. Even after his request for assurances that he would not be extradited, Assange still wanted to testify. He said: If you cannot guarantee that I won’t be extradited, then I am willing to be questioned in London or via video link.

But is it normal, or even legally acceptable, for Swedish authorities to travel to a different country for such an interrogation?
That is a further indication that Sweden was never interested in finding the truth. For exactly these kinds of judiciary issues, there is a cooperation treaty between the United Kingdom and Sweden, which foresees that Swedish officials can travel to the UK, or vice versa, to conduct interrogations or that such questioning can take place via video link. During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person.

3. When the highest Swedish court finally forced public prosecutors in Stockholm to either file charges or suspend the case, the British authorities demanded: «Don’t get cold feet!!»
Why was that?
There is only a single explanation for everything – for the refusal to grant diplomatic assurances, for the refusal to question him in London: They wanted to apprehend him so they could extradite him to the U.S. The number of breaches of law that accumulated in Sweden within just a few weeks during the preliminary criminal investigation is simply grotesque. The state assigned a legal adviser to the women who told them that the criminal interpretation of what they experienced was up to the state, and no longer up to them. When their legal adviser was asked about contradictions between the women’s testimony and the narrative adhered to by public officials, the legal adviser said, in reference to the women: «ah, but they’re not lawyers.» But for five long years the Swedish prosecution avoids questioning Assange regarding the purported rape, until his lawyers finally petitioned Sweden’s Supreme Court to force the public prosecution to either press charges or close the case. When the Swedes told the UK that they may be forced to abandon the case, the British wrote back, worriedly: «Don’t you dare get cold feet!!»


«Don’t you dare get cold feet!!»: Mail from the English law enforcement agency CPS to the Swedish Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny. This Document was obtained by the Italian investigative journalist, Stefania Maurizi, in a five-year long FOIA litigation which is still ongoing.
Are you serious?
Yes, the British, or more specifically the Crown Prosecution Service, wanted to prevent Sweden from abandoning the case at all costs. Though really, the English should have been happy that they would no longer have to spend millions in taxpayer money to keep the Ecuadorian Embassy under constant surveillance to prevent Assange’s escape.

Why were the British so eager to prevent the Swedes from closing the case?
We have to stop believing that there was really an interest in leading an investigation into a sexual offense. What Wikileaks did is a threat to the political elite in the U.S., Britain, France and Russia in equal measure. Wikileaks publishes secret state information – they are opposed to classification. And in a world, even in so-called mature democracies, where secrecy has become rampant, that is seen as a fundamental threat. Assange made it clear that countries are no longer interested today in legitimate confidentiality, but in the suppression of important information about corruption and crimes. Take the archetypal Wikileaks case from the leaks supplied by Chelsea Manning: The so-called «Collateral Murder» video. (Eds. Note: On April 5, 2010, Wikileaks published a classified video from the U.S. military which showed the murder of several people in Baghdad by U.S. soldiers, including two employees of the news agency Reuters.) As a long-time legal adviser to the International Committee of the Red Cross and delegate in war zones, I can tell you: The video undoubtedly documents a war crime. A helicopter crew simply mowed down a bunch of people. It could even be that one or two of these people was carrying a weapon, but injured people were intentionally targeted. That is a war crime. «He’s wounded,» you can hear one American saying. «I’m firing.» And then they laugh. Then a van drives up to save the wounded. The driver has two children with him. You can hear the soldiers say: Well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle. And then they open fire. The father and the wounded are immediately killed, though the children survive with serious injuries. Through the publication of the video, we became direct witnesses to a criminal, unconscionable massacre.
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: gringo on September 27, 2020, 05:58:PM
      The above is from the interview with Nils Melzer that I linked to earlier. Here is the link again; https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange
    There never were any rape charges. There were never even any rape allegations from the women, they were an invention of others.
     Read the full interview, Roch. Read Craig Murrays day to day reporting of the farcical proceedings. Read the witness statements of the likes of Clive Stafford Smith, Daniel Ellsberg and discover what is being laid bare, but largely unreported, about the naked criminality of the US/UK state.
     I did watch the first part of the Rich Hall piece on Rich Hall posted by David and it was just wild speculation and conjecture based on nothing. Rich Hall also found it significant and supportive of his stance that Gary MacKinnon was subject to an extradition request in contrast to Assange. In 2017, when RH made the video, it was true that there was no extradition request. That observation is now in tatters and merely demonstrates Hall's lack of real engagement with the reasons for this lack of a request at that stage.
     I would speculate that it is more likely that Rich Hall is a psyop than JA based on that 30 mins of lack of real insight or knowledge dressed up as serious analysis.
   
Title: Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
Post by: David1819 on September 27, 2020, 06:14:PM
     I did watch the first part of the Rich Hall piece on Rich Hall posted by David and it was just wild speculation and conjecture based on nothing.

We can agree on that.

If you fancy a chuckle watch this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_ZsftZ9GCM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_ZsftZ9GCM)