• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JihadJane said:
When politicians and the political (or corporate) elites and the judicial system become enmeshed, the due process of the law is corrupted.
Click to expand...

And when leftist narcissist activists rape and molest women, apparantly every judicial system in the world is corrupted.

Strange that.
 
Here_to_learn said:
It's probably one of the more unclear areas.

The prosecutor has stated to the English courts that the intention is not just to interview, but (assuming that no new information comes up), to charge.

There might very well be a part of "we'll, he's not getting away with running to the UK just because he is famous, I've got the law on my side, he should come here" from the prosecutors side. Now we know that she does in fact have the law on her side, so if she wants JA in Sweden, the law says that he should come. Anything else might be allowed in the law (from what I understand), but there is nothing (again from what I understand) that forces the prosecutor to agree to interview outside of Sweden.

Of course, since the prosecutors stated intention and expectation is to charge JA, it wouldn't help to interview him in for example the Ecuador embassy in London, since we would probably just end up in a new deadlock where he would refuse to come.

Or has JA promised to give himself up if/when he is charged?
Click to expand...

:confused:

I thought you said he had to have an interview in Sweden to comply with Swedish legal requirements, now you are saying that it is not required, but a requirement of that particular prosecutor, and that other suspects have been interviewed about criminal matters overseas.
 
a_unique_person said:
I thought you said he had to have an interview in Sweden to comply with Swedish legal requirements, now you are saying that it is not required, but a requirement of that particular prosecutor, and that other suspects have been interviewed about criminal matters overseas.
Click to expand...
From what I understand there are several things in play here:

1. It's not just about an interview, it's an interview in the final stages of an investigation, and one that is supposed to lead to JA being charged.
2. It's possible for a prosecutor to interview a person outside of Sweden (I have seen reports of that), but the suspect need to be in Sweden to be charged. The examples I've seen described was not about interviewing for charging, it was the first interview in an investigation. That first interview with JA happened early on in the investigation.
3. Interviewing outside of Sweden is at the the prosecutors discretion, and the prosecutor has decided (as is described on the Prosecution Authority Homepage I linked to) that they need JA in Sweden to be able to complete the final stages. This might for example involve re-interviewing other people based on JAs statements.
4. The arguments on why JA was needed in Sweden that the Swedish prosecutor gave to the English courts was enough to satisfy them that the request for extradition is legal.
5. JA promised to come back for an interview, he didn't come and instead has taken every action available to him to try to avoid getting extradited to Sweden. There is nothing that says that says that interviewing him in the Ecuador embassy would move things forward. It might even be make JA even less disposed to come to Sweden.

Compare for example with what is claimed about the US - the claim is that the US has a Sealed Indictment for JA - from what I understand (but please do tell me if I have misunderstood), the reason for having a sealed indictment is to make it easier to apprehend the person - you don't want the person so suspect that they will be arrested.

(Now, it seems that JA is already as suspicious as a person can be, so I'm not sure what value it is to keep it sealed?)

Now, if you transfer the same thinking to the Swedish situation. Today JA seems to expect (or at least claim/home for) that Sweden will drop the case if they just interviewed him again. If he gets the understanding that he definitely will get charged, why would that make him more willing to go to Sweden compared to the current situation?
 
He was in Sweden when he alledgedly raped and molested the women, hence that is where the victim, the courts, the police/prosecution, the jurisdiction, and the investigation is and should be.

If he worried so much about the US-influence on the corrupted nazi-Swedes, he shouldn't have gone there in the first place. Oh, that's right, he *didn't* worry. He even applied for a permanent stay. Strange that..

So thats's it. Stop whining.
 
Here_to_learn said:
I'm sorry, I don't get it? What action would remove what pretext, and why?
Click to expand...

He is saying that because he won't be interviewed in Great Britain, when he says he is prepared to, then there must be something more to this case then there appears to be. The act of having an interview or not would not interfere with the case for extradition.

But I am pretty sure I was told that Swedish law requires that he be interviewed in Sweden, not that there is a discretion on the part of prosecutor where it takes place, and that I am a rapist loving ******* if I don't shut up about wondering exactly what the facts are.
 
a_unique_person said:
He is saying that because he won't be interviewed in Great Britain, when he says he is prepared to, then there must be something more to this case then there appears to be.
Click to expand...
Hi tried to argue that in the English courts. They ruled against him.
High Court said:
160. We would add that although some criticism was made of Ms Ny in this case, it is difficult to say, irrespective of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea, that her failure to take up the offer of a video link for questioning was so unreasonable as to make it disproportionate to seek Mr Assange's surrender, given all the other matters raised by Mr Assange in the course of the proceedings before the Senior District Judge.

The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution.

Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.
Click to expand...

So this has been settled. JA used (it has been argued) some of the most brilliant and knowledgeable QCs for his courts appearances and they did not manage to argue this successfully.

You need to do better than them, will you?
 
Here_to_learn said:
JA has apparently been interviewed by Ecuador TV inside the embassy.

From the report (English - dubbed to Spanish, voice over in Swedish...), I understood

* He expected to be in the embassy for another 6-12 month.
* He thought that Sweden at some stage would fully investigate and close down the investigation.
* He would go to Sweden provided he would get a written guarantee that he would not be extradited to Sweden the US.

So nothing new and no changes - I guess we can look forward to another year of discussions here in the tread!
Click to expand...

He better hope that Ecuador has no sudden change of leadership.

And for those of you who are paranoid; Don't you think the CIA could make that happen tomorrow if they wanted to?
 
Geoffery Robertson had been involved in some famous cases, (famous depending on where you live), he did defend Salman Rushdie, and he dated Nigella Lawson, but dropped her for someone better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Robertson

Be that as it may, he did not win every case he took on, I would hazard a guess.

Here is a more recent interview with him, on a program called the law report with an interviewer who is more informed on legal matters.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/geoffrey-robertson-qc-on-assange-case/3927052

In that interview he does state that each charge that he faces could see him in prison for ten years.

The guesses on the length of term I have seen here by those who believe him to be guilty are five years, (from someone who lives in the US), and no prison time at all, (from someone I think is Swedish, who would I presume know better what to expect if he is convicted). Robertson is guessing a much more severe sentence.

What time would you guess?

* Robertson has a few more digs at the Swedish legal system. To be fair, he does not think much of the US Grand Jury system either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom