This is far better than a TV soap opera.
The case against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange may be on the brink of collapse following claims from the defence team that the central piece of evidence used in the case does not contain Assange’s DNA. According to details that have emerged in a 100-page police report submitted after witnesses were interviewed and forensic …
[Prosecutor gingerly proffers 'it' to the bench, using a barbecue-fork]
Mr. Troll O'Punter Q.C.: "Here, M'Lud, we have Exhibit A, one deceased doobie of the type wherein my Client will claim the Accused failed to ensure his reciprocating rascal was adequately wrapped at the relevant engorged time, on or about the vinegar strokes."
Cocklecarrot J.: "Uhm, a 'doobie', you say? And what, prithee, is it for?"
Q.C.: "I am advised that it is a latex sheath for preventing the male milt as't'were amingling with the lady's tummy-bits during the performance of conjugal duties, a.k.a. carnal knowledge, M'Lud."
J.: "Ah, most fascinating; but I then fail to see why it should be open at both ends?"
Q.C.: "Yes, that is precisely the issue, M'Lud, which I ... er ... now see appears to be drippling somewhat upon my papers as we speak ..."
J.: "... so, the Accused's issue, one presumes?"
Q.C.: "Alas, M'Lud, 'tis not! The Boffins have determined that it pertains to a different Gentleman who remains at large."
Cocklecarrot J.: "Right! Counsel shall approach the bench and assume the position, fingers splayed atop facing forward! Now, where is my little GTFO-gavel? Ah, yes ..."
[dull thuds and muffled groaning]
If it turns out to be true that the legal process has been utterly perverted while executing this political witch hunt then I'd say that it is totally acceptable that he seek asylum on grounds that he was being persecuted for political purposes.
I cannot believe the number of people that hate Assange with such a passion as to demand he be incarcerated without having committed any crime all based solely on the fact that they don't like him, despite never having met the man.
Apparently justice is something that we can apply selectively based on our feelings alone.
Now I am wondering how this behaviour is this any different to those idiot Muslims who are busy running around with "Behead everyone that offends the prophet" signs at the moment.
"To have a trial. You know that thing where evidence is tested to determine if the accused is guilty of a crime"
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't he have to be *charged* with a crime before arrest, trial, conviction, extradition to Guantanamo via USA?
Assange has NOT been charged. Or doesn't that matter anymore?
Sigh. He has not been charged because The Swedish process demands him to be present before that can happen. Do you think you don't have a parking ticket because you refuse to open the envelope too?
If he had gone over there as asked they would have started to examine the evidence earlier, and this would have been found sooners, saving us the misery of having to read about it again
.. and again ..
.. and again ..
.. and again ..
.. and again ..
Personally I would have liked to help nail him in a box and ship him to Ecuador. I don't specifically care where he ends up, as long as I stop hearing of him. I am as interested in his
""To have a trial. You know that thing where evidence is tested to determine if the accused is guilty of a crime"
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't he have to be *charged* with a crime before arrest, trial, conviction, extradition to Guantanamo via USA?
Assange has NOT been charged. Or doesn't that matter anymore?"
Oh for the love of God, not this shite again. Engage brain first: Sweden is another country. It's possible (and in fact true) that their legal system doesn't work the same way as the one you know.
I think this has been discussed to death on other threads.
Under British law (and, from what I understand, most countries laws) this is correct. However in Sweden it is different. You have to be interviewed, then charged, then trial.
Assange has skipped town before the interview takes place, so Sweden cannot charge him yet, although they have stated they want to.
This argument was also considered by the British Judge who said (something along the lines of) If he was accused of the same actions in the UK he would have been arrested and charged here.
This point is, I believe, well known by many commenting on this case but ignored as it is inconvenient.
Of course I'm not a lawyer so might have got this wrong, but when others have pointed this out its not refuted, just down-voted, ignored and then the original argument made again. (Oh damn-it I think i just fed the trolls!)
"Sweden is quite capable of interviewing him in the UK - and has done similar in other previous cases..." RICHTO, please provide a verifiable link to proof that Sweden has done so before in a case of rape where the wanted skipped the country to avoid questioning. I'm betting you can't because I can't find an example. It looks like just another bit of unsubstantiated blather from the A$$nut groupies, intent on muddying the waters rather than seeking truth and justice.
"Downvoted for "A$$nut groupies". Sorry, downvoted for not having a sense of humour, being unable to post anything vaguley informative, and for thinking I'd even give a damn that you would downvote it! Come on, you can read and type so you must have an opinion on the Assange matter, why not post it?
He's been on the record numerous times stating that he's willing to submit to the Swedish trial PROVIDED he won't be abducted by US Agents.
I'm surprised that you don't know this and can only conclude either:
1) you have not paid even cursory attention to the case;
2) you are simply trolling; or
3) you are a fucking retard.
>PROVIDED he won't be abducted by US Agents.
I assume you mean he want a guarantee that Sweden will not extradite him to the USA.
This is a guarantee everyone knows they cannot possibly give as:
1) There has been no extradition request, so he is effectively asking they guarantee they will never extradite him not matter what the circumstances. (i.e a free pass to (unrelated) commit crimes in the USA)
2) No one has the power to give any such guarantee, and if they did it would be worthless
3) There is no justification for giving any such guarantee
That's like saying I will 'submit' myself to your legal process if you can prove 1=2.
I'm surprised that you don't know this and can only conclude either:
1) you have not paid even cursory attention to the case;
2) you are simply trolling; or
3) you are a fucking retard.
To The Commenter formally known as Matt, whilst I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the extradition angle, please do not use the term "fucking retard" in relation to the unfortunate dupe Shadbag.
Firstly, it is simply insulting to those that are unfortunate to be menatlly-impaired, through no fault of their own, but who still strive to be productive members of society, whereas it is clear Mr Shadbag's issues are self-inflicted.
Secondly, it gives me a great sense of worry to consider that Mr Shadbag is fucking, seeing as procreation might result, and that really would be a curse on his country's future.
Shadbag, you really haven't been paying attention in the Churh of the Holy A$$nut, have you? The Swedish courts cannot deny an extradition request from the US without due legal process, the first stage of that being the US actually issuing an extradition request. The US has not. Even if the US did, it would be unconstitutional for the Swedish government to issue a guarantee they will not extradite him to the US as it is not their authority to do so but the Swedish court's. The CIA may plan an illegal abduction, an extraordinary rendition, but why you think they would engage in such a publicity nightmare when A$$nut is destroying his credibility all on his lonesome is beyond me (did voices in your head suggest it?). And why you think the Swedish government would be able to guarantee another country's secret squirrel org would or would not do anything? So, ergo, the Swedish government cannot issue any gurantee and the Swedish court cannot issue any such guarantee. Which A$$nut knows but his groupies still keep harping on about a gurantee even when this has been discussed here on these forums on at least three other threads. All of which leads me to conclude;
1) you have not paid even cursory attention to the case because you get all your information, ideas and "thoughts" spoonfed to you;
2) you are too unintelligent to troll as even the stupidest troll would actually think to check the previous threads on similar articles on a forum so as to avoid looking like a completely moronic tool;
3) you are too obtuse, naive and duped to warrant the insult to the mentally impaired by associating your self-induced condition with their unfortunate mental state.
Now, go get a responsible parent to explain the longer words to you.
"Now I am wondering how this behaviour is this any different to those idiot Muslims who are busy running around with "Behead everyone that offends the prophet" signs at the moment."
I upvoted, but don't like this sentence as it lacks a crucial adjective, namely "extremist".
"Only if Assange is then arrested and imprisoned for breaking bail." And made to explain to all his faithful why he was so happy to hide behind an abuser of free speech like Correa.
BTW, if the Swedish case collapses, doesn't this remove the need for the Swedes to rule on any extradition request? That's good news as now the British courts can fast track any US extradition request whilst St Jules is doing time for bail jumping.
So, almost amusingly, if the DNA is not Assange's, then shouldn't this CIA agent, sorry, rape victim, say who's the DNA is? Or, if it didn't come from her, then where on earth did the Swedish police get the Jonny from? Heh, if only we had a comprehensive DNA database...........
Wonder how long it will be before Camoron is up in parliament apologising yet again?
Oh, ye of little comprehension, lack of conclusive DNA evidence, does not mean it was from someone else just that it cannot be positively identified as coming (couldn't resist that) from Assange. Condoms also contain a spermicide which may have destroyed the DNA so it could be that the chances of retrieving a usable sample were slim to start with. Hardly reason to claim evidence tampering.
Senator Akin, is that you?
"Condoms also contain a spermicide which may have destroyed the DNA so it could be that the chances of retrieving a usable sample were slim to start with. Hardly reason to claim evidence tampering."
Good Lord, I cannot even blame the education system for this... sheer loudmouthed stupidity, that is.
"Condoms also contain a spermicide which may have destroyed the DNA so it could be that the chances of retrieving a usable sample were slim to start with. Hardly reason to claim evidence tampering."
Sooo that's why murderers wipe condoms around the crime scene before making their escape!
Yes we have conclusive proof that these forums have been taken over by DM readers with the comprehension skills of a three year old wellington boot.
Please note my use of the word may as in "which MAY have destroyed the DNA", in other words I am not stating conclusively but offering a possible explanation. As you obviously know the workings of the chemical reaction between sperm and spermicide then please let us all know.
As for Dante : If murderers do indeed wipe condoms around a crime scene they are leaving behind the bodily fluids of a female, and where do they get these presumably used condoms from in the first place? Can't find any on eBay. Maybe they ask a mate for one but that wouldn't be the done thing. I know, they hang around Kings Cross and pick them up off the street. Please engage your brain before coming up with wild fantasies.
Having spent alot of time in sweden you have to realise that most of them are rule book following robots.
They have trouble deciding things for themselves and often panic if there is no clear known procedure.
If they are unaware that flights go from gatwick to landvetter, they are convinced dont exist (in coll.swedish--- DET GA INTE---useless fuckers).
Also because they are robots they cannot serve on juries. They would not be able to make a decision without years of legal training. They would all be confused and not know what to do. Like daleks they would be out of control, except they would be calmer about it. So what happens is they do not have juries. This means everything in the swedish legal system becomes part of an automaton, which politicians and the I guess now the CIA can exploit.
The stanglers summed it up pretty well, in their song "all quiet on the eastern front".
"Also because they are robots they cannot serve on juries. They would not be able to make a decision without years of legal training. They would all be confused and not know what to do. Like daleks they would be out of control, except they would be calmer about it. So what happens is they do not have juries. This means everything in the swedish legal system becomes part of an automaton, which politicians and the I guess now the CIA can exploit."
They also don't have jury trials in for example Germany, Spain, Poland, Finland, and many other European countries.
It worked for Hillsborough. But rubbishing the reputation of tens of thousands of people would usually be a bit too far.
It's just a shame Wikileaks couldn't get any information on that event, it would have been a popular move.
Official secrets seem to be more about protecting people's careers and keeping them out of jail instead of protecting national security.
I thought one of the reasons that JA was accused of rape was that he didn't use a condom when requested. So, now, there IS a condom, but any DNA it contains doesn't match JA.
Maybe this is a slam dunk double negative proof of JA's guilt: the non-existent condom contains non-matching DNA therefore, should a condom have existed, it MUST, conversely, contain JA's DNA.
Slightly more complicated.
1. He used it when requested initially.
2. In one case he continued after it burst and in another case he "woke" up the woman who was asleep by starting without one and continued despite being requested to stop immediately.
However, the encounter with the condom (step 1) in both cases was fully consensual so even if it is HIS DNA it proves nothing as the point of the case is "2" where he did not use it and refused to stop when requested.
For the second woman, it's not correct to state that he was requested to stop immediately. From the victim's interview record,
"They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue."
So she consented then. Both before by having sex with him in bed and after by letting him continue. How is there even a case here?
And the 'continued after a condom burst' is even more rediculous. How do you prove he knew it had burst, and even if it had, how is that even a crime? He is already in the situation at that point.
Both of these cases are his word versus theirs and there is no supporting evidence. It's quite clearly a political fit up.
"So she consented then. Both before by having sex with him in bed and after by letting him continue. How is there even a case here?"
Giving consent once does not issue a license for future fornication, willy nilly. Each liaison must be considered on its own merits, much like how each extradition case must be considered on its own merits.
Letting him continue doesn't help the no consent argument, granted. But your reasoning that previous consent in any way grants consent for future jubilation is wrong.
And in this case the main complaint was that Assange refused to be tested afterwards, anyway.
If im in bed with someone and they let me have sex with them, I dont ask for explicit permission to start again. Its taken as a given that consent has been given. They have the option of withdrawing consent, but they need to communicate the fact....'No, Stop' is the commonly accepted method....
This post has been deleted by a moderator
"Regardless of if they are concious. If you are having sex and they fall asleep it doesnt mean you have to stop."
Dude, if a girl falls asleep on you mid sex, then I'd say you either drugged her, meaning rape, or you are just that bad in the sack that she's too bored to even attempt to fake an orgasm. She's just playing possum hoping you'd take the hint.
Seriously, where do you get the idea that this is ok?
that is just stupid, in your world do you need to fill out large amounts of paperwork signed in triplicate with a photo copy of their id and birth certificate before each session of fornication? you have sex, you are sleeping in the same bed, future sex is assumed and must be explicitly countermanded.
"you have sex, you are sleeping in the same bed, future sex is assumed and must be explicitly countermanded."
It's not about being officious and taking a softly-softly approach. I'll spell out what the problem is here.
The women consented to sex with a condom. Assange thought it perfectly acceptable to slip in without a condom while she was unconscious. If she was conscious, and knew what he was doing, then fair game. Deciding to going bareback after a condom was used earlier in the evening is something I would certainly discuss with a partner beforehand, wouldn't you? Why didn't Assange? Why did he think a condom was a necessary part of their festivities earlier which can now be done away with?
Subsequently, yes, she granted consent. But giving consent for sex without a condom after the guy is already inside you is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted with regards to protecting yourself from something nasty except pregnancy (and hell, even that is possible, with the leftovers from an earlier encounter unless the guy has dredged his sea monster).
Think it's rather naive to say that because permission has been given once "... future sex is assumed and must be explicitly countermanded." How long does this "consent" last? Until one or the other leaves bed? What happens is they return? Is there a time limit on it?
I agree that requiring consent every time is a little excessive, but assuming this was the next day/morning *and* the girl was asleep when he started, then at the very least it rather despicible behaviour. True, once the girl awoke she didn't seem to mind, so claiming "rape" after was a little too late, but even so...
> I agree that requiring consent every time is a little excessive, but assuming this was the next day/morning *and* the girl was asleep when he started
If you've never woken up to find your lover making love to you, then I feel really sorry for you, your life is the poorer for this lack. Waking up like this is the most magical of experiences.
Of course it entails an element of risk, I can well understand that waking up to find someone having sex with you when you don't want them much be a horrible and shocking experience. So you'd better be damn sure your advances are going to be welcome.
If you've spend the evening making love and fallen asleep in each others arm, and especially if this hasn't just been a one night drunken fling, then I'd tend to assume that the consent from the previous night was still in place. If you don't get the desired response then you'd better be prepared to stop. But that's always the case. Consent or willing participation can be withdrawn at any point.
I can't comment of this particular case, since I don't know enough about what was happening between the people involved.
But the UK court doesnt consider the actions at all. How could they - the UK court has been presented with no evidence. Unfortunately all that they consider is is the extradition warrant valid. This is one of the big problmes with the current system - especially with extraditions to the USA.
but shirley when our US shill bowls up at the local nick with her tale of woe and flops out said used johnny as evidence, and said johnny is subsequently found to be an assange free zone, her already iffy tale starts to look... well 'a bit crap' is pitting it mildly.
having a piece of absolutely 'one in ten billion' chance of being wrong evidence is all very well, but when that evidence turns out to be nothing of the kind, kinda makes you ask the question, if that's crap, what else is crap in this story.
at least someone should look at the warrant and mebbe think about the decision to extradite
"but shirley when our US shill...." Lol! So amusing how someone that was previosuly considered a respected journalist amongst the Liberati turns into a "US shill" the minute they expose a little unpleasant truth about one of the Liberati's holy people!
"....and said johnny is subsequently found to be an assange free zone..." Nothing of the sort. This is a RUMOUR started by the defence, the forensic report has not been made public or offered in a trial yet. That's all despite the fact that it is still a tiny point as A$$nut has already admitted having unconsensual and unprotected sex with the ex-loved-by-the-Liberati journo. Duh!
"....someone should look at the warrant...." But that is the biggest laugh in the sad little charade the A$$nut faithful are putting om. There was due consideration here in the UK, A$$nut exhausted all his appeals and legal avenues, and then bunked off to hide in the embassy of a semi-dictator. Despite all these supposed holes in the prosecution case, A$$nut still doesn't want to go to trial.
OK, Naughtyhorse, let's see your "evidence" that Anna Ardin, allegedly "Miss A" from the Swedish complaint, is a CIA operative. Go on, amuse me. That desperate accusation has been all over the leftie blogs for two years now without a single corroborating fact to back it up. The one claim that seems to be the source of the "CIA operative" myth is that anti-Semite-friendly, leftie-blogging, pro-PLO, Castro-groupie and self-admitted socialist (yeah, really sounds like CIA material to me - NOT!) Anna Ardin upset the Cuban authorities with her pro-Christian activities during a visit to Cuba. But if you'd bothered to read more than just the leftie hate sites, you might have noticed that Anna Ardin is also a Christian activist.
But, please, if you actually have some new information to offer, that even suggests in the slightest that Anna Ardin (or alleged "Miss B" Sofia Wilen either) is a CIA spy then post it. Or just stop wasting bandwidth and go back to IndyMedia.
Wow... Another CSI expurt. Let's see if we can't break it down...
First the DNA evidence, if it exits, only confirms. The lack of DNA evidence doesn't imply innocence.
Second, there are many things that can degrade the DNA to the point that it becomes inconclusive.
Third, Assanage doesn't deny that he was there. His defense team acknowledges this in their affirmative defense by claiming that there was consensual sex.
With respect to the law, the extradition hearing is based on determining if the EAW is valid. It is not to try Assange in a UK court, or to second guess the evidence against Assange. This is why he should go to Sweden to face his accusers. So that there can be a trial.
If this were a conspiracy sponsored by th US government, they could always charge him, raise an extradiition request to the UK and ask Sweden to drop their case. But that hasn't happened has it? Remember Occam's Razor...
But don't let that stop you in your quest to save St. Julian.
The simple truth is that the defense team is grasping at straws in an effort to raise political pressure in the UK. Clearly that is not going to happen since St. Julian decided to thumb his nose at the justice system in the UK.
This post has been deleted by its author
It would have been nice to have had a story based on the 100 page defence report, rather than the Daily Mail teaser.
It does not say whether this "evidence" was part of the original police investigation, which appeared to result in JA's release with no case to answer.. Or was this condom submitted as part of the later (political) extradition shenanigans?
Ironic that by taking asylum in Ecuador to avoid extradition to avoid being put in jail, he broke bail, for which he will be charged and sentenced and will end up in jail. And I'd still lay money on it being easier for the Merkins to extradite from the UK than from Sweden.
Assange has made a ridicule of Wikileaks and should be banished back to Australia just for that.
Long live freedom of speech. Down with self serving publicity seeking twats. (and he was, even before these allegations)
"....And I'd still lay money on it being easier for the Merkins to extradite from the UK than from Sweden...." Even easier if the Swedes do drop their case. A$$nut can still be arrested for bail jumping and the US can then issue an extradition request with only the UK courts to worry about, not Sweden's and the UK's. How long do you think it will be before the A$$nut groupies realise this and start shrieking that the case shouldn't be dropped and he should actually be given his day in court?
Many years ago I read a memoir by an old fleet street hack. At one point he whilst working as an junior editor he was faced with an irate prostitute complaining about an exposé of her brothel. She had with her...ahem... "DNA evidence" to proving that despite what he'd said, the reporter had not "made his excuses and left".
This post has been deleted by its author
That the message is coming from Assange's defence team, who have a vested interest in the language of the message that gets lodged in the public subconscious. They are trying to stretch what the report said from 'does not conclusively contain his DNA'* (i.e. forensics cannot prove it's his muck) into 'does not contain his DNA'* which sounds like evidence in his favour. This will undoubtedly still weaken the prosecution's case, but even if it does get dropped the circus will go on as he seeks to avoid going to jail for bail violation.
*Paraphrasing, not actual quote
But we don't know which condom. There were reports of two condoms being examined. One had no DNA, the other had DNA matching that recovered from the vagina of one of the women. The DM does not make clear whether they are referring to the original reports, or a recent statement/report from JA's defence.
Assange seems to be the victim of international conspiracy. His only crime seems to bringing a LITTLE transparency to the abuse of power by the US military in Iraq. His main enemy is the US military for showing the videos of the US soldiers shooting innocent Iraqi civilians/journalists in cold blood in day light. That is a war crime that indicts the top commanders of the US military for turning a blind eye to such abuses. IMHO, the world could use a lot of Assanges to restore some sanity to the abuse of power by power-holders, the 1% doing crazy things to the 99% and getting away with it with a blind eye from corporate media.
There is no evidence that he knew she woudl not consent - and in fact she did.
If she was really worried about HIV then she could have told him to stop before the end - and removed 99% of the risk - regardless that he had already started.
There are two options here - either these were politically driven claims - or these 2 women were just pissed off that he got one over on both of them during the same visit and tried to get revenge....
Well, evidence (or lack of) is something that would be examined in a trial. The point remains: what he's accused of is rape. I'm not saying he's guilty; I don't know.
According to the allegations, by the time she was able to refuse, it was too late. She'd already been exposed to his cooties. It doesn't follow she'd have consented had she been awake when he started.
If you are so convinced your St Jules has nothing to answer to then why has he done his damnedest to avoid just going to Sweden to answer even questions? Oh, could that be because his leagl team, that know a lot more about Swedish law than you do, told him he was stuffed if he didn't do a runner? And then, when he faced the UK courts, which know a lot more about UK and Swedish law than you, and the UK courts also decided A$$nut should go back to face his accusers, we should just ignore that because you get a stiffy every time A$$nut tells you he is saving the World by selling other people's secrets? Get a clue, TBH.
In order to preserve the contents this would have to be frozen, otherwise it would decay. Does this person have a freezer full of these things back home, all carefully labelled of course. In case they are needed sometime in the future. What kind of mental acse does that ? Sheesh.
Oh wait, CIA agent (allegedly) ...........
Knochen Buttwaffle, it would be much more convincing if all the statements made about what Ms Ardin did or said contained in Craig Murray's blog were being presented in court of law for examination. Well, that is if your St Jules wasn't doing all he could, having exhausted all legal avenues, to avoid going to court in Sweden. But of course, in your fragile little mind, everything in that blog must be taken as gospel if it supports your Holy St Jules, right? Craig Murray doesn't even have legal training, he was a History grad. The UK courts DO have proper legal training, and they considered A$$nut's case and said he should go to Sweden. The Swedish courts DO have legal training and the authority, it's just people like you are scared to admit those simple facts.
Ah, Knobchen Buttwaffle, there's simply no sport in the matter when you concede the field so early. Come on, at least make a pretence at being able to debate the issue. Is it because you've been dropping something, maybe lysergic acid diethylamide? Your sulkiness forces me to taunt you - do you worry that A$$nut isn't getting enough groupie fluff in the Ecuadorean embassy? Are you unable to post a coherent argument because you're too angst-ridden by the thought that your darling St Jules might end up stuck in some dive in Quito, where no-one gives a damn who he is, living out his years in irrellevance?
Then this bit is where I tell you I'm happilly smiling at the thought that A$$nut is going to be, at best, a fugitive for the rest of his life, a convicted criminal, bail-jumper and wanted rapist, forever known not as a whistleblower but as the man who tried to say rape wasn't rape. Enjoy!
On the verge of collapse? During the extradition hearing on the allegations of the woman in question there was no mention of a condom. The condom lacking DNA was suggested over a year ago, but never got traction. That evidence seemed to have been removed. It is a wonder why Julian Assange's lawyers brought up again.
"It is interesting that the complainants refused to sign the police reports...." Allegedly, Sofia Wilen refused to sign, possibly because she predicted the deluge of hate that would fall on her from her fromer leftie friends. Anna Ardin had no such problem signing the complaint.
".....and at least one of them left for Israel shortly after making her report." What is that supposed to be, an inference of Mossad invovlement!?!?!? Holy anti-Semitism, Batman! That's really funny given that Anna Ardin was criticised for supporting and even arranging the speaking tours of anti-Semites in Sweden. But is the claim she went to Israel true? Actually, no. Anna Ardin was due to travel to West Bank to take part in the socialist Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel group's anti-Israel protests, having undertaken ten days of training ready for the trip, only to withdraw from the venture due to the rabid hate campaign unleashed on her by the left for daring to impunge the character of St Jules The Holy Truth Provider. She didn't travel to Israel, so you'll have to go back and be spoonfed a new myth, mmmkay?
So one side says something that might imply innocence?
If only there was some sort of venue where the other side could respond to this information, and maybe offer information of their own? Perhaps we could have someone neutral overseeing the process, to keep it in order. Maybe afterwards, and this is just a crazy thought, we could have some sort of final verdict that determines which side is more believable? Nuts, I know, but it just might work.
On the other hand, fuck it. Lets have some more half-informed speculation and blessings from the balcony. Justice for Assange! Justice for OJ! The Apollo landings were faked!
Local Dupe, you really should try reading a bit before frothing. Even Wikipeadia has this one covered:
"....Failing to attend court on time as required is an offence, for which the maximum sentence in a magistrates' court is three months' imprisonment, or twelve months in the Crown Court. (Sentences are usually much shorter than the maximum, but are often custody.) In addition to imposing punishment for this offence, courts will often revoke bail as they may not trust the defendant again. The amended Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction states (at paragraph 1.13.5) that "the sentence for the breach of bail should usually be custodial and consecutive to any other custodial sentence"...."
So A$$nut is looking at jail time even if the Swedish warrrant gets dropped, and there is no indication that warrant will be dropped as the whole condom matter would have to be raised IN COURT IN SWEDEN. Which A$$nut is trying desperately to avoid happening. Should A$$nut step outside the Ecuadorean embassy he will be arrested and locked up until deported to Sweden.
It is possible, although from reading the comments here, people have no idea how the technique works, in both instances. Nor have they an idea regarding the differerence of "viable semen" and "material suitable for extracting a DNA profile from".
Crudely put, if you've got a condomfull of jizz, you have more than enough material to make a DNA profile. DNA does deteriorate over time, but contrary to popular opinion, if a sample is not "consumed" by infection with microorganisms, it actually lasts a very, very long time, even if fragmented. ( which is why DNA typing of preserved/contained (pre)historic DNA is possible to begin with.)
Spermicide does not destroy DNA , as a couple of peeps here seem to think. It renders sperm cells immobile, which is a different matter altogether.
Ask yourself if you would voluntarily put a substance on/in your fiddly bits that would penetrate cells, and destroy DNA... ( a mix of industrial-stength degreaser and bleach would be the closest equivalent you could cook up in your kitchen, other "simple stuff" like toluene and it's nastier cousins work just fine..) .... I thought not.
With modern PCR machines getting a profile from a "fresh" DNA sample is a matter of hours. Hell, doing it by hand if you've got fresh DNA to extract and a stock of the proper restriction enzymes takes no more than half a day.
The delays in confirmation for judicial purposes lies more in getting *the rest* of the samples. Family members for paternity cases. One or more DNA samples of the suspect from other locales in the case of [enter suspect here].
Unless the Man already had Assange's DNA profile in a database, there would be no way to tell the DNA sample profile from the average Joe in the street.
Even as oversimplified as above, it's clear that it is quite possible to get a proper DNA profile from a condom, even if it's months old, and simply stuck to the bottom of the bin, instead of following the more usual sewer rollercoaster route. So if either condom providedis *the* condom, the DNA profile should be clear and unequivocal, since the forensic plods would have to have had either corroborating samples, or a proper DNA database profile to compare it against.
There is such a thing as "proper evidence" after all, and while commentard (anti)rage may rule here, the swedish forensics working on the sample *should* not even know whose sample it is they're processing. For lab purposes you simply need a unique processing number, which would tie to the actual file at a completely different level. ( which would also be another reason why things "take long". Unless it's an official rush job, such profiling goes on a first come, first served basis, and the queue might be long, as there aren't *that* many DNA profiling machines in any police force.)
Just a couple of things to ..unconfuse.. matters.
Oh, and Paris, because this thing is as whipped up as her Sillycones.
> are anyway his word versus theirs
so like 99% of rape cases then
> he risks being extradited the the USA!
I've read quite a lot of comment about this case, no one has *ever* made a reasonable case for this!
Personally I think the whole case seems a bit dodgy, but the only way to sort it all out is to have a proper trial. Assange has been accused of a crime an his response is to run. No amount of claiming 'its political' can justify this.
".....It is quite clear that this case wouldnt even get past the initial questioning...." Except here in the UK it got through all the courts and they judged that A$$nut had a case to answer to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault_and_political_refugee).
In summary, the extradition hearing took place on 7–8th and 11th February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. On 24th February 2011, the court upheld the extradition warrant. On 2 March 2011, Assange's lawyers lodged an appeal at the High Court. On 2nd November 2011 the High Court upheld the extradition decision and rejected all four grounds of appeal presented by Assange's legal team. On 5 December 2011, Assange's lawyers were granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, and on 30 May 2012 the court dismissed that appeal.
A$$nut could have made one more appeal on a technicality (which was likely to have been rejected), and then trotted off to the Eurpoean courts to waste more time and money, but instead he decided to go cuddle up with well-known champion of a free and impartial press Rafael Correa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Correa#Relationship_with_the_media).
"Utterly wrong....." Really, you seriously want to say that? Do you want to maybe retract that statement, go do a little reading, then come back when you have a clue? You did understand, before you trotted out that bilge, that the warrant validation process includes judging if there is actually a case to answer rather than there just being a frivolous claim in order to extradite someone? The initial argument of A$$nut's defence team at the extradition hearing before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court was that the acts did not consititute rape under English law, that at most they constituted "minor misdemeanors", and that argument was rejected. Whether what A$$nut is accused of would result in a conviction for rape in an English court is open to argument, but a copper I asked said there would be enough for A$$nut to be arrested and charged here in the UK, and I suspect he knows a whole heap more about the law than you do.
For so many Liberals and lefties, as DIna Rickman put it, the phrase "it's politically motivated" became the new "she was asking for it." Why should I be surprised when the Faithful say such gumph when full-time leftie idots like George Galloway are trying to whitewash the matter (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/julian-assange-rape-denial).
Ants v: "Letting him continue doesn't help the no consent argument, granted. But your reasoning that previous consent in any way grants consent for future jubilation is wrong."
Does that mean when the hottie I picked up in a bar and shagged all night wakes me up in the morning with a blow job and a bacon sarnie that she's sexually assaulting me? Or is it only men who shouldn't assume that the person they've been screwing all night won't want another go? I mean, fair enough if she says STOP but I was under the impression that outside of the navy one doesn't have to ask for permission to cum aboard every time.
"....wakes me up in the morning with a blow job and a bacon sarnie that she's sexually assaulting me?..." Well, you could be justifiably upset if the BJ made you drop the sarnie as her guide dog might get to it before you....
The whole point is A$$nut is using any recourse, legal and illegal, to avoid going to Sweden to discuss the issue.
"But that's because he doesnt want a surprise trip to the USA...." <Sigh> There is no US extradition request yet, and even if there were it would have ZERO bearing on the European arrest warrant issued by Sweden and deliberated and upheld by the UK courts.
"....Its quite clear that these allegations wouldnt get past the interview stage..." If you're so convinced of that then why won't A$$nut go to Sweden to clear his name? Why did he scarper from Sweden in the first place?
Try this one on for size.
Maybe Assange scarpered from Sweden in the first place because the account of his activities with fröken A and fröken B that they gave to the Swedish police, who then gave it to Assange's Swedish lawyers, bore no relationship at all with the real events that occurred on those nights and mornings in Stockholm.
(Please spare us your Ouija Board knowledge of what happened. You were not there. Your instinct is irrelevant and biased.)
Having just leaked embarrassing cables, videos, etc about the US of A, which was now followed by two dingbats in Sweden making up rape stories (pin downs and dawn's early penetration), Assange didn't have to be Stephen Hawking to jump into the nearest black hole out of Sweden.
250,000 stolen cables plus false accusations by two women equals get me the fuck out of here.
Now we see the limits of Local Dupe's ability to think outisde the tiny little box that A$$nut has given him.
".....bore no relationship at all with the real events that occurred on those nights and mornings in Stockholm....." So he says, but then surely the best way to fight that would be to stay for questioning and then see if any charges were pressed, and then defend himslef in court. Or could it be that he DID see many events that happened in the deposition, asked his lawyer and his lawyer said "oh skit, that could be 'sex by surprise', which is a crime here", at which point A$$nut did the runner. After all, you only have A$$nut's word against those of the two women. I know it is fashionable in the leftie-A$$nut-groupie camp to just slag the two women off in an attempt to smear them or initmidate them into silence, but it would be nice if you could take a step away from the comfort of your fellow lemmings, and actually think for yourself for a change, just to question what you are told for once.
".....(Please spare us your Ouija Board knowledge of what happened. You were not there. Your instinct is irrelevant and biased.)...." That plays both ways as you weren't there either, but I see you are unable to counter the points I raise as they are easily verifiable, whereas your counters are patheitc whimsy. Though I do suspect you would have loved to have been there when A$$nut did the deed, to record The Great Cuminngs of The Holy St Jules for the Faithful in a suitably doe-eyed manner.
".....Having just leaked embarrassing cables, videos, etc about the US of A, which was now followed by two dingbats in Sweden making up rape stories (pin downs and dawn's early penetration), Assange didn't have to be Stephen Hawking to jump into the nearest black hole out of Sweden...." So, in short, you're saying it had nothing to do with his paranoia? LOL!
In truth, I don't know which icon I should use. On the one hand, as with all your dribblings, the FAIL icon is so appropriate, but then on the other hand maybe I should use the GO icon as your postings and their exposure of your unquestioning faith in St Jules are just so hilariously funny. On the balance, I think it would be cruel to encourage you to continue as it smacks a bit too much of taking advantage of someone unequipped to properly defend themselves. FAIL!
This post has been deleted by its author
Okay, Matt, you finally won one. You tricked me into answering a rhetorical question: "Why did he scarper from Sweden in the first place?" I was dumb enough to think you really wanted an answer to that question.
As if there was any other answer to it acceptable to your prejudiced and biased mind besides "because he is (as I have constantly and indignantly described him for two years) a douchebag."
"Or could it be that he DID see many events that happened in the deposition," Hey, this is MY hypothetical and in it he sees events that DIDN'T happen.
"to just slag the two women off". The two women, as you call them, both put the moves on Assange. Tits out, arms akimbo, throbbing hips, no doubt. Why don't you and Gumby go to Stockholm and let us know if any women invite you home or even talk to you.
BTW, in Sweden if a hottie wants to have sex with you, does she have to read you the Condom Act before you get back to her place? Or can she spring it on you as you're putting the meat in the grinder?
" but I see you are unable to counter the points I raise" Oh, did you raise some points? I saw nothing but the same running sore you call your argument. You must tell me about your points some day. <sark>
"you're saying it had nothing to do with his paranoia?" (see me after class about how you came to this conclusion)
Matt Bryant uses the fail icon. Well, I never.
For you I'd like to use the D'oh Man, with both eyes covered and potatoes growing out of his ears.
That whole post was just more evasion, blather, and childish insults. TBH, the rest of the A$$nut supporters are probably wishing by now that you'd just shut up and stop making them all look stupid! I particularly liked the way you smeared the two ladies involved without realising that just made Anon groupies and the like look bad as that's EXACTLY what Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen were before the leftie packs turned on them. Good luck getting laid with that crowd now you have exposed your views on women to them!
by now that you'd just shut up and stop making them all look stupid!"
No, Matt, they are wishing that you would please stop using the infantile word "A$$nut".
And don't you have a lot of f**king nerve setting yourself up as an expert witness on Assange supporters? You have such colossal contempt for them, absolutely no one is going to believe a word you have to say about about them and what they want or don't want.
We all are wishing for Julian's immediate release and freedom from the threat of Washington's rendition of Vlad the Impaler.
"....absolutely no one is going to believe a word you have to say about about them and what they want or don't want....." Maybe not, but I bet the way I can post verifiable facts sways a few opinions. It certainly seems to make you shriek and whine, especially when you are unable to counter them!
".....We all are wishing for Julian's immediate release...." Well, when your view of the World is based on fairytale politics, clouded by drugs and blind devotion, it's not surprising you're left with wishing. The fact is the World - at least in the UK - works by the rule of law, and A$$nut has had his go at that and lost. Where he goes from here is pretty straight forward - if he leaves the embassy he will be arrested and deported to Sweden, or he can stay in there in self-imposed prison for as long as Correa is in power. Either way, his freedom is going to be very limited. Enjoy!
If the rape claims were actually a work of CIA reality reinterpretation it was probably not so much about extradition as public perception. People don't care about corruption or whistle blowers but they are fascinated by rape allegations. If anyone mentions Wikileaks now, people immediately think of the Cirque d'Assange and the Swedish sex show. The CIA would have known this would happen because their shrinks likely assessed Assange's potential reaction. The aim was to construct a bypass around Wikileaks in our brains. You can drive toward the Wikileaks subject but somehow when looking for the entrance you find yourself back in the circus drooling at the towering Clown Prince Himself. The point is not to turn people against Wikileaks, but to make Wikileaks invisible to people even when it is right in front of them. A kind of mass hypnosis was successfully pulled off and all it cost was a couple of large bags of cash and a little piece of our collective dignity.
All that is irrelevant over here in the UK though because all we care about is Princhess Willskate and immigration.
A few people have mentioned the uselessness of the Aboriginal gesture. The key bit is
"The Indigenous Social Justice Association is fighting for sovereignty within Australia and claimed that it wanted to forge solidarity with Assange, ***who has been largely unsupported by the Australian government.***"
Largely unsupported, not only by the Auusie government but by Aussie media. II read about Assange here at the Reg, not in our mainstream media in Australia. Sure, the gesture is symbolic but it serves a purpose if it, even briefly, raises the profile of this case in Australia.
Have you been wondering what contortions the Chilcot Inquiry team are being encouraged to try and perform and not pass comment nor submit a full and honest report on with a recommendation for prosecution, so that justice is not fundamentally compromised and the law proven beyond a shadow of doubt, to be as easily bent and broken as a bendy banana thing ....... and therefore absolutely useless as a tool of effective control, but a nice little earner, guv?
It is an impossible task if that is what is causing all the dither and rendering the report so long to write and present, don't you think?
Do we seriously believe that the CIA, rather than just bag him in the middle of the night and deny all knowledge (long before this became the media circus it is now), would go to the trouble of setting all this up, just so Saint Julian could string out his public career a bit longer.
Is it not more likely that he managed to annoy a girl by sleeping with someone else (usually not the best of idea's), she raised a complaint, police asked him for questioning and he see's a chance to get a bit more limelight, so does a runner, straight to the press. The police (not unreasonably) annoyed with someone who they wanted for questioning, not sticking around, keep up with the case, probably more to prove a point than for any other reason.
So after string out another case (very publicly) in the UK for a while, decides to moon the British as well (why annoy just one country's police force, when you can annoy 2) and does another runner.
Granted I don't pay too much attention to him, but I haven't seen him complaining so much about the guy he got to steal the information that made him famous, who is being held.
Maybe I don't have enough of an imagination for this whole case to make sense, but then again I believe that the moon landings really did happen, and that there are no aliens in area 51.
Anon because the black helicopter brigade scares me.
"Yes we do believe the CIA would do this...." RICHTO, what you should have said is you are paranoid and guillible enough to believe the CIA would kidnap him. The simple fact is the CIA used extraordinary rendition to grab terrorist suspects in a manner so that their buddies would not see them go missing, giving the CIA time to extract information from them. The CIA can't do that as A$$nut lives in the spotlight, if he suddenly went missing then all Hell would break loose. They also don't need to grab him as there is the legal option of ordinary extradition. If A$$nut was some unknown, deep-cover sleeper for AQ then he might be at risk of an extraordinary rendition, but he's a media luvvie.
"....This approach means that he looses public support and credibility from anyone who believes the claims." Which brings us to the secnd reason why the CIA do not need to grab A$$nut - he is happilly destroying his own credibility! Thanks to the court case and associated media attention, he has been exposed as a convicted criminal, is now a fugitive from rape charges in Swden and bail-jumping here in the UK, has had his family life and his "issues" exposed and analysed. And then he caps it all by hiding behind an abuser of the free press, having carped on long and loud about being a proper juh-nah-list! Seriously, if the CIA managed to convince the idiot to do all that AND get the media to help then they are beyond Einsteins!
"RICHTO, what you should have said is you are paranoid and guillible enough to believe the CIA would kidnap him"
This is quite believable. This is the same CIA whose answer to almost every problem encountered involves overthrowing something or arming someone but now and then they'll resort to kidnap instead. Ask one of them to get a sandwich and they'll probably find a way to do it that involves a bit of kidnap, a civil war, two toppled governments and a lot of missing money. And no sandwich.
Just so wrong and clueless. Actually the CIA has no problem at all with grabbing well known people from public view in European countries:
Anyway, the concern here is not kidnap, but that they would engineer false allegations to discredit Assange / or get him back to a country where he can be extradited. Hardly unbelieveable bearing in mind that kidnap is routine...
I don't think one needs a particularly sensitive nose to feel that this whole business stinks. I read somewhere that the Americans want to charge him with treason or something, which carries a potential death penalty, and apparently Britain will not extradite someone to face being executed, whereas Sweden will. I cannot remember where I read this and am prepared to stand corrected, but, if true, it could certainly explain quite a lot.
I think it is naive to believe that the Americans do not want to destroy Assange as publicly and frighteningly as possible, to act as a deterrent to anyone else who wishes to expose their peccadilloes. This is the standard gangster mentality that seems to drive the actions of the US government these days.
Sweden as a member of the EU can not extradite someone to face the death penalty. So any extradition treaty involving an EU member state and another country must include a commitment not to imposes the death penalty.
In the UK's case there is a treaty in place with Australia that the UK won't extradite an Australian citizen to a third country, we can't send him straight to the US, we'd have to send him home to the Oz and the American's can then try and get him from there. They presumably don't fancy there chances of persuading an Australian judge that an Australian citizen can commit treason to the US while not in the US.
Now I presume the EU law is trumping the UK<>Australian extradition pact, so he can be sent to Sweden. Once in Sweden he could be dragged off to the US. However the US would need to promise not to kill him off. He doesn't trust that this promise would be kept.
As far as the news reports I've heard, the Swedish authorities aren't prepared to give an undertaking that they won't send him to the US. I thought the guys at the embassy had said that if the Swedes would give a legal undertaking not to send him to the US, they'd let him go to Sweden. I've no idea whether Sweden is in a position that they can legally make that promise. Give the grief he's caused, I'm not sure that the UK would let him back into the UK if he touched down here again. I suspect the that UK border agency would stick him on a plane home if he ended up with them.
"Sweden as a member of the EU can not extradite someone to face the death penalty...." Seeing as the US has not issued a warrant that's beside the point, but seeing as they have already excluded it in Manning's case it is unlikely A$$nut would face the death penalty anyway. But let's look at A$$nut's options. Should A$$nut actually go to Sweden he will either be tried and released or tried and jailed, with either option giving the US time to issue an arrest warrant if they need to. He absconded, so no bail whilst awaiting extradition even if he does not get convicted of rape. A$$nut will then be sitting in jail waiting for the legal process to roll through and will - most likely - be extradited to the US.
"....In the UK's case there is a treaty in place with Australia that the UK won't extradite an Australian citizen to a third country..." WITHOUT CONSENT FROM OZ. If the Australian government OKs it then he can go straight from Blighty to a cell in the States, and I don't think he'd be getting bail in the US given his record of bail jumping. In the case of the Australian authorities deciding A$$nut has to go home first, this is not too much of an issue as the US will know when he is to be released in the UK plus the fact that the UK will then deport A$$nut to Oz. If A$$nut gets put on a plane to Oz, all the US needs to do is have an extradition warrant ready for when he lands in Australia. Again, his bail jumping record and previous Oz criminal record will mean no bail and A$$nut will be locked up whilst the US goes through extraditing him to the US.
A$$nut KNOWS this, why else do you think he has run to hide behind Correa? It is his ONLY chance of not being put on a plane to the States should they issue a warrant in the UK, Sweden or Oz, whether he goes to Sweden to stand trial or not. The only thing that is stopping the US authorities issuing a warrant is they have not finished with Manning yet. Oh, and maybe the US election. When Manning has been thoroughly roasted they will go after A$$nut, and if St Jules is locked up in the UK, Sweden or Oz it will make it all the easier for the US to grab him. So A$$nut will NEVER willingly go to face trial in Sweden, regardless of whether they have condom brimming with his secretions or not.
This is why there is the Assange pantomime? ...... http://www.economist.com/node/21528600
It is a failed attempt to have the world kept in the dark about how they/things/systems are controlled/abused/governed/ruled and reigned over by the less than future competent and able?
"he has been exposed as a convicted criminal, is now a fugitive from rape charges in Swden and bail-jumping..."
1) 'convicted criminal', you mean he was a teen age hacker.
2)'fugitive from rape charges', charges? I thought he was wanted for questioning. Oh, they have to question him before they charge him, so you just eliminated that step. Nice.
3)'bail-jumping.' Except for Henry VIII, I don't know much about the English Justice system. I did find this article in the Mail Online from 2007. If it's out of date, let me apologize now.
"The maximum penalty for skipping bail is 12 months in prison, or three months for those sentenced by magistrates, on top of punishments for the original offence."
"The new guidance sets out a scale of seriousness for bail offences and suggests "starting points" for punishments which can be adjusted for aggravating and mitigating factors."
"The courts are urged to take into account a bail-jumper's state of mind when passing sentence, and to try to judge their "underlying intention" in failing to attend court."
There are now more entries for you and Assange in Wikipedia than there are for Cato and Carthage.
Local Dupe still trying to argue minor points in the defence of more failure.
".....1) 'convicted criminal', you mean he was a teen age hacker...." Yes, he has a criminal record, a conviction for illegally accessing computer systems, to which A$$nut pleaded guilty at age 26, not sixteen. The judge said at the time that if A$$nut had not had a sob story about his "deprived childhood" he would have got ten years rather than a fine and a slap on the wrist. Either way, A$$nut is a convicted criminal with a criminal record, so you're just trying to deny the obvious.
".....2)'fugitive from rape charges', charges? I thought he was wanted for questioning....." A$$nut himself has said he doesn't want to be charged, so he is avoiding it by not going back for questioning, ergo he is a fugitive from rape charges Either way, the reason he is wanted is because they think he commited an illegal sexual act equating to rape in Swedish law, so the point still stands. Your quibbling is amusingly pathetic.
"....3)'bail-jumping.' ...." Yes, he jumped bail. Please don't try and waste mroe bandwidth trying to deny that he did, it is a matter of public record and you will only look even more stupid.
".....this article in the Mail Online from 2007...." You're really getting depserate, aren't you? Those guidelines were from years ago, a lot has changed, and they were discretionary anyway. Even back in the day when they were available they would not have applied to A$$nut due to his behaviour, so straight to jail for him if he steps out of the Ecuadorean embassy. I think it is quite sweet how you are so desperate to think only pure and clean thoughts regarding your Holy St Jules, but the fact is he is a conman that sold others secrets and likes to dip his wick into women without a rubber on and without their permission. Enjoy!
George Galloway, is that you?
Funny how so many lefties suddenly have such a flexible interpretation of what constitutes rape. It's almost on a par with their amusingly senseless defence of Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" line! Regardless of what RICHTO "thinks" is rape, it is what Swedish law says about the matter that is really the key point. And seeing as A$$nut is making it very clear he doesn't want to go to Sweden to examine that point it makes him look guilty as Hell!
".....What he did was consensual...." Gosh, don't you think that would be best examined in a Swedish court of law, by people actually qualified to pass judgement? Oh, of course not! I forgot - your Holy St Jules is above the law, n'estpas?
".......Whatever he did it wasn't rape ...." That's your opinion. Of course, your opinion isn't worth a puddle of spit compared to that of Marianne Ny, the Swedish prosecutor that said that A$$nut did have a case to answer to. And that's the big problem for ickle A$$nut - no matter what fairytale his supporters want to believe, the authorities and the law is all against him. Enjoy!
Never read anything that threatens you erroneous beliefs
From the web site I posted:
"1 September 2010
At the urging of Claes Borgström (see 24 August), the original case is reopened by prosecutor #3, Marianne Ny. Assange is now once again suspected of rape and other sex crimes, the precise details of which are not made known to him until mid-November. In the months to follow, Ms. Ny will violate her own guidelines on the proper investigation of such cases.
21 August – 27 September 2010
Since first learning of the accusations against him from news media, Assange has voluntarily remained in Sweden and made himself available to the police and prosecutor. Through his attorney, he has made repeated attempts to be interviewed by prosecutor Ny or her agents, but she has rejected all proposals. Finally, after five weeks and having secured Ms. Ny’s consent, Assange departs for Germany and then England. On the same day, Ms. Ny issues a secret warrant for Assange’s arrest.
Assange continues to make himself available for an interview by prosecutor Ny, offering to return to Sweden for that purpose or to be interviewed in England, in person or via video link or other telecommunications. All such proposals are rejected by Ms. Ny.
Threats from leading figures in the United States against Assange’s life and freedom escalate in response to the continuing disclosures of WikiLeaks.
20 November 2010
Prosecutor Ny issues a European Arrest Warrant for Assange and authorizes an Interpol Red Notice concerning him. In doing so, she ignores the less drastic alternative of arranging to interview him via Mutual Legal Assistance, an established mechanism for international co-operation. Ms. Ny states that it is not possible under Swedish law to interview him in England. That is an outright lie; there is no such law."
There's much more where this comes from the links above (or below)
Naturally you are more familiar with the facts than a Stockholm based journalist.
Ignoring the simple fact that your prattle doesn't change the fact that A$$nut is still wanted for questioning in Sweden, that there is an European Arrest Warrant still outstanding for that plus his added stupidity of bail-jumping in the UK, let's just look at the carefully edited version of events you have been spoonfed and fill in the timeline.
20th August 2010 - Miss A (allegedly Anna Ardin) and Miss B (allegedly Sofia Wilen) went to Swedish police inquiring whether it was possible to impose an HIV test on Julian Assange after he had unprotected sex with them. During the deposition it becomes clear to the police that the unprotected penetrations had been against consent in that both women had asked for condoms during prior consensual sex. That point is very important. Miss A had allegedly been advised by a former policewoman that what A$$nut had done COULD be "rape" under Swedish laws but the initial request is simply for A$$nut to be forced to take an HIV test. When the Swedish police say that the depositions will likely lead to a charge of rape Miss B initially says she does not want to sign the complaint, probably because she predicts the way the left will turn on her. It is possible that Miss A lied to Miss B by agreeing with her the intent was just to get A$$nut to take an HIV test when she already knew it was likely to lead to "rape" charges, but either way it was the Swedish police that decided on that line of investigation. Eventually Miss B is presuaded to sign when she is told Miss A's deposition alone is enough for charges to be pressed. There is now the formal basis for the prosecution to investigate the alleged crimes.
21st August 2010 - Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné decides neither accusation amounts to FORCIBLE rape, which would be a different charge to the one A$$nut now faces. That possible forcible rape charge had arisen when Miss B claimed that A$$nut held her down and penetrated her. Another prosecutor from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, Karin Rosander, said Assange remained suspected of molestation, a lesser grouping of offences which includes the "sex by surprise" crime. Members of the Faithful may need help here in understanding that Ms Finné was not talking about ALL the possible charges and that there were more than one charge. This is probably very confusing for the Faithful as they seem to be unable to count, usually going "one, two, many." Be patient when explaining it to them and try using small words.
25th August 2010 - the preliminary investigation concerning FORCIBLE rape is discontinued, NOT the investigation of the lesser charges including "sex by surprise". Those lesser charges were NEVER dropped, re-instated or discontinued, despite what the Faithful want to pretend, ONLY the forcible rape charge part of the investigation was dropped. Only in the leftie fantasy do ALL the charges get dropped. Please note that even the old BBC article which the Faithful recently click-bombed to the top of the BBC "most read" rankings states that ONLY the forcible rape charge was ever dropped and points out the two sets of possible charges (".....The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr Assange was not suspected of rape.....Karin Rosander, communications head at Sweden's prosecutors' office, said there were two separate allegations against Mr Assange, one of rape and the other of molestation.....On Saturday she said the police investigation into the molestation allegation continued....." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316). The BBC got it wrong with their headline so it's not surprising the Faithful were confused seeing as reading beyond the headline is a BIG problem for them.
27th August 2010 - Claes Borgström, the attorney who represents the two women, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate PARTS of the investigation, i.e. the forcible rape part NOT the "sex by surprise" part. BTW, as well as being a lawyer Claes Borgström is a Social Democrat politician and anti-rape activist, not a CIA stooge. It was his job to ensure as many charges are laid against A$$nut as possible, hence the request for the review. It is this request for a review that gets Marianne Ny involved. Now, it may be that Borgström cleverly knew Ny would take the review or it was just lucky for him, either way it was bad news for A$$nut as she had a previous record of a hard line on rape. But Borgström failed in this attempt to get the forcible rape part of the investigation re-instated as it was later rejected again by Ny. Now, if Ny was the CIA stooge the left like to pretend, then surely she would have re-instated the forcible rape charge as well? Oops, did that little bit of reality intrude on your carefully constructed fantasy world?
30th August 2010 - Assange was questioned by the Stockholm police and his version of events differed from that given by the women. A$$nut claimed everything was consensual but admitted he had started sex with one women whilst she was asleep and without a condom. That means that for St Jules to later pretend he didn't know who his accusers were is obviously a lie. The leftie blogs are already full of attacks on Ardin by this date.
1st September 2010 - Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning ALL of the original allegations, including FORCIBLE rape. This is not a re-opening of the "sex by surprise" investigation as A$$nut groupies like to pretend, that part of the investigation was still ongoing. Ny will later drop the forcible rape part just as Finné did but will agree with Rosander that the lesser charges are still valid. See my note above about being patient when explaining this to A$$nut groupies.
27th September 2010 - Assange's lawyer is warned by the Swedish authorities that A$$nut is due to be arrested for formal questioning, the final stage before charges are laid and a trial date is set. Up to this point, A$$nut has been talking about staying in Sweden and had even applied for a work and residence permit, yet all of a sudden he runs to the UK that very same day. A$$nut's lawyer later denied that he had warned A$$nut but was then caught out by his phone records. For the A$$nut groupies to pretend that A$$nut was unaware of the prosecutor's intention is stupidly self-deceiving.
18th November 2010 - as A$$nut was now in England and refusing to return, Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for the arrest of Assange in order for him to be interviewed by the prosecutor.
20th November 2010 - Ny's arrest warrant is issued. Note that it required judicial review and was not something Ny could arrange on her own. A$$nut groupies will still insist A$$nut "knows nothing about the accusations", neatly ignoring the fact he instructed his lawyer to make an appeal against the warrant which included a review of ALL the potential charges ("våldtäkt" which translates as rape but doesn't have exactly the same legal implications as in English law; "olaga tvång" which is unlawful coercion; and two cases of "sexuellt ofredande", sexual harassment). The appeal fails and the Supreme Court of Sweden (not just Ny on her own) decides there is no further grounds for appeal and agrees to the European Arrest Warrant due to A$$nut's refusal to co-operate. Obviously, if you're an A$$nut groupie you will want to pretend the entire Swedish Supreme Court are all CIA operatives......
6th December 2010 - Scotland Yard in London receives the EAW. What follows is a farce as A$$nut preaches long and hard to his Faithful about press freedom and the law, cons his local groupies (including two Wikitwit staff) into stumping up his bail DESPITE having money of his own hidden away, then bunks off to hide behind a press-abusing quasi-dictator when he loses his appeal against the EAW. Cue much swallowing of the Koolaid by Local Dupe, RICHTO and other assorted cretins as they sing about their fantasy world of CIA plots and oppression of freedom of speech.
"......Naturally you are more familiar with the facts than a Stockholm based journalist." Maybe it's just I was not as constrained in looking for the facts as a Stockholm-based journo looking to sell a story to the Faithful. After all, all the information above comes from public sources, so maybe you need to just read a better class of paper. You know, one which is not all cartoons.
1) "In 1987, after turning 16, Assange began hacking under the name "Mendax" (derived from a phrase of Horace: "splendide mendax", or "nobly untruthful")." We always talk about when the crimes were committed, not when they were discovered or brought to trial.
2) "he is avoiding it by not going back for questioning, ergo he is a fugitive from rape charges." You may tap dance all you like around this one, my dear Matt, but you are guilty of intentionally withholding the whole truth and are in contempt of this forum.
3) "Those guidelines were from years ago, a lot has changed, and they were discretionary anyway." Give me discretionary guidelines any day of the week. A winning smile, a soft, modulated tone, a noble brow. The judge asking me if I want a glass of water. I love court.
Local Dupe can't even read Wikipeadia with those blinkers on!
"...."In 1987, after turning 16, Assange began hacking under the name "Mendax" ...We always talk about when the crimes were committed, not when they were discovered or brought to trial....." Yes, read on further, and you'd see he didn't get caught in the act until 1991 and it was a further three years before the case went to court, meaning he was caught hacking at twenty and finally convicted at age twenty-four in 1995! So please stop trying to pretend he was still a minor.
"....You may tap dance all you like around this one..." Who is dancing? Yet again you fail to disprove a simple point. More fail from you, as ever.
"....I love court...." Which is no defence of the point, not a counter, and just an indication that you probably have been convicted of drug offences. Why don't you just admit defeat, you are doing a complete fail of trying to defend your Holy St Jules. The only thing you are succeeding in is making his supporters look gormless by association.
""In 1987, after turning 16, Assange began hacking"
My good friend, can you not understand these words? ....."16. Assange. Hacking."
That is it, good Matt. Assange was 16 year old teenager when he started to hack. Don't you see it? Or are you like Queen Gertrude?
Hamlet: Do you see nothing there?
Queen: Nothing at all; yet all that is I see.
"Who is dancing?" You are well aware that "dancing around something" means you were avoiding talking about something...
That something being that you willfully ignored the fact that Assange was extradited to return to Sweden for questioning and not because he had been charged there.
I don't deny that I was charged with possession, but weren't those charges dismissed because of a warrantless search? You who pretend to know so much!
And isn't also a fact that you, my friend, have either done too many drugs or not enough of them which has left you with the horrible MunchausenTourette syndrome from which you suffer so pathetically?
I'm beginning to think the Moderatrix only lets Local Dupe continue posting for one of three reasons:
a) There is a serious desire in the Reg to expose the dangers of drugs and the serious impact they can have on your cognitive skills.
b) They are related to Local Dupe by birth and would get in trouble with Mommie if they censored his prattle.
c) Like the rest of us, the Reg staff just like laughing their faces off at Local Dupe's complete lack of a clue!
".....can you not understand these words?....." Obviously it is waaaaaay beyond your intellect to be able to understand that A$$nut may have started hacking at 16, but he caught and tried when hacking as an adult. So your stupid attempt to just portray his previous criminal record as a bit of childish larking about is completely debunked. Grow up, man up, admit you were wrong and try moving on in life.
"....the fact that Assange was extradited to return to Sweden for questioning..." The Swedish authorities have already said it is more than likely they will charge him, the questioning is just a formality. A$$nut knows that, hence his fleeing the scene for what he saw as the safety of the British legal system. Having also exhausted that, he's now decided to stuff the law and just go live where his buddy Correa can fix the law. So, again, your point is debunked - A$$nut fled because he knew he was going to be charged after the questioning process had been completed.
Face it, you just keeping losing these arguments because you are too blinkered by love for A$$nut to be able to think coherently. I suggest you go lay down in a dark room for a bit and then try and examine the realities of the World.
Matt, I'm more surprised than you about the Moderatrix's decision to let me continue to post here. After all, I mercilessly ravage you whenever we have a contest of wits (if wit is not too strong a word for your ability).
And you, Matt, are a very valuable asset here. From one end of the internet to the other, you are known and feared as El Reg's resident Philistine and house know-it-all.
OTOH, I am honored you have taken so much time to engage with me when you could have been bloviating ad infinitum with the others you usually contend with.
Would you like to have a beer sometime?
<Yawn> Local Dupe, you are just boring.
"...... I mercilessly ravage you...." You couldn't intellectually "ravage" a three-year-old.
"....From one end of the internet to the other...." I doubt that, but then I don't doubt there may be much quivering of lips and whining in the tiny circle of like-minded losers that you hang with. After all, they don't know how to debate or argue, all they're used to is getting ideas spoonfed to them.
".....Would you like to have a beer sometime?" No thanks, I prefer to stay away from the mentally-unstable. And then there would be the likelyhood you'd emulate Alan Garner as you'd probably think that's a good way to have fun.
"You couldn't intellectually "ravage" a three-year-old." The implication being that you can and have.
"the tiny circle of like-minded losers that you hang with." Only a self-centered moron would make such a pathetic comeback. And think it cutting.
"you are just boring." Really? In the 10 months since I've been here you've replied to me134 times. Are you so bereft of intelligence you don't know when to STFU and move on? But if you had you wouldn't be able to show me what a smarty-pants you are.
".....Would you like to have a beer sometime?" Now, this is completely my fault. After I realized I omitted <sarc> from "have a beer", I was too lazy to withdraw it and add the word and submit it again. I assumed you were at least smart enough to figure it out. But no, you weren't. Your stupidity never ceases to surprise me.
"....the implication being you have....." Well, dealing with your pathetic attempts to venerate your Holy St Jules does smack a bit of correcting an infant. Let's review for you.
The forum thread has highlighted that this deliberate leak from Assange's defense/publicity machine has no bearing on the case as it is not an official statement. Even it becomes an official report it is largely irrelevant because it merely rules out that it was definitely the condom in use on one of the occaisions and does NOT rule out that the events happened. It is even more irrelevant as the findings would need to be submitted as trial evidence and that is not happening as St Jules is running scared from even the chance of a trial.
Assange has already admitted he had sex with the two women which largely makes the condom irrelevant:
"So you admit having sex with Miss A?"
"And you admit penetrating her in her sleep without a condon, despite her having stated a preference for using a condom?"
"Would you like a prison cell with a South-facing window?"
Assange scarpered from Sweden after consulting with his lawyer, which the lawyer admitted, and AFTER his lawyer was told the authorities wanted to officially question St Jules prior to charging him with "sex by surprise", which is part of Swedish rape law. The lawyer denied it and was then forced to recant, caught out by his own phone records.
Assange jumped bail in the UK. Even your fellow Faithful have stopped denying that, so it's long past the point where you should just admit it is your gormless adoration of St Jules that stops you admitting it.
Assange's was caught hacking in Australia, tried and convicted all in his twenties.
Despite claiming to be a champion of free speech, Assange has CHOSEN to hide behind a politician with a record of oppressing the Ecuadorean media.
So, in summary, Assange is still a fugitive wanted for rape, a bail-jumper here in the UK, convicted criminal, and an obvious hypocrit. You may go back to your kindergarten and throw a tantrum there if you still disagree.
By now you've heard that Ecuador wants to swap Julian into the Ecuadorian Embassy in Sweden, where he can be questioned and, if he's given a 'safe passage' from the embassy to the court, even precede with the trial.
(Ecuador offers to take Assange to Sweden under its protection. Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Richard Patino said that he would discuss the proposal with his British counterpart William Hague at a United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York on Thursday.)
This decision will be made by London, Stockholm AND Washington.
If you read the interviews conducted by the Swedish Prosecutor's office I posted below,
"So shall you hear
Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts,
Of accidental judgments, affable daughters,
Of condoms put on by cunning and forced cause,
And, in this upshot, purposes mistook
Fall'n on th' groupies' heads. All this can I
(Exeunt marching, carrying the bodies, after the which a peal of ordnance are shot off)
"By now you've heard that Ecuador wants to swap Julian into the Ecuadorian Embassy in Sweden...." This is up to the UK to agree to, and the UK will probably object as it still does not meet the terms of the EAW which says A$$nut has to be surrendered to Swedish custody, not Ecuadorean. Either way, it doesn't remove the fact A$$nut is a bail-jumper here in the UK and therefore subject to arrest for that as a separate crime. It also requires that we trust the Ecuadoreans not to let A$$nut do a runner mid-transfer and get on a plane to Ecuador rather than Sweden.
But let's pretend that it somehow comes to pass, what happens when the Swedes question him, then say "okey, now we're charging and arresting you" - does A$$nut think he can scarper back to the Ecuadorean embassy in Stockholm? What if halfway through the Swedish trial the US issues a fully legal and proper extradition request, does A$$nut think he can then do a bunk back to hiding under Correa's apron? Or if A$$nut just thinks the trial is going badly for him, can he default and expect the Ecuadoreans to just whisk him away to Quito? A$$nut cannot be both under Ecuador's protection and at the same time appear in Swedish court, he has to give up the former to satisfy the latter, and before that he has to satisfy the UK's requirement that he surrenders to the UK police.
"Ecuador wants to swap Julian into the Ecuadorian Embassy in Sweden, where he can be questioned and, if he's given a 'safe passage' from the embassy to the court, even precede with the trial."
Doesn't that speak for itself? Julian is swapped from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Stockholm. It has to do with the agreement and honor of the 3 nations. Comprende? Julian is now in the Ecuadorian Embassy in Stockholm. Got it?
Would Sweden, with the civilized world watching, condescend to question Julian in the Ecuadorian Embassy or not? In my hypothetical, that would be part of the original swap of locations agreed to by the 3 nations. If they don't agree to that upfront, no swap. Understand?
These are more difficult to get agreement on. Would they agree to try him with a safe passage back to the Ecuadorian Embassy every day when court adjourned? Would they agree to try him in open court and not in closed door sessions as is the rule in rape cases in Sweden?
You really do think this is a rape case and not a case of pissing off the USA, don't you?
The venom of hatred has so brainwashed you, that right is what you always are and wrong is what you never are. Very sad.
Local Dupe it is hard to believe anyone can be as obtuse as you and actually be able to use a keyboard! Please tell us that you are actually just pretending to be a droolling member of the A$$nut Faithful as I am becoming seriously worried for your ability to operate in the World.
"....Julian is swapped from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Stockholm....." OK, let's just assume A$$nut doesn't use the opportunity to do a bunk to somewhere else and does actually turn up in Sweden. He is still not fulfilling the warrant as he has not surrendered himself as requested - by hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy in Sweden he is still not on Swedish soil and therefore STILL not subject to Swedish law. The deal simply gives A$$nut all he wants - an escape route if/when he loses - without subjecting him to due process. It doesn't meet the requirement for the questioning nor the requirement for trial. It would in effect be a trial in absentia. The fact that you cannot grasp that simple fact is really worrying - have you taken you rmeds today?
".....You really do think this is a rape case and not a case of pissing off the USA, don't you?...." <Sigh> Stop letting the paranoia talk and try thinking for a minute. To get him this jammed up the CIA would have to have been pulling the strings not just in the case of Ms A and Ms B but also the prosecutor NY, PLUS A$$nut himself in getting him to both do the acts and run away to the UK. If you still seriously think the CIA could make all that happen then I seriously recommend you double up on your meds! Try and consider that if they had wanted to extradite him the US just had to issue a warrant and Sweden would have had to consider it - no need to fit A$$nut up with rape charges.
"......The venom of hatred has so brainwashed you...." It is very obvious that your hatred of "the Man" has simply blinded you to the facts, to the point where you unquestioningly accept everything that A$$nut dribbles. That is beyond sad.
1) the US hasn't charged him because then the penalties for that charge are in the record of the court of extradition.
2) Assange knows the US wants him and avoids being apprehended by any law enforcement agency to prevent his extraordinary rendition.
3)"To get him this jammed up the CIA would have to have been pulling the strings not just in the case of Ms A and Ms B but also the prosecutor NY, PLUS A$$nut himself in getting him to both do the acts and run away to the UK"
Read the chronology, dude. One guy could do it all. Unless you don't think the CIA's hunderds of billions haven't bought any politicians
"24 August 2010. A politician-lawyer named Claes Borgström (A friend of Ny's), who is in the midst of an election campaign and who is struggling to restore a tarnished legal reputation, becomes the publicly financed representative of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén."
Read the sequence of events http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/sequence.htm
Frankly, I'd tell you to get your head out of the sand, but I suspect it's a public service in keeping your gormless, dribbling visage out of view as much as possible.
"1) the US hasn't charged him because then the penalties for that charge are in the record of the court of extradition....." Que? What the fudge is that supposed to mean? It's just blathering. The US hasn't issued a warrant for A$$nut as they are still working on Manning. If Manning folds and does a deal which includes implicating A$$nut as more than just the non-solicting recipient of the docs that Manning stole then the US can go straight to trying A$$nut with very little need for further work. If Manning is stupid and takes the whole fifty year sentence then the US will have to prepare case that stands alone against A$$nut. Either way, seeing as they seem to have plenty of evidence (such as A$$nut's Twitter conversations), it would seem only a matter of time before they issue a warrant for A$$nut. An extradition from Sweden would be relatively straight forward.
".....2) Assange knows the US wants him and avoids being apprehended by any law enforcement agency to prevent his extraordinary rendition....." So what you're saying is that you think A$$nut can break all the laws of any land simply becuase of your blind support of his anti-US actions? There's a word for that kind of blind, unreasoning devotion, it's called cultism. Nice to see though that you have stopped denying he is a fugitive. It also dodges the simple fact that, if the US had wanted A$$nut in 2010, all they would have needed to do was issue an extradition request to Sweden, no need for fancy games.
".....One guy could do it all...." One guy did do it all - A$$nut! The little twit did it all by himself by mixing with and taking advantage of leftie groupies like Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen. All Borgström did was get involved quite late in the event. Indeed, if you go read even just the simple Wikipedia review of his careers in politics and law, it becomes quite clear that Claes Borgström is just a typical, popularist, guilt-ridden socialist, and not a CIA stooge. So funny how the Faithful turn on so many other members of their herd when A$$nut's freedom is in question! According to Local Dupe and RICHTO, half of Sweden must be working for the CIA! Maybe this is the real European plan for recovery - keep A$$nut hding in one embassy or another in Europe so the CIA are forced to emply millions of Europeans just in case he runs to another European country! ROFLMAO!
Your ability to quite happilly fool yourself and post nothing more than revelations of your collosal naivety is both very sad and very funny.
A summary of the POLICE INTERVIEWS by Swedes who know more about the case than you do, Matt Bryant.
"The original interviews conducted by the police provide crucial evidence which seriously undermines the Swedish prosecutor's case against Julian Assange. Among other things, they reveal that:
• The sexual encounters between Julian Assange and the two women involved were entirely consensual.
• At no time did either woman tell Assange to stop or otherwise express disapproval of the sexual acts in which they participated.
• Both women told friends that their purpose in visiting the police was not to accuse Assange of any crime, but to seek assistance in compelling him to be tested for HIV.
• Upon hearing that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Assange, the woman who was being interviewed by the police became so distraught that was unable to continue and departed without endorsing the written account. She later told a friend that she felt ”run over by the police and others”.
• The other woman involved has given contradictory accounts of her relationship with Assange.
• The police officer who conducted the initial interview was ordered by a superior to alter the written record and was taken off the case.
These and numerous other pertinent facts emerged from the interviews, the protocols (written accounts) of which were leaked to the Internet in early 2011; their authenticity has not been questioned."
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION, MATT:
If you WERE a woman and you had asked your partner to use a condom and immediately discovered he hadn't, wouldn't you stop doing it, ask him to leave and not let him stay the rest of week in your flat?
"Despite claiming to be a champion of free speech, Assange has CHOSEN to hide behind a politician with a record of oppressing the Ecuadorean media."
Any port in a storm, Dude, any port in a storm.
<Yawn> All of which begs the question you are too blinkered to consider - if it is all so cut and dried, why is A$$nut still running and trying to hide in Quito? Why doesn't he just return to Sweden, clear his name and then enjoy the wonders of Europe without a European-wide arrest warrant hanging over his head? The only reason I can think of is because he is not so sure he will win in court. A$$nut's current actions mean he is not only now unable to travel in any country in Europe that will honour the EAW, but also any country that the UK can place an extradition order against for his bail jumping. That seems a lot of the World to alienate himself from if it was so easy for him to win the case.
" if it is all so cut and dried, why is A$$nut still running and trying to hide in Quito? Why doesn't he just return to Sweden, clear his name and then enjoy the wonders of Europe without a European-wide arrest warrant hanging over his head?"
Oh, Matt. Do you really think that if Julian never met Anna Ardin or he had some spoiled lutfisk upon his arrival in Sweden which kept him near the loo for 2 weeks and there was no sexual element to this tale -- only the element of 250,000 cables -- that he'd be sporting around Europe, carefree, in and out of all the best museums?
More pressed duck, si vous plait.
Encore du champagne.
Julian is a marked man until he meets some unfortunate end.
If you were a real sadist and not a mock one, you'd want to see him free on the streets, wondering when the poisoned umbrella tip is going to poke or which tea shoppe makes the rare polonium brew.
No, picking up bars of soap in the shower is much more desirable. At least it's living.
There's a picture of the broken condom here, so I suspect you've seen it.
Your whole post is a simple evasion. If the CIA wanted him they would not need to go to the hassle of such an elaborate setup. If the US authorities wanted him for trial they would just issue a warrant. They don't want him - yet. You really need to stop drinking the Koolaid and try applying a simple principle - the simple explanation is very often the correct one. A$$nut screwed up in Sweden because he didn't know (or didn't care) about local laws, but thought he had gotten away with it until a feminist prosecutor with an axe to grind got involved. His bad luck, simple as that, but it does make the rest of us laugh how he has taken that bad luck and massively amplified it into a global FUBAR, all due to his own paranoia and sense of self-importance. If the CIA are doing anything it is laughing theirselves silly at A$$nut. And at you.
Oh, and BTW, I claim my Godwin prize for your hilarious labelling of leftie Anna Ardin as a Quisling. Major fail! Mind you, the left have been falling all over themselves to abuse Ms Ardin and Ms Wilen simply because they dared to upset the Holy St Jules. Of course, if it was some vaguely right-wing (and by that, for people like Local Dupe that means someone slightly right of Stalin) politician instead of A$$nut that Ardin was making a compaint against, I'm sure the left would be up in arms at attempts to smear "one of their own". They are so blinded by their dogma it is truly hilarious.
I have to object to any claim you may have for the Godwin prize.
According to thefreedictionary.com
quisling is a "noun: traitor, betrayer, collaborator, renegade, Judas, turncoat, fifth columnist 'They called him a quisling.'"
Miss Ardin to a tee, nicht wahr?
The word quisling is as much a part of the English language as Svengali or Ponzi is.
Please return that Godwin award forthwith.
".....quisling is a "noun: traitor, betrayer, collaborator, renegade, Judas, turncoat, fifth columnist 'They called him a quisling.'"...." So you are saying that Anna Ardin is a traitor simply because she dared to accuse A$$nut of rape? Don't answer as it is quite clear your twisted view of reality simply fails to allow you to see any way in which your Holy St Jules, Patron Saint of the Want-To-Be-Duped, could do wrong. For you, the two women MUST be lying as any other outcome means A$$nut goes to a Swedish prison, and you extrapolate that to meaning he will then be at the mercy of the US.
There is a quite calm appraisal of how stupid that whole line is on The Yorker website (http://www.theyorker.co.uk/politics/uk/12219). There's also a rebuttal (http://www.theyorker.co.uk/politics/spotlight/12235) and you should read both as the latter repeats EXACTLY the same non-arguments as you only in much better English. Key to the rebuttal is the same senseless and debunked demand for a guarantee from the Swedish government of no extradition to the US, which just goes to show the best minds on the left just can't come up with anything better than that limp joke. If the US wants to extradite A$$nut from here or from Sweden (or from any other country they have an extradition agreement with), all they have to do is issue an extradition request. They don't need A$$nut banged up prior to the request. Once you cretins get that simple idea in your heads you will maybe realise how silly your villification of Ms Ardin sounds. In the meantime, the rest of us are laughing at you twisting your morals into a knot.
"So you are saying that Anna Ardin is a traitor simply because she dared to accuse A$$nut of rape?"
No, I am saying she betrayed Julian to increase her position amongst important and powerful Swedish politicians.
A little like what Delilah did to Samson.
"......No, I am saying she betrayed Julian to increase her position amongst important and powerful Swedish politicians....." Well, this little strand of paranoia shouldn't take long to exhaust. Pray tell, which politicians? All the leftie groupies she used to hang with are now smearing her. She has had to withdraw from leftie events and activities due to the deluge of hate she has received. So, who is it she is supposed to have been looking to impress?
This is the dude, Dude. Claes Borgstrom. The lawyer for Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen.
"Between 2000 and 2007, Borgström served the Swedish government as Equality Ombudsman (JämO)"
"In 2010 Borgström successfully appealed the decision to close the sexual assault case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and became the legal representative of the two Swedish women who have accused Assange of sexual misconduct."
"He has worked on several high-profile criminal cases, most notably as a defence counsel for convicted mass murderer Thomas Quick. With no technical evidence, Quick was convicted of eight out of the more than thirty murders he confessed to. Five of the convictions have been overturned .It has been questioned whether Borgström as Thomas Quick's attorney neglected to protect his mentally disturbed client's objective interest in being judged not guilty.
His handling of the Quick cases "has been described as the "most scandalous" chapter of Scandinavian crime history, branding it as glaring incompetence, naiveté, and opportunism within the police and judicial system."
"This is the dude, Dude. Claes Borgstrom....." LOL! You you really want to pretend that an ex-politician and lawyer is somehow so powerful that Anna Ardin would be trying to impress him? Bizarre! You also fail (as usual) to explain why Borgstrom would want to attack A$$nut or Wikileaks given his leftie history. What can Borgstrom offer Anna Ardin? You also fail to admit that Borgstrom has a history of being an anti-rape activist, believing in the "collective guilt" of all men and supporting the idea of a men-only tax. That makes him far more likely to be interested in the A$$nut case than any pretend theory that he is a CIA operative! In short, try again, only this time try and keep at least one foot in reality.
Even more tellingly is that Anna Ardin Tweeted that the she found the company at the crayfish party she threw for A$$nut just peachy, something about "the most intelligent people in the World", which sounds like she was much more interested in those fawning over A$$nut than those out to get him. It is ironic that those same people have since turned on her for blackening the reputation of St Jules.
You're just piling up the fail.
"Between 2000 and 2007, Borgström served the Swedish government as Equality Ombudsman (JämO).
After the defeat of the Social Democrats in 2006, he resigned to start a law firm with former Social Democratic Minister for Justice Thomas Bodström as partner.
Since 2008 he's also been the Swedish Social Democratic Party's spokesperson on gender equality.
Borgström has often attracted attention with his controversial behaviour. He claims that all men carry a collective guilt for violence against women."
Okay, so he's not Carl Philip Bernadotte and she's not Wallis Simpson, but, hey, get over it.
" You also fail (as usual) to explain why Borgstrom would want to attack A$$nut."
Money, reputation, to ingratiate himself with the CIA or Swedish organizations. To meet women who like pudgy men. The usual things.
"You also fail to admit that Borgstrom has a history of being an anti-rape activist, believing in the "collective guilt"
This is true, Dude, and it is a possible/contributing factor. Your problem is that you are frozen in your beliefs. You are like the stargazer who believes in the theories of Galileo and Copernicus but who gets hysterical when he reads Kepler's latest blog. Flux, Dude. Things are always in flux. Except your ptolemaic notions about everything.
"Anna Ardin Tweeted that the she found the company at the crayfish party she threw for A$$nut just peachy.." Thereby reenforcing her liberal bona fides with the binary stars of the tweeters and the FaceBookers and pulls the wool over Matt's puss.
Donald Bostrom being interviewed by Chief Inspector Mats Gehlin
"DB: When Anna called, I think it was Thursday…. Up until then she had joked that,
“He has not succeeded in bedding me”, and so on…. But on Thursday, that is why she
said, “I have also had sex with Julian… What I said before wasn’t true.” So it did come
out that they had sex.… And the reason she said that was that Sofia called and told her
about their night…. So that within the space of a minute or so, I understood that both
of them had had sex with Julian — but also that the sex was consensual…"
"But that is the background, and that is why I knew what was going to happen —
because then Anna said: “Sofia has asked me to go to the police with her, and I have
decided to follow along and support her in this. But we are not planning to file charges
against Julian; we just want to go there and tell our stories.” And then I wondered: Is it
possible to tell one’s story without it becoming a formal compl…. Yes, technicalities
like that; but I did not pursue them in detail. In any event, that is what she said.
"So she went there together with Sofia; and we rang a few times back and forth.
We sent some SMS messages to each other about this. And I also called Julian a few
times. They wanted Julian to test himself for HIV, otherwise they were going to file a
complaint against him. That's how they put it. They did not want to speak with Julian,
themselves. But Julian had spoken with Sofia, he said, and he believed that things had
been blown out of proportion. But I told Julian, “The young women want you to take
an HIV test; and if you do, they will not file a complaint. But if you do not, they will file
a complaint.” So I just passed that on; I was the messenger.…"
"Then Anna rang again and said, “Now we have been to the police and Sofia told
her story; and as I was sitting there, I filled in with one sentence.” This is exactly wordfor-word, as I recall what she said. Aha, I said, and what was that sentence? Well, the
sentence was: ”I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something
similar”, said Anna. And then she told me that part about the condom, so that's why
I thought that it was true.
I don't know anything about police technicalities, but then Anna said: “Because
all of a sudden we were two women with a statement about the same man, it became
[a matter for investigation] and thus became a formal complaint, even though we had not
filed a complaint.” And so it became a complaint. Therefore, I already knew Julian's
reaction, and now we come to your question.
MG: I see.
DB: He was shocked and did not understand anything. It was his first… And then
there were two versions: First, there was no sex. Then there was sex, but something had
happened that Anna didn’t want to happen. And now, third, it is a matter of rape,
even. So from my viewpoint, I have seen three different versions of the same event.
MG: If we say — …. You have then — .… Julian has been here earlier — …. Have you,
have you any insight into or knowledge of his activities with women in general?"
Nice follow up question, Mats.
Isn't there a word for suspicious in Mattspeak? Or questionable and distrustful? Just asking.
I am not the mind reader you seem to be but my guess is that he hears a familiar tune. It's a little too close. Like the painting by Arnold Böcklin: Self-Portrait with Death playing the Fiddle [Selbstbildnis mit fiedelndem Tod]
If this doesn't work google some of the words.
Or there's ""The Appointment in Samarra"
(as retold by W. Somerset Maugham )
The speaker is Death"
"There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me. The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threating getsture to my servant when you saw him this morning? That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra."
It's too bad you don't go for this crap. It's what makes life worth living.
"all you post again is whimsy and wild conspiracy theories."
They are an anecdote for your serious gullibility. After you put on a few more years, you'll realize the importance of them when your wrinkled lips are no longer able to whistle in the graveyard.
So, yet again, no admittance that you were proven wrong, again, and no counters worth a damn, just more whimsy trying to link current events with some work of fiction.
"......After you put on a few more years......" Your problem is that you have very obviously put far too many years into drug abuse and what you have been told is "education", and not enough into gaining real World experience. You just talk out of your arse, and then that is from so far up A$$nut's rectum it has a double echo! A double echo in the vacuous echo chamber of the Internet, that's all you are.
So, you have run out of arguments, you are failing to admit you are wrong, so is it any surprise you take refuge in some liberal self-delusion that you can find answers in some work of fiction you have no doubt been told is "inspirational". I suggest you need to step outside your ivory tower before you realise it's just a high-rise slum of rather tatty, white-painted concrete.
ASSANGE & SWEDEN • POLICE INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS
According to Anna, “everything went so fast”. He tore off her clothes and in the
process pulled at and broke her necklace. Anna tried to put some clothes back on,
because it all went so fast and she felt uncomfortable; but Assange immediately took
them off again. Anna states that in fact she felt that she no longer wanted to go any
further, but that it was too late to tell Assange to stop, as she had “gone along this far”.
She thought she “had only herself to blame”. She therefore allowed Assange to remove
all of her clothes.
Then they lay down on the bed, Anna on her back and Assange on top of her. Anna
sensed that Assange wanted to insert his penis in her vagina right away, which she did
not want because he was not wearing a condom. She therefore tried to twist her hips to
the side and squeeze her legs together in order to prevent penetration. Anna tried
several times to reach for a condom, but Assange stopped her from doing so by
holding her arms and prying open her legs while trying to penetrate her with his penis
without a condom. Anna says that eventually she was on the verge of tears because she
was held fast and could not get a condom, and felt that ‘this can end badly’. To my
question Anna replies that Assange must have known that Anna was trying to reach
for a condom, and that he therefore held her arms to prevent her from doing so.
After a moment, Assange asked Anna what she was doing and why she was squeezing
her legs together. Anna then told him that she wanted him to wear a condom before he
came in her. At that, Assange released Anna’s arms and put on a condom that Anna
fetched for him. Anna sensed a strong unspoken reluctance by Assange to use a
condom, as a result of which she had a feeling that he had not put on the condom that
he had been given. She therefore reached down her hand to Assange's penis in order to
ensure that he had really put on the condom. She felt that the rim of the condom was
where it should be, at the base of Assange's penis. Anna and Assange resumed having
sex and Anna says that she thought that she “just wanted to get it over with”.
After a short while, Anna notes that Assange withdraws from her and begins to adjust
the condom. Judging from the sound, according to Anna, it seemed that Assange
removed the condom. He entered her again and continued the copulation. Anna once
again handled his penis and, as before, felt the rim of the condom at the base of the
penis; she therefore let him continue.
Shortly thereafter, Assange ejaculated inside her and then withdrew. When Assange
removed the condom from his penis, Anna saw that it did not contain any semen.
When Anna began to move her body she noticed that something “ran” out of her
vagina. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange's semen. She pointed
this out to Assange, but he denied it and replied that it was only her own wetness.
Anna is convinced that when he withdrew from her the first time, Assange deliberately
broke the condom at its tip and then continued copulating to ejaculation. To my
question Anna replies she did not look closely at the condom in order to see if it was
broken in the way that she suspected; but she believes that she still has the condom at
home and will check to see. She also states that the bed sheets used on this occasion are
still lying unwashed in her hamper.
Anna states that she and Assange did not have sex again after the above-mentioned
event. However, Assange continued residing with her until yesterday (Friday, 20
August). According to Anna, Assange made sexual advances to her every day after the
evening when they had sex, for example by touching her breasts. Anna had rejected
Assange on every such occasion, which Assange had accepted. On one occasion (on
Wednesday, 18 August) he had suddenly removed all the clothes from his lower body,
ASSANGE & SWEDEN • POLICE INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS
and then rubbed his lower body and erect penis against Anna. Anna states that she felt
this was strange and unpleasant behaviour, and had therefore moved down to a
mattress on the floor and slept there instead of on the bed with Assange."
"She thought she “HAD ONLY HERSELF TO BLAME”. She therefore allowed Assange to remove
all of her clothes."
In the very first paragraph, "Anna states that in fact she felt that she no longer wanted to go any
further, but that it was too late to tell Assange to stop, as she had “gone along this far”.
But if she had stopped everything at that moment, she WOULD HAVE NO STORY TO TELL THE POLICE which they needed to use to arrest Julian and try him and incarcerate him until the request for extradition arrives from Washington.
Only in Sweden, where alcohol destroyed the chromosome that governs common sense, could a travesty like this happen. And only on this web site could it be supported by the champion of free speech himself, He-who-must-not-be named, Matt Hominem.
I have no great love for Julian Assange, Matt, but I do live in America where unarmed youths are shot on a quotidian basis or a man in the wrong place at the wrong time will be sodomized by the police with a toilet plunger. Unless you have been a citizen here as long as I have, please don't tell me what I have seen my government do and not do.
So your appraisal of the events is "she asked for it"? LOL! It is very obvious you only think she asked for it because you cannot deal with the idea that A$$nut did somehting other than a Holy Act in granting her the Great Honour of being His recepticle. You are nothng more than a politically-deluded apologist. Your leftie apologist "thought" is perfectly summed up here (in the leftie Guardian, no less!): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/julian-assange-rape-denial
".....I have no great love for Julian Assange..." Now you really are taking the Mick! Having seen all the bile you throw at anyone that questions your Holy St Jules it looks like you wish it was you rather than Anna Ardin that A$$nut had chosen for anointing.
".....where unarmed youths are shot on a quotidian basis...." Prove it, otherwise that's just another "the Man" hating piece of blather.
"....please don't tell me what I have seen my government do and not do." Local Dupe, the problem is I don't doubt you have "seen" a lot, it's just that it comes across as you having "seen" most of it whilst under the influence of drugs. I really think you need to seek help.
This post has been deleted by its author
"and you should read both as the latter repeats EXACTLY the same non-arguments as you only in much better English."
Ha ha. "Much better English." That's quite an understatement especially for you.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I always wrote poorly. Still, I would rather think properly and write badly than vice versa. Anyway thanks for the link. :o)
.Here is Gibbons' Decline and Fall of Sweden's Rape Case Against Assange.
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on." (someone posted this recently, 10Q)
"Claims of a crime, especially a crime such as rape, have to be taken seriously regardless of a possible motive behind the accusation: just because there is a motive, that doesn’t mean the claim isn’t true." Little Flea.
"Claims of a crime have to be properly investigated to decide the truthfulness of the claim and if the claim proves to be frivolous the claimant is generally punished for something like wasting police time." Even Littler Flea.
"‘you’re only accusing me because you’re complicit in the continuation of the USA’s global hegemony’ is not an excuse that can shut down a rape case." Larger Flea.
If the State wants you, they arrest you for jaywalking.
These excerpts are from Joseph Gibbons "The Wrong Argument." Aptly titled, Mr Gibbons.
Pay no attention to the inconsistencies of the accounts of the complainants in this case. We must not think about what happened at Anna and Sofia's place. The uncharged rapist must be behind bars so he can be questioned (even though he already has been questioned) and charged. Do not think about the 250,000 cables. Or what high US government officials have already said about how they want to resolve this case.
And absolutely do not think about the EX POST FACTO actions, statements, and tweets of the two women.
No, this declared enemy of the US must be jailed and tried and if the CIA happens to pull a fast one and get him out of Sweden on a technicality and back to the States, well, Julian, that's the way cookie crumble. Toodle Loo. Later Dude.
And here's what the Dane would say to Julian:
"The dread of something after Ecuador.... makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of...
Thus the Swedish Justice system doth make cowards of us all."
More evasions, half-truths and denial from Local Dupe.
".....Pay no attention to the inconsistencies of the accounts of the complainants in this case...." You mean from leaked documents? Leaked by A$$nut apologists? Tell you what, you get your Holy St Jules to turn up for formal questioning and the trial and then we can discuss the alleged "inconsistencies". But you already know that won't happen as A$$nut is running scared from a trial.
Talking of formal questioning: ".....even though he already has been questioned....." He has not been FORMALLY questioned which is the final stage before he can be charged. He was origianally questioned but that was before possible charges had been defined, he now needs to be formally questioned regarding the charges as part of the Swedish legal process. That point has been repeated often here so please don't try pretending you don't know it.
"......get him out of Sweden on a technicality and back to the States....." This is the most laughable part of your grand self-delusion - the US doesn't need to "pull a fast one", all they would have to do is issue an extradition request and the Swedes would have to process it through their legal system! This applied in 2010 before A$$nut got a little too free with his anointments, it applies now, and it would apply even if A$$nut went to Sweden and was cleared at trial of all charges! Your complete denial of this simple fact is hilarious.
Seek professional help, you are worrying detached from reality.
"You mean from leaked documents? Leaked by A$$nut apologists?" I certainly do. If I had the time I'd read the 4296 comments that you've posted at el reg since May 21, 2007 to count the hundreds of times you've included leaked documents when it furthered your right wing causes. If Julian is running scared, it's from the long arm of American justice, justice which resembles more 'The Picture of Dorian Gray' than the US Constitution.
Get real, Matt. "FORMALLY questioned"? "final stage before being charged"? You make stuff up.
Date: 30 August 2010
Interviewing officer: Mats Gehlin
Also present: Police officer Ewa Olofsson as witness
Leif Silbersky, legal counsel for Julian Assange
Gun von Krusenstjerna, interpreter
Type of interview: In person; audio-recorded
Type of protocol: Verbatim transcript with all utterances in English translated
into Swedish (slightly edited in this translation to English)
Abbreviations: JA, Julian Assange; MG, Mats Gehlin;
LS, Leif Silbersky; GK, Gun von Krusenstjerna
* * *
MG: Now the tape recorder is running. The interview will be transcribed.… The entire
interview, every word, will be written out.
JA: I have a question.
MG: Wait. And as noted, you are suspected and will be formally notified of that
suspicion, and it is for the crime of molestation. The formal notification reads as
follows: “During the period from 13 to 14 August 2010, in Anna Ardin's residence
at Tjurbergsgatan in Stockholm, Assange molested Anna Ardin during an act of
copulation — which was begun and conducted under the express condition that a
condom would be used — by purposely damaging the condom and continuing the
copulation until he ejaculated in her vagina.”
The Swedish police want to 'habeus corpus' Julian and not in the way we are familiar with.
I never said it would be a fast one to me. The US uses 'entrapment' and 'sting operations' today the way you use your ATM. Your ignorance of the way the US operates today is shocking.
"A court meeting is due in Bangkok to probe into the legality of the extradition of Russian businessman Victor Bout to the United States in March 2008 at the US request.
The Defence Counsel insists that there was no legal basis for the extradition.
The absurd trial went on in Thailand for two and a half years, resulting in the dispatching of Bout to the United States."
I hear you look very smart in your new captain's uniform of the Thought Police (the secret police of Oceania in George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.) Congratulations on the promotion.
"....Get real, Matt. "FORMALLY questioned"? "final stage before being charged"? You make stuff up....." Unlike you, I don't need to live in a made up reality. When the original appeal against the EAW was heard in the UK, Gemma Lindfield (acting for the Swedish authorities) explained quite clearly that the EAW was for A$$nut to be arrested to stand trial, that the remaining questioning was merely a formality that had to be completed before charges could be laid, the arrest made, and the case could go to trial. She also made it clear there is no option of it not going to trial, the formal questioning is simple a procedural step. That is why A$$nut does not want to go back to Sweden for the questioning but wants to do it anywhere but under Swdish jurisdiction, as at the end of the formal questioning he will be arrested and charged and he will go straight to a Swedish jail until the trial commences. A$$nut's chances of getting bail in Sweden disappeared after he ran away when his lawyer was told he was going to be questioned, and that was even before he alienated most of Sweden by saying Swedish law was effectively America's "bitch".
And that is actualy A$$nut's biggest mistake. You see, if he had maintained his popularity in Sweden and the Yanks had made an extradition request then there would have been popular support for not extraditing him. The Swedes pride themselves on both the fairness of their legal system and their readiness to accept and protect political refugees from all over the World. But A$$nut's rediculously paranoid accusations fo collusion with the CIA has annoyed the very people A$$nut needed to keep chummy with. The point is explained here (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/sweden-assange-idINL6E8JKBL020120821). Swedish legal specialists such as Marten Schultz, a professor of civil law at Uppsala University and also of the Uni of Stockholm, are baffled as to why A$$nut is so determined to shoot himself in the foot, pointing out that the whole matter has NOTHING to do with Wikileaks and EVERYTHING to do with A$$nut being accused of rape (http://martenschultz.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/assange-ecuador-and-the-swedish-legal-system/).
But I'm wandering away from the main point, which is your obtuse denial of the legal facts. The difference between initial questioning that A$$nut did do and the formal questioning has already been discussed on this forum, but to refresh your goldfish-like memory, here's a link explaining the legal angle for you (http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co). A more thorough rounding of the many myths sprouted by A$$nut groupies like yourself is here (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition). You will probably need an adult to help you with the longer words.
Please do read carefully the bit that really destroys the "it wasn't rape" whine, the bit where High Court concludes:"Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced." Got that? Just to make sure, read it all again, make sure you understand every word. What A$$nut is accused of doing in Sweden would get him arrested and charged with rape in England.
Enjoy! Now, before you start frothing and posting more male bovine manure, I want you to actually try and argue the points mentioned above. You will fail. Again. If you still insist on posting anything other than an admittance that you were completely wrong about the legal angle then you will just be exposing yourelf as a lair, a dupe, or a complete fool. Or probably all three.
"the EAW was for A$$nut to be arrested to stand trial, that the remaining questioning was merely a formality" Show me where I said I cared about this and thought it crucial.
"EVERYTHING to do with A$$nut being accused of rape" Being falsely accused of rape.
"You will probably need an adult to help you with the longer words." No, I use google -- same as you.
" that decision is taken at a late stage... a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage." Dude, the guy is in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why don't you quit your merry dance?
I am interested in the malicious plotting of the US government and the not quite as evil conniving of the svenska bimbos. I want to know, like Michelangelo's depiction in the Sistine Chapel, does the finger of the CIA touch the hardened nipple of Anna Ardin?
You, on the other hand, uncharacteristically like Hamlet, only want to know: "Where be his quiddities now, his quillities, his cases, his tenures, and his tricks?"
Shut up already about bail jumping. It's a fait accompli.
Tell me why the CIA has no plans to extradite Julian to the US and why the Swedish government, to please their American Liege Lords, were not complicit in the putting together this comedy of lies and false accusations?
" If you still insist on posting anything other than an admittance." Oh, I was wrong about plenty of the irrelevancies you enjoy ranting about. And you would have been plenty wrong too, if you had bothered to answer many of the important points that I made instead of ducking them like iUriahHeep.
"......Show me where I said I cared about this and thought it crucial....." You yourself posted the following as core to your denial: "....Get real, Matt. "FORMALLY questioned"? "final stage before being charged"? You make stuff up....." Oops! Hoisting and your own petard moment, me thinks! And the rest of your post is still the same evasions and denial.
".....the guy is in the Ecuadorian Embassy...." Yes, but for how long? The Ecuadoreans are already looking to cut some deal which includes A$$nut going back to Sweden for trial, which indicates they don't intend shielding him from justice forever. I just can't wait for you lefties to start screaming that Correa is a CIA operative, etc, etc.
".....Shut up already about bail jumping. It's a fait accompli....." No, it's a crime. And you want me to shut up about it as it reflects directly on the lack of character and poor decisions made by your Holy St Jules. You just can't accept that he made a serious boob by running again, it seems impossible for you to admit he could be fallible. In fact, you'd probably prefer it if I just shut up and stopped proving everything you post to be incorrect, untrue, our just pointless frothing.
"......Tell me why the CIA has no plans to extradite Julian to the US...." I already have - they haven't finished with Manning yet. Oh, and that election thingummy may have something to do with it, seeing as the Obumbler won't want to alienate his more rabid supporters (like you) by going after their Patron Saint Jules. Once a result is reached with Manning, especially if he does a deal and implicates A$$nut as actively seeking the data from Manning, then the extradition order for A$$nut will go out.
"..... if you had bothered to answer many of the important points...." LOL, so anything you can't answer are "irrelevancies" (like points of Swedish law, the fact that what A$$nut is alleged to have done would get him charged with rape in the UK - minor stuff like that?), but everything you "argue" is "important"? Please, do put those points you feel I have not answered across again, I'm just dying to see what rubbish you come up with!
I beg your pardon. Haven't I already said on more than one occasion that I am occasionally wrong and when I am and when confronted, will admit it. My watchword is "Erratum humanum est." On the other hand, your watchword seems to be "Erratum presto chango est." I gather you have done quite well with it.
"The Ecuadoreans are already looking to cut some deal which includes A$$nut going back to Sweden for trial, which indicates they don't intend shielding him from justice forever." Try to pretend you know something about International Relations. While Julian tarries at the Ecuadorian Embassy in Brompton Road, London, NW3 (?), Bill Hague has a tardis up in his colon. Those nice Ecuadorians are telling him, let us remove Julian from our embassy in London with a safe passage and get him into our embassy in Stockholm (Which would require a safe passage from the Swedish Government. You are on much better terms with Sweden than Ecuador is; maybe you can arrange it) and soon that nasty old tardis will disappear along with all the stupid things you said.
"No, it's a crime." And running a very poor third, behind the 250,000 stolen American cables he received. And the Swedish charge of "sex by surprise", the concept of which you are still trying to get your mind around when you brush your teeth at bed time. That leaves the ex post facto crime of bail jumping in England, which your pathetic chauvinism has embiggened into the most serious crime of all. Fooey.
"they haven't finished with Manning yet." Could you be correct again? If you are suggesting that the CIA can't walk and chew gum at the same time? It never occurred to me before, but now you mention it I can get behind you on this. Matt Bryant can I ask you this? Please, Sir, do you believe that the CIA got the WMD wrong in 2002 - 2003. I really am dying to hear what you think. Thank you in advance.
"I'm just dying to see what rubbish you come up with!"
"Ay, there's the rubbish.
"To post, or not to post, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous bloggers,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of comments,
And by opposing end them:" :o)
".....Haven't I already said on more than one occasion that I am occasionally wrong..." Really? Because you NEVER admit you are wrong when it comes to your Holy St Jules. You're not even admitting you were wrong about the formal questioning point which you were just caught out on.
"..... Those nice Ecuadorians are telling him, let us remove Julian from our embassy in London with a safe passage and get him into our embassy in Stockholm....." Why on Earth do you think the UK will just ignore A$$nut's bail jumping or the EAW and the precedent it sets for allowing a common criminal to dicatate terms?
".....And running a very poor third...." Reagrdless of where it runs in the World order, in the UK order it is yet to be seen whether a judge decides it is for A$$nut to answer to his bail jumping charge BEFORE being expelled to Sweden. The American crime is neither here nor there as the US has not issued a warrant for his arrest, as you continually forget. What the bail jumping does do, along with A$$nut's running away from Sweden in the first place, is give zero likelyhood that A$$nut will get bail in Sweden. The Swedes will not accept the Ecuadorean deal for that reason - A$$nut will have to go to a Swedish jail whilst he awaits trial, not hide up Correa's rectum.
"....Could you be correct again? If you are suggesting that the CIA can't walk and chew gum at the same time?...." What I'm pointing out is that it has NOTHING to do with the CIA, they will not be the party that issues the US warrant. Can't you get it through those A$$nut blinkers that Manning is going to go to trial, he will very likely lose, and at that point he will be looking at spending just about the rest of his life in prison - he will almost certainly cut a deal to implicate A$$nut. With Manning's testimony they will have a watertight case against A$$nut for espionage and it is then that they will issue a warrant.
".....the CIA got the WMD wrong in 2002 - 2003...." What has that to do with the case? Your evasions are just getting rediculously desperate. You may find cutting back on your intake of recreational drugs helps you concentrate on the matter in hand.
"You're not even admitting you were wrong about the formal questioning"
Occasionally I merely imply that I'm wrong and forego the breast beating. It's a prerogative.
"Why on Earth do you think the UK will just ignore A$$nut's bail jumping."
To end the hideous publicity they are certain to get after 7 or 8 months of Julian all over the internet in video conferences and meetings. Maybe even bidding on a few things at eBay. Btw, when's your next election? You think this asylum will help the Tories?
"Reagrdless of where it runs in the World order"
Okay, okay. It's alright with me if England gets in on the act. Now that the Olympics and the Queen's thing are over, you don't have much going for you.
"he will very likely lose, and at that point he will be looking at spending just about the rest of his life in prison - he (Manning) will almost certainly cut a deal to implicate A$$nut."
Tell me how you know that Manning hasn't already cut that deal. Telepathy?
"What has that to do with the case?"
Jeez, I just wanted to know. For future reference. If there is a future.
".....Occasionally I merely imply that I'm wrong....." Nope, you ARE wrong, and on every bogus argument you have tried to raise. Mainly because they show no original thought, merely being the same doggerel as repeated by leftie blogs and mindless drones all over the Internet, all long since debunked.
".....To end the hideous publicity they are certain to get after 7 or 8 months of Julian all over the internet in video conferences and meetings...." Yes, it is really hideaous publicity to show the World that you not only follow the law but also give even morons like A$$nut fair and extensive recourse to the law. All A$$nut and his supporters have done is belittle the crime of rape and look like they are determined not to follow any law if it doesn't suit them. And then A$$nut caps that by preaching about freedom of the press whilst hiding behind a press abuser like Correa! I think that what you should be worrying about is that A$$nut is happilly destroying not only his own but also Wikileaks' respectability and ensuring there will be little sympathy for him by the time the US finally gets round to issuing a warrant for his extradition. Off the back end of the conviction of A$$nut they will then set about tearing down Wikileaks.
".....Tell me how you know that Manning hasn't already cut that deal....." So, now you're trying to avoid the likely impact of that occurence on A$$nut by asking how I know if Manning has already cut a deal? Fail! Concentrate - the problem for you and the others living up A$$nut's rectum is that Manning's testimony will put said recturm in an American prison cell for a long time. And if/when Manning does cut a deal, I'm in no doubt you and the other leftie trolls will reflexively start accusing your former "heroic whistleblower" Manning of being a CIA stooge. Your inherent failure trait is that predictable.
".....I just wanted to know. For future reference...." No, it was becasue you had lost the argument, again, and wanted to evade off into a different area rather than admit you were wrong. Again. Predictable fail, again.
I've been pulling your chain about Manning and Assange ever since we clashed about the Dreyfus affair. I am a little sympathetic to Manning, and it was important for me to see the Wikileaks video and not read about it. I have nothing invested in the conclusion of this story; nothing more than I do in scores of other news stories. Than you have in the outcome of the Daytona 500. I have no concern for Assange after he got caught in a honey trap now than I did for Clinton when Monica got him.
There's only been one question that I've wanted the answer to for the last 4 years. Leftie trolls AND rightie trolls ignore it. Everyone ignores it. It's not hard to see that everyone is in denial.
The question is "How did the Fed miss seeing the housing bubble?" That's all their job is: looking for bubbles. Greenspan said it was just a mistake. Do you believe him? That's why I asked if you believed the CIA about WMD. This was the same thing 6 years later. The Fed Chairman and the members of the FOMC and all the governors and 20,000 employees of the Federal Reserve System. Nobody saw the the bubble. Pretty hard to believe.
And Bernard Bernanke, Doctor of Depressions, waiting in the wings. Mighty convenient.
Anyway, you're a good sport, Matt. I am sorry I acted the way I did. It wasn't very nice of me.
"I've been pulling your chain about Manning and Assange...." Yes, and we all know that translates to "Crap, lost this one, best pretend I was joking all along." I'm not the only one on these forums that you have bleated at so it's far too late for you to pretend you're actually not one of the sheeple. I can almost picture you thumbing through your "Revolutionary Chic for Dummies" guide, desperately trying to find a way to back out from looking just plain stoooopid, and all it offers is: "When you come up against a running dog lackey of the imperialist oppressors that can actual pass doubt on The Truth, it is time to use the tactics of Che and melt into the background again. Make out it was all a joke so that you do not draw the attentions of Big Brother, as he is ALWAYS watching! Don't dwell on losing this one battle as it is the war against the oppressors that must be won. Viva la Revolucion!" You'd best hide fast, I'm sure the NSA will be sending black helicopters for you soon....
"You did very well...." Yes, I did do well in proving all your arguments for A$$nut as being factually innaccurate or just downright deceitful.
".....Unfortunately, it looks like you failed...." Really? But it's you that has cut and run, just like your Holy St Jules, Patron Saint of Bail Jumpers as well as The Deluded. But, if you can't stand the heat....
".....You'll have to take them over next semester." And there's the difference - unlike you, I have long-since completed my education and now live and learn in the University of Life, AKA the real World. You are obviously still being held back in the fourth grade. Don't cry too hard, little A$$nut groupie, you can save that for when the US uncloaks their A$$nut Extradition Black Choppers! In the meantime, you'd best tighten up your tinfoil hat as I hear Echelon is scanning for new dupes amongst the Faithful for the CIA to turn as operatives to ensnare A$$nut. Apparently, they have a new scheme to show how A$$nut doesn't just abuse women but also takes advantage of the mentally-challenged drug-users.....
"long-since completed my education and now live and learn in the University of Life, AKA the real World."
Wrong, wrong,wrong. It's not the University of Life, it's called Huxley College and Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff (Groucho Marx) is it's president. Clearly, you are watching too many silly American movies from the 30's and 40's; you'd be better off smoking Angel Dust.
And speaking of mentally-challenged drug-users, would you have burned the books of Samuel Taylor Coleridge ('widely known to have been a regular user of opium as a relaxant, analgesic, antidepressant, and treatment for numerous health concerns') and consigned him to a pathetic, neurotic life like yours? And Aldous Huxley. And Christopher Isherwood, to mention a couple of more recent strung out Brits? What would you replace 'Brave New World' with? "A$$ and Matt go to the Epsom Derby"?
Although I'm now neutral on the topic, it looks like Julian did himself some good with this one.
"Assange Compares Embassy Hideout to Space Station."
You probably could learn a thing or two about communication from him. :o)
Typical Local Dupe - when he can't win the argument in hand he wanders off into some parade of literary "greats", as though the ability to mention their achievements somehow elevates him to the level of mental competence. Reading the article he linked to:
“I miss many things, going to the shops or out to eat with friends. I miss an open horizon, putting my toes in the sea, going fishing, climbing a mountain…,” he said.
Yeah, sounds like his self-imposed prison is just peachy! Do they smuggle in groupies for him to annoint, hopefully in a consensual manner? If I recall, at least the space station had the option for astronauts to leave and come home.
Are you so incapable of understanding human psychology, that you can not comprehend why Jullian Assange prefers a room in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to all the other options available to him at the moment?
Forgive me for using another literary reference, but only in Schwartz-Bart's "The Last Of The Just" would Assange want to take a taxi to Fort Waterboard outside Washington D.C.
I won't even ask you if you would run from a sentence of 50 years. You'd say you're a law abiding citizen and the worst thing you've ever done are ad hominem attacks on other el reg commentors.
Bob Beckel must have lost touch with reality and thinks he is auditioning for James Bond in the next 007 flick. Unfortunately, he's 60 pounds too fat.
If you guys can pull it off, it'll out-Stalin Stalin when he got Trotsky at Coyoacan, Mexico. Maybe Beckel will let you tag along with an ice-pick. Cool.
Just wondering. Would you guys want to kill the rest of Julian;s family? His mother, in particular. The witch is still trying to save her child.
1. Supporters say Assange fears being extradited to the US if he ever enters Sweden. Those anti-Assange says it's easier to do that from the UK.
Sweden has a "temporary surrender" clause that makes it very easy to surrender him to the US even if he's charged with a crime in Sweden.
2. Many who are anti Assange say he fled from Sweden. His lawyer contacted the Swedish police before he left and asked if he could leave the country. They gave him permission to do so.
Me? I don't care much for the guy, but I do believe everyone is entitled to being treated fairly, even if they're a douche. Spending life in prison or getting executed for shaming some government employees, isn't my definition of fair.
"....I do believe everyone is entitled to being treated fairly...." Unless they're women accusing The Holy St Jules of rape, right? Assange had full recourse to the law in trying to block the EAW here in the UK, but he denied the women their right to trial. And when he lost here in the UK he ran to somewhere he knew there was no chance of a "fair" outcome as his buddy Correa abuses the law to his own ends. It is very indicative of your real sympathies in that you only want Assange to be treated "fairly".
This post has been deleted by its author
The original interviews conducted by the police provide crucial evidence which seriously undermines the Swedish prosecutor's case against Julian Assange.
Copies of the original PROTOKOLLEN FRÅN POLISFÖRHÖREN in Svensk.
Those Protokollen translated into English.
Matt will relish the part where Petra said that Anna said that Julian didn't flush the toilet.
Looks like that legal extradition process - you know, the one the US will use to get A$$nut when they have finished with Manning - is working just fine:
Strange how all the frothing lefties have forgotten about Bradley Manning now that their beloved Holy St Jules is happilly stuffing himself into a box.....
I have been following your arguments against others in this but one stood out for me.. "You see, if he had maintained his popularity in Sweden and the Yanks had made an extradition request then there would have been popular support for not extraditing him" -- After reading this I understood how deluded you are.. Or may be so strong in your beliefs that you are out of touch with something called reality..
"......After reading this I understood how deluded you are....." OK, going by your thunbs down I'm guessing you're not suggesting that A$$nut never had support in Sweden, so you must be of the impression that A$$nut still has overwhelming support there. The fact that no Swedish politician of note from either end of the political spectrum is busy denouncing the investigation, which they would be if they were concerned about votes, kinda implies you need to ask more than just your friends in the dole queues. And if I am so far from reality, why are even Swedish journos writing about how A$$nut's abuse of the Swedish legal system is insulting? Try again, little A$$nut groupie! Maybe you and Local Dupe should get together and share your brain cell each, it might help.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020