Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court rules Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden. [View all]msanthrope
(37,549 posts)37. Because he fled Sweden the day before his scheduled interview there, according to his own lawyer.
Generally, when a suspect flees before a scheduled interview, and goes to another country, courtesy is no longer extended to them. Mr. Assange had an interview scheduled on the 28th of September. He left on the 27th.
Mr. Assanges' defense attorney in Sweden, Mr. Hurtig, testified during the London proceedings that Ms. Ny had attempted to secure an interview with Mr. Assange, but that he left the country the day before the date scheduled:
In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assanges interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden. He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying I have not talked to my client since I talked to you. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: Hello it is possible to have an interview Tuesday. Next there was a message saying: Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I cant say if it was on 21st or 22nd. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.
Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said I dont think I left a message warning him (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight.
Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview, then that is wrong. He had forgotten the messages referred to above. They must have slipped his mind. There were then questions about DNA. It was suggested to him that a reason for the interrogation taking place in Sweden was that a DNA sample may be required. He seemed to me to at first agree and then prevaricate. He then accepted that in his submissions to the Swedish court he had said that the absence of DNA is a weakness in the prosecution case. He added I cant say if I told Ms Ny that Julian Assange had no intention of coming back to Sweden. He agrees that at least at first he was giving the impression that Mr Assange was willing to come back. He was asked if Julian Assange went back to Sweden and replied: Not as far as I am aware.
In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldnt have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
The magistrate who wrote this opinion clearly saw through the subterfuge of Mr. Assange, and his lawyer......one does not accidentially leave a country right before one's scheduled interview, and then, never make it back, unless one knows that one is in deep shit.
Can one find this public document on the Wikileaks site????
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
78 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A peasant named Dennis told me all I ever needed to know about your government.
msanthrope
May 2012
#21
It doesn't matter where the subject of the decision is physically located....
Swede Atlanta
May 2012
#62
Assange Loses Appeal, But Granted Stay to Apply to Re-Open Case on Technicality
dipsydoodle
May 2012
#5
They better not try to drag him over here, dipsy, because this country will erupt.
EFerrari
May 2012
#10
That's Terrible. I hope European Human Rights Court. Tells Sweden to go fuck it Self.
pam4water
May 2012
#9
There is nothing progressive about pretending a corrupt process can yield a just result.
EFerrari
May 2012
#23
Neither Assange, or his legal team, dispute that he has been charged with a crime.
msanthrope
May 2012
#30
... under the European arrest warrant system, if Britain hands over Assange to Sweden he cannot then
struggle4progress
May 2012
#44
Under the European system, Sweden does not collaborate with extrordinary rendition.
EFerrari
May 2012
#56
Because he fled Sweden the day before his scheduled interview there, according to his own lawyer.
msanthrope
May 2012
#37
None of that has anything to do with the question I asked,and your Game of Thrones rape comment was
Hissyspit
May 2012
#39
1) Actually, it has everything to do with the question you asked. You asked about criminal
msanthrope
May 2012
#46
THE LIONS (MY INFLUENCES): McGovern, Ellsberg, Chomsky on Assange, Wikileaks, Manning.
proverbialwisdom
May 2012
#64
DUers excited, by the thought of wandering through the 100+ pp decision, may currently
struggle4progress
May 2012
#58
How ironic that Assange is asking that a conservative interpretation of UK be applied to his case.
msanthrope
May 2012
#61
You can't pants a country still wearing Donald Duck underwear without expecting
LanternWaste
Jun 2012
#78