Prosecutor wants to question Assange in Sweden

[struggle4progress]

... A proposal that Assange be interviewed at the London embassy of Ecuador was made by Per Samuelson, one of Assange‘s attorneys in Sweden, according to Fredrik Berg, spokesman for the Swedish Prosecution Authority ...

Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny has turned down the offer, Berg said. "She wants to conduct the interview in Sweden," he said.

Berg said the agency "has not received a formal request from Ecuador" on the matter.

Samuelson was not immediately available for comment.

http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/prosecutor-wants-to-question-assange-in-sweden_227220.html

[Hissyspit]

1. They want to talk to him or not?

[xchrom]

2. +1

[struggle4progress]

3. He fled Sweden after the authorities made repeated efforts through his lawyer to schedule

an interview with him. The Swedish authorities aren't going to play any more of his games

[MNBrewer]

4. They don't want to interview him

they want to get their paws on him.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

8. Mind reader are you? n/t

[MNBrewer]

13. Some things are to obvious to ignore

at least for people who are consistent in their viewpoint, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

16. Considering i'm a Norwegian and not an American, i fail to see how the white house affects my view

[Hissyspit]

5. He was told it was o.k. for him to leave. Just who is playing games?

http://notesonwikileaks.tumblr.com/post/15251907983/assange-extradition-fact-sheet

2)  Julian Assange did not flee Sweden to avoid questioning. He was given permission to leave the country on the 15th September 2010, after remaining 5 weeks in Sweden for the purpose of answering the allegations made against him.

Source: Undue delay for Julian Assange’s interrogation

http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Prosecution

Why is the Swedish Prosecutor refusing to Question Assange?

The only beneficiary from delaying the questioning of Julian Assange for 1,5 years is the US, which is preparing it’s case against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and Bradley Manning. The delay in no way benefits the two women, who were reportedly not seeking to report Assange to the police anyway, nor Julian Assange, who has been robbed of his liberty in the 500 days spanning from his detention on 7 December 2010 to the Supreme Court judgment. Marianne Ny has given no explanation, either to the two women or to Assange, why she has chosen to delay the case and handled it in such an extraordinary manner. The behaviour of the prosecutor even conflicts with her own directives to the Swedish authorities, which call for the speedy questioning of the suspect.

- snip -

The prosecutor Marianne Ny has misled the public by stating that Swedish and UK law do not permit her to question Julian Assange in the UK. Three days after Marianne Ny had issued the EAW for Julian Assange, (05 December 2010), Ny falsely stated: "Both British and Swedish law prevent me from questioning Assange in London."
Prosecutor Marianne Ny has also claimed that questioning in the UK was illegal in a Time interview on 3 December 2010. This is false. Mutual Legal Assistance is clearly permitted by both Swedish and UK law. There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA (2007) 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute.
Incidentally, Ny’s comments to the Swedish press stating that she is not permitted to question Assange in the UK have subsequently been redacted: compare the original to the redacted version. (If these links are broken click here.)

[struggle4progress]

6. That is not what the UK courts established: Assange's lawyer conceded in the UK court that

that he had misrepresented various matters here and that the Swedish authorities were, in fact, making constant efforts, through him (Assange's lawyer) to bring Assange in for further interviews, before Assange suddenly left Sweden

This habit of misrepresenting facts has dominated Assange' Public Relations in recent years, and I think it is increasingly clear that the man has little credibility

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

... The lawyer gave live evidence covering in some detail the attempts made to secure an interview with his client. On 15th September Ms Ny told him there were no “force measures” preventing Julian leaving the country, i.e. he was allowed to leave. He asked when his client would be interrogated but was told the officer she needed for the investigation was sick. He phoned his client to say he was free to leave the country to continue his work. His client was worried that he may be difficult to get hold of, so they agreed that when he had found a stable place he would contact his lawyer. On 22nd September he received a text message from Marianne Ny saying that she wanted to interrogate Julian Assange on 28th September. “I could not get hold of Julian, which I told Marianne on 27th September.” He was able to speak to his client on 29th September and Mr Assange offered to return on Saturday 9th October for interrogation. Eventually this proposal was not accepted as the dates were too far away. He gives details about a proposal to hold an interrogation on 6th October, which he believes was because the police thought his client would be in Sweden then giving a lecture. That information was leaked to him. On 8th October Mr Hurtig suggested a telephone interrogation, but this was refused. He provided further detail about the evidence he had seen on 17th November and on 18th November before the detention hearing which was decided on 24th November. However there was nothing in English. He was allowed to read text messages but not allowed to make notes or copy them. The text messages were “not good for the claimants and spoke of revenge”. They also spoke of gaining money from Julian Assange. The complainant’s statement is confidential. Therefore Mr Hurtig sought the advice of the prosecutor and then the Bar Council before disclosing it. He was advised that he could. In the statement the alleged victim of the rape allegation said she was half-asleep at the time. That is very different from the allegation in the EAW.

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 Assange’s 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 can’t 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 don’t 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 can’t 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 shouldn’t 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.

The witness had to leave to catch a flight. Miss Montgomery said that there were further challenges she could make to his evidence, but thought it unnecessary in the circumstances. That was accepted by the court after no point was taken by Mr Robertson. The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave.

[Hissyspit]

9. And the Swedish prosecution has little credibility.

[struggle4progress]

11. You don't need to believe the Swedish prosecution on that particular point,

because Assange's lawyer himself finally admitted to the court that he had misrepresented the situation

[msanthrope]

7. Sorry, but the British Court made a finding of fact that Assange did flee the jurisdiction

on September 27th, the day before the scheduled DNA test and interview on the 28th...

The court heard from Assange's attorneys and the prosecutors. I suggest you read the entire findings, as they form the legal basis for the extradition case. In particular, pages 5-6 discuss how the court came to the conclusion that Assange's lawyer was prevaricating on the interview issue.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

[Hissyspit]

10. I've read them.

Going around and around with this again and again.

[msanthrope]

12. As I've told another poster, you don't get to make up your own facts in a court case.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the court is the entity that determines the facts of the case.

According to his own attorneys, Mr. Assange fled Sweden the day before his scheduled interview and DNA sample. Apparently, he had not realized until that day that he would be required under Swedish law to give said DNA sample, and would be subject to possible confinement.

He ran. Criminals do it all the time.

[girl gone mad]

14. This man is incredible.

Einstein would concur as he was a staunch activist for peace, against government tyranny, war crimes and abuse of power. It is a true shame that you attach his image to your hateful comments.

[msanthrope]

15. Really? I would have thought the Savio quote would have pissed you off more. nt

[Bodhi BloodWave]

17. I might be silly or just a tiny bit crazy

but in my eyes it wouldn't matter if a person had created world peace, found a cure for cancer and solved world hunger. If the person were to break the law then i would wish for him to be charged and face the relevant court, Past good deeds does not excuse criminal acts done(they might grant some leniency depending but in my eyes shouldn't.)

[Canuckistanian]

18. The Swedish authorities could have interviewed him in Britain

They've insisted on Assange travelling to Sweden.... who have an extradition treaty with America.

The SECOND Assange lands on Swedish territory, he'll be detained for extradition. Sweden has given him no guarantees that this WON'T happen.

[struggle4progress]

20. Res judicata: the warrant's been thoroughly litigated through the UK courts and been found valid

[Comrade_McKenzie]

19. You leak information on governments and corporations...

And bad things will happen to you, including being setup for horrible crimes.

It takes quite the ignoramus to not see that's what has been going on from the beginning.

[struggle4progress]

21. I expect that if dark wealthy behind-the-scene powers-that-be had really wanted to set him up

they could have done a better job: maybe they could have left the half-devoured corpse of some child in his room and provided some quality computer animation of him gnawing on it, for example