Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

[midas]

You are absolutely right that Assange can choose not to answer any questions including after he has been transferred to Sweden. If he does not want to answer, then decision to charge him with rape or not will be taken without his input, no problems.

A British court has just confirmed that he should be questioned in Sweden so that makes it 2 countries and 2 different legal systems that think that is correct. I think the same for a serious crime like rape. I have no problems with video conferencing for less serious crimes, a normal phone call is fine too for minor offences. What serious is, is always up to the legal system in the country where alleged crime has taken place

I do not argue that video is not common evidence in court cases, it is not only common, it's good evidence too. I do however not think that the Austrailan criminal court system would accept questioning via phone or video in a rape case, I could be wrong but I doubt it. Sweden and the countries in Europe that I know of do not, no change there.

I would personally answer questions if I were innocent and not answer if I were guilty. Assange was prepared to answer via video in England so he probably considers himself innocent - according to the law in the countries he knows about - where he has spent the majority of his time probably. Too bad Sweden has different laws

Where does our opinion differ?

yes.... you are wrong !

Angry scenes at Broome rape case

" The teenager, who appeared via a video link from Perth, is facing the same charges."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/10422759/angry-scenes-at-broome-rape-case/

Edited November 9, 2011 by metisdead
Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.

[MikeyIdea]

<quote name='MikeyIdea' timestamp='1320804650' post='4833446'>

All levels of rape in Sweden are serious crimes according to criminal law - all countries in Europe that I know of (I don't know procedure in all of them though) will NOT accept questioning in another country or as you suggest, by phone, in a criminal case. What you quote is applicable for civil court cases

If my daughter were a rape victim, then I would be glad that the legal system takes her case seriously and demand questioning in the country where the alleged crime took place. I find this perfectly correct

</quote>

Mickeyidea

I am glad you know more about the legal system in Sweden than a Swedish Appeal Court Judge. It never fails to amaze me of the talent you meet on Thaivisa.

And as you know, both criminal and civil courts have appeals courts. My comment still stands

All levels of rape in Sweden are serious crimes according to criminal law - all countries in Europe that I know of (I don't know procedure in all of them though) will NOT accept questioning in another country or as you suggest, by phone, in a criminal case

What you quote is applicable for civil court cases

Edit: The same comment apply for midas post above

I think you are confused. The authorities cannot demand you do anything. It is not up to Sweden to dictate how and when Assange will answer anything. It is up to Assange as to whether he wants to answer any questions. If he decides he does want to answer anything then he can do so in any way he wants. If he says he will only answer via video then that's it. Swedish authorities have no right to determine how a person wishes to answer questions. Sweden has issued an arrest warrent to have him brought to their country for questioning, that doesn't mean he has to answer any questions when he gets there.

It's all smoke and mirrors. The arrest warrant is for questioning, no one in their right mind, whether they are guilty or not, would answer any questions because all it will do is assist authorities in determining what/how many charges they will lay. Simply put, they will ask him questions, he should say nothing, they will then just lay whatever charges they think they can get him with.

You had a query about answering questions via video. I have worked in the courts in Australia for many years, though that was over 10 years ago. I don't know of anyone answering questions actually via video prior to an arrest. Though many have answered questions on the phone. It may be that you are actually asking about evidence in a trial, if that is the case then the answer, at least here in oz , 'yes'. It happens quite regularly for evidence in trials to be either on video, or on phone in criminal trial. The accused is never compelled to give evidence and if he/she decided they wanted to give evidence I don't know why they would want it done via video.

But I'm quite sure Julian Assange would have willingly gone to Sweden in person and answered questions in Sweden well before now if it wasn't for two things:-

( 1 ) Sweden does not have a bail system so he can be kept in prison while the questioning goes on for a long time and still before any charges are laid.

( 2 ) he is naturally concerned that this is just a means to have him sent on the USA.

If Sweden was " bone fide " about only wanting to pursue the sexual charges there was absolutely nothing to stop them from giving assurances in advance and in return for Julian Assange volunteering to go there in person that they would unequivocally not hand him over to a third party.

Sweden never gave this assurance so clearly it was not in Julian Assange's interest to take the risk of travelling to Sweden in person.

Answers to your points above

(1) Sweden does not have a bail system but that does not make it a legal banana republic, the legal system is both efficient and fair, according to Swedish law of course - The argument that Assange could be held in prison while being questioned for a long time is hollow, no substance to it because that does not happen in Sweden

(2) USA is not really a good friend of Sweden, the US is way too capitalist for that. There is nothing in that it's easier to have him sent from Sweden to the US than from Britain. The legal systems in both those countries will take decision based on legal facts, Sweden perhaps in a better way than Britain even

[MikeyIdea]

You are absolutely right that Assange can choose not to answer any questions including after he has been transferred to Sweden. If he does not want to answer, then decision to charge him with rape or not will be taken without his input, no problems.

A British court has just confirmed that he should be questioned in Sweden so that makes it 2 countries and 2 different legal systems that think that is correct. I think the same for a serious crime like rape. I have no problems with video conferencing for less serious crimes, a normal phone call is fine too for minor offences. What serious is, is always up to the legal system in the country where alleged crime has taken place

I do not argue that video is not common evidence in court cases, it is not only common, it's good evidence too. I do however not think that the Austrailan criminal court system would accept questioning via phone or video in a rape case, I could be wrong but I doubt it. Sweden and the countries in Europe that I know of do not, no change there.

I would personally answer questions if I were innocent and not answer if I were guilty. Assange was prepared to answer via video in England so he probably considers himself innocent - according to the law in the countries he knows about - where he has spent the majority of his time probably. Too bad Sweden has different laws

Where does our opinion differ?

yes.... you are wrong !

Angry scenes at Broome rape case

" The teenager, who appeared via a video link from Perth, is facing the same charges."

http://au.news.yahoo...oome-rape-case/

OK, no problems - I would have expected Australian legal system to take rape cases more seriously, that's all

[midas]

(1) Sweden does not have a bail system but that does not make it a legal banana republic, the legal system is both efficient and fair, according to Swedish law of course - The argument that Assange could be held in prison while being questioned for a long time is hollow, no substance to it because that does not happen in Sweden

You are wrong again MikeyIdea

no it's not fair judicial system by a long way according to Geoffrey Robinson Q.C. because the trial in Sweden will be held in secret

Geoffrey Robertosn Q.C - Julian Assange address to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2g7okTXEfoc

Edited November 9, 2011 by midas

[MikeyIdea]

(1) Sweden does not have a bail system but that does not make it a legal banana republic, the legal system is both efficient and fair, according to Swedish law of course - The argument that Assange could be held in prison while being questioned for a long time is hollow, no substance to it because that does not happen in Sweden

You are wrong again MikeyIdea

no it's not fair judicial system by a long way according to Geoffrey Robinson Q.C. because the trial in Sweden will be held in secret

Geoffrey Robertosn Q.C - Julian Assange address to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=2g7okTXEfoc

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

[Wallaby]

You are absolutely right that Assange can choose not to answer any questions including after he has been transferred to Sweden. If he does not want to answer, then decision to charge him with rape or not will be taken without his input, no problems.

A British court has just confirmed that he should be questioned in Sweden so that makes it 2 countries and 2 different legal systems that think that is correct. I think the same for a serious crime like rape. I have no problems with video conferencing for less serious crimes, a normal phone call is fine too for minor offences. What serious is, is always up to the legal system in the country where alleged crime has taken place

I do not argue that video is not common evidence in court cases, it is not only common, it's good evidence too. I do however not think that the Austrailan criminal court system would accept questioning via phone or video in a rape case, I could be wrong but I doubt it. Sweden and the countries in Europe that I know of do not, no change there.

I would personally answer questions if I were innocent and not answer if I were guilty. Assange was prepared to answer via video in England so he probably considers himself innocent - according to the law in the countries he knows about - where he has spent the majority of his time probably. Too bad Sweden has different laws

Where does our opinion differ?

I'm just a bit confused about what you are saying/asking as I'm not sure you mean an actual giving evidence in a court or simply answering questions before one is charged, with regard to the video link. If police or prosecutors want to ask you questions you can tell them whatever you want, however you want, or nothing at all. In court, you don't HAVE to give evidence, but it is not common for the actual accused to do so via video. Rape cases are taken VERY seriously in oz . Sometimes the victim is afraid of the accused etc, that is one of the reasons that video evidence from an accused is more likely to happen. Many professional witnesses (ie doctors) give evidence by phone, happens every day in even the most serious of cases.

In rape cases in oz it is usually the alleged victim that is allowed to give evidence via video, or have a screen in place so they cannot have eye contact with the accused. If the victim is allowed it then why can't the accused be allowed it, after all, there is an assumption of innocence.

I also think you are confusing what the British court has ruled on as to whether Assange should be extradited to Sweden. The British court isn't saying that Assange cannot be questioned in the UK, that wasn't what it was asked to rule on. What do you think will be the difference of him answering questions by video and answering questions whilst being held in custody? They simply want to be able to pressure him by holding him in gaol until trial, that could take years.

I would never answer questions of the police etc, even when innocent. I don't know anyone with experience in the court system, though I'm sure there are some, that would answer questions if they are subject to an investigation, even if they are innocent. It is a simple rule, say nothing and if charged, the court is the correct forum for any evidence.

[Wallaby]

(1) Sweden does not have a bail system but that does not make it a legal banana republic, the legal system is both efficient and fair, according to Swedish law of course - The argument that Assange could be held in prison while being questioned for a long time is hollow, no substance to it because that does not happen in Sweden

You are wrong again MikeyIdea

no it's not fair judicial system by a long way according to Geoffrey Robinson Q.C. because the trial in Sweden will be held in secret

Geoffrey Robertosn Q.C - Julian Assange address to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=2g7okTXEfoc

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

I sort of agree with you on this.

I think the press should be allowed, and normal members of the public. No problem with the press reporting on what was said in the court. What I don't like is the press asking questions and making assumptions etc outside the court. In general, the press like to sensationalise things to 'sell' the story. They should not do that at all, simply report what has been said and leave it to the public to put whatever weight on it they like.

I don't think the 'trial in secret' really should be considered in this case when you think of all the media comment by defence AND prosecution already.

[Scott]

I think we should stay on the topic of Assange and his situation with regard to the legal system in the UK and Sweden.

[chuckd]

Ah, but you see, it wasn't Assange that was asleep. It was the alleged victim.

and how did she prove that?

We don't know, do we. He has been avoiding answering questions.

Please notice the word 'alleged' that precedes the word 'victim'.

no he has never avoided answering questions because he offered to do so

1. through video link from the UK which the Swedish prosecutor rejected

2. in the UK to the Judges in the British legal system.( you will see this if you read the judgement from the appeal last week)

So to just say he has been avoiding answering questions does not give a clear picture.

answering questions

He has agreed to answer the questions IF the prosecutors will comply with his instructions as to where, when and how to ask those questions. This guy isn't a Head of State, although there are those on this forum that might like to think so.

He does what the prosecutors tell him to do or he gets arrest warrants issued, served and, if out of the jurisdiction where the alleged offenses took place, he gets served with extradition papers.

If that extradition request is approved, he then goes where he is told and either answers the questions or invokes a self incrimination clause.

The prosecutors then decide what to do. Australian, American or any other nation's laws don't matter one whit.

Only the laws of Sweden, England and perhaps the EU are pertinent to this case and all the straw man arguments in the world don't alter these facts.

[midas]

after all, there is an assumption of innocence.

Not according to one or two people in this thread ?

[midas]

I sort of agree with you on this.

I think the press should be allowed, and normal members of the public. No problem with the press reporting on what was said in the court. What I don't like is the press asking questions and making assumptions etc outside the court. In general, the press like to sensationalise things to 'sell' the story. They should not do that at all, simply report what has been said and leave it to the public to put whatever weight on it they like.

I don't think the 'trial in secret' really should be considered in this case when you think of all the media comment by defence AND prosecution already.

Being held in secret is only part of the problem. And what about the comments of the Swedish Prime Minister?

When you understand who would actually be considering his case in court, you start to appreciate how the cards are so much stacked against him ?

The Swedish legal system features lay judges who are appointed because of their political affiliations to adjudicate in criminal proceedings. They have no formal legal training.

In a trial in Sweden, Julian Assange will be judged by three non-professional judges and one professional judge. The Swedish legal system differs substantially not only from common law systems but also from most civil law systems because there is no strict division of the judicial and executive branch as in most other countries .

The significance of this is that both Fredrik Reinfeldt, Swedish Prime Minister, and Anders Perklev, prosecutor general, have directly prejudiced Julian Assange’s extradition hearing in the UK by making negative and misleading public statements about Assange and his legal team, further contributing to the toxic environment in Sweden. Reinfeldt was reacting to the defence team’s criticisms of the Swedish justice system.

In a parliamentary address the prime minister said that "we do not accept sexual abuse or rape" and said that Assange and his lawyers had little regard for women’s rights. Furthermore Reinfeldt incorrectly stated that Assange had been charged for rape in Sweden although his statement was quickly ’corrected’ through redactions.

Edited November 9, 2011 by metisdead
Once again, do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.

[MikeyIdea]

after all, there is an assumption of innocence.

Not according to one or two people in this thread ?

You seem to worry that Assange will not get a fair trial in Sweden, or that he is already considered quilty there, or that he will be handed over to the US when Sweden is ready with him

The Swedish court system is very fair and very thorough, and Sweden is no close friend of the US by far. Nothing is further from the truth.

Edit: And the above apply to midas next post too

Edited November 9, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[midas]

after all, there is an assumption of innocence.

Not according to one or two people in this thread ?

You seem to worry that Assange will not get a fair trial in Sweden, or that he is already considered quilty there, or that he will be handed over to the US when Sweden is ready with him

The Swedish court system is very fair and very thorough, and Sweden is no close friend of the US by far. Nothing is further from the truth.

Edit: And the above apply to midas next post too

Not only me .....

Julian Assange's lawyers call on Australia to step in over extradition

" Julian Assange's mother and legal team have called on the Australian government to ensure the Wikileaks founder gets a fair trial in Sweden and guarantee that he won't eventually be extradited to the US.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8866322/Julian-Assanges-lawyers-call-on-Australia-to-step-in-over-extradition.html

Edited November 9, 2011 by Boo
Again, do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes. Use the Insert quotation feature to respond to a particular part of a post.

[chuckd]

Not according to one or two people in this thread ?

You seem to worry that Assange will not get a fair trial in Sweden, or that he is already considered quilty there, or that he will be handed over to the US when Sweden is ready with him

The Swedish court system is very fair and very thorough, and Sweden is no close friend of the US by far. Nothing is further from the truth.

Edit: And the above apply to midas next post too

Not only me .....

Julian Assange's lawyers call on Australia to step in over extradition

" Julian Assange's mother and legal team have called on the Australian government to ensure the Wikileaks founder gets a fair trial in Sweden and guarantee that he won't eventually be extradited to the US.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8866322/Julian-Assanges-lawyers-call-on-Australia-to-step-in-over-extradition.html

The only thing the Australian government will be able to do is insure Assange is being treated no worse than Swedish citizens under the same circumstances.

I am all ears if somebody can tell me exactly what the Australian government can do that they couldn't/wouldn't do while Assange was under house arrest in a fellow Commonwealth nation.

Anybody???

[midas]

an interesting look at the Interior of Wikileaks’ (former) server bunkers in Sweden

http://www.home-designing.com/2010/12/wikileaks-servers-sweden

[Wallaby]

Not according to one or two people in this thread ?

You seem to worry that Assange will not get a fair trial in Sweden, or that he is already considered quilty there, or that he will be handed over to the US when Sweden is ready with him

The Swedish court system is very fair and very thorough, and Sweden is no close friend of the US by far. Nothing is further from the truth.

Edit: And the above apply to midas next post too

Not only me .....

Julian Assange's lawyers call on Australia to step in over extradition

" Julian Assange's mother and legal team have called on the Australian government to ensure the Wikileaks founder gets a fair trial in Sweden and guarantee that he won't eventually be extradited to the US.

http://www.telegraph...xtradition.html

The only thing the Australian government will be able to do is insure Assange is being treated no worse than Swedish citizens under the same circumstances.

I am all ears if somebody can tell me exactly what the Australian government can do that they couldn't/wouldn't do while Assange was under house arrest in a fellow Commonwealth nation.

Anybody???

Not entirely sure but the British govt requested the return of guantanamo prisoners and the US obliged. It is common knowledge that the oz govt only had to ask and David Hicks would have been returned. I imagine the oz govt could make it's own application to the UK court to have Assange brought back to Australia. Then the oz court can decide whether or not to extradite him to Sweden, and yes, when considering extradition it does matter if the alleged crime would be considered a crime in oz.

It is not uncommon for govts to pull out all stops to assist citizens that are arrested in other countries. Imagine if someone was arrested in say Pakistan for being homosexual. Not illegal in oz so I'm sure the govt would pull out all stops to have that person released. Assange's case should be no different.?

The oz govt can and, if he has no money, shoud be paying for his legal team, just as they do for any other citizen.

By the way, no matter of whether Assange is in the UK or Sweden he still does not have to answer any questions. He can stipulate how and in what circumstances he will answer and if the prosecution doesn't agree they can then extradite him. But they should be extraditing him to face charges, not for questioning. I doubt this would happen but just imagine going to all this expense and get him extradited for questioning, he gets there and says he won't answer, prosecution doesn't have enough evidence so just lets him go.

I actually think this is a good chance of happening....he goes to Sweden, says nothing, is charged then the judge throws out the case for lack of evidence. The girls then sign a book deal worth millions.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Wallaby

[Wallaby]

I'll just add that it doesn't matter whether the oz govt can do anything for Assange, simply put, it won't do anything to assist.

oz PM Julia Gillard made an earlier statement saying Assange had acted illegally in allowing the information through wikileaks. 2 weeks later the Aus Federal Police determined Assange had in fact not broken any oz laws.

Doesn't bode well for him to get any assistance when the PM has already made up her mind.

[khaan]

" I'll just add that it doesn't matter whether the oz govt can do anything for Assange, simply put, it won't do anything to assist. "

Why do you think that ?

Edited November 10, 2011 by khaan

[Wallaby]

" I'll just add that it doesn't matter whether the oz govt can do anything for Assange, simply put, it won't do anything to assist. "

Why do you think that ?

Because the Prime Minister of oz stated Assange had acted illegally. Then 2 weeks later the Aust Federal Police stated that Assange actually had done nothing illegal. (This was before the sex allegations). The PM has made it quite clear what she thinks

and I very much doubt, after making such a statement that she would actually encourage assistance. The govt will sit on it's hands and wait until he is in Sweden and then say 'oh, we can't do anything now, it's too late'.

Also be in no doubt that if the US is involved in any way our govt will bend over backwards to help them, not him.

There should be a bit in the news about Assange shortly because his mother is heading to Canberra to drum up some media support whilst Obama is visiting. Assange's lawery, Geoffrey Robertson QC is also very well known and respected so I would think more pressure from him to come. Though regardless, I doubt our govt will do anything more than pay lip service.

[midas]

t But they should be extraditing him to face charges, not for questioning. I doubt this would happen but just imagine going to all this expense and get him extradited for questioning, he gets there and says he won't answer, prosecution doesn't have enough evidence so just lets him go.

It's actually even better than that Wallaby according to Assange’s Swedish lawyer Björn Hurtig .

Björn Hurtig claims he has seen secret police documents that can prove Julian Assange is innocent. But remarkably

he was prevented from introducing this evidence into the extradition hearing and the appeal in the UK simply because this evidence can only be introduced within Sweden.

“ Mr Hurtig said in an exclusive interview from his Stockholm office: ‘From what I have read, it is clear that the women are lying and that they had an agenda when they went to the police, which had nothing to do with a crime having taken place.” ‘If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade,’ he said. ‘If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point. ‘But at the moment I’m bound by the rules of the Swedish legal system, which say that the information can only be used as evidence in this country ( Sweden ). For me to do otherwise would lead to me being disbarred.

This I simply don't understand and for MikeyIdea to say Sweden hasn't got a banana republic style judicial system is difficult to swallow because surely the truth should be allowed to be told whenever and wherever a person could otherwise be stitched up?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html#ixzz17udeJUu9

Again it keeps supporting the view they just want to get him locked up in that country ready for the next stage( not in Sweden )

Edited November 10, 2011 by metisdead
30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[chuckd]

Hot flash: Headline from Mr. Midas' link provided above.

______________________________________________________

WikiLeaks 'rape' victims had hidden agendas ... and I've seen the proof says Julian Assange's lawyer

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html#ixzz1dHp7dLXC

______________________________________________________

How many attorneys have we ever known that did not claim their client was innocent...and he can prove it because he has seen the secret police report.

If it is secret, how did he see it?

[midas]

Hot flash: Headline from Mr. Midas' link provided above.

______________________________________________________

WikiLeaks 'rape' victims had hidden agendas ... and I've seen the proof says Julian Assange's lawyer

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html#ixzz1dHp7dLXC

______________________________________________________

How many attorneys have we ever known that did not claim their client was innocent...and he can prove it because he has seen the secret police report.

If it is secret, how did he see it?

" If it is secret, how did he see it?"

Have you ever heard of documents being leaked?

And because chuckd if you even bothered to assess all of the facts instead of already declaring

the guy guilty you will see this case has got more holes than a sieve

" In the February Hearing, all of the expert witnesses testified that there had been serious irregularities in the way Sweden’s preliminary investigation was being handled. Leaked documents from the Swedish police show the problems with the preliminary investigation.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Scott
Fair use policy

[midas]

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

Wrong YET again !!

I have just finished reading the entire witness statement given by Bjorn Hurtig ( attached )and

his paragraph 4 on page 2 makes no reference to the court case ever becoming public because it says even the appeal stage is secret so assuming he appealed which could take any amount of time between the original case and the appeal no one will have a clue what happened in the first court case.

witnessstatementofbjornhurtig.pdf

[MikeyIdea]

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

Wrong YET again !!

I have just finished reading the entire witness statement given by Bjorn Hurtig ( attached )and

his paragraph 4 on page 2 makes no reference to the court case ever becoming public because it says even the appeal stage is secret so assuming he appealed which could take any amount of time between the original case and the appeal no one will have a clue what happened in the first court case.

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

[midas]

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

Wrong YET again !!

I have just finished reading the entire witness statement given by Bjorn Hurtig ( attached )and

his paragraph 4 on page 2 makes no reference to the court case ever becoming public because it says even the appeal stage is secret so assuming he appealed which could take any amount of time between the original case and the appeal no one will have a clue what happened in the first court case.

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

that is not what the Swedish experts say. Read the attachment before you comment on things you don't have a clue about

[MikeyIdea]

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

Wrong YET again !!

I have just finished reading the entire witness statement given by Bjorn Hurtig ( attached )and

his paragraph 4 on page 2 makes no reference to the court case ever becoming public because it says even the appeal stage is secret so assuming he appealed which could take any amount of time between the original case and the appeal no one will have a clue what happened in the first court case.

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

that is not what the Swedish experts say. Read the attachment before you comment on things you don't have a clue about

I am sure that everybody reading this thread has more faith in midas as internet search engine expert than the Swedish legal system...

Yes, that is to protect both parties. Is it not unfair that press can speculate openly before court has ruled? It doesn't stay a secret forever, only until ruling

Not wrong, correct that press shouldn't be allowed to speculate and publically hang whoever they choose BEFORE court has ruled

[midas]

*Deleted quote edited out*

so please provide examples of other countries where holding the case in total secrecy is normal? And please explain why

Geoffrey Robertson QC, keeps stating there is risk of a "flagrant violation" of Mr Assange's rights.?

Edited November 10, 2011 by Scott
deleted quote edited out

[Scott]

A rather nasty, inflammatory group of posts has been deleted. Please stick to commenting on the post; not the poster.

[Wallaby]

Holding a court case in secret is NOT to protect the accused/victim/witnesses. That is just a convenient excuse. Protecting people involved can be done by supressing the names or ordering a gag on the media, as is done in other countries when minors are the victims.

There is no real reason this case should be held in private.

[Wallaby]

I think the reason the Swedes are extraditing him only for questioning is because they don't have to provide any evidence for consideration in the UK. If they wanted an extradition for him to face charges they may well have to justify the charges in the UK. In my opinion they don't have a very good case and that is why they opted for the 'questioning' extradition to get him to Sweden and lock him up for however long it takes. Basically to get him off the streets.

In my view that is a misuse of their power. But that's just my opinion on it. I'm sure we'll all know what's going on soon enough.