|
Finlandia
4,376 posts
100 months
|
samwilliams said: 10 Pence Short said: Any reason Swedish investigators couldn't visit the UK and question him here, before deciding whether to charge for sexual assault and then push for extradition? Maybe they've practically already done that (i.e. they know they want to charge him, but cannot do so until he's back in Sweden). How would they know they want to charge him, without questioning him, and with the case already having been thrown out once?
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,416 posts
125 months
|
Finlandia said: Why was the government then trying to change the law, so that rape would only give a suspended sentence? Gang rapes and aggravated rapes are on the rise alarmingly, why not do something about that? There are plenty of rapists much more dangerous than JA on the lose, why not try to find them, or aren't they politically interesting? Are they changing the law for *all* rapes? How do you know they aren't applying more resources to finding allegedly more serious rapists? Perhaps they'd rather be spending money on those than sending police to London to question an Australian national? Ref the extraditions, we are talking the US. When was the last time the Swedes happily extradited someone there? As for the others, no idea on the circumstances and details and I suspect you don't either. Someone in possession of the facts evidently felt it justifiable to send people back to Azerbijan and the Congo. I doubt the decisions were taken too lightly. Personally I'd be more than happy if Assange rocked up in Quito tomorrow. If he now thinks that a safe refuge (as it seems he once thought Sweden was), good luck to him. Fate has a habit of catching up with people ... If the US want him for questioning (not sure they do formally?) he might, ironically, be better off going to the US embassy. Would be much harder for the US to deal with him "in the open" like that IMO.
|
|
|
samwilliams
810 posts
125 months
|
Finlandia said: samwilliams said: 10 Pence Short said: Any reason Swedish investigators couldn't visit the UK and question him here, before deciding whether to charge for sexual assault and then push for extradition? Maybe they've practically already done that (i.e. they know they want to charge him, but cannot do so until he's back in Sweden). How would they know they want to charge him, without questioning him, and with the case already having been thrown out once? Didn't they speak to him at all before he ran away? (I don't know the answer to that - it's a genuine question) Paragraph 142 of the high court judgment, which quotes the witness statement from the swedish prosecutor, gives a better explanation of the process and stage that they're at. (a link is here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/284... - if you want to have a look)
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,056 posts
117 months
|
WhereamI said: I fully agree that the way things have been handled recently have been farcical. However....
Correct me if I am wrong, but surely we don't know the detail of the evidence against him. So the full detail of what he is supposed to have done isn't known publicly, all we know is what journalists have dug up - for example the statements that the women have, presumably, made have not been made public.
Also correct me if I am wrong, but does anyone routinely question someone accused of a serious crime anywhere other than in a police station (or similar) in their own country? Questioning a witness somewhere else may be fine but some accused of the crime? The legal ramifications and potential for appeals are huge. How do you, for example, ensure that they have proper legal representation? And in any case, why would you do it? The process is to extradite them and then question them in the right environment, why would you make exceptions? There have been a number of 'leaks' on the matter of evidence. Whether this was by the prosecution, as alleged by the defence, or whether it was by the defence seeking some sort of appeal, I can't say. The defence have made a number of statements regarding the 'facts' and my assumption is that if these were lies then it would be against the lawyers' code of conduct so could be challenged. Most serious crimes interviews with suspects are conducted in a police station. I've interviewed one nasty bit of work in a hospital (his fellow conspirators were of the same opinion evidently as they beat him quite severely), a few in prison and a DS I have a lot of respect for once interviewed a suspect for indecent assault in the canteen of the nick. Pre-PACE though that last one. One has to deal with the situation as it exists. Whilst it might be nice to take a person to the custody suite with all its video and audio links, if needs must then do it anywhere. In this specific case, Assange was purportedly willing to be interviewed. Removing someone from one country and taking them to another against their will is a big step, an imposition. Assange, or maybe his legal team, are making things difficult for the investigators. Welcome to the world I retired from 7 years ago. It is something you have to accept.
|
|
|
Finlandia
4,376 posts
100 months
|
Murph7355 said: Are they changing the law for *all* rapes?
How do you know they aren't applying more resources to finding allegedly more serious rapists? Perhaps they'd rather be spending money on those than sending police to London to question an Australian national?
Ref the extraditions, we are talking the US. When was the last time the Swedes happily extradited someone there?
As for the others, no idea on the circumstances and details and I suspect you don't either. Someone in possession of the facts evidently felt it justifiable to send people back to Azerbijan and the Congo. I doubt the decisions were taken too lightly.
Personally I'd be more than happy if Assange rocked up in Quito tomorrow. If he now thinks that a safe refuge (as it seems he once thought Sweden was), good luck to him. Fate has a habit of catching up with people ...
If the US want him for questioning (not sure they do formally?) he might, ironically, be better off going to the US embassy. Would be much harder for the US to deal with him "in the open" like that IMO. For minor rape, as I said. Ref the extraditions, it's not only the US that plays outside the rules on how to treat political prisoners, and if Sweden is willing to send to countries that torture them, it's only a "human error" or "unlucky circumstances" anyway, and it will run in the news for two days...
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Finlandia
4,376 posts
100 months
|
samwilliams said: Didn't they speak to him at all before he ran away? (I don't know the answer to that - it's a genuine question) Paragraph 142 of the high court judgment, which quotes the witness statement from the swedish prosecutor, gives a better explanation of the process and stage that they're at. (a link is here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/284... - if you want to have a look) AFAIK they didn't speak to him before he left the country, some timelines even state he asked if he could leave and if they wanted him for questioning, not sure about that though.
|
|
|
DJRC
19,838 posts
105 months
|
Cant we just get rid of him for the simple crime of being an annoying berk?
|
|
|
Tonsko
2,555 posts
84 months
|
|
|
samwilliams
810 posts
125 months
|
Finlandia said: AFAIK they didn't speak to him before he left the country, some timelines even state he asked if he could leave and if they wanted him for questioning, not sure about that though. While I don't think it's a particularly important point, it appears he was interviewed by the police back in August 2010, as part of the initial investigation.
|
|
|
XCP
10,499 posts
97 months
|
Finlandia said: AFAIK they didn't speak to him before he left the country, some timelines even state he asked if he could leave and if they wanted him for questioning, not sure about that though. The court papers in the link say he was interviewed in Sweden on the 30th August.
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,416 posts
125 months
|
DJRC said: Cant we just get rid of him for the simple crime of being an annoying berk? I think that's a great idea. I suspect the population of this country would drop to 30m though and PH would have half the subscribers it has if applied universally, and I would want a say in who decides who is annoying  I suspect Assange would be out regardless though 
|
|
|
Finlandia
4,376 posts
100 months
|
Ah, I stand corrected. He was questioned on the 30th of August, five weeks after JA travels to Germany and later to UK, having had permission to do so by prosecutor Ny in Sweden, and after having offered to be interrogated. JA made himself available for interrogation in October again, but was never asked to, in November Ny issued and European arrest on JA. ETA, http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/sequence.htm
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,416 posts
125 months
|
How "available" did he make himself? Is this JA's word only? Raising a European arrest warrant seems pretty serious if everything was all friendly and nice.... Perhaps the US govt provided someone to do all the paperwork for them
|
|
|
samwilliams
810 posts
125 months
|
Finlandia said: Ah, I stand corrected. He was questioned on the 30th of August, five weeks after JA travels to Germany and later to UK, having had permission to do so by prosecutor Ny in Sweden, and after having offered to be interrogated. JA made himself available for interrogation in October again, but was never asked to, in November Ny issued and European arrest on JA. Is that really an accurate reflection? From the high court judgment "Mr Assange subsequently left Sweden on or about 27 September 2010 in ignorance of the fact that an arrest warrant had been issued. Attempts had been made by the Swedish prosecutor to interview him." That suggests a domestic arrest warrant had already been issued in September. Anyway, this is all largely irrelevant, and a result of the very successful distraction campaign waged by Assange. The fact is that he is wanted in Sweden to be questioned (and, most probably, charged) for serious sexual offences, including rape. He is doing everything he can to avoid facing those charges. That is the important part that is so often missed. The rest is just a collection of conspiracy theories that don't stand up to even a half-hearted look at the claims and law behind them.
|
|
|
WhereamI
6,153 posts
86 months
|
samwilliams said: Is that really an accurate reflection? From the high court judgment "Mr Assange subsequently left Sweden on or about 27 September 2010 in ignorance of the fact that an arrest warrant had been issued. Attempts had been made by the Swedish prosecutor to interview him." That suggests a domestic arrest warrant had already been issued in September.
Anyway, this is all largely irrelevant, and a result of the very successful distraction campaign waged by Assange. The fact is that he is wanted in Sweden to be questioned (and, most probably, charged) for serious sexual offences, including rape. He is doing everything he can to avoid facing those charges.
That is the important part that is so often missed. The rest is just a collection of conspiracy theories that don't stand up to even a half-hearted look at the claims and law behind them. Exactly - hits the nail on the head.
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,418 posts
143 months
|
your dreaming if you honestly believe that's all it's about...
you only have to look at our own government's massive over-reaction as an example...
|
|
|
samwilliams
810 posts
125 months
|
Scuffers said: your dreaming if you honestly believe that's all it's about...
you only have to look at our own government's massive over-reaction as an example... What do you think they should have done? Sit back while an alleged rapist very publicly tries to avoid prosecution? Admittedly the letter to the Ecuadorians letting them know the options regarding revoking embassy status was completely stupid but, other than that (and letting Assange out on bail), I can't really see what should have been done differently.
|
|
|
Marf
22,907 posts
110 months
|
samwilliams said: What do you think they should have done? Sit back while an alleged rapist very publicly tries to avoid prosecution? What can they do? They should have just apologised to the Swedes "sorry we didnt get him old bean, you'll need to deal with those blasted Ecuadorians now"
|
|
|
DJRC
19,838 posts
105 months
|
Murph7355 said: DJRC said: Cant we just get rid of him for the simple crime of being an annoying berk? I think that's a great idea. I suspect the population of this country would drop to 30m though and PH would have half the subscribers it has if applied universally, and I would want a say in who decides who is annoying I suspect Assange would be out regardless though ph would be dropped by 90% if it was me applying it!!
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,497 posts
40 months
|
DJRC said: ph would be dropped by 90% if it was me applying it!! As high as that!!! You are in a generous mood today
|
|
