Most of the Stockholm hearing into the Assange case yesterday was held in secret. It is plain from comments on my blog that many people have not grasped this point: if Assange goes to trial in Sweden it will be mostly held IN SECRET. There will be no jury. There will be a judge and two assessors. The assessors are nominated one each by Sweden’s main political parties.
It will not be like the Oscar Pistorius trial, where justice is open and society can form a fair view of the strength of the evidence against the member of society who has been accused. It will be a secret proceeding in which you will hear little more than the verdict. You will never know what the evidence was. All this is to “protect” the false accusers from the public obloquy they so richly deserve.
I have yet to hear a single one of those jumping on the “Assange should face a fair trial” bandwagon address the point that it will be a secret trial, stitched up in advance by Sweden’s political parties who are, to say the very least, CIA-friendly.
I am not therefore in the least surprised by yesterday’s Swedish court verdict, which Assange’s lawyers will appeal, probably pointlessly. The fix is well and truly in.
For me, the most important point at yesterday’s trial was about disclosure. The defence was applying to see the hundreds of texts from and between Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen in the possession of the prosecution, including texts they sent when at the police station making their complaint.
Now in every other legal system I know, those would have to be shown to the defence. Weirdly, in this case they were shown briefly to defence lawyers, but they were not allowed to have copies or write anything down. What on earth can be the purpose of that? Can anybody explain to me any principle of law that might explain why defence lawyers should be allowed very quickly to read them but not have copies or ever see them again?
In the UK, the US, France, Spain, South Africa, Ghana and Russia those texts would have to be available to the defence. Anyone with knowledge of other jurisdictions would be welcome to contribute. The EU has made plain that the ability of Swedish prosecutors to hide evidence tending to innocence is contrary to the human rights of citizens. Accordingly, Sweden has been obliged to amend its law for the first time, to bring it a step towards civilised practice and institute disclosure. This has just happened, and this appeal by Assange was viewed as an important test case for the new duty of disclosure.
The Prosecutors however said that the new Swedish legislation makes plain that they do not have to disclose the case file to the defence. That appears to make some sense, in that the prosecution has to be free to set out its case in court. But it cannot possibly mean that the prosecution can make the EU obligation a dead letter, simply by hiding any evidence that tends to innocence inside the “case file”. That would negate the entire purpose of the new law, and Sweden plainly is still not meeting its international human rights obligation. The hiding of these texts should be a severe concern to anybody whose concern is genuinely for justice.
Finally we have the strange question of the refusal of the prosecutors to advance the case by taking up the offer to conduct initial interviews with Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy. It is perfectly known procedure for investigative authorities to
travel to conduct interviews in other countries. It happens pretty frequently.
The question here is, what do they have to lose? If they travel to interview Assange in London, and they believe the interview clears up the questions outstanding, that may resolve the case. If they feel it does not clear up the case, then they are still a bit further advanced than they were before, having conducted the interview, and the difficulty of Assange’s physical location will have been no better of worse than today. For the cost of a short haul air ticket, it is truly worth a try.
The prosecutors’ argument against interviewing Assange smacks of desperation. They could not compel Assange to take a DNA swab in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Well, have they asked him if he is willing to provide a sample? Knowing Julian he will happily agree. (You would, incidentally, have to be extraordinary naïve to believe that the security services have not had Assange’s DNA on file for years.)
But what is the DNA sample for. There is no question of identity in this case. Nobody has ever argued that the man who Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen eagerly got into their beds was Julian Assange. The argument concerns the wearing of condoms whilst there. Anna Ardin produced a torn condom, not at her first police interview but several days later, and by then weeks after it had allegedly been used by Assange. She had told police at interview that she “might” be able to find it. One does have to wonder about her sanitary habits that she was able to find an allegedly used condom weeks after the event. Strangely, the torn condom she eventually brought in had nobody’s DNA on it but her own.
Secret courts, no jury, no disclosure of evidence tending to innocence, refusal to interview Assange in London. To believe that this is a genuine attempt to pursue a crime, you need to have had every critical faculty removed.
The trolls will be out big time on comments now. I am more than happy for contrary opinions to be addressed, provided the commenter actually includes a response to the specific points which I make above. Otherwise they will be simply deleted.
“The question Craig should ask about Julian Assange is why he felt compelled to prove his sexual potency to a colleague”
Perhaps he just fancied her and didn’t think it all through as meticulously as hindsight might recommend.
It was really kind of the BBC to tell us this:
BREAKING NEWS:Emergency law allowing communications companies to hold phone and internet records clears House of Lords and is set to become law
~~~
What did you think of the You Tube I posted? Death threats to Julian and wishes for his death coming out of the mouths of warmongers and the founders of the Project for a New American Century. Have you heard of the latter?
I certainly am not a supporter of Assange, especially after what happened after the Afghan File was published.
Much more concerned about what happened to British agents who supplied it to him.
There is no way that Assange can get to Sweden for any trial unless the British give assurances that he can go there.
Think Claes Borgstrom, note spelling, has claims that Assange had more importan sexual liaisons which cannot be revealed in any open trial without undermining further trust in important figures.
Don’t know, though whether they are true.
Do know that 1,300 Stockholmers demonstrated most effectively yesterday about Israel’s barbarism in Gaza, and the need of a free Palestine.
The verdict yesterday was very disappointing. But, there is some comfort in that Assange’s lawyers smashed into pieces the arguments of the Prosecutor. They will now appeal to a higher court. The appeal may take place within weeks. Per-Erik Samuelsson, who represented Assange, explained that their appeal would be a strong and vitriolic response to the Prosecutor’s argument. It is not surprising that a single judge, Lena Egelin, did not dare to free Assange. She is concerned about her career. The chances are somewhat better in the next instance, Svea Hovrätt. It may go all the way to the Supreme Court, even the European Court eventually.
@craig. The trial was secret in parts, open in parts. The secret part was the first session dealing with any evidence on alleged sex crimes. The open part was the session dealing with how the case has been handled, for instance the refusal of Ny to go to London to question Assange and the question of whether the US threat to Assange is real or imagined. I heard a large part of that session and it was devastating for the Prosecutor. However, it is true that the practice of closed doors is a bad one, allowing abuse of justice.
Craig,
In relation to this:-
” The Prosecutors however said that the new Swedish legislation makes plain that they do not have to disclose the case file to the defence. That appears to make some sense, in that the prosecution has to be free to set out its case in court. But it cannot possibly mean that the prosecution can make the EU obligation a dead letter, simply by hiding any evidence that tends to innocence inside the “case file”. That would negate the entire purpose of the new law, and Sweden plainly is still not meeting its international human rights obligation. The hiding of these texts should be a severe concern to anybody whose concern is genuinely for justice.”
In the English system there is “used” and “unused” evidence of the prosecution. There is material which the prosecution deems important for proving its case and thus relies on and then there is material the prosecution decides is not relevant for their case. However, the point is not just that the prosecution has a perception about one set of evidence versus the other. The real challenge for fairness, is that all available evidence is disclosed to the accused. Clearly, a competent lawyer combing through all the available evidence can, and most likely will, find material which is helpful to the defence. While this is so in England as regards disclosure, whatever the procedural rules under the Swedish system may be – the purely logical point stands as regards fairness.
Only thinking out loud:-
” Case file” = what the prosecution has as the complete material for its case to prosecute.
“Evidence” = a part of the case file – thus disclosure of evidence is not the same as disclosure of the case file.
Say in a murder case with DNA involved. The defence has to have the availability of scientific tests for purposes of preparation to challenge the scientific accuracy. This cannot be done at the time when the evidence is first introduced into court and thus disclosure serves an important purpose is balancing the scales of justice.
Axel
Yes that is my understanding too. Questions of process are open. But the setting out and the questioning of the alleged facts of the case are entirely secret. it stinks.
Mary
17 Jul, 2014 – 3:27 pm
“BREAKING NEWS: Emergency law allowing communications companies to hold phone and internet records clears House of Lords and is set to become law”
Should read: Emergency law compelling communications companies to hold phone and internet records and hand them over to the security services clears House of Lords and is set to become law”
Newsflash:
Off topic but:
A Malaysian airliner reportedly with 295 people on board has crashed in Ukraine near the Russian border, on a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.
Who will get the blame
Malaysian airlines logo and livery look Russian.
Terrible tragedy.
Sounds awful but I hope it was an accident.
“Who will get the blame”
If it was shot down either the Ukraine or Russian government, I doubt the rebels would have the capability.
Might be a bomb, Malaysian Airlines lost another plane not long back still not been explained.
Ha! Doug I will ask the BBC to alter that line ref DRIP.
~~~
The separatists on the BBC inc Sir Toby Brenton, ex ambassador to Russia. Sky are more open minded and have much better coverage and contacts.
The BBC are getting rid of 415 staff in their news division and are going towards digital so says James Harding one of the Zionist supporting BBC management team.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28342929
( Apologists for Israel take top posts at BBC
http://electronicintifada.net/content/apologists-israel-take-top-posts-bbc/12395 )
Stockholm Syndrome indeed: it has been getting increasingly apparent that the relationship between the state and the populace is essentially analogues to that between the terrorist and the hostage.
I think that the day Julian walked into the Ecuadorian embassy he walked into a trap. I don’t believe for one second that Rafael Correa would have allowed him to remain in the embassy purely to extract the political capital useful for his re-election, whilst at the same time damaging relations with the US.
I think Correa may well have agreed a back-room deal with the US for some concession or other, then he wins on both sides of the equation. He gets political capital and the US get the man they want detained in one place where they can monitor him 24/7. Whilst it’s true that Rafael benefitted from disclosures on Wikileaks he did not owe Julian anything.
If you haven’t seen it yet, watch this very revealing documentary by Swedish state TV on incestuous relationship between #Sweden’s listening post the FRA & NSA and GCHQ.
The Swedish establishment, like the UK, is completely up Obama’s alimentary canal.
http://www.svt.se/ug/view-the-report-about-the-snowden-documents-and-sweden-with-english-subtitles
The withholding of exculpatory evidence favouring Assange’s innocence is indeed a crucial issue. The discussion above about what constitutes the ‘case file’ is relevant. My understanding is that in Sweden, which typically has a gap of 10-14 days between formally charging someone and their trial, the whole of the case file – including all the material a prosecutor has discarded as irrelevant to the case they wish to put before the court – must be disclosed to the defence as soon as they are formally charged; it’s colloquially known as the ‘slop bucket’, I believe. Defence counsel then have only about 10 days in which to analyse sometimes 100s of pages of material. It doesn’t take a genius to work out why Marianne Ny doesn’t want to progress her investigation to the point of formal charge without Assange being safely in solitary confinement and access to his lawyers severely curtailed before releasing her ‘slop bucket’.
As you say, Craig, the text messages by Sofia Wilen to her friends are dynamite. Analysis of the ,a href=”http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#efmNOcN05″>timestamps of only two out of the four reproduced in Julian Assange’s Affidavit requesting proper investigation of the mysterious disappearance of Wikileaks’ computers when he eventually left Sweden shows that there was something very odd going on even during the women’s visit to the police station. How could Ms Wilen know of the issue of the arrest warrant for Assange within 6 minutes when she was supposedly halfway through giving her testimony? How could she be sending text messages during that interview? And why does the police officer record her breaking down with “shock” at the news a full 1 hour 34 minutes after the timestamp of Ms Wilen’s text?
http://hazelpress.org/textmessagetiming/4581076519
Other text messages from Sofia Wilen throw considerable light on when exactly she visited various hospital clinics during the week after her night with Julian Assange, and raise questions about what exactly was the purpose of her third visit to hospital on the morning of the day both women went to the police, ie. AFTER her first discussion with Anna Ardin.
My own theory is that it has something to do with the OTHER torn condom – the one from Sofia Wilen – pictured [top, above the DNA-free torn condom from Anna Ardin] in this forensic report:
http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/07/01/the-lab-results/
That forensic report bears very careful study. Aside from it showing that Ardin’s condom is worthless to Assange’s prosecutor as evidence, having neither male nor female DNA on it, it does state clearly that Wilen’s condom (which does have two sets of DNA on it) has been manually torn in the same way as Ardin’s. It also indicates two other things: 1) the chain of custody for Wilen’s condom is unaccounted for, as it has been submitted to the forensics lab under Anna Ardin’s ticket (Wilen’s ‘case’ having been dismissed by senior prosecutor Eva Finne at the time), and 2) there is a dirty great big hole in the witness statement given by Sofia Wilen to the police, and in the witness statements of her friends, none of which mention anything at all about a condom being broken during Wilen’s encounter with Julian Assange. To my mind, the chain of custody of Wilen’s torn condom fragment is the most important piece of evidence that needs to be extracted from Marianne Ny’s withheld ‘slop bucket’ of investigation materials.
John Goss:
“or an extremely gullible woman” would be my guess. Maybe “gullible” would be the wrong word – ‘cold reading’ techniques can be extremely persuasive, and convince many they are hearing something for the very first time from an independent source when in actual fact they themselves have inadvertently provided all the clues necessary for their interlocutor. Personally, I think all the available evidence points to Sofia Wilen claiming to Ardin during their first telephone call that she too had been the victim of a ‘deliberately’ broken condom – having picked up on Ardin mentioning her own imaginings about this supposed event – and that’s what persuaded Anna Ardin to risk her political career by accompanying the younger woman to the police station to report the matter and seek advice. There is a text message from Wilen to a friend in which she tells bald-faced lies, attributing to Ardin things which completely contradict what the latter has stated in all other sources (to her friends BEFORE the police visit, to newspapers after, on twitter, etc). As to the first part of your sentence about Ardin being an intelligence asset, well I don’t know about that, but there are two reputable Swedish sources claiming Wilen is one.
Oh, and the claim by the prosecutor that they cannot interview Assange in London because it would be impossible to compel a DNA sample is laughable, purely designed to throw sand in the eyes of a gullible press. It’s already been confirmed at the Belmarsh hearing that Assange had voluntarily given a DNA sample to the Metropolitan Police. The Swedish prosecutor can simply ask for that to be forwarded to them. Does make you wonder to what use a corrupt Swedish prosecutor would put it, though…
Fixed link from above post:
As you say, Craig, the text messages by Sofia Wilen to her friends are dynamite. Analysis of the timestamps of only two out of the four reproduced in Julian Assange’s Affidavit requesting proper investigation of the mysterious disappearance of Wikileaks’ computers when he eventually left Sweden shows that there was something very odd going on even during the women’s visit to the police station.
I had no idea Sweden was a Star Chamber State, lacking the fundamentals of democracy, like a jury system.
Other than voting, it is the pillar of democracy and even in an indirect democracy, it is a direct form of participation and cannot be countermanded by a judge. Public hearings are also essential.
If this is an ordinary sex offence case, as has been argued before, it can be held in public like any other case.
If the Swedes want to be secretive that is grounds enough to refuse extradition.
Bert.
An embarrassingly thin ‘judgment’ from the 16 July Stockholm District Court hearing:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/234349165/Stockholms-TR-B-12885-10-O-vrigt-brottma-lsavgo-rande-2014-07-16 [Swedish, use Google translate]
… or maybe best to await the English translation to get the full flavour of how empty this is. There is absolutely NO examination of the merits of the arguments put forward by Assange’s lawyers. It simply says “the prosecutor says X, so we agree” – owtte.
Can you imagine what would happen if engineers, scientists and technicians were instructed to round Pi down to the number 3 under penalty of legal sanctions? Absolute chaos would ensue with our technical infrastructure rendered wholly dysfunctional. Buildings would fall down as they were being erected and planes wouldn’t even roll out of factories let alone fly.
Now imagine an equivalent act of madness in which people were instructed to substitute a natural social value with an ideological one imposed by an extremist minority with a radical social agenda. That is what Sweden is experiencing now.
Political correctness has effectively substitued the value of free communication with the value of irrational hypersensitivity to criticism. And with that, the aggressive misandry of radical feminism, amongst other fucked-up ideas, has infected the national psyche to the extent that insanely nonsensical situations like Assange’s predicament is not only possible, but inevitable.
Its Assange delaying the proceedings, not the Swedish State prosecutor. All Assange has to do is go to Sweden for questioning… Then stand trial present his arguments before his accusers. The issue is that Assange continues to conflate his USA extradition fear/fantasies with the sex case issues.
Walsingham,
You really dont get it do you?
But with a handle like yours i imagine its deliberate pot stirring eh?
Can anyone confirm the story that Anna Ardin was deported from Cuba for her CIA links? It could be true, or yet more water muddying.
Yes, she was. This article covers her time in Cuba quite well:
http://hazelpress.org/aa-cuba/4571327129
I can’t find it now, but Ardin herself wrote a blog post about having to get out of a country fast and spending the last night in a cosy dinner at the US embassy. It wasn’t Cuba though, IIRC – maybe Argentina?
Sweden has a long record as a defender of human rights. I hope and expect that any attempt by the Swedish government to compromise Sweden’s traditions here will meet a very stiff fight and ultimately lose.
Arbed wrote (18 July 1:15 PM)
“There is a text message from Wilen to a friend in which she tells bald-faced lies, attributing to Ardin things which completely contradict what the latter has stated in all other sources (to her friends BEFORE the police visit, to newspapers after, on twitter, etc). As to the first part of your sentence about Ardin being an intelligence asset, well I don’t know about that, but there are two reputable Swedish sources claiming Wilen is one.”
Arbed, could you elaborate on that text message, please. And about the two reputable Swedish sources in the last sentence.
Abe Rene wrote:
“Sweden has a long record as a defender of human rights. I hope and expect that any attempt by the Swedish government to compromise Sweden’s traditions here will meet a very stiff fight and ultimately lose.”
This is true. And Sweden still defend human rights in many ways. For instance, in spite of its small population, Sweden admits something like 30.000 syrian refugees this year compared to Britain’s very limited number (1000 or so?).
But it is equally true that the secret collaboration between NSA/GCHQ and Swedish FRA corrupts Swedish government politics and, obviously, also the Swedish legal system. The conservative government which has been in power since 2006 has proven to go further than any previous government in bending down to pressure from the US and actively defended the US position on mass surveillance.
The vitality of Swedish democracy is mainly due to a strong civil society and a strong trade union movement. They will in all likelyhood join forces and kick out the present government on September the 14th this year.
In the UK […] those texts would have to be available to the defence.
In England; nope.
The prosecution only have to disclose anything which tends to be exculpatory.
If the prosecutor, and the prosecutor alone, says that they do not contain anything which tends to be exculpatory, you can’t get them. Just asking for them would get nowhere. That is a “fishing expedition”.
Alex, 9.23pm
Glad someone spotted that! haha. Mum’s the word though, ok?