7 ms·

Craig Murray's reaction is worth reading [1]. I realize he does not respond to the bail breach directly, but rather to what precipitated this chain of events.

by yasp 7y ago

Craig Murray's reaction is worth reading [1]. I realize he does not respond to the bail breach directly, but rather to what precipitated this chain of events. > If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges? > Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges. > So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant? > Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid. > [...] [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-the-swedish-warrant/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-...

Veen 7y ago
The answer to Murray's questions is in the article. Prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of allegations while he was staying in the embassy. They are considering re-opening the investigation.
- yasp 7y ago
  So was a warrant issued or not? In the US, at least, being "unable to formally notify [someone] of allegations" would not prevent a warrant from being issued.
  - akvadrako 7y ago
    This is not the US, so US legal customs are irrelevant.
    - yasp 7y ago
      Right. So OP may kindly cite Swedish legal process or refrain from expressing an opinion.
      - wybiral 7y ago
        Opinions are allowed but that doesn't mean they aren't just opinions.
      - JshWright 7y ago
        Shouldn't you be the one citing the Swedish legal process...?
  - evilmoo 7y ago
    This isn't in the US. There are many differences between the US and EU/UK.
  - Veen 7y ago
    A warrant was issued, but while he was in the embassy the Swedish government couldn't serve him with a notification of it. Top prosecutor Marianne Ny said his arrest warrant was being revoked as it was impossible to serve him notice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864 You are unlikely to come to sound conclusions if you reason on the basis of your knowledge of US law. Sweden is not the US.
jmkni 7y ago
I really hope Sweden calls his bluff here, because the idea that the Swedish allegations were a ruse is idiotic.
PaulRobinson 7y ago
Referring to "Blairite MPs" in this context is so laughable it undermines this person as a serious political commentator.
- yasp 7y ago
  Craig Murray is a former British ambassador.
  - JoeSmithson 7y ago
    And current nutjob. Check out his tweets/blogs around the time of the attempted Skripal assassination. His questioning here is clearly in bad faith. Assange successfully evaded justice on most of his charges in Sweden because they have a statute of limitations. It's not something to celebrate. The situation with Assange is all public record. Obama DoJ didn't pursue extradition, Trump DoJ did. Separately to this, Assange was suspected of sexual offences in Sweden, most of which have now expired. Connected to those charges, he committed an offence under the Bail Act in the UK for which he has now been convicted. Anyone arguing that USA was intending to extradite Assange in 2010 is misinformed or arguing in bad faith. Only Sweden wanted to extradite him in 2010 because they had strong evidence he had committed a sexual offence in their jurisdiction. --- Downvoters - did I get something wrong?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - mafribe 7y ago
      Calling Murray a "nutjob" is not conducive to a well-informed discussion about touchy subjects. His last summary of the Skripal case is [1], and while certainly controversial, hardly a "nutjob". He was removed from his ambassadorship to Uzbekistan because he protested against human rights violations in Uzbekistan. This may not be what an ambassador should do, but displays integrity. [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-points-i-just-cant-believe-about-the-official-skripal-narrative/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-poi...
akvadrako 7y ago
To be fair, this seems like a dishonest account of the situation. My understanding is that being "charged" in Sweden normally happens later in the process than in the USA/UK, so the fact that he wasn't "charged" isn't meaningful.
- lucideer 7y ago
  To be fair, you've nitpicked one minor detail in the above quote. The subtantive point still hands. Why is Assange not now wanted for questioning in Sweden?
  - OldFatCactus 7y ago
    isn't he?
  - Hamuko 7y ago
    Hasn't the crime expired?
    - Ettvatre 7y ago
      No it hasn't. There's so much misinformation in this area that it's funny. The original case was closed since the prosecutor didn't expect a conviction because Assange was hiding under a rock.
      - CharlesColeman 7y ago
        >> Hasn't the crime expired? > No it hasn't. IIRC, a couple of the less serious crimes expired but the most serious one remains prosecutable.
        Ettvatre 7y ago
        I assume we are talking about rape if we are talking about "the" crime. This is the one the Swedish prosecutor is bringing up again. I'm not sure what other crimes he was suspected to commit.
_petronius 7y ago
This whole "if the accusation is real then why hasn't he been charged?" pseudo-fact relies on a rather stubborn misunderstanding of the difference between the Swedish legal system and the UK one. Assange can't be "charged" in the sense that the Anglosphere thinks of it until he is physically present for trail; that doesn't mean that the charges haven't been put to him or that Sweden isn't actively pursuing the investigation. Much of the commentary around the legal aspects of Assange's case it misleading or outright false. See: 1. (2012) https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho... 2. (2019) https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1116597761128845312 https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/11165977611288453...
- leereeves 7y ago
  > that Sweden isn't actively pursuing the investigation. Ecuador started arranging for him to leave the embassy at least five months ago. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/06/ecuador-says-uk-has-given-guarantees-for-assange-to-leave-embassy https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/06/ecuador-says-u... Why didn't Sweden have an extradition request ready? They had at least five months to prepare one.
  - _petronius 7y ago
    Because Ecuador warned the US they would be kicking him out of the embassy, but did not warn Sweden. I don't think that is in doubt at all. The US does not need Sweden's involvement to extradite and try Assange. The rape charges are separate and irrelevant to the charges he faces in the US, and whether the UK would even grant his extradition to the US is not a sure thing. These two cases are unrelated, and the only reason they have been conflated is a concerted effort on the part of Assange supporters to discredit the accusations of sexual misconduct by lumping them in with his WikiLeaks activities and make up a whole lot of guff about CIA plots rather than just accept that he should face the criminal justice procedure for some shitty personal behaviour on his part.
    - leereeves 7y ago
droithomme 7y ago
> In the case of the allegation in Sweden that did fall through the statute of limitation, the accusation was that during the act of consensual sex Julian Assange deliberately split the condom with his fingers, without consent. ... But the split condom given to Swedish police as evidence had none of Assange’s DNA on it – a physical impossibility if he had worn it during sex. And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA. Interesting, this is the first I heard about the DNA evidence, which is compelling. The prosecutor's dropping of this charge is reasonable given the lack of any DNA present on the sabotaged condom. Also should mention that Craig Murray is a personal friend of Julian Assange, something his blog readers are well aware of. Murray is the one who testified he personally collected the DNC email leak from a disgruntled DNC employee in Washington DC and hand couriered it across the Atlantic where he handed it over to Assange. This leak origin account contradicts the Russian hacker narrative regarding the DNC email leak.
- foldr 7y ago
  This is not a quote from the article? It seems to be taken from Craig Murray's website. Murray is no expert on forensics. See for example his embarrassing analysis here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossible-photo/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib...
  - droithomme 7y ago
    Presumably the staff of the two separate forensics teams that found no DNA on the split condom were quoted in the 100 page police report are qualified. They did find DNA in the other woman's condom, but that condom was not split and there was no claim by her of condom sabotage.
    - foldr 7y ago
      No, I mean, he's not qualified to interpret the findings. It's far from obvious that a negative DNA test result means "definitely didn't wear the condom". (And more broadly, such a test is only informative if you can be sure that no other condom was used, which you probably can't.)
IIAOPSW 7y ago
>All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid. Considering how well its working, I'd say they're left looking pretty smart.

by yasp 7y ago

Veen 7y ago

The answer to Murray's questions is in the article. Prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of allegations while he was staying in the embassy. They are considering re-opening the investigation.

yasp 7y ago
So was a warrant issued or not? In the US, at least, being "unable to formally notify [someone] of allegations" would not prevent a warrant from being issued.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  This is not the US, so US legal customs are irrelevant.
  - yasp 7y ago
    Right. So OP may kindly cite Swedish legal process or refrain from expressing an opinion.
    - wybiral 7y ago
      Opinions are allowed but that doesn't mean they aren't just opinions.
    - JshWright 7y ago
      Shouldn't you be the one citing the Swedish legal process...?
- evilmoo 7y ago
  This isn't in the US. There are many differences between the US and EU/UK.
- Veen 7y ago
  A warrant was issued, but while he was in the embassy the Swedish government couldn't serve him with a notification of it. Top prosecutor Marianne Ny said his arrest warrant was being revoked as it was impossible to serve him notice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864 You are unlikely to come to sound conclusions if you reason on the basis of your knowledge of US law. Sweden is not the US.

jmkni 7y ago

I really hope Sweden calls his bluff here, because the idea that the Swedish allegations were a ruse is idiotic.

PaulRobinson 7y ago

Referring to "Blairite MPs" in this context is so laughable it undermines this person as a serious political commentator.

yasp 7y ago
Craig Murray is a former British ambassador.
- JoeSmithson 7y ago
  And current nutjob. Check out his tweets/blogs around the time of the attempted Skripal assassination. His questioning here is clearly in bad faith. Assange successfully evaded justice on most of his charges in Sweden because they have a statute of limitations. It's not something to celebrate. The situation with Assange is all public record. Obama DoJ didn't pursue extradition, Trump DoJ did. Separately to this, Assange was suspected of sexual offences in Sweden, most of which have now expired. Connected to those charges, he committed an offence under the Bail Act in the UK for which he has now been convicted. Anyone arguing that USA was intending to extradite Assange in 2010 is misinformed or arguing in bad faith. Only Sweden wanted to extradite him in 2010 because they had strong evidence he had committed a sexual offence in their jurisdiction. --- Downvoters - did I get something wrong?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mafribe 7y ago
    Calling Murray a "nutjob" is not conducive to a well-informed discussion about touchy subjects. His last summary of the Skripal case is [1], and while certainly controversial, hardly a "nutjob". He was removed from his ambassadorship to Uzbekistan because he protested against human rights violations in Uzbekistan. This may not be what an ambassador should do, but displays integrity. [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-points-i-just-cant-believe-about-the-official-skripal-narrative/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/pure-ten-poi...

akvadrako 7y ago

To be fair, this seems like a dishonest account of the situation. My understanding is that being "charged" in Sweden normally happens later in the process than in the USA/UK, so the fact that he wasn't "charged" isn't meaningful.

lucideer 7y ago
To be fair, you've nitpicked one minor detail in the above quote. The subtantive point still hands. Why is Assange not now wanted for questioning in Sweden?
- OldFatCactus 7y ago
  isn't he?
- Hamuko 7y ago
  Hasn't the crime expired?
  - Ettvatre 7y ago
    No it hasn't. There's so much misinformation in this area that it's funny. The original case was closed since the prosecutor didn't expect a conviction because Assange was hiding under a rock.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      >> Hasn't the crime expired? > No it hasn't. IIRC, a couple of the less serious crimes expired but the most serious one remains prosecutable.
      - Ettvatre 7y ago
        I assume we are talking about rape if we are talking about "the" crime. This is the one the Swedish prosecutor is bringing up again. I'm not sure what other crimes he was suspected to commit.

_petronius 7y ago

This whole "if the accusation is real then why hasn't he been charged?" pseudo-fact relies on a rather stubborn misunderstanding of the difference between the Swedish legal system and the UK one. Assange can't be "charged" in the sense that the Anglosphere thinks of it until he is physically present for trail; that doesn't mean that the charges haven't been put to him or that Sweden isn't actively pursuing the investigation. Much of the commentary around the legal aspects of Assange's case it misleading or outright false. See: 1. (2012) https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho... 2. (2019) https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1116597761128845312 https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/11165977611288453...

leereeves 7y ago
> that Sweden isn't actively pursuing the investigation. Ecuador started arranging for him to leave the embassy at least five months ago. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/06/ecuador-says-uk-has-given-guarantees-for-assange-to-leave-embassy https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/06/ecuador-says-u... Why didn't Sweden have an extradition request ready? They had at least five months to prepare one.
- _petronius 7y ago
  Because Ecuador warned the US they would be kicking him out of the embassy, but did not warn Sweden. I don't think that is in doubt at all. The US does not need Sweden's involvement to extradite and try Assange. The rape charges are separate and irrelevant to the charges he faces in the US, and whether the UK would even grant his extradition to the US is not a sure thing. These two cases are unrelated, and the only reason they have been conflated is a concerted effort on the part of Assange supporters to discredit the accusations of sexual misconduct by lumping them in with his WikiLeaks activities and make up a whole lot of guff about CIA plots rather than just accept that he should face the criminal justice procedure for some shitty personal behaviour on his part.
  - leereeves 7y ago

droithomme 7y ago

> In the case of the allegation in Sweden that did fall through the statute of limitation, the accusation was that during the act of consensual sex Julian Assange deliberately split the condom with his fingers, without consent. ... But the split condom given to Swedish police as evidence had none of Assange’s DNA on it – a physical impossibility if he had worn it during sex. And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA. Interesting, this is the first I heard about the DNA evidence, which is compelling. The prosecutor's dropping of this charge is reasonable given the lack of any DNA present on the sabotaged condom. Also should mention that Craig Murray is a personal friend of Julian Assange, something his blog readers are well aware of. Murray is the one who testified he personally collected the DNC email leak from a disgruntled DNC employee in Washington DC and hand couriered it across the Atlantic where he handed it over to Assange. This leak origin account contradicts the Russian hacker narrative regarding the DNC email leak.

foldr 7y ago
This is not a quote from the article? It seems to be taken from Craig Murray's website. Murray is no expert on forensics. See for example his embarrassing analysis here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossible-photo/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib...
- droithomme 7y ago
  Presumably the staff of the two separate forensics teams that found no DNA on the split condom were quoted in the 100 page police report are qualified. They did find DNA in the other woman's condom, but that condom was not split and there was no claim by her of condom sabotage.
  - foldr 7y ago
    No, I mean, he's not qualified to interpret the findings. It's far from obvious that a negative DNA test result means "definitely didn't wear the condom". (And more broadly, such a test is only informative if you can be sure that no other condom was used, which you probably can't.)

IIAOPSW 7y ago

>All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid. Considering how well its working, I'd say they're left looking pretty smart.