3 ms·

this confirms that jumping bail was the right course of action. Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime, and US extradition hearings are happening

by gcb0 7y ago

this confirms that jumping bail was the right course of action. Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime, and US extradition hearings are happening behind closed doors. how isn't this exactly what prompted him to ask for asylum, which the UK magistrate called paranoia at the time?

Veen 7y ago
It's not behind closed doors. The article says some journalists were allowed in and what Assange said in the hearing is reported in the article.
- gcb0 7y ago
  cool. hopefully we will have a transcript somewhere?
danso 7y ago
> Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime This seems to be false. There was a hearing, and a judge believed there was probable cause. From the Wikipedia page, under "Review of detention order": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Review_of_detention_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_... > On 16 July 2014, the Stockholm District Court reviewed the detention order on request by Assange. During the course of the proceedings, Assange's defence lawyers said that the prosecutors have a "duty" to advance the case, and that they had shown "passivity" in refusing to go to London to interview Assange. After hearing evidence, the district court concluded that there was probable cause to suspect Assange of committing the alleged crimes, and that the detention order should remain in place.
- gcb0 7y ago
  2014... after that they did go to London to interview him and did DNA testing and found nothing too.
  - danso 7y ago
    This is where you do us the courtesy of citing a source. edit: I'll do some of the work for you: In March 2015, news reports said that Swedish prosecutors were negotiating a deal to question Assange in London, and that the visit could include taking a DNA sample [0]. The visit happened in Nov. 2016, though the only articles I've seen do not conclusively say whether Assange agreed to give a DNA sample [1]. In any case, prosecutors getting a DNA sample from him does not have anything to do with whether the prosecutors have their own evidence from their investigation, nevermind your baseless charge of "Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime." It's possible you're conflating Assange's 2016 London interview and potential DNA test with the 2012 reports that, according to Assange's lawyers, Swedish police did not find conclusive evidence of Assange's DNA on a torn condom -- although they did find DNA believed to be Assange's on a condom from a second accuser [2]. In any case, these reports happened in 2012; 2 years later, a Swedish judge apparently considered the same evidence and decided it was enough to uphold the arrest warrant [3]. So unless you care to share the source of your information, it looks like you've either confused your timestamps about the events, or are just making things up. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-assange-could-face-rape-questioning-london-n322766 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-assange... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange-to-face-swedish-prosecutors-over-accusation https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--report-20120916-260vs.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/julian-assange-swedish-judge-rules-arrest-warrant-live https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/julian-assange...
kemayo 7y ago
Here's a 2012 article detailing what Sweden provided: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho... i.e. basically they showed Sweden had charged him with stuff which was a crime in both Sweden and the U.K., a bunch of courts agreed that the charges looked at least reasonable and were valid grounds for extradition to Sweden, and then Assange went to the Equadorian embassy. I think that extraditing him to the U.S. looks like petty revenge from their government given what he's charged with, but the Swedish extradition seems fair, and arguably was in his best interest to have gone along with at the time.
- ivanhoe 7y ago
  Sweden never charged him with anything. As the link you've provided clearly states they've issued the "request for interrogation", and since he wasn't available prosecutor gave order for him to be brought in for the interrogation, followed by an Interpol warrant for arrest since he was now in another country. Only after interviewing him Swedish prosecutor would decide whether to proceed with the case and officially charge him with the crime, or would drop the whole thing.
  - kemayo 7y ago
    Sorry, yes, imprecise wording on my part. That said, I think what I said isn't materially affected by switching from "charged" to "issued a warrant on suspicion"?

by gcb0 7y ago

Veen 7y ago

It's not behind closed doors. The article says some journalists were allowed in and what Assange said in the hearing is reported in the article.

gcb0 7y ago
cool. hopefully we will have a transcript somewhere?

danso 7y ago

> Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime This seems to be false. There was a hearing, and a judge believed there was probable cause. From the Wikipedia page, under "Review of detention order": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Review_of_detention_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_... > On 16 July 2014, the Stockholm District Court reviewed the detention order on request by Assange. During the course of the proceedings, Assange's defence lawyers said that the prosecutors have a "duty" to advance the case, and that they had shown "passivity" in refusing to go to London to interview Assange. After hearing evidence, the district court concluded that there was probable cause to suspect Assange of committing the alleged crimes, and that the detention order should remain in place.

gcb0 7y ago
2014... after that they did go to London to interview him and did DNA testing and found nothing too.
- danso 7y ago
  This is where you do us the courtesy of citing a source. edit: I'll do some of the work for you: In March 2015, news reports said that Swedish prosecutors were negotiating a deal to question Assange in London, and that the visit could include taking a DNA sample [0]. The visit happened in Nov. 2016, though the only articles I've seen do not conclusively say whether Assange agreed to give a DNA sample [1]. In any case, prosecutors getting a DNA sample from him does not have anything to do with whether the prosecutors have their own evidence from their investigation, nevermind your baseless charge of "Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime." It's possible you're conflating Assange's 2016 London interview and potential DNA test with the 2012 reports that, according to Assange's lawyers, Swedish police did not find conclusive evidence of Assange's DNA on a torn condom -- although they did find DNA believed to be Assange's on a condom from a second accuser [2]. In any case, these reports happened in 2012; 2 years later, a Swedish judge apparently considered the same evidence and decided it was enough to uphold the arrest warrant [3]. So unless you care to share the source of your information, it looks like you've either confused your timestamps about the events, or are just making things up. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-assange-could-face-rape-questioning-london-n322766 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-assange... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange-to-face-swedish-prosecutors-over-accusation https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--report-20120916-260vs.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/julian-assange-swedish-judge-rules-arrest-warrant-live https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/julian-assange...

kemayo 7y ago

Here's a 2012 article detailing what Sweden provided: https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho... i.e. basically they showed Sweden had charged him with stuff which was a crime in both Sweden and the U.K., a bunch of courts agreed that the charges looked at least reasonable and were valid grounds for extradition to Sweden, and then Assange went to the Equadorian embassy. I think that extraditing him to the U.S. looks like petty revenge from their government given what he's charged with, but the Swedish extradition seems fair, and arguably was in his best interest to have gone along with at the time.

ivanhoe 7y ago
Sweden never charged him with anything. As the link you've provided clearly states they've issued the "request for interrogation", and since he wasn't available prosecutor gave order for him to be brought in for the interrogation, followed by an Interpol warrant for arrest since he was now in another country. Only after interviewing him Swedish prosecutor would decide whether to proceed with the case and officially charge him with the crime, or would drop the whole thing.
- kemayo 7y ago
  Sorry, yes, imprecise wording on my part. That said, I think what I said isn't materially affected by switching from "charged" to "issued a warrant on suspicion"?