The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Hit piece from Sydney Morning Herald Archived Message

    Posted by margo on November 20, 2019, 12:11 pm, in reply to "Caitlin Johnstone: 'Now Assange is safely locked up, Sweden drops its investigation'"

    Clearly this author didn't hear what Murray had to say at 5:10 in that RT interview
    Previous Message

    Craig Murray:
    "Sweden's Mrs Persson was a disgrace. She said the accusers had given 'credible evidence'. Well, if the accusers had given credible evidence, why did she close the case?
    Unless it's also the case that the defence (Assange) gave credible evidence.
    And if the defence gave credible evidence also, why didn't Sweden's Ms Persson say that?
    Even while dropping the case because you have 'insufficient evidence' - to do so in a way designed to blacken the name of somebody while at the same time denying them the chance to prove [himself] in court, was reprehensible by Ms Persson .
    "Swedish people should be ashamed of her and the way Sweden has been played..."



    Assange has not been vindicated: he has merely outwaited justice
    Nick Muller

    Sydney Morning Herald / London: SUPPORTERS of Julian Assange hailed as a vindication Tuesday’s decision by Swedish prosecutors to finally drop their rape investigation against him.

    It is a vindication only of his legal tactic: he outwaited them.

    The prosecutors made it quite clear why they ended their role in this saga.

    “The injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events,” said Eva-Marie Persson, deputy director of public prosecution.
    Advertisement

    But under Swedish law, they said, “it is insufficient for the injured party’s version of events to be more credible than the suspect’s”.

    In other words the victim’s testimony, even if entirely believable (and more so than Assange’s) was not enough.

    Nine years have worn away at memory, potentially replacing true recollection with mistaken factoids, perhaps gleaned from the monumental press coverage of the case.

    The evidence of witnesses who could have corroborated the alleged victim’s claims in court “is now deemed to have weakened… to such an extent that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation”.

    None of this, of course, means Assange committed the offence, or would have been found guilty of it if he had been brought before a Swedish court at any point in the last nine years.

    But neither does it mean his innocence has been tested or proven. It’s just the default position, because he managed to stay out of the hands of the law for long enough.

    In November 2010 a Swedish prosecutor ordered the detention of Assange on suspicion of rape and sexual assault. She issued an international arrest warrant.

    The order was based on statements made to police by two women over events that took place in August 2010.

    One woman, AA, claimed Assange had “used violence” during a sexual encounter.

    Another, SW, said he had initiated sex with her when she was “helpless” due to sleep, and against her expressed wish had done so without using a condom.

    Assange denied the accusations, saying all the sexual encounters were consensual. He initially cooperated with the investigation of the claims, but then strongly resisted extradition from the UK to Sweden for further interviews and a potential trial.

    On June 14 2012, London's Supreme Court gave him a final two-week deadline for extradition.

    On June 19 Assange sought political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy behind Harrods. And there he stayed, in conditions both he and a United Nations body considered equivalent to a prison, eventually even torture.

    Swedish woman Anna Ardin has been denied her day in court.

    In 2015, the statute of limitations on AA’s claims expired. Next year, SW’s would have as well.

    Assange’s main excuse for not going to Sweden was that there he would be more at risk of extradition to the US to face espionage charges.

    As current events show, he was hardly immune in the UK. Also, by all reports the Obama administration had decided not to press the charges – the Trump administration revived them years after Assange entered the embassy.

    It’s true Assange may stand a better chance of fighting extradition in the UK system than he would have in Sweden: here there are stronger legal precedents to cite, and he gets an extradition hearing in English with the best lawyers the estimable London Bar can provide.

    But it’s a grim kind of pragmatism for this truth warrior, to deny women the right to seek justice, to have their claims tested in court, because of a legal jurisdictional gambit which itself is an attempt to avoid a trial.

    None of this apparently matters to Assange’s more one-eyed supporters. They prefer to flirt with absurd, evidence-free conspiracy theories: that the women were US secret service ‘honeytraps’, that the Swedish investigation was a CIA-led operation to lure Assange into a jurisdiction where he would be instantly, illegally whisked away to Virginia – or renditioned to Guantanamo, or worse.

    Back in the real world there are strong reasons Assange should never have been charged with espionage in the US, and you could argue this justifies any and all tactics to avoid facing those charges.

    But, as a result, there are two women who have been left denied their day in court.

    They are left as collateral damage in one of the biggest legal battles on the planet.

    When Assange was arrested in April and the US charges unveiled AA – Anna Ardin - went public on Twitter.

    “I would be very surprised and sad if Julian is handed over to the US,” she said. “For me this was never about anything else than his misconduct against me/women and his refusal to take responsibility for this. Too bad my case could never be investigated properly.”

    LINK https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/assange-has-not-been-vindicated-he-has-merely-outwaited-justice-20191120-p53cdo.html

    Message Thread: