Julian Assange fighting Extradition in Court-Part 2

Big thanx to Jamie

Assange finds himself back in court today, for round two.  Assange has been fighting extradition to Sweden and is accused of sexual misconduct.  Yesterday’s hearing entailed witness testimony including retired Swedish Judge Sundberg and Legal Blogger Goran Rudling.

Today in court, the first person called to the stand was Sven-Erik Alhem.  Channel4News tweeted that he is a former prosecutor.

First witness at Assange extradition hearing today is Sven-Erik Alhem, a former prosecutor.

Marcus Edwards tweets the same:

Sven-Erik Alhem enters the witness box. He’s a former prosecutor in Sweden and a legal commentator.

Marcus Edwards tweets that Mr. Alhem is giving evidence through an interpreter and stated that he’s been critical of the case even before being contacted by Julian Assange’s legal team.  His main concern is that justice is done via a proper procedure.  He would hope that either the system would use proper measures to either convict Assange or that the issue be dropped according to the justice system in place.  The witness testified that today was the first time he’s ever met Julian Assange.  According to Anna Adams, Mr. Alhem stated that he cannot be bought off for money.

Edwards: He’s giving evidence through an interpreter. Says he was critical of case long before being contacted by #Assange legal team.

Edwards: Ahlem: my only interest is that justice is done – either prosecution/conviction of #Assange or conviction dropped.

Edwards: Alhem: Important proper procedures are followed, and justice seen to be done. Says first time he met #Assange was today

Adams: Witness said he will not be bought or paid. He’s not interested in outcome of Assange case but just that justice is done.

According to Anna Adams, the court has heard that the terms “suspect” and “accused” are known differently in Sweden. Channel4News stated that it is a prerequisite for the prosecutor to notify someone that they’ve been suspected of a crime and in the language that they speak. Alhem stated via Channel4News that there is a golden rule that is followed and that being: both parties should be heard, but not until then can a prosecutor or the court complete the picture.

Adams: Court heard term ‘accused’ and ‘suspect’ are very different in Sweden

Channel4News: Alhem: A prerequisite for the prosecutor is that someone has been notified that they are “suspected” of a crime.

Channel4News: Alhem: The suspect has a right to be notified – in language they understand – the detail of what the charges consist of.

Alhem: The golden rule is that both parties should be heard – not until then can the prosecutor or the court complete the picture..

Marcus Edwards furthers the statement of Alhem and tweets that when one Ms. Marianne Ny decided that there was a reason to suspect rape, she should have ensured that Assange could give his version of the events in detail.  Anna Adams follows up and tweets that Alhem stated that because the Swedish prosecution did not give Assange time to speak his version of the events, the entire case is peculiar.  According to Marcus Edwards, the court was shown where Marianne Ny was in the more advanced stages of the case when she considered it necessary to get Assange’s point of view during interrogation.  According to Anna Adams, Alhem stated that there is no reason why the case cannot be heard in the UK where Assange is being held on bond.  The Swedish prosecutors would be able to work with British Police to bring a case forward.  Alhem states however, that is is rare for suspects to be interviewed abroad. He continued that if he was extradited to Sweden, there would be good reason to believe that he’d be detained in custody.

As reported yesterday, any Rape Cases that are heard in Sweden are never done in public.  The cases are always done in a private court where press and public are not allowed. Channel4News reported that an absolute precondition of a fair trial is that the preliminary hearing is also fair.

Edwards: Alhem: when Marianne Ny decided there was reason to suspect rape, she then shd have ensured#Assange cd give his version of events in detail

Adams: ‘Swedish prosecution did not give Assange time to give his version of events. It was peculiar.

Edwards: Court shown letter from Ny saying preliminary investigation at advanced stage, she considers it necessary to interrogate #Assange in person

Adams: ‘No reason why Assange rape case cant be heard in UK with Swedish prosecution & police working with British police.’

Edwards: Alhem: says it’s rare though for suspects to be interviewed abroad.

Channel4News:Alhem: If Assange is extradited for questioning there are good reasons to assume that he will be detained.

Adams: Its incredibly important to protect rape claimants integrity. In Sweden almost all rape cases are closed.’ Ahlem tells court.

Channel4News: Alhem: An absolute precondition of a fair trial is that the preliminary hearing is also fair.#c4news #wikileaks Julian Assange

At this point in the hearing, the Assange legal team steps down and allows Clare Montgomery QC to cross-examine the witness, Sven-Erik Alhem.  The first question asked is if Mr. Alhem has seen the documents that went before the Stolkholm Court. Alhem responded by saying that he didn’t think so.  Ms. Montgomery continued and had stated that the document given by Ny deals extensively with the factual steps taken by her to interview Assange. Alhem made a statement saying that if he were in Julian Assange’s shoes, he would have went back to Sweden immediately to give his version of the events. Alhem continued by saying that he didn’t see anything wrong with a European Arrest Warrant (EAW), if there is no easier way to get in contact with the suspect.  He goes on to say that he would have attempted to arrange a hearing in a different way – even if it was in England.

Channel4News: Clare Montgomery QC now stepping up to question Sven-Erik Alhem. She asks: Have you read the docs that went before Stockholm court?

Channel4News: Alhem: No I don’t think so. Montgomery: The doc put in by Ny deals extensively with the factual steps taken by her to interview Assange

Edwards: Alhem: if I’d been in #Assange’s shoes, then I would have gone to Sweden immediately to give my version of events.

Channel4News: Alhem: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with EAW – if there’s no easier way to talk to the suspect

Channel4News: Alhem: … butfirst of all I would have tried to arrange a hearing in a different way – even if it would be in England.

Clare Montgomery QC (Queens Council) at this point ends up telling Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stevens (per adavies4 tweet) to sit down and let her read her question.  It is uncertain as to whether they objected to something she said, however, she seems to be keeping a tight control over the room. Marcus Edwards points out that she seems to be moving toward the assertion that Mr. Alhem didn’t know the full story upon giving his opinion.

Edwards: Montgomery seems to be suggesting Alhem didn’t know full story when he gave his opinion.

Adams: Clare Montgomery QC pros tells Geoffrey Robertson QC to sit down and let her read question. To guffaws in court!

Davies: Clare Montgomery QC, cross-examining, asks Geoffrey Robertson QC, #assange barrister to sit down, then same request to lawyer Mark Stephens

At this point, Clare Montgomery begins reading a narrative created by Ms. Ny which offers a time line regarding her attempts to interview Assange.  The statement describes the difficulty that Ny went through in arranging an interview with Mr. Assange and mentions that Mr. Assange’s attorney admitted to Ny that he was experiencing difficulty in contacting his client. On November 15, Assange’s legal team did, however, offer to do the interveiw via videolink which was turned down by Ny who stated that it must be done in person.  At this point, Alhem interjects and stated that he would have had Assange detained from the start.

Alhem began criticizing Montgomery at this point stating that the excuse to delay the interview was due to an ill police officer was weak because Ny could have used another policeman to do so.  He stated that the Swedish Prosecution has twenty thousand police officers. He continues by saying that if he were a prosecutor, he would have attempted to hold an interview or hearing in England with Swedish police or authorities present.

Edwards: Montgomery reading from statement from Marianne Ny detailing timeline of attempts to interview

Edwards: Montgomery asks Alhem, if he were public prosecutor dealing with this case, based on the info just read out, if he’d issued an EAW..

Edwards: Alhem says he’d have had Mr #Assange detained immediately from the outset to avoid need for EAW

Edwards: Alhem criticises decision to delay interview because investigating officer ill.

Channel4News: Alhem: [Re: ill policeman which prevented an interview] You could have used another policeman of the 20,000.

Channel4News: Alhem: If I were the prosecutor I would have tried to hold an interview or hearing in England with Swedish police or authorities present.

Clare Montgomery once again attempts to take control of the situation and tells Alhem that his job here is to answer questions, not give long lectures. Alhem continues despite Montgomery’s request and states that her criticism is unwarranted.  He stated that she has to allow him to make comments that are important to him. Alhem continues by saying to Montgomery that even if she accepted that Ny had given truthful statements and Hurtig hasn’t – he will be heard in the court later.  He wraps his response to Montgomery up by stating that he will indeed answer he questions in “his” way.  At that point, there was clapping coming from the courtroom.

Davies:
fractious exchange between Alhem and Clare Montgomery who tells him: “your role is to answer questions not to give long lectures”

Channel4News: Alhem to Montgomery: Your criticism is warranted but you have to allow me to make comments that are important to me..

Channel4News: Alhem: Even if you accepted Ny has given truthful startements & Hurtig hasn’t – he will be heard here later..

Channel4News: Alhem to Montgomery: I will answer your questions – but in MY way. (applause in media room!)

Alhem states that with being presented with the facts, it seems reasonable that an EAW was issued.  He agreed with Montgomery that in order for DNA samples to be taken, he would have had to be present in Sweden.  Montgomery interupts Alhem and he complains by saying that “now you interrupt me – I don’t like that.”

Edwards: Alhem: says that faced with these facts, it would have been reasonable to issue a European Arrest Warrant.

Alhem agrees with Montgomery that for DNA samples to have been taken, #Assange wd have needed to have been in Sweden.

Davies: Alhem to Montgomery: Now you interrupt me – I don’t like that

Alhem talks to Montgomery and says that to his knowledge, there is not any threat of Assange being extradited to the US.  In the case of Assange actually being extradited to the US, there would be a major media storm. Alhem was asked if he’d like a short break  He states that he is feeling tired.  Alhem had gotten up at four in the morning, but liked the atmosphere and told Montgomery to “carry on though,” as the press sweatbox echoes with laughter.

Channel4News: Alhem: My understanding is that there is not a risk of [Assange] being extradited to the US.

Edwards: Alhem says it would be impossible for#Assange to be extradited to US without ‘a complete media storm’.

Channel4News: Alhem says he is feeling tired but adds “carry on though, I like this atmosphere..” (more laughter in the press sweatbox )

Davies: Alhem on more questioning: I’m tired, I got up at 4am but I will carry on. I like this atmosphere! (much laughter in court)

The court takes a quick break at this point and Alhem steps down from the stand.  Upon coming back from break, another witness takes the stand.  This time, it’s Assange’s Swedish Attorney Bjorn Hurtig.  Hurtig was not present in the courtroom during previous witness testimony. Hurtig spoke about a recent Swedish rape trial in which he requested be held in public.  The request, he said, was denied.  He stated that because the case was already public, that there would be no reason for the hearing to be private.

Hurtig admitted that he’d never been involved with a case like this where it’s been “this” public.  He said that there is no system set in place to prevent adverse pre-trial publicity.  In this case, he said that the prosecution had given information to the media.  He said by the prosecution doing this, they acted against the laws of confidentiality and noted that the prosecution had told the media that Assange was a rape suspect.

Anna Adams tweeted that if one were to type in the words “assange & rape” into the google search bar, one would come up with between 2 or 3 million hits.

#Assange’s Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig takes the oath. He wasn’t in court during previous witness’s testimony

Edwards: Hurtig is talking about a recent rape trial in which he asked for it to be heard in public, a request he says was denied

Channel4News: Hurtig: In previous case, we argued that because case was already so public, there would be no reason to hold it behind closed doors

Channel4News: Hurtig: I have never been involved in a case that has received more attention.

Edwards: Hurtig says there’s no system of preventing adverse pre-trial publicity. He says from beginning, prosecution have given info to media

Channel4News: Hurtig: Prosecutors & police [in Sweden] have from the beginning given info to media – acting against laws on confidentiality…

Adams: ‘Swedish prosecutors acted unlawfully by telling tabloid Assange was rape suspect’ court heard.

Adams: 2-3million hits online if you typed ‘Assange & rape’ in search engine minutes after tabloid was briefed by prosecutor, court heard.

The defense then asks Hurtig if there is any remedy for Assange’s name after his name was released unlawfully. Anna Adams reports on twitter that Assange could seek compensation through European Convention because he was labeled a rapist unlawfully. The court called for lunch at this point but not before the Judge told prior Witness Sven-Erik Alhem that he couldn’t speak to anyone during lunch.  Alhem replied jokingly that his mother had taught him not to talk with a full mouth.

Adams:  Is there any remedy for Assange after his name was released unlawfully? asks defence

Adams:  Assange can seek compensation through European convention after he was named as rapist unlawfully.

Adams: Witness told by judge to eat lunch on own & not speak to anyone re case. Don’t worry mother told me not to talk with mouth full!’ good end!

With most journalists taking lunch and then returning to the courtroom, Marcus Edwards tweets that we should expect less media coverage at this point because the court has banned journalists from using the plug sockets in the court room.

Edwards: Expect slightly fewer communications from the media annex as journalists have been banned from using the plug sockets..

At this point, there are four sureties who cannot get into court and upon barrister Robertson  suggesting that they can sit in the dock with Assange, the Dock Officer stated that was not allowed.

Edwards: Robertson says four sureties can’t get into court. He suggests they could sit in dock with#Assange. Dock officer says not allowed.

Hurtig resumes the stand and a line of questions comes from Geoffrey Robertson QC representing Assange. Hurtig giving a chronological brief of how he contacted the prosecution about Assange being questioned. On November 15, 2010 Hurtig had a couple conversations with Ny about whether or not Assange could leave Sweden.  On September 15, 2010, Hurtig had more conversations with Ny where Hurtig asked Ny if Assange was going to be interrogated.  Her reply was “no” because a policeman was ill. [Again, going back to Mr. Alhem’s statement: There are twenty thousand policemen available in Sweden.]

Channel4News: More evidence from Hurtig now. Questions from Geoffrey Robertson QC, representing Assange

Edwards: #Assange’s Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig going through chronology of when/how he contacted prosecutor’s office re questioning.

Channel4News:Hurtig: On 15 Nov I had two conversations with Ny – one of the things we discussed was whether Assange could leave Sweden or not.

Channel4News: Hurtig: I had two conversations with Ny on 15 Sept, I asked her whether Assange was going to be interrogated

Hurtig mentioned that since he’s known Mr. Assange, there have been many death threats on behalf of Assange and is therefore hard to get a hold of.  Hurtig had told Assange to contact him once he had found somewhere safe to be.  On September 22, 2010 Hurtig received a text message from Ny stating that she wanted to interrogate Assange.  At that point, Hurtig could not contact Assange and informed her of this on September 23, 2010.  Ny did not adknowledge Hurtig’s text until September 27, 2010 when texted him back and said that she would get back to him on how to proceed.

Channel4News:  Hurtig: Since I’ve known Julian he has received many death threats. As a consequence Julian can be difficult to get hold if.

Channel4News:  Hurtig: So I told Julian to contact me when he had established a safe place to go

Channel4News:  Hurtig: 22 Sep I received a text message from Ny saying she wanted to interrogate JA. I could not get hold of him & informed her on 23 Sep.

Channel4News:  Hurtig: Ny acknowledgement of text was on 27 Sept

Hurtig stated to the court that on several occasions he attempted to arrange and interview with Assange and Ny.  Hurtig stated that on September 29, 2010 in the evening, Assange called him to say that he was abroad in Germany and had lost his bags on a flight.  Hurtig stated that when he spoke to Assange on this occassion, he told Assange that Ny wanted to interrogate him and asked him to check his calendar.  According to Hurtig, Assange said that he would be able to return on Saturday October 9, 2010 where he would make himself available for interrogation on that weekend or on the week beginning on the 11th. Hurtig relayed the message to Ny whom replied that she didn’t feel it was a good idea to hold the interrogation on a weekend, so she suggested that it take place the following week.

Edwards:  Hurtig has set out a series of occasions when he says he attempted to arrange for #Assange to be interviewed.

Channel4News: Hurtig: On 29 Sept in the evening, Assange called me to say he was abroad in Germany & had lost his bags on a flight

Channel4News:  Hurtig: When I spoke to Asange I told him Ny wanted to interrogate him & asked him to check his calendar

Channel4News:  Hurtig: He said he would be able to return on Sat 9 Oct & interrogation could take place at some point that weekend or week beginning 11th

Channel4News: Hurtig: Ny didn’t think it was a good idea to hold interviews on Sat/Sun so suggested following week.

Hurtig continues speaking about the events and stated that he’d asked Ny whether Assange would be arrested.  Ny replied that because he was not a wanted person, she could guarantee that he would not be arrested.  In the events that transpired, Ny did not accept the dates that Assange and Hurtig had proposed.  ON October 1, 2010, Ny texted Hurtig stating that she didn’t think it was right to wait until October 9 or October 10, 2010. The Deputy Swedish prosecutor told Assange’s lawyer that the claims against him were due to “social collapse” and “weak evidence.”  The court heard that statement.

Channel4News: Hurtig: I asked if there was a risk Assange would be arrested – she said he was not a wanted person & guaranteed he would not be arrested.

Channel4News: Hurtig: It transpired Ny did not accept the dates we proposed. On 1 Oct Ny texted to say she didn’t think it was right to wait until 9,10.

Adams: Deputy Swedish prosecutor told Assange lawyer the claims against him were due to ‘social collapse’ & weak evidence, court heard.

Hurtig continues the chronological brief and states that he received a text message from Ny on October 5, 2010 saying that she wanted to hold the interrogation on October 6, 2010.  Hurtig then said that he attempted to get a hold of Julian Assange, but couldn’t. Hurtig told of his confusion while in court on October 5, 2010 for different cases when he received a text message from Ny stating that the interrogation would happen on the 6th.  Hurtig said that at that point, he cancelled all of his appointments.  Normal procedure in Sweden, he said, is that the Swedish police contact the person for questioning. The interrogation was supposed to happen at a police station, but then Ny said interview was now not going to happen on October 6, 2010. Two days later, Hurtig announced that he had received a phone call from tabloid Expressen about Julian Assange where he found out that there had been a leak about the case.  The Prosecution are the ones that cancelled the interrogation with Assange, but then the tabloid is contacting Hurtig asking him why Assange didn’t show up for it.  Several mass media sources published Assange’s name and portrayed him as a rapist.

Channl4News: Hurtig: On 5 Oct I got a text message from Ny saying that she wanted to hold the interrogation on 6. I tried to get hold of JA but couldn’t

Channel4News:  Hurtig: I was in court on 5 Oct [for different case] & got a text from Ny saying questioning would happen on 6. I was confused

Channel4News: Hurtig: I knew Julian was abroad but I cancelled my appointments. Normal procedure in Sweden is that police contact person for questioning

Channel4News:  Hurtig: The interrogation was due to take place at a police station. But then Ny said interview was now not going to happen on that date.

Channel4News: Hurtig: Two days later I got a call from tabloid Expressen about JA. There had been a leak about the case.

Adams: ‘Prosecution cancelled Assange but then tabloid contacted them to ask why he didn’t show.’

Hurtig contacted Ny and asked if it were possible to do an interview over the phone.  Ny responded by saying “no,” because it wouldn’t be appropriate. Assange had offered to do the interrogation at this point over the phone, skype, or video conference for fear of being arrested. Hurtig stated that at one point, Ny stated that she needed Assange for the interrogation in person for “technical reasons.” Ny was reported to have stated that she would not allow a UK interrogation either due to interference with investigative technique requirements.  Documents had never been provided to Assange that were in English providing him with the details of the accusations against him.  Hurtig stated that he knew of no reason why Assange could not be interrogated in the UK by British Police Officers, by phone, by Skype, or videolink.

Channel4News: Hurtig: I asked about the possibility of an interview over the phone. Ny did not find this “appropriate”.

Adams: Assange due to lecture at later date but fears police planned to arrest him. He offered phone, Skype & video conference for questioning.’

Channel4News: Hurtig: At one point Ny [Swedish prosecutor] said the need for interrogation in person was for technical reasons.

Edwards:  Hurtig said Ny rejected suggestions of interviews in UK or via Skype. Said it was for investigative technique requirements.

Adams:  No documents were ever presented to Assange in English ‘or even Australian’, court heard

Edwards: Hurtig said there is no legal reason he is aware of for not permitting an interview in this way.

Hurtig stated that there were texts which discredited the two women making the accusations involving getting revenge, making money, and giving Assange a bad name.  Hurtig reported that Ny acknowledged that the texts were discrediting to the two women, but warned him saying, “Think twice before you think about using them as defense evidence.” Hurtig stated to the court that he was reluctant to give out the text messages because he is Assange’s defense attorney in Sweden and texts are confidential.

Hurtig went on to say that the prosecution refused to give him key documents. He stated that he was shown the text messages, but was not allowed to take notes or show them.  These documents alone undermine the two women’s case.

Adams:  There were texts that ‘were not good for rape claimants. Involved getting revenge & making money’ wanted give Assange bad name for revenge.

Adams: The dep prosecutor showed Hurtig the texts discrediting rape claimants but told him to think twice before using them as evidence in defence

Adams:
Hurtig said he was reluctant to give evidence bc he’s Assange’s defence lawyer in Sweden & texts were confidential

Edwards: Hurtig is saying prosecution didn’t give him key documents. Said was shown text messages, but not allowed to note or show

Edwards:  These are text messages mentioned previously, which Hurtig says undermine alleged victims’ case

The cross examination with Montgomery now begins and Ms. Montgomery has now asked Hurtig to get out his phone.  She requests that he find specific text messages from September to prove that he is mistaken in his testimony. Clare Montgomery asked Hurtig if his statement about whether he’d heard from Ny about arranging time for an interview in mid-September 2010 was true. Hurtig responds by saying that it is possible that on September 21, 2010 he may have had a conversation with Ny in which she said she wanted to interview.  Hurtig’s archived texts do not go back far enough so he is left to retrieve those messages. The court decides to take a short break while Mr. Hurtig retrieves the text messages.

Channel4News: Cross-examination of Hurtig finally getting under way – Clare Montgomery: “Get your phone out pls Mr Hurtig!”

Adams: Hurtig (Assange Swedish lawyer) now under cross examination. Told to get his phone & read out texts from Sept to prove he’s mistaken.

Channel4News: Hurtig is being asked to scroll through old text messages – he says his “sent” box does not go back far enough..

Edwards: Clare Montgomery has asked Hurtig if his statement is true. (re whether he’d heard from Ny about arranging time for interview in mid Sept)

Edwards: Hurtig having to go through phone to check text messages – having a five minute break

Edwards: Hurtig accepts it is possible that on Sept 21, he may have had conversation with Ny, in which she said she wanted to interview

Hearing is back in session and Hurtig is being questioned.  Ny contacted Hurtig twice on September 22, 2010 asking why Hurtig did not contact Julian Assange.  Conversation begins revolving around how Hurtig did in fact attempt to get a hold of Assange, but Hurtig states that he cannot prove it.  Hurtig stated that if Ny had stated that she was going to have Assange arrested on September 27, 2010, he was absolutely sure that he would have tried to contact Assange.  It was stated that Assange was accused of taking a flight out of Sweden on September 27, 2010 to avoid detention.  Hurtig amits that he was wrong in a statement where he said it took 5 weeks to request an inteview, that instead it took only 3.

Channel4News: Ny contacted Hurtig twice on 22 Sept. Montgomery is asking why Hurtig could not contact Assange

Adams: Cross examination centres around how hard Assange’s lawyer tried to get hold of him. He says he tried but can’t prove it.

Edwards: If Ry had told me she was going to have [#Asssange] arrested on Sept 27, I’m absolutely sure I’d have tried to contact him.

Adams: Assange accused of taking a flight out of Sweden on 27 September to avoid detention

Edwards: Hurtig accepts he was wrong to say in statement Ny waited five weeks to request interview with#Assange. Admits it was actually only 3

Hurtig is drilled over requests by Ny to inteview Assange before he left Sweden.  Hurtig reveals that there were “forgotten” messages between them [Ny & Hurtig].   Montgomery said to Hurtig that he knew that Assange might be asked to give a DNA sample if interrogated in Sweden.  Hurtig responded by telling Montgomery that Assange had the ability to provide a DNA sample if needed in the UK.  This has been reported to have been done before.

Channel4News: Hurtig is grilled over requests by Ny to interview Assange before he left Sweden. He reveals there were “forgotten” messages between them.

Edwards: Montgomery says to Hurtig he knew#Assange might be asked to give DNA sample if interrogated in Sweden.

Edwards: Hurtig says #Assange could have given DNA sample if interviewed in UK. As had been done in case he dealt with client in Finland.

Channel4News: Hurtig tells Montgomery he “disagrees” with her, it’s not always necessary for a witness to attend in person for DNA tests to happen

With the wrap up of the cross examination by Montgomery, Geoffrey Robertson now takes the lead and re-examines Mr. Hurtig. Hurtig repeats to Robertson that he believes DNA can be taken in the UK. Hurtig stated that Assange has been interviewed previously by Swedish Authorities [implied] and that a DNA sample could have been obtained at that time.  He continues to say that nobody has informed him that such a test was wanted.  Robertson then asked Hurtig if he knows any reason that Ny could not attend a hearing in the UK.  Hurtig responds that he’s not the right person to ask that question.

Edwards: Being re-examined now by Geoffrey Robertson. Hurtig says he believes DNA can be taken in UK

Edwards: Hurtig: #Assange has been interviewed previously, cd have done swab test then for DNA. Also no one has said to me they want to do test.

Edwards: Robertson asking Hurtig if he knows of any reason Ny couldn’t have come to hearing in UK. He says he’s not right person to ask.

Adams: Hurtig, Assange’s lawyer, says he’s a member of Swedish Barr Association so knows imp to be truthful & accurate. Evidence ends.

The hearing for today ends at this point.  Anna Adams tweets that the hearing will resume on Friday February 11, 2010 at 10:30a.m.

Adams: Judge needs more time. Hearing will resume Friday 10.30am. With warnings for Geoffrey Robertson to keep to schedule!



Be Sociable, Share!

One thought on “Julian Assange fighting Extradition in Court-Part 2

  1. The prosecution is really starting to look like they are up to nothing more than an orchestrated witch hunt and an inexcusable public smear campaign.
    “As reported yesterday, any Rape Cases that are heard in Sweden are never done in public. The cases are always done in a private court where press and public are not allowed. Channel4News reported that an absolute precondition of a fair trial is that the preliminary hearing is also fair”.
    Even if the extradition is granted it will likely fail upon appeal. The grounds are flimsy by any standard and the evidence weak and suspect. From what I read it doesn’t even serve any purpose any more since the US doesn’t even have a case against Assange and the witnesses for the prosecution have long ago dismissed the whole episode. Only the Swedish Prosecutor continues to chew on this stale carcass.

Comments are closed.