B
Bear Bottoms
I would hate to say the whole Swedish justice system is unfair but the
conduct of this police investigation and prosecution handling so far does
look to be far from normal.
The 100 page police protocol now on the internet is the complete
prosecution file as it existed on 18 Nov when it was given to Assange's
lawyer (in Swedish) by Marianne Ny. Her letter to the Australian High
Commission (20 Dec) mentions "a small number of documents" held back that
have been verbally described to the lawyer, so this must be more or less
the whole thing.
My question: I thought a European Arrest Warrant could only be issued for
offences that carry a minimum 1 year sentence. I think this applies to
only 1 of the 4 offences detailed - the one concerning Miss W being
"asleep". Miss W's witness statement in the protocol is unfinished and
unsigned. So, has this EAW been raised on the basis of allegations that
have not been formally made (ie. no signed witness statement)?
Alternatively, has it been raised on the basis of the hearsay evidence of
friends, family and work colleagues about this incident given by Witness B
(statement taken by telephone on 8 Sept), Witness D (telephone statement
13 Sept) and Witnesses G, H and I (telephone statements 6, 22 and 27 Oct
respectively)?
More questions: where is Miss W's full witness statement (either recorded
police interview or properly finished and signed document)? There's been
plenty of time to obtain it between 20 Aug and 18 Nov surely? Why hasn't
this been given to the defence?
Where is Miss A's full witness statement? Subsequent to the telephone
statement taken on 21 August, there has been at least one opportunity to
do a full recorded police interview (when she gave the police the torn,
used condom on 25 August). Again, there has been plenty of time between 21
Aug and 18 Nov to obtain a formal statement. Why hasn't this been given to
the defence?
Apparently, police forensics were unable to find any DNA (male or female)
on a torn, supposedly used, condom. How is this even possible? To me, the
lack of any DNA indicates the condom has never even been worn and
therefore, potentially, has been presented by the complainant as false
evidence. Why have most reports in the mainstream media about the latest
leak (from an incredibly porous police investigation) not mentioned this
detail at all?
Witness I's statement is very troubling. First, she doesn't seem to live
where her statement indicates she does and, second, in it the police ask
her about the SMS messages with Miss W that talk about revenge. If this
(and others?) were already in the police file by 27 Oct why hasn't it been
passed to the defence? Is this one of the SMS messages the defence lawyer
says he's seen but is gagged from talking about? Is it part of the "small
number of documents" Marianne Ny stated to the Australian High Commission
that she's held back but verbally described to the defence lawyer?
http://www.thelocal.se/31886#comment615943
My web site contains more info about this. Registration is free.
conduct of this police investigation and prosecution handling so far does
look to be far from normal.
The 100 page police protocol now on the internet is the complete
prosecution file as it existed on 18 Nov when it was given to Assange's
lawyer (in Swedish) by Marianne Ny. Her letter to the Australian High
Commission (20 Dec) mentions "a small number of documents" held back that
have been verbally described to the lawyer, so this must be more or less
the whole thing.
My question: I thought a European Arrest Warrant could only be issued for
offences that carry a minimum 1 year sentence. I think this applies to
only 1 of the 4 offences detailed - the one concerning Miss W being
"asleep". Miss W's witness statement in the protocol is unfinished and
unsigned. So, has this EAW been raised on the basis of allegations that
have not been formally made (ie. no signed witness statement)?
Alternatively, has it been raised on the basis of the hearsay evidence of
friends, family and work colleagues about this incident given by Witness B
(statement taken by telephone on 8 Sept), Witness D (telephone statement
13 Sept) and Witnesses G, H and I (telephone statements 6, 22 and 27 Oct
respectively)?
More questions: where is Miss W's full witness statement (either recorded
police interview or properly finished and signed document)? There's been
plenty of time to obtain it between 20 Aug and 18 Nov surely? Why hasn't
this been given to the defence?
Where is Miss A's full witness statement? Subsequent to the telephone
statement taken on 21 August, there has been at least one opportunity to
do a full recorded police interview (when she gave the police the torn,
used condom on 25 August). Again, there has been plenty of time between 21
Aug and 18 Nov to obtain a formal statement. Why hasn't this been given to
the defence?
Apparently, police forensics were unable to find any DNA (male or female)
on a torn, supposedly used, condom. How is this even possible? To me, the
lack of any DNA indicates the condom has never even been worn and
therefore, potentially, has been presented by the complainant as false
evidence. Why have most reports in the mainstream media about the latest
leak (from an incredibly porous police investigation) not mentioned this
detail at all?
Witness I's statement is very troubling. First, she doesn't seem to live
where her statement indicates she does and, second, in it the police ask
her about the SMS messages with Miss W that talk about revenge. If this
(and others?) were already in the police file by 27 Oct why hasn't it been
passed to the defence? Is this one of the SMS messages the defence lawyer
says he's seen but is gagged from talking about? Is it part of the "small
number of documents" Marianne Ny stated to the Australian High Commission
that she's held back but verbally described to the defence lawyer?
http://www.thelocal.se/31886#comment615943
My web site contains more info about this. Registration is free.