Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK 377
concertina226 writes "Lawyers representing Julian Assange have demanded that he be questioned in London over rape and sexual molestation allegations. 'Prosecutor Marianne Ny must ... start treating him as everybody else who is under suspicion. Assuming that the prosecutor does not have a prejudiced opinion regarding the question of guilt, and is prepared to treat the different versions objectively, it is obvious that an interrogation with Julian Assange would benefit everybody, including the injured parties,' the lawyers wrote."
Internal politics? (Score:5, Interesting)
One reason is that the prosecutor in charge of the case may have found herself a useful tool that she can use to further her own ambitions in something completely unrelated: she is known to be a feminist and has stated in at least one interview that it must be possible to punish men even after a court has found them to be innocent. She is also a member of the same political party as one of the (possible) victims. Which just happens to be the same political party to which the defense attorney belongs! My conclusion is that the suspicion of internal politics cannot be put to rest until more evidence appears.
-----------
Just to point out a few strange facts in this sordid case:
- JA found out he was wanted for questioning not by being told be the authorities, but by being told be the media. I cannot remember another case where this has happened.
- the prosecutors office called a press conference to announce JA was wanted for questioning. I have never heard of them doing anything similar in any other case.
- the two (possible) victims of rape have the same lawyer. Also this is a first: it does not matter how many victims are involved in a court case, they get their own lawyer and do not share this lawyer with anybody else involved in the same case.
-----------
Full disclosure: I live in Sweden and it is my personal opinion that the prosecutor handling this case at the moment is doing so for personal reasons and should be removed from her position.
Re:Internal politics? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then argue for mistrial.
Argue for undue process.
Argue for an unfair trial.
Argue against the law that says you can't have one lawyer represent two people in a case (sorry, "class action lawsuit"? Why wouldn't you allow this unless there was a specific conflict of interest? And in this case, the "interest" is in bringing the same guy in both cases for the same crime. "Sorry, your honour, but my opponent can't have that lawyer as he once represented someone in a similar case?", no not unless there's a specific conflict of interest).
The problem is, all of those things - with even the crappiest lawyer in the world - can be argued against and changed. This is why court decisions get appealed all the time. Hell, leave them until after the trial and then call mistrial and they HAVE to do it all over again with changes made. But that's not what's happening.
Hell, if you did it properly, he could have had the trial already in his absence by appointing a lawyer. It's not unheard of. Fact is, he's not "on trial" yet. Because he's failed to even allow himself to be questioned. He's fallen at the first hurdle, which is why all the above suggestions of mine haven't happened - there's not yet any venue to argue that to.
And at the end of the day, he's hiding out in an embassy in a foreign country - who will charge him with skipping bail the second he emerges - in order to avoid even the questioning. The "trial" has not yet even started. You can be tried in court "in absentia" if their case was that cast-iron, but they haven't. Not because the case is that cast-iron but because they haven't even got close to doing anything but follow procedure - investigate allegations, get both sides of stories, see if charges are viable, press for them in a court.
He's in no worse a position than the guy that run off to Europe with a schoolgirl. No charges existed but they can still do the media talks, the police hunt, arrest him, question him. "Arrest" != "conviction" or even "charge". You arrest someone to investigate a potential crime and peruse the possibility that charges are necessary. Assange is avoiding ARREST. Which is, in itself, a criminal offence.
Mysterious lack of Assange DNA on evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
This doesn't get mentioned enough:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk]