Om Assange svenske advokat Björn Hurtigs vittnesmål:"It is perhaps unfortunate that in her report she did not mention that her opinions are not universally accepted. Similarly, one might have expected a clearer statement in her report that some of her evidence was based on what she had been told by defence lawyers, as opposed to independent sources, although she readily revealed that in cross-examination."
"The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem. [Försvarets vittnen.] Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a ...material way."
Se detta kommentarsforum som en insändarsida i en papperstidning. Jag tar oftast in inlägg som följer punkterna nedan, men förbehåller mig rätten att själv välja vad jag publicerar på denna blogg.
1. Helt anonyma kommentarer kommer inte att publiceras. En etablerad blogg bakom inlägget räcker bra.
2. Du som tycker att jag borde skriva om något annat än det jag gör. Skriv själv på din egen blogg! Här bestämmer bara jag vad jag väljer att ta upp, och ur vilket perspektiv. Detta föranleder bl a punkt 3.
3. Kommentarer som inte har med ämnet att göra ignoreras.
4. Inlägg med rasistiskt, homofobt och/eller sexistiskt innehåll släpps inte igenom. Ej heller personpåhopp eller generaliserande, illa underbyggda ommälen om olika grupper t ex feminister. Här håller vi en vänlig ton gentemot varandra och diskuterar innehåll, inte person.
5. Detta är en blogg, d v s en lång räcka av inlägg från min sida. Om du läser ett inlägg och blir fundersam över var jag står i en fråga så kan det ibland hjälpa att läsa några till för att bilda sig en uppfattning. Att medvetet misstolka mina inlägg leder till att jag inte ids bemöta dem. Och jag publicerar bara inlägg jag bemöter.
Att inte följa en eller flera av ovanstående punkter leder alltså till att jag inte släpper igenom inlägget.
Har fått en kommentar från Brita Sundberg-Weitman som jag publicerar i sin helhet här:
SvaraRadera"Eftersom du kommenterat beslutet delger jag dig här mina egna kommentarer, som jag skickat till Jennifer Robinson. Du får bestämma om du vill publicera eller ej.
Hälsningar/Brita Sundberg-Weitman
_---
Generally about the crossexamination
I can agree that there was confusion during the crossexamination, much due to the fact that I hade great difficulties hearing Ms Montgomery's questions. (My hearing device had been destroyed just before my travel to London and there was no time to have it replaced.)
However, here are my comments to Judge Riddle's decision.
The basis of my conclusions
It is not true that I based my conclusions on what I had been told by defence lawyers. Ms Nye has herself confirmed that she could have interrogated Mr Assange whilst he was still in Sweden. Her motivation for not doing so was that she wanted to interrogate all the witnesses before she heard Mr Assange's side of the story. In my view this delay was unreasonable, since Mr Assange was only temporarily in Sweden. However, since she did not question him before he left Sweden, she should in my view have accepted his offer to be interrogated in England. Under the Code of Judicial Procedure ”(t)he investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.” (Chapter 23 Section 4) Issuing a EAW was bound to cause Mr Assange and his work a maximum of harm, as could eaisly be predicted.
Precense of the defence in the Court of Appeal
(page 3: the witness at first appeared to say the defence were not represented in the Court of Appeal but later she said, after being referred to the decision of the court, that this document says Mr Hurtig was present, but she doesn't think he was) My comment: It appears clearly from the protocol of Svea Court of Appeal that Hurtig was not present. There was no hearing in the Svea Court of Appeal. The case was presented by an official of the Court.
Bail
(page 3: She was asked direct questions as to whether the court would decide whether this defendant should be on bail, if returned to Sweden. At first she appeared to avoid the question but did say that this is a matter for the court, with a right to appeal if bail is refused). My comment: There is no bail option in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, so I cannot have said that ”this is a matter for the court” or that there is ”a right to appeal if bail is refused”
Ms Ny's idea of reasons to have a man locked up
(page 3: She was taken through the early paragraphs and accepted that there was nothing really wrong with what was said there) My comment: I probably did not have enough presence of mind to answer the question properly. However, what is really wrong with Ms Ny's statement - that a man ought to be detained in order to let the woman have the peace to consider whether or not she has been mistreated – is that this is not a legitimate reason to put a person in prison! (Legitimate grounds: risk of abscondense, risk of collution, risk of continued criminality).../"
"/... Principle of proportionality
SvaraRaderaJudge Riddle states that he is ”not in a position to say what the reason was” why Mr Ny rejected Mr Assange's offers to be interrogated in England”. Obviously because she has never devulged what her reason was! That is why I said that her refusal ”looks malicious”. It strikes me that whereas Judge Riddle is rash to draw the conclusion that it ”cannot have slipped (Mr Hurtig's) mind” what efforts he made to contact his client between 21st, 22nd and 29th September, Judge Riddle is content that Ms Ny has refused to state her reasons for issuing a EAW instead of accepting Mr Assange's offers to be interrogated in England.
As stated in the decision by the High Court in December, what Mr Assange did ”is not the conduct of a person who is seeking to evade justice." When inteviewed in the media Ms Ny has given the following reason for not accepting Mr Assange's offer to be questioned in England: ”It would not be consistent with Swedish law.” This is simply not true.
The principle of proportionality will lack all sense if you accept that a state authority is not under an obligation to divulge its reasons for limiting a person's freedom!"