Julian Assange - Asperger's??

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think he is at all autistic, and I find all the rallying around "the cause" a truly terrifying spectacle for victims of sexual violence, who never receive support of this order. I find the evasiveness of the Assange bandwagon terrifyingly shifty too - people who can not answer the question put to them piss me off, and Assange pisses me off more than most evasive liars. Without subscribing to the ridiculous conspiracies, I do agree that this case arose out of Assange's high profile, and other men with similar alleged behaviour would have escaped prosecution.

The younger of the two alleged victims, on the other hand, appears to have some serious social awkwardness issue that lead her to compulsively collect information about Assange for months, apparently falling in love at long distance, until she had the opportunity to take him home like a prize, without ever realizing how vulnerable to predation she had made herself. I feel truly sorry for the predicament that she is in, and the awful publicity of her private life.

I've been irritated by the lack of concern for the accusers as well. Just because the guy is a hero to anarchists doesn't mean he should get a pass for predatory behavior. He deserves a full airing of the charges and a chance to prove his innocence, but he does not deserve a get out of jail free card.

Letter [ allegedly ] from Swedish Counsel Bjorn Hurtig to English co-Counsel for Julian Assange.

Note Neither Mr. Assange nor Counsel, nor WikiLeaks have ever received a single written word, at any time, in any form, from Swedish authorities on the Swedish investigation against our editor.

From: Björn Hurtig
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:43 PM
To: Jennifer
Subject: SV: Our client

Dear Jennifer,

Enclosed You will find a copy of the documents that I have would like to send to the prosecutor. I have not been able to have the document translated in detail, but I will now tell you the most important things in it.

First of all I comment the ongoing investigation and tell the prosecutor that I have asked her several times that they should hear my client so that we can be aware of the accusations. They have said no to this initially (and by this I mean for several weeks). Furthermore I remind her that I several times have asked her to give me the evidence in the case. She has said no to this also. I then tell her that I have asked my questions informally and in writing and tell her about a formal request that I made 14 of September 2010. This formal request has not yet been formally answered, which I find to be a breach of Swedish law (23:18 Rättegångsbalken). I also tell her that Sweden has not followed art 6:3 of The European Convention of the 4 november 1950, because Julian has not been informed of the accusation in detail and in his own language. Neither has he been informed of the documents in the case in his own language. This is an incorrect behavior.

I then tell her that Julian is indeed willing to participate in a hearing. But I remind her that I asked her in writing (14 of September) if he was free to leave Sweden for doing business in other countries and that she called me and said that he was free to leave. This is important because it means that Julian has not left Sweden in trying to escape the Swedish justice. Then I remind her that Julian and I several times have tried to give them dates when he could come to Sweden and participate in a hearing, for example I spoke to the second prosecutor Erika Leijnefors during week nr 40 and told her that Julian could participate in a hearing the 10 of October (a Sunday) or some day the following week. The prosecutor in charge (Marianne Ny) said no to this. Other times Marianne Ny has said no to our proposals due to that one of her policeofficers were sick or because the time did not suit her. This is also important because it shows that Julian has tried but Marianne Ny has said no. I go on remembering her that Julian has suggested that he could participate over a phone line and from an Australian Embassy. She has said not to this also. Then I tell her that Julian is willing to participate through a video conference or to make a written statement over the accusation and the questions they may have. This is of utmost importance, since it shows his willingness to participate. I remind her of a ruling from our Highest Court; NJA 2007 s.337, in which the court did not put a man in custody although he was abroad and did not come to Sweden to participate in a hearing. It was not proportional to do such a thing, since he left Sweden rightfully (just like Julian) and thus did not try to escape the Swedish justice, he was willing to participate via phone or in writing and so forth.

In the second last section of the letter I tell the prosecutor that she should think of the damage that Sweden already has done to Julian by letting his name in public. I tell her that I have heard that there is a police investigation going on about the first prosecutor who let Julian's name out in public, which shows that it is a serious matter. If the prosecutor now goes forward with a request of Julian being put in custody it is my opinion that the damage could be enormous; whatever ... ... ... [ and here the poster ran out of comment space? because the rest is missing ] ... ... ...

He addresses all of this in the newsnight interview i gave a link for.

Yes, rape is awful, but that is not what i was questioning. The fact that he is being unusually villified, and the rapecases seem suspicious, is clearly admitted by much of the british media.

He addresses all of this in the newsnight interview i gave a link for.

He remained in sweden 5 wks after the allegations were made, and the senior prosecuter said there was no case. He asked if it was ok to leave the country and was told it was fine. He moved about, then came here, the first of the batch of us leaks came out- then - suddenly- a couple days later the police said they wanted to question him- but still no charges have been made.

He also said that of all the billions of mentions of rape online, he is mentioned in 10%. And no formal charges have yet been made.

Yes, rape is awful, but that is not what i was questioning. The fact that he is being unusually villified, and the rapecases seem suspicious, is clearly admitted by much of the british media.

He needs to be investigated. Why would someone make a false accusation against him?

The case was originally abandoned, and then they reopened the case, coincidentally or not, within a couple of days of the US cables being released.
.

This is mis-characterizing what happened. The initial prosecution was not pursued, but the accusers themselves retained counsel and were able to reopen the investigation.

And whoever they retained seems to have been singularly uninterested in talking to Assange, or seeing him, or questioning him, when he offered to, but keen to issue extradition orders and arrest warrants as soon as they could justify it, as if taking him into custody was the goal rather than obtaining any info from him.
.

Any support of this assertion that I have seen as come from sources sympathetic to Assange.

If the charges are specious and unwarranted, the entire incident would already be done with if he had simply gone back to Sweden and faced their legal system.

... And accounts refuting this assertion come from sources *un*sympathetic to Assange? :lol

That would be absolutely true, ( and is precisely what I thought, and argued, to begin with ), *if* it was clear that the second set of prosecutors genuinely wanted to see Assange so that he could help them with their enquiries/answer questions. But all they appear to be interested in is taking him into custody ( in the complete absence of any official charge ).

***The Judge Ouseley ( for the Bail Appeal Hearing ) and the previous bail judge both highlighted the fact that Assange had arranged with his solicitors contact numbers and address for the Swedish Prosecution Service should they enquire as to his whereabouts, and the judges said that this was not the behaviour of someone trying to flee justice. ie. he had cooperated as far as he could while continuing to travel ( which he had first cleared with the Swedish authorities ).***

The thing is that the more the Swedish Prosecution turned down his offers to answer their questions, his offers of interviews by Skype, phone, or in an Embassy, etc, the clearer it became that it was taking him into custody which was the aim of the exercise, ( and the theory, his fear, is that once in Swedish custody he would be easily extradictable to the USA ... ).

Judges are not just "public opinion" though, and both judges confirmed that he had cooperated with the Swedish Prosecution Service.

.

He can just as easily be extradited from the UK. Why did that NOT happen while he was in custody there?