The Nordic News Network itself says it was leaked. I did not say it had not been verified I said it appeared authentic.

I was not arguing any of the things in your post. I was just pointing out that a fact that DAG icluded in his article, which he said was important, appeared to be wrong. Unlike some of the people on here I'm interested in the facts.
===========reply======

the fact is there is assange’s DNA on the evidence condom ,it is mitochondrial DNA so the explaination could be the kid washed the condom but the rolling part was eluded ,is this hypothesis appears to be authentic for you ?

giles bradshaw (not verified)

let say assange's extradition case is a international matter under Government's jurisdiction （external sovereignty ）, let the british government government rule the case , ask assange to respect british govt's authority ,furthermore ask assange to respect sweden govt's decision about if he is to be extradite to US　

I've asked David Allen Green on twitter if he can confirm whether or not he thinks that the US - Sweden Extradition treaty forms part of Swedish domestic law. If it does not then it is clear that the Swedish supreme court cannot rule on it because it's jurisdiction is domestic.

It's quite clear that David Allen Green does not know the answer to this simple question.

He's even gone so far as to block me!

"On 31 August 2010, Assange was questioned about the allegations, which he denied. This interview is important, as it meant that from this stage he knew of the allegations against him. "

Well if it's important then I presume it's important if it didn't happen. The transcript of Assange's interview is freely available in English it having been (either ironically or sinisterly) leaked to Nordic News Network. It appears authentic in that details match those included on the recent Jack of Kent posting. The point is that Assange was only facing one allegation at the time.

What a selective interpretation of the so called facts. The personal invective you show towards Assange belies an underlying paranoia on your part Mr Green. Whatever Mr Assange did or did not do, he is a condemned man in your eyes. By the way your presentation on the Swedish charges are factually incorrect!!!!!!

What a selective interpretation of the so called facts. The personal invective you show towards Assange belies an underlying paranoia on your part Mr Green. Whatever Mr Assange did or did not do, he is a condemned man in your eyes. By the way your presentation on the Swedish charges are factually incorrect!!!!!!

What a selective interpretation of the so called facts. the venom and spite you show towards Assange belies an underlying paranoia on your part Mr Green. Whatever Me Assange did or did not do, he is a condemned man in your eyes. By the way your presentation on the Swedish charges are factually incorrect!!!!!!

Hello David,
Some interesting points there. However, assuming your argument is correct you say little about how we can actually move forward from the current situation...in other words your bleating is futile as he's already been granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. If, like me, you want the rape allegations to be addressed then shouldn't we direct our belligerence towards the Swedes who could quite easily make the journey to London to determine whether they can charge Assange with something? There are precedents for this and Assange has already agreed to meet under these circumstances. Honestly, it sounds like you're more interested in proving Assange's supporters wrong then actually resolving the allegations.

I think he is well guilty otherwise why would he avoid facing his accusers?

Would Mr Green also please comment on the following pieces of testimony from the District Court hearing which found that Assange should be extradited? They are copied word-for-word from live tweets of the proceedings.

Brita Sundberg-Weitman (former Swedish judge): the decision to prosecute can only be taken after the preliminary investigation has closed.

and
Sven-Erik Ahlem (former Swedish chief prosecutor): The last thing that happens as part of the preliminary investigation is that the suspect has a right to see all the material collected and also comment on whether he/she wants to hear more witnesses.
JJ (Assange junior lawyer): The prosecutor cannot make the decision on whether to prosecute until then?
SEA: That's correct, unless there's a risk of prescription (?)

But, as we all know, the basis on which Justice Riddle ruled that the extradition was lawful was that there was a clear intention to prosecute, confirmed in a late statement submitted to the UK court by the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny. This appears to be in direct contravention of Swedish law, which states unambiguously that she is not allowed TO DECIDE to prosecute until ALL questioning (including the questioning about SW's experience, which hasn't happened to date) has been completed and the preliminary investigation is over.

This makes a recent statement by Marianne Ny (more exactly, the Swedish Prosecution Authority on her behalf) reproduced on a Swedish Foreign Office blog last week very interesting:

“Some people are wondering why Mr Assange cannot be questioned at Ecuador’s Embassy in London. It is the Swedish Prosecution Authority that processes matters concerning surrender to Sweden under a European Arrest Warrant. In this case, the Prosecutor has made the assessment that Mr Assange needs to be available in Sweden during the preliminary investigation, hence the arrest warrant. A more detailed account of this can be found on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s website. In brief, the Swedish Prosecution Authority writes that there is a need, during interviews with Mr Assange, to be able to present, and question him about, the evidence that has emerged in the investigation, and to be able to carry out supplementary interviews with him and other persons involved as the investigation continues.”

"As the investigation continues" - Do you see what she has done there? The process is now back to preliminary investigation, well ahead of any formal charges being laid – to bring it back in line with Swedish law. But an extradition has been achieved which is illegal by anyone’s standards. Note that this latest statement offers no valid reasons why Assange needs to be in Sweden, simply that Ms Ny has decided so. Note also she claims that the EAW was issued for the purposes of a preliminary investigation, although this is completely contrary to one of the fundamental principles of the EU Framework Directive. The EU Framework Directive is quite clear: extradition is NOT for the purposes of furthering an investigation. The Irish Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the EU Framework Directive did not allow for extradition without charge a few months ago, but our UK High Court has allowed it in Assange's case. The UK’s parliament when drafting the UK Extradition Act 2003 specified that a ‘judicial authority’ meant a court or judge – precisely to avoid this kind of scenario where an INVESTIGATING prosecutor orders an extradition – but the UK Supreme Court overruled parliamentary intent (blatantly!). Please do not rely on the UK court rulings in this case as having been fair, proper and impartial – they are all judgments driven by the underlying politically desired outcome.

Marianne Ny should be investigated for her abuse of legal due process. She has deliberately misled the UK courts and lied on the EAW warrant (in at least two different ways) and this EAW, which the courts here relied on in their judgments, should be ruled invalid and the extradition struck out.

Other things DAG's (rather pompous-sounding - sorry, but it reads very badly) article skips over:

DAG claims that Assange's first interrogation is important as it means he is therefore aware of the allegations against him. As someone else has pointed out, this is not true because all bar one of the allegations had been officially dropped at the time. He has in fact never been questioned about the allegations relating to SW, which means the stage which DAG claims has been reached in the Swedish procedure - formal interrogation and then charge - has nowhere near been reached. Also, the 30 August interrogation (this article quotes the date incorrectly) was recorded so there is a full transcript available. At no point does the policeman conducting this interview say what the allegation actually is. He simply asks Assange questions about the sex and the use and disposal of condoms, if I recall correctly (I'm sure someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong).

Second, DAG refers to 'extraneous material' looked at by the High Court judges but only details the allegations as set out on the EAW and the snippets from the police statements based on the women's interviews which relate directly to these. Fair enough. However, the full judgment shows the judges also looked at some of the forensic evidence (paragraph 94 of the judgment) in which the forensic scientists concluded the condom had most likely broken through wear and tear. Unfortunately, they seem to have missed the much larger revelation in the forensic report that this condom - handed in by AA - had no DNA, male or female, on it. Or at least they made no mention of having seen this in their judgment. Care to comment Mr Green on the section of this judgment where the judges look at various English authorities regarding 'rape by deception' in relation to this particular allegation in order to decide whether it meets the dual criminality standard for extradition? Please also bear in mind that the Swedish prosecutor had this forensic report in her possession weeks before she wrote out the EAW.

I wouldn't count myself as an Assange cultist but DAG's wide of the target attacks are turning me into one!

Considering this whole matter as legal, as lawyers may reasonably be expected to, rather than political is surely naive in the extreme?

If the governments involved had behaved impeccably under national and international law then there might be some weight to these arguments, but they haven't, and there isn't.

It's just not just a legal issue.