:-\Well here's a recent doco on the Assange case by a respectable journalistic outfit, Four Corners on abc tv australia. It's 46 minutes though, but very interesting if anyone wants a better overview than opinion pieces and tabloid newspaper articles.
Anyone who doesn't want to watch the video, they have a transcript here (ABC transcript all their news shows).
I'm going to go with what Four Corners are saying unless someone comes up with a better source with actual information.
Why is that more reliable than court findings and legal documents? I don't get it. In particular this bit;
PER E. SAMUELSON: In mid-September he got a message from his then-lawyer, but the prosecutor did not want him and... that he was... for an interview, and that he was free to leave Sweden, and under that assumption he left Sweden in the afternoon of the 27th of September in good faith that he had sought for and got approval from the prosecutor to leave the country.
This is a lie. It's a lie that Assange's lawyer seems to have told people.
During the UK trial it was revealed that his lawyer was contacted and told he was wanted for 'interrogation' on September 22nd. He then left the country on the 27th. His lawyer late claimed that he was unable to contact Assange during this period, but only after it was revealed through multiple sources that he had in fact been contacted by the prosecutor. Originally he lied both to the UK court and to the witnesses for the defence saying that he had never received that request.
Seriously, read pages
7-10 of the Magistrates report. Assange's lawyer comes off as either an enormous liar or the greatest incompetent ever to handle such a high profile case. Notably he had this said about him by the judge;
Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.
It seems the documentary was mislead by Mr Hurtig as well, despite it being made long after that decision was released. I'm not confident in the accuracy of any report on a trial that isn't at least passingly familiar with the court findings of that trail.
Assange did receive clearance to leave the country (or rather, they didn't take steps to stop him), but on the 15th of September before the decision to interrogate was reached. His lawyer received the request for interrogation on the 22nd, Assange left on the 27th. A warrant for his arrest was issued on the 20th of November. This is not the, "12 days after giving Assange clearance to leave the country," stated in the documentary. The only 12 day gap is between his being confirmed clear to leave the country and his leaving, and that clearance was effectively revoked in the middle of that period with the request for further questioning.
They also pass completely over the reality of the allegations, misrepresenting them again as 'consensual sex without a condom'. They further represent the women's worries as about STDs. This is another misrepresentation. The initial (Swedish) police report;
Vid 14 tiden samma dag inkom två kvinnor till stationen som ville prata och få lite råd om två tidigare händelser och de var lite osäkra på hur de nu skulle gå vidare. Inledelsevis så nämndes brottet våldtäkt och att båda kvinnorna skulle varit utsatta.
At 14:00 that day two women came to the station who wanted to talk and get some advice on two previous events and they were a little unsure of how they would now go ahead. Starting off the crime of rape was mentioned and that both women should have been victimized.
It was after this report that a rape
investigation was started. As has been mentioned multiple times, charges come at a late stage (usually after the interrogation Assange inadvertently skipped out on) in the Swedish system. The documentary says, "they did not file any charges against Julian." It doesn't mention the investigation or nature of the allegations.
The completely misrepresent what a red notice is.
Interpol notices are coded regarding the action to be taken, not the severity of the crime or any other factor. Red notices are for people wanted for arrest. Ghaddafi was not subject to a red notice because he was never wanted for arrest and extradition by any other nation. I can't find it now, but I have seen a list of about six current red notices issued for wanted rapists and other sex offenders. It's standard practice. People seem to confuse it with the Operation Infra-Red annual focus on a selected number of serious offenders, which does focus on serious crimes.
This is just the first part and already the documentary has lost me entirely.