Defending Assange against sexual assault allegations

[Major Nikon]

391. The judge never found Hurtig lied (proof enclosed)

I didn't claim he acted as Assange's lawyer in the UK system. He was Assange's lawyer in Sweden. As such he is a professional advocate for Assange. That's what a lawyer is. At least on this planet that makes him far more than just a witness. You are cherry picking my statement made to someone else and taking it out of context. Read on and you'll see I fully acknowledged Hurtig's status as a witness to the extradition proceedings, but he is far more than just a witness which is what the person (not you) was alleging which is far afield from the truth. None of this is in any way relevant to anything we discussed and I can't help thinking you are deliberately taking my comments from a completely separate conversation out of context as nothing more than a cheap red herring rhetorical trick. Those don't work on me. You'll have to try them on someone else. I'll just identify them for what they are which doesn't help your case any.

The judge didn't say Hurtig lied. They said they found him to be unreliable. It had nothing to do with Assange's guilt or innocence. They were simply unconvinced he never gave Assange the message from the prosecutor. It's certainly possible he didn't. As I stated, Assange had a very good reason for remaining incognito. The CIA is known for snatching suspects with no regard to the legal rights of the host country. He would be stupid not to be. They also said it was possible he didn't lie. Once again I have to quote your own reference to prove you are completely mistaken:

Here's what they said exactly:

Mr Hurtig in an unreliable witness as to what efforts he made to contact his client between 21st, 22nd and 29th September (see transcript pages 122-132). He has no record of those attempts. They were by mobile phone, but he has no record. He cannot recall whether he sent texts or simply left answer-phone messages.

Had you read on, you might have found this...

I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source, that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21st– 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. [div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"]It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one)

that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. I have heard no evidence that he was readily contactable.

"unreliable witness" and "reasonable assumption" are NOT the same thing as saying he lied. You are either oblivious to the actual statements or are being disingenuous. Next time you may wish to support your assertions with actual quotes from the decision. I do.

They go on to say this:

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 statem ent 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.

So guess what. He said something that was misleading and he later corrected it, but didn't do so very loudly. Lawyers do this all the time. They ride the line between being completely candid and perjury. Often they get sanctioned for it by the court. This is what separates a normal witness from a witness who is also an advocate for the defendant. You should know this yet strangely seem not to.

Further... you presented absolutely nothing that indicates that Assange did not commit acts indicated in the warrant. what you posted is further proof that the acts that are alleged in the warrant happened ... Assange is debating the meaning of those apps and the bias of the victims... he's not claiming innocence of doing those acts.

Umm, no that's exactly what he's doing. He's saying the prosecution has evidence that directly contradicts what was in the warrant. Do you not understand the significance of whether the alleged victim was asleep or not at the time of penetration?

When are you going to post Assange's defense of the specific acts alleged in the warrant?

FFS, I quoted them in my previous post. Right from the very decision you are claiming is the gold standard of evidence. I highlighted relevant text, I listed the page number. I even included a link so you could very easily see it for yourself without even having to look it up. You have provided zero proof of any of your assertions, not one quote, not one link, nothing, nada, zip. Only your unsupported assertions which have been proved wrong more than once by your own reference no less. Do you need to be drawn a picture?