Assange to UN: 'It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks'

[sabrina 1]

35. I thought this point had been made clear here multiple times already. In fact I believe

I explained to you personally, very patiently, why that nonsense was debunked long ago, the claim that Swedish prosecutors could not interview someone outside of Sweden.

So, here we go one more time. We KNOW that Swedish law requires an interview with a suspect before filing charges. I hope you got that, we KNOW this.

Now try to follow carefully. Assange should have been interviewed according to all the rules relating to cases of sexual assault, even by the Prosecutor's own rules, immediately after she got the case. Assange remained in Sweden for three weeks making himself available for that interview.

Are you still following? Despite these rules, for some unknown reason this Prosecutor refused to follow her OWN rules,(which she gave lectures on btw, that it is critical to interview all witnesses immediately after a case comes to their attention), and turned down the opportunity to interview him each time he requested it. Finally on Sept 15 she told him he was free to leave Sweden.

THIS WAS OUTRAGEOUS! No serious prosecutor would have:

1) Delayed that interview even for a day and
2) Then told the 'suspect' he was free to leave without interviewing him.

Why did she take these egregiously wrong steps? That is the question everyone wants an answer to.

It was at the very least, Prosecutorial misconduct and at the most, something far more sinister.

Are you still following along because I am getting tired of presenting the facts of this case to people who appear unwilling to acknowledge them?

Next, the Prosecutor contacted Assange's lawyer by email, no phone call. He testified he did not see those emails, understandable since he had over 200 clients at the time.

Regardless, there was no problem fixing this as Assange offered to return to Sweden in October. Once again unbelievably, the Prosecutor refused to accept that offer.

Still with me?

Claims were then made, false claims, that in order to interview a suspect, the suspect must be in Sweden. THIS WAS FALSE!


There is not now, nor was there ever, any legal impediment to the Prosecutor interviewing Assange in London.

Did I say that clearly enough? I will repeat it:

]There is not now, nor was there ever, any legal impediment to the Prosecutor interviewing Assange in London!

Okay, so now you know. The Prosecutor has done everything she could to try to avoid interviewing Assange thereby making it impossible to file charges under Swedish law.

Why would she NOT want to file charges? Well this has been obvious to those who actually followed the case from the beginning.

She DID NOT WANT TO, because the 'evidence' would have to finally have been handed over to the Defense and it would have been made public, showing there never was a case!!

1) She has one woman who refused to sign the statement prepared by the police claiming 'rape'. She REFUSED TO SIGN IT, BECAUSE AS SHE SAID, IT WAS NOT TRUE.

2)She has the other woman who has changed her story three times so far, but worse, who tampered with forensic evidence, or who presented 'evidence' that someone else tampered with and made a false claim that this was relative to the claims she made.

That part of the case fell apart as soon as the DNA testing came back, several months ago.

3)She has to deal with text messages between the women plotting to 'make money' by 'destroying' his reputation and admitting to 'going to the tabloids' to do so.

4)And then there are the witness' testimony AND Assange's own police interview in which he denies the allegations unequivocally.

And there is much more. None of it good for the prosecution. But they have known all this from the beginning.

To recap, here is the problem. IF they file the case, then they MUST hand over all that exculpatory evidence to the Defense. Why have they refused to do this for so long? Because as soon as the Defense has it it will be made public.

The prosecutor has held on to the evidence and refused to allow the defense even to make copies of it. BECAUSE IT BLOWS THEIR CASE AWAY. And because people are going to be in big trouble, or should be legally, for their role in this scam.

So the longer she can avoid filing charges, the longer she can keep Assange tied up and smeared, although that part is not working. And that is really the purpose of all of this, as most sentient people on this planet know.

I apologize to everyone else for shouting, but this gets old, the pretense that someone who has been in these threads so often, claiming to still not have any of the facts of this case.

The case is not falling apart, it never was a case from day one. The original prosecutor did the right thing. She dismissed it.

I hope there are legal ramifications for the prosecutorial misconduct in this case and for the attorney who has a political agenda and who is responsible for re-opening this non-case for political purposes. I am glad the world is watching or they might have gotten away with all of this.