No DNA On Assange's Alleged Torn Condom

[Autumnlicious]

You are an expert on Swedish law are you?

How can the prosecution have 'already committed perjury? There has been no court hearing yet. The prosecution has not submitted any evidence at all.

You are making that assertion, not I.

There is an entity that is putting forth a need for questioning in order to evaluate if the case can be reasonably carried out within the scope of law.

That is most likely the side that would carry out the prosecution (the norm in most countries).

The prosecution must build a case in order to proceed further and secure a trial. This means they must assemble a set of documents.

Some of those documents would contain affidavits pertaining to the veracity of their evidence as true.

So far, the supposed evidence that would be utilized in such a case is now released to the media as improper.

However, the analysis of said evidence (condom) from one group of forensics states that there is none of Assange's DNA on it.

This is one group.

It is quite plausible to contest that finding and is expected, until a body of evidence shows otherwise.

At this time, there is a singular claim by one group of forensic scientists that supports Assange's claims on one front.

Which means that it is still possible to take it to trial. Whether or not the charges truly stick is unknown, but doubtful they will.

Assange has consistently stated that, given the revelations of Sweden violating it's own treaties and laws to ship off people to countries where the threat of torture is reasonably expected, being in Sweden is the first step to opening up that possibility.

He does have a vested interest in both hyperbole and keeping where he is.

---

Frankly Assange has nothing to lose by going to Sweden. Either i) the Prosecution fails to prove their case (which seems rather likley) and he goes free or ii) the prosecution does prove their case, Assange serves a tiny sentence in a comfortable Swedish jail whilst still maintaining his innocence, he makes himself out to be a martyr and then is free to travel wherever he wishes after serving his tiny sentence.

Sweden cannot prevent a US-backed extradition as it is within the US-Sweden treaties unless a set of conditions (threat of torture, death) is met.

Sweden also has in recent memory a case where they violated that precise set of conditions in deference to Egypt, a country with nowhere near as many economic, military and political ties as Sweden does with the US.

Explain why Assange should place good faith in the Swedish system.

It is well within the legal framework of Sweden to bring him there for questioning. Either decide that they don't have a case or attempt to proceed to trial. They'll waste some time and probably drop the charges on lack of evidence.

It is then they may receive a judicial extradition request from the US and comply.

Explain why the above presented is false.

1) Since the UK is so much closer allied to , and legally deferential to, the USA than Sweden is then why has the USA not requested that Assange be extradited from the UK to the USA?

The House of Lords has a say in the matter in the UK as to whom may get extradited.

Gary McKinnon has been fighting the US extradition request for over eight years now. Some would call that a success in preventing extradition, at least to this date.

Given the above, your statement would appear to be weak and unsupported.

Furthermore, there is actual evidence in the case in Sweden of them shipping the aforementioned Egyptian to Egypt in violation of Swedish law.

Thus, I raise the question, precisely how easy is it to extradite from Sweden compared to the UK? And how might one go about weighing the relative prospects of both?

So far, it has been put forth a question as to the integrity and good faith of the Swedish legal system.

A question that is dismissed and ignored by certain parties.

2) If a person is extradited to a country if a third party wishes to extradite him to their country then they must have the permission of both the original country and the one that now holds that person. So it would be twice the trouble to extradite him to the USA, so why is it easier to extradite him from sweden to the USA than from the UK?

I cannot find information as to such, nor a legal mechanism to enforce it. Can you provide some source material?