Former Swedish chief prosecutor demands explanation for arrest order
The former Swedish chief prosecutor, Sven-Erik Alhem, demands an explanation from the prosecutors that filed the arrest order for Assange and later withdraw the order. Alhem tells the Swedish newpaper Dagens Nyheter that he finds the actions of the prosecutors bizarre and confusing. Alhem points out several actions to DN that he finds questionable; the arrest order was based on the assumption probable cause, the strongest grade of suspicion of crime that is required for an arrest order, and later this probable cause suspicions is withdrawn without the appearence of any new information in the case. This is very confusing.
An order for an arrest in absentia is not normally made official as this will give the suspect a chance to escape. This was not the case here it was announce to the world and no one could avoid the media storm that followed these news.
In this case when the arrest order was issued for a well known person, extra caution would have been taken by the prosecutor's office to make sure an experienced and well educated spokesperson could have explained to the public and media the reasons for each step in the investigation.
Comments
Posted by Editor At 07:45:01 On 08/23/2010 | - Website - |
In fact, the terminology used in this article is vague and as such needs some explanation. Similarly, I cannot see why it is "very confusing" that an arrest warrant is withdrawn? For example, if the alleged victim came forward and withdrew the complaint - obviously in a case like this the warrant would've been withdrawn.
Posted by Jan Tervonen At 22:35:03 On 08/22/2010 | - Website - |
In the latter, evidence and normal procedure is irrelevent, all that is required is to get the allegations into the media in a credible way.
An explaination of why the prosecutors co-operated with this to the extent of ignoring normal procedures (thus obviously with an understanding of what was required) is certainly necessary, but the explaination for the failure of normal procedures in the first place is kind of obvious
Posted by Magick Temple At 00:04:19 On 08/23/2010 | - Website - |
The publicity surrounding this event is the problem. Had the charges remained confidential, they could have been addressed without harm to any of the parties involved.
It appears it was a deliberate smear.
Posted by Michele Moore - Happy1 At 21:15:10 On 08/22/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by Suresh Balchandani At 21:23:34 On 08/22/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by Editor At 07:41:15 On 08/23/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by Editor At 07:52:02 On 08/23/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by Editor At 07:59:29 On 08/23/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by Ken At 13:20:54 On 08/23/2010 | - Website - |
@editor: This is the first time I have heard anyone say this. If you please, can you post a link to where you got this information from?
Posted by vincible1 At 19:07:45 On 08/24/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by Editor At 10:13:33 On 08/25/2010 | - Website - |
The 'TRUTH' prevails does'nt it ? Am sure we will get to the bottom of this too.
Julian, keep on with the good work mate !
Posted by Alfred Tims At 08:57:59 On 08/24/2010 | - Website - |
When all else fails, follow the money.
I am the Mad Ape and I approve this message.
Posted by The Mad Ape At 02:08:34 On 08/24/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by null At 07:03:14 On 08/24/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by null At 10:17:46 On 08/24/2010 | - Website - |
In this case, were there any regulations etc. which should've been applied in such a situation? Do they have a spokes person/media rep who should've been alerted? What are the methods of identifying a case which requires out the ordinary handling? In general, were they trained to handle a situation like this?
If the answer to any of the above is no, then the ex-prosecutors vague statement was just his own personal opinion - among many others - about how the situation should've been handled.
Absent any directions to handle such a case, is it reasonable to expect that a prosecutor would handle the case in any other way, under sudden and extreme publicity? I'm sure the prosecutor involved did the best she could - in the circumstances.
Do they have some improvements to do for the future? Yes, they have.
Posted by Jan Tervonen At 05:42:22 On 08/24/2010 | - Website - |
{ Link }
Posted by Jan Tervonen At 10:02:51 On 08/24/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by Jan Tervonen At 15:03:40 On 08/25/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by null At 10:12:36 On 08/24/2010 | - Website - |
Can we be fairly sure that this wouldn't happen if there was the slightest doubt in relation to the complainants story? Yes we can.
Mr. Assange of course still believes that this is part of the so called smear campaign.
Posted by Jan Tervonen At 09:55:59 On 08/25/2010 | - Website - |
What I'm saying is that the official statement from Mr. Assange which in substance says that the question is about a smear campaign run by the USA in Sweden, is simply and completely lacking any evidence.
Such a campaign obviously would require some secretive co-operation between the governments and their officials. In particular, it would require the involvement of the Swedish prosecutor(s). Moreover, it would require creation of fictitious documents to succeed.
On the other hand, in Sweden one can get his/her hands on basically all the documents that are being created along the way in such a process. Maybe not yet, but sooner or later yes. Every single paper will be studied by dozens if not hundreds of journalists alone and questions will be asked. Faking such documents is practically impossible, without being caught.
Mr. Assange simply appears to close his eyes from any other plausible explanation, such as that he bumped into someone who wanted 15 minutes of fame? Why is this out the question in Mr. Assanges mind? Is this too far fetch? No it isn't. It just doesn't fit into Mr. Assanges agenda, which involves blaming governments of everything.
Wouldn't it be rational to keep all the scenarios on the table until they can be ruled out?
In any event, and this is just my opinion, to suggest that the USA hired two 'femme fatales' from Sweden and asked the to blame Mr. Assange of raping them? I mean, please...
Posted by Jan Tervonen At 07:16:43 On 09/04/2010 | - Website - |
And you appear to be convinced that no such campaign exists. Why is that?
"It might be common sense yes, but in my understanding the governments and their departments are not steered by it. They are steered by the law, rules and regulations."
I don't think we live in the same world then - in the world I live in it is plain to see that governments routinely ignore rules and regulations when they have an agenda to follow.
Perhaps I am just too cynical, but I don't find it any stretch of the imagination that Swedish officials would be complicit in a smear campaign. The way this 'investigation' has been handled so far suggests that media coverage was the goal, but you're right, the truth will come out when (if) any formal charges are ever pressed against Assange. I wonder how much slander he will have to endure in the meantime.
Posted by Kevin Smith At 07:17:33 On 09/03/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by ehsan At 11:18:50 On 12/01/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by lyckligajag At 14:35:00 On 12/17/2010 | - Website - |
Posted by schmoepooh At 06:19:25 On 02/08/2011 | - Website - |
Posted by Khalid At 03:35:13 On 08/24/2010 | - Website - |