|Home » Industry Watch (» The Technological » Hall of Monkeys » Heroes Banquet)
Assange in Sweden: The Second Protocol
Does Marianne Ny have an additional - but hidden - case?
From: Marianne Ny
Date: 8 March 2011 08:54
To: Björn Hurtig
Cc: Erika Lejnefors, Mats Gehlin
The investigation that began after the detention hearings and the investigation for which you in the context of the detention hearings can only have access in the form of aural briefings (and complementary complainant testimony) are things you at the present time cannot be given.
There are few new developments in the case of 'Assange in Sweden' these days, aside from the growing trend of journos and politicians alike to ask Marianne Ny why she can't travel (or send someone) to London to get the case over and done with. Julian Assange has made it patently clear why he'll not surrender his rights at the embassy in Knightsbridge, but Marianne Ny has never made it clear why she can't travel to London.
Most recently the state television programme Agenda had a 15 minute piece on the standoff. Marianne Ny was asked to participate; she refused. The prosecutor-general was also invited; he too refused. But in refusing, they revealed something else about what they've been up to.
Marianne Ny's people lamented that, if they travel to London, they can only ask questions related to the European Arrest Warrant and the allegations itemised therein. One must of course wonder why they'd need to ask about anything else, but that's the way it seems to be. Therefore no trip to the UK for them.
Then back to Flashback as per usual, and the diggers there uncovered something hidden in open view in one of the many FOI documents, found in an email exchange between Marianne Ny and Björn Hurtig, Assange's legal counsel at the time. The intro to this article has one such reference.
Why Sweden Wants Julian Assange Arrested
By Eben Harrell with reporting by Behrang Kianzad / Malmö; Friday Dec 03 2010
Lead Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny says the latest arrest warrant was issued because Swedish law prohibits formal legal interviews over a telephone or video link. 'We had a case in the southern Swedish city of Helsingborg where a suspect was heard via telephone, and it was heavily criticised by the Ombudsmen for Justice as not being in accordance with existing law', she tells TIME. 'The Swedish embassy in London is not Swedish territory in the sense that we can hold interrogations there without formal approval of British authorities.'
Asked why she did not request that Assange voluntarily submit to questioning rather than face arrest, Ny replies: 'I am not at liberty to disclose all the details regarding different actions we took in order to hold a hearing with him. But since we are unaware of his whereabouts, and we are by law prohibited from conducting hearings via telephone or video link, this was the only legal action left.'
Marianne Ny is namely referring to a second investigation that's underway since the first detention hearing 18 November 2010. The reference is specific: Marianne Ny is referring to a second investigation into Julian Assange, something for which she refuses to reveal a single detail.
According to the correspondence between Ny and Björn Hurtig, there's a second police investigation running in parallel with the first, but otherwise not mentioned in the petition for a European Arrest Warrant. If conducted in a member state of the European Union, questions in an interrogation concerning a European Arrest Warrant may only pertain to the items listed in the warrant; if conducted in a dark Swedish prison hole, those questions can be anything Marianne Ny or her friends like.
Had Julian Assange ever been transferred back to Sweden, then formally Marianne Ny would again have only been able to ask about matters related to the warrant. But again, there'd be little stopping Ny and her friends from overstepping their bounds.
Given that it seems to have been revealed that there is actually a second heretofore unannounced investigation concerning Julian Assange, the next question is therefore what the second investigation supposedly investigates.
Flashbackers are sceptical, but admit this might happen if it were a foreign power running the second investigation by proxy. Assange was denied residence in Sweden three weeks earlier and the reasons are still not known. There's been speculation that Sweden might want to charge Assange with jeopardising Swedish national security, as the events in Stockholm came in the wake of the release of the 'war diaries' of Afghanistan where Sweden had a considerable military presence at the time.
It's also been pointed out that the exact same 'trick' was used to nick Gottfrid Svartholm Warg: deported from Cambodia for reasons connected with The Pirate Bay, then the tune changes completely once on Swedish soil.:
And it was further revealed at Flashback that representatives of three of Sweden's top intelligence agencies had been following Assange's every footstep in the country, culminating in the 'disappearance' of his personal belongings at the Stockholm airport on 27 September 2010.