ttbn

<< So, would you kindly verify them for us as you are the only one who knows where they are. >>

I've already provided evidence to counter specific claims made on this thread and will continue to do so. I provide directly relevant and authoritative quotes which are easily verifiable. If you're going to continue to imply that I'm a liar ... and Nils Melzer too ... then you need to provide hard evidence to back up your claim.

Please stop telling me to do something which you yourself have no intention (or capacity) of doing.

Bronwyn,

So you read something in Wikipedia that someone called Nils Melzer said, and you believe it. He might be telling the truth, or he might not. You are, apparently believing him because you want to. You have form.

Are you really that naive? Unless you were with this character when he visited Assange, you are in no better position to know the truth than I am. You have verified nothing.

As for what I post, I have given my OPINION on what I think should happen to Assange. Some people will agree with me, others will disagree with me. No problems with that. And I don't have to 'verify' my opinions. Nobody has to.

But, when you claim to have special insights into everything, as you invariably do, you need to expect requests for proof. Heresay from a person most people has never heard of is not proof.

Giving an opinion, no matter how iffy, on a blog set up for opinions, is fine. But anonymous posters like us, claiming to have more knowledge or qualifications than others have no credibility.

Dear Bronwyn,

Prof. Nils Melzer's background speaks for itself.
Thank You for drawing our attention to him.
His credentials are impeccable as is his knowledge
of the Assange case. The following interview is
revealing:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDWw-IFH7s4

The treatment of Assange is a disgrace. It needs to
stop NOW.

Gosh, and when George got shoved in the clink some people were saying we should respect the courts, at least until the High Court acquitted him. Now George has to live a restricted life in his own country to protect him from some people. Yet Jules hides from the courts for seven years and it's all okay because the courts are all corrupt. The Ecuadorian's said that they surrendered Assange because he was such a revolting and abusive person, yet that isn't true because Julian says it's all crap. Same with the women alleging assault. All rubbish.

Hang on, I get it now. It's all about believing one person's story against the evidence of many. So with Pell it's about disregarding all the evidence and testimony of the defence because the accuser is so believable despite inconsistencies in his story. Similarly, with Jules it's about believing him and disregarding any testimony or evidence against him because he is such a great guy. Funnily enough, I feel about as much sympathy for him as I did for the likes of Bernie Madoff or Jeffrey Epstein.

Yes Fester, hypocrisy writ large. The fortunately few Bronwyns are a part of the price we pay for democracy and freedom of speech. And the fact that Assange has been isolated for almost a decade by a usually weak system, with no complaints or attempts to interfere by Australia, says all that needs to said about this obnoxious person.

He should have dealt with much earlier in the interests of justice; but he has his 'supporters' to blame for his lingering in limbo.

Well ttbn, I would be kidding myself to think that I could determine Assange's guilt or innocence. Assessing his guilt or innocence is the task of the justice system, and Jules hid from the process for seven years. It was enough to get him off sexual assault charges via the statute of limitations, but it looks as if he may face charges of computer hacking and espionage in the US. Why is that bad? Can't he argue his case there as George did here? Wasn't George portrayed as a terrible coward hiding in the Vatican? Was there any criticism of his trial? I remember some of Jules' fans saying that the guilty verdict against Pell should be respected, detailing the thoroughness and fairness of his trial, as well as the eminence of the presiding judges. So why is it different for Jules?

As a chump on the net all I can do is try to get an idea of his character, and all can come up with thus far is that of a gutless narcissistic pig.