The facts speak for themselves:

http://dw.com/en/the-case-of-julian-assange-rule-of-aw-undermined/a-57260909

<< The facts speak for themselves >>

They do, Foxy ... and thank you for posting them!

And thanks also for alerting us to the release in February of Nil Melzer's book, "The trial of Julian Assange: A Study of Persecution".

No doubt, Fester will have it on his reading list!

What fascinates me is the great variance of opinion of the fellow. This journalist writes a very unfavourable piece on creepy Jules, yet he does not think that he should be extradited.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8774327/Before-judge-morality-WikiLeaks-read-devastating-expose-first.html

I think him cowardly and paranoid and believe that all his legal troubles would have been long resolved had he the courage and character of someone like George. His torment is all his own making, and his vile treatment and disregard of others voids me of pity.

Dear Bronwyn,

Happy New Year!

Hopefully this one will be better than the last.

As for Fester's choice in reading material?
I doubt whether his interests extend very far
judging from his posts and his vocabulary.
He also seems to be a staunch supporter of
former cardinal George Pell who was told by
Rome to return to Australia and face the
accusations.

Pell had the power of the church behind him. He
had the best lawyers that money could buy. He
had the support of famous people - he had a
good run and was handled with kid gloves.
Yet a jury found him guilty. He had a good run
and managed to get off on a legal technicality.
A totally different scenario from the one that
Julian Assange is facing.

It shall be interesting to see what the final outcome
will be.

I've reserved the book by Nils Melzer. It should be
quite informative.

We all have our opinions of how things are, but how do you know it's true? Melzer may be a brilliant lawyer, but does that make him irrefutable? Dr Evatt was a brilliant lawyer, but when he read the letter from Molotov in the parliament, people thought, "What a gullible chump!". Foxy, you have an opinion of the Pell saga as do I, and our opinions differ. You see him as getting off on a technicality. The High Court judges saw it differently.

https://lsj.com.au/articles/understanding-the-high-courts-acquittal-of-cardinal-george-pell/

What Jules would have gone through by being tried in Sweden for sexual assault and in the US for hacking and espionage is likely much less than he has brought upon himself with his cowardice. It would have been far more edifying for him to exhibit a bit of dignity and courage as George did.

Fester,

I happen to know people who know George Pell rather well.
His reputation in Ballarat was well known, as well as in Sydney.
He was not exonerated. The High Court judges went according
to what they perceived was the law. Pell got off on a technicality.
There's justice and there's the law. That's why the statue
wears a blindfold.

As for Nils Melzer. He's more than just a lawyer. If you're
really interested in getting to the truth of the Assange case
get hold of his book - the man has been working on this case
for many years - and he is an expert in the field.

Anyhoo - I suspect we shall have to agree to disagree on this.