Only pasting the start of the case here from E.
I think seeing this might show people what's happening, and they can follow as they see fit.
Currently the Assange hearing is underway. There have been repeated issues with the feed cutting out.
Clair Dobbin is presenting the argument for the US, which is attacking the opinion and validity of the medical professionals who diagnosed Julian with autism etc. They would rather the court rely on their own experts and own evidence which somehow finds Assange's suicidal ideation and general innocence barriers notwithstanding their interest in extradition.
It's a matter that has been settled by 2 other judges already.
With regard to the current prosecution argument underway, quoting Kennedy V. Cordia.
The case judgement actually states: “It is for the court to decide whether
expert evidence is needed, when the admissibility of that evidence is challenged.”
However**** The US is failing to illustrate that this information has been argued and settled twice before already.
They are framing it as though there is debate to this issue, by quoting their own experts (who are employed by the government).
There are retreading settled ground here.
The prosecution has just rested after that argument*
Defense is getting ready to quickly rebut*
Defense has just pointed out that the previous judge recognized the fact that the doctor in question (Kopleman) did not reveal Stella and Julian's children in his report, out of noted concern for their safety, but that the judge found his testimony reliable, dispassionate, and sound anyways.
Defense is going into the threats to the basic safety of Assange's family during the time in question, strong evidence of surveillance, plans by the Intelligence Community to steal their baby's nappy to determine paternity etc. Judge Baraitser was aware of this and agreed with Dr. Kopleman's reasoning for not further identifying Stella and the children in his report about Julian's health.
The defense is explaining that the previous judge, who issued the extradition denial, had no qualm with the evidence presented by Dr. Kopleman, including evidence of Assange's suicidal ideation during his continued wrongful imprisonment.
Discussed is an incident with a razor blade found in his cell.
If you are asking, why is the focus on Julian's mental health? Because this is the basis for the extradition denial, until cross appeal can happen at a later date by the defense. So the US Gov is attempting to push the UK court to allow challenges to both Julian's failing health, and the assertions that its prison system is too barbaric and could not effectively keep him alive. Today it is focusing on the testimony of medical professionals, attempting to convince the court (for a third time now) that is has grounds to dismiss those points of denial.
Defense is explaining that the previous judge gave detailed reasoning as to why she found the Defense's expert testimony from Dr. Kopleman absolutely admissible, and understood the reasoning in attempting to protect the identity of Stella and the children.
Judge inquires as to the nature of Dr Kopleman's second report failing to adequately explain the family situation, calls it a double lapse; defense agrees but explains that the family situation had then become common knowledge by that time.
Defense explains that the prosecution cannot really argue against the previous judges ruling as to the substantial risk of suicide etc. Judge Baraitser gave detailed reasoning as to why she agreed with Dr. Kopleman's reasoning. Baraitser understood that Assange's impulses fluctuated according to circumstance and agreed that conditions in US prisons would be enough to trigger suicide given the ASD diagnosis.
Defense points out that the previous judge did not omit from her original decision, the government's opinions here, but that she found fault with them and agreed with the defense. That the judge had carefully considered the criteria the US Gov is attempting to challenge yet again.
"Baraitser's judgement on the potential of suicide is unassailable." (quoting defense here)
Defense calls the mental health diagnosies unarguable.
Defense accepts the deferred identification of Stella and the children by Dr. Kopleman, but again says the court cannot discount all of the evidence around Julian's mental health because of it.
Prosecution interjects claiming they did not know about the children (although the illegal spying operations at the embassy will draw that claim into sharp question)
Judge seems impatient and pushes to set date for full appeal saying it "needs to be heard soon" suggests a couple different periods in October and questions prosecutions availability.
Prosecution says it is unsure of lead availability in suggested dates.
Prosecution says the matter must be sent before the secretary of state, because of potential jurisdictional issues around section 103
Only pasting the start of the case here from E. I think seeing this might show people what's happening, and they can follow as they see fit.
Currently the Assange hearing is underway. There have been repeated issues with the feed cutting out.
Clair Dobbin is presenting the argument for the US, which is attacking the opinion and validity of the medical professionals who diagnosed Julian with autism etc. They would rather the court rely on their own experts and own evidence which somehow finds Assange's suicidal ideation and general innocence barriers notwithstanding their interest in extradition.
It's a matter that has been settled by 2 other judges already.
With regard to the current prosecution argument underway, quoting Kennedy V. Cordia.
The case judgement actually states: “It is for the court to decide whether
expert evidence is needed, when the admissibility of that evidence is challenged.”
However**** The US is failing to illustrate that this information has been argued and settled twice before already.
They are framing it as though there is debate to this issue, by quoting their own experts (who are employed by the government).
There are retreading settled ground here.
The prosecution has just rested after that argument*
Defense is getting ready to quickly rebut*
Defense has just pointed out that the previous judge recognized the fact that the doctor in question (Kopleman) did not reveal Stella and Julian's children in his report, out of noted concern for their safety, but that the judge found his testimony reliable, dispassionate, and sound anyways.
Defense is going into the threats to the basic safety of Assange's family during the time in question, strong evidence of surveillance, plans by the Intelligence Community to steal their baby's nappy to determine paternity etc. Judge Baraitser was aware of this and agreed with Dr. Kopleman's reasoning for not further identifying Stella and the children in his report about Julian's health.
The defense is explaining that the previous judge, who issued the extradition denial, had no qualm with the evidence presented by Dr. Kopleman, including evidence of Assange's suicidal ideation during his continued wrongful imprisonment.
Discussed is an incident with a razor blade found in his cell.
If you are asking, why is the focus on Julian's mental health? Because this is the basis for the extradition denial, until cross appeal can happen at a later date by the defense. So the US Gov is attempting to push the UK court to allow challenges to both Julian's failing health, and the assertions that its prison system is too barbaric and could not effectively keep him alive. Today it is focusing on the testimony of medical professionals, attempting to convince the court (for a third time now) that is has grounds to dismiss those points of denial.
Defense is explaining that the previous judge gave detailed reasoning as to why she found the Defense's expert testimony from Dr. Kopleman absolutely admissible, and understood the reasoning in attempting to protect the identity of Stella and the children.
Judge inquires as to the nature of Dr Kopleman's second report failing to adequately explain the family situation, calls it a double lapse; defense agrees but explains that the family situation had then become common knowledge by that time.
Defense explains that the prosecution cannot really argue against the previous judges ruling as to the substantial risk of suicide etc. Judge Baraitser gave detailed reasoning as to why she agreed with Dr. Kopleman's reasoning. Baraitser understood that Assange's impulses fluctuated according to circumstance and agreed that conditions in US prisons would be enough to trigger suicide given the ASD diagnosis.
Defense points out that the previous judge did not omit from her original decision, the government's opinions here, but that she found fault with them and agreed with the defense. That the judge had carefully considered the criteria the US Gov is attempting to challenge yet again.
"Baraitser's judgement on the potential of suicide is unassailable." (quoting defense here)
Defense calls the mental health diagnosies unarguable.
Defense accepts the deferred identification of Stella and the children by Dr. Kopleman, but again says the court cannot discount all of the evidence around Julian's mental health because of it.
Prosecution interjects claiming they did not know about the children (although the illegal spying operations at the embassy will draw that claim into sharp question)
Judge seems impatient and pushes to set date for full appeal saying it "needs to be heard soon" suggests a couple different periods in October and questions prosecutions availability.
Prosecution says it is unsure of lead availability in suggested dates.
Prosecution says the matter must be sent before the secretary of state, because of potential jurisdictional issues around section 103