Occasionally, there's a pretty good gem in these. This was good, in response to John Lewis questioning a psychiatrist's qualifications:<p><i>“I have been doing this for over thirty years and on five or six occasions London solicitors have phoned me up and said that James Lewis QC is acting in an extradition case and is extremely keen to get your services for a report. So I think it is a bit rich for you to stand there now questioning my qualifications.”</i><p>Edit: There's another in there regarding some test called TOMM.
Wow. Again, the contents of the discussions are so obviously in favor of Assange (the accusation being really unfair and... dumb, again and again), and the judge is so clearly in favor of this dumb side.<p>What would be the possible recourse against the verdict, to protest to all these (voluntary) mistakes?<p>Is there any court in UK to which ask to undo and rejudge?<p>The accusation (Lewis) is so manipulative, asking witnesses to agree to assertions out of context and then applying them anywhere, sending them bundles of documents to read urgently the same morning as the trial and then blaming them for not having been able to do it, denying the qualification of all witnesses and experts altogether, etc.<p>The accusation is a representative of a Nation governed by the Rule of Law, isn't it?<p>And what about the judge who is very happy with all these cruel manipulations?
Makes me livid just reading about this, and other such happenings in my country - but as just a regular Northern tech worker, what on Earth can I do about it? My mother was in London at the weekend and said there were people outside the Old Bailey chanting "Free Assange", but not many.
What can one do in the face of what seems to me to be flagrantly violating our own "justice system" to pander to the Americans?
"I will state firmly and resolutely that my account has been truthful. I do not claim it has been impartial."<p>I believe Craig Murray's account because<p>1. He could be called out at any time for any fabrication<p>2. There is no, literally zero, mainstream news sites reporting this trial in any depth whatsoever.<p>The Guardian. Happy to break his orginal news and happy also to bow to the UK Govt in keeping pretty much silent on trial.
Yes, they have mentioned it is happening, but they say little else.<p>My faith in UK journalism is zero.
They are servants of the Govt.
> Furthermore, Lewis was not representing his own views but speaking on the direct instructions of the government of the United States of America. Throughout a full four hours, Lewis on behalf of the government of the USA not only evinced no understanding whatsoever of mental illness, he never once, not for one second, showed one single sign that mental illness a subject taken seriously or for which there is the tiniest element of human sympathy and concern. Not just for Julian, but for any sufferer. Mental illness is malingering or if real disqualifies you from any role in society; no other view was expressed. He made plain on behalf of the US Government, for example, that Julian’s past history of mental illness in Australia will not be taken into account because the medical records have been destroyed.
Worth looking at this guy's CV. <a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/about-craig-murray/" rel="nofollow">https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/about-craig-murray/</a><p>He seems to be sound.