Extradition September hearing Day 12 (or 14 incl Covid)
Joined the video link to cross to the court for a midday start to proceedings today.
Expect to hear from at least 2 medical experts, Dr Sondra Crosby for the Defence and Dr Nigel Blackwood for the Prosecution, and
possibly Prof Paul Mullen for the Defence.
Julian is seated judge enters
First witness, Dr Nigel Blackwood
Reader in Forensic Psychiatry at King’s College London. Medical expert commissioned by the prosecution to conduct a second psychiatric assessment of Julian Assange. This was completed by phone in July 2020.
Lewis: summarising his finding that JA has a depressive disorder.
Blackwood: some suicide risk, modifiable, but retains the capacity to resist.
Judge interrupts to ask Joseph to sit down
B: polite, good eye contact, engaging, articulate but became very concerned about his case
but engaged in activities & read. In July he said he didn’t want to take his own life but had thoughts about it. Was unhappy about being placed on “health care” as it had nothing to do with his health but was for admin reasons (that film footage)
The above is of course still Blackwood speaking
Blackwood is giving a month by month account, describing JA as well, having coffee with other prisoners etc but it’s unclear how he has gathered all this information - when it is an account of his own observations or reports he read. He says JA wanted to edit his report.
Blackwood is young and has a strong Scottish accent.
His opinion: has a recurrent depressive disorder which he has managed apart from an episode of self harm as a young man.
He is puzzled why Prof Kopelman says he is severely depressed. If this were the case Dr Daly should .....
... have referred him for appropriate care externally, that is the normal course of action & care, contrary to what Dr Kopelman said (that that is not available) which is just not correct.
He continues to say he is concerned that a 49 year old is diagnosed for the first time ..
as having Aspergers. Blackwood continues to list the characteristics & achievements he says are inconsistent with Asp.
Says JA has elevated risk of suicide, but only 1 in 1000 in prisons in England & Wales carry it out, though he is worried about extradition, the risk is ..
Modifiable & manageable.
Fitzgerald is now quoting from a prison report that states staff said they were so concerned about his suicide risk they had him transferred to health care. Blackwood says he hasn’t seen the report, nor did Dr Daly mention this to him. He says she is not denying he has suicidal
..ideas but it has been managed well.
Blackwood reiterating he disagrees with Kopelman about the severity of the depression.
Fitzgerald going thru a specific period when JA was particularly bad. B says Daly would have been duty bound to refer him for appropriate care. Fitzgerald makes the point he hasn’t read all the report and B agrees there are lots of documents he has not read.
Fitzgerald asks about the night checks 5 times a night in health care and Blackwood says yes that shows how well the suicide risk was managed.
Discussion of JA’s medication, one in particular that Kopelman suggested for depression, Blackwood says it was to help him sleep as Dr Daly indicated in her prison notes.
Fitzgerald now asks whether it would be inappropriate to keep someone who is depressed in isolation. Blackwood ultimately agrees but says JA is resilient & resourceful & is obviously capable to engaging in this case.
Fitzgerald asks if solitary exacerbates depression. Blackwood Agrees but says it can be mitigated by other factors.
Blackwood says the suicide rate in the US is lower that the UK.
Fitzgerald asks if he thinks keeping JA in solitary for 22-23 hours would be a good idea. Blackwood basically says it is workable depending on the context & other factors.
Fitzgerald asks about SAMs conditions & asks him again whether it would affect JA. Blackwood agrees, it may.
Fitzgerald reading a horrific description of conditions by a former warden of the bureau of prisons in the US & asks Blackwood again who agrees it may affect JA but
.... repeats the mantra.
Fitzgerald asks why he claims there is no solitary in the ADC in his report.
Blackwood says that is what Mr Kromberg said. Fitzgerald says you just accepted that was true.
Asks if he thinks Maureen Baird, the warden wouldn’t know whether there was or not
... which then elicited the mantra about what else might be available. Nothing else, says Fitzgerald, that’s it.
Lunch
Fitzgerald continues cross examining Blackwood.
Asks him about whether it would be inhuman to expose someone in JA’s condition to the conditions in the prison he would be held.
B: that’s not for me to say.. for the court to decide
Fitzgerald pointing out reports that were
..available to him about conditions in the US JA would be held before he wrote his report, rather than just reading what the Prosecutor said.
.. Agrees, but says he has read academic articles that say conditions in UK & US prisons are similar.
Fitzgerald asking him to compare what has been available to JA here - phone calls to the Samaritans for example, and what Maureen Baird says the conditions in the US would be, does he consider them the same.
Blackwood says something nonsensical (to me) in reply.. he says, it
.. “depends on other factors at the time”
Fitzgerald pushes him and he finally says, in those conditions, with no outlet for his intelligence etc etc yes it would have a deleterious effect.
In other words, if the former prison warden’s description of conditions is correct rather the Prosecutor’s, then it’s very likely it would be a bad place for JA to be, Prosecution witness agrees.
Fitzgerald asks Blackwood why he spoke to Daly & not another prison doctor with whom JA had a better relationship.
Blackwood says there are numerous doctors there.
Witness agrees JA told him he felt better after being moved out of health care, indicating he doesn’t cope well with isolation.
Fitzgerald going thru the notes where there are constant references to asking for the Samaritans on the phone. Blackwood says yes but also during that period he was reported to be better. Fitzgerald asks whether this might be exactly because of access to the Samaritans for exampl
.. e. (Have to say, Dr Blackwood is being given a going over & showing signs of stress)
Fitzgerald asking about Chelsea & Epstein. Asks if he would say Epstein could have resisted the impulse but didn’t.
Blackwood keeps referring to predictions that JA would not be able to participate in this legal process have not come to pass.
Fitzgerald quotes Deeley & contrasts with Blackwood’s descriptions based on another prison health care worker’s notes that include comments like that he has had successful relationships with numerous women.
Blackwood says he is concerned JA had never been diagnosed with Aspergers previously despite having had psychiatric care.
Fitzgerald asks for his notes of his consultations with JA & Daly.
Short break to consult JA
A final question from Fitzgerald: you said you have got notes of both interviews & there may be notes of interviews with Dr Daly.. anyone else? No one else.
Lewis points out Maureen Baird was talking about another prison, Fitzgerald points out she says the SAMs conditions
.. are exactly the same.
Lewis: Dod you understand it related to the ADC prison?
Blackwood: yes I did.
Lewis: you say given his mental condition it would not be unjust.
Blackwood: yes.
Lewis asks about the other prison doctor who Blackwood did not speak to, asking about her
.. status.. she is at the beginning of her career
Witness finished
Dr Sondra Crosby is next.
She is Professor of Medicine at Boston University, where she specialises in internal medicine. Dr Crosby was one of a group of three doctors who assessed Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in January 2018.
She is on video but doesn’t appear to be able to hear the court
Fitzgerald: you saw JA on a number of occasions starting in Oct 2017
Cosby: I was invited to do this by an American doctor due to the effects of JA’s confinement in the Ecuadorian Embassy & visited him in Belmarsh twice
Fitzgerald: the conditions of confinement & the consequences, how his physical health has been affected by prolonged psychological torture.
Crosby: he described symptoms of depression & PTSD, I observed over time his mental state was declining & started discussing suicide
& described an Bosnian charged with war crimes who swallowed cyanide in court
... He was suffering with an infection that he could not have treated outside the Embassy, he increasingly became very depressed & agitated. He told me he was not revealing the full extent of his suicide ideation he would be put into isolation, she said.
She said he was severely depressed & that accessing the Samaritans had helped him. She deals with depression & PTSD in her clinical practice. Lewis objects.
Fitzgerald: did you form a view on his medical condition?
Crosby: in Oct 2019 - severely depressed, met DSM5 major criteria
... & his suicide risk was high. He said the trigger would be extradition to the US where his life would be intolerable. She adds she believes he would be at high risk of suicide if extradited.
She was concerned about his physical condition - chest pain, dizziness, shortness ..
.. of breath, the long term dental infection, osteoporosis which is unusual in young men so I looked at his Oz records & spoke to his endocrinologist in OZ - it has never been treated.. he broke his ribs bending down to tie his shoe laces. He would be at increased risk for..
..fractures if he were incarcerated in the US.
Lewis: would it be fair to say you are sympathetic JA’s cause
Crosby: no that would not be fair.
Lewis: what was the purpose of your trip & who paid for it?
Crosby: I paid, multiple reasons but mainly to see him.
Lewis: all his..
.. probs are being addressed in prison
Crosby: no. Not the osteoporosis oppression the symptoms that could be heart related
Lewis: are you qualified under section 12 of the mental health act?
Fitzgerald: that’s ridiculous no foreigner is
Crosby: I’m qualified to give expert evidence on mental health.
Lewis: a number of experienced psychiatrists have given evidence who have had more recent contact with him. Are you saying you know better?
C: No
L: Did you visit him on your own or with his lawyers?
C: on one occasion his lawyer was there.
Lewis: you’ve relied on Nils Melzer’s report.
C: I relied on his medical experts reports also.
Lewis: do you think Melzer’s report I’d fair & balanced
C: I have no opinion on his political comments, rather on comments about his health
C: I agreed with the doctors’ assessment that his mental state brought about by trauma from the stress of his situation.
Witness finished
Judge asks to be told what statements have been agreed that she can receive. Short break. Well either hear another witness statement or the will discuss the “adjudication sheet” which Defence obtained because the Prosecution questioned the veracity of the razor incident.
Whoa, spelling. We will either hear.. or they will..
Long close up shot of Stella talking to Julian who is crouching low to speak to her privately . This is probably the closest she has been to him in many months. All that separates them is the glass.
Her ear is as close to the glass as can be.
Fitzgerald reading the statement of Christopher Butler, San Fransisco, Internet Archive 1. Archive.org has archived shots of WikiLeaks publications 2. No request from US govt to take these down
Next, statement of John Young of New York, Cryptome.org
Published the encrypted file of unredacted cables (dated) and have had no request to take it down nor has any legal action been taken. (I hope this is correct, he rattled through it and it’s 1am in Sydney.
Court over for today.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
‘For Israeli decision-makers, starvation of the Gaza Strip was in the cards from day one of the war.. 1. About 30,000 people live in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. Imagine that the refrigerators of all Sderot residents are empty. In fact, they don't even have refrigerators. The bakeries are closed. The supermarket shelves offer nothing. Residents are hungry. And then, once every 24 hours, a single truck enters the city gates and distributes food, door to door. And the food on that truck? That's all there is, for the entire city.
About 30,000 people also live in Or Akiva. And in Arad. Each city gets one truck a day.
Will the residents of Sderot still be hungry by the end of the day? And what will happen after a week? And after a month?’ Cont
‘2. According official data from the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, which is responsible for carrying out the government's civilian policy in those areas, an average of 71 trucks entered the Gaza Strip each day over the past month. Seventy-one trucks meant to feed 2.1 million people. One truck for every 30,000. Half of the trucks made it to a distribution center but the other half of them, brought in by the United Nations and various aid organizations, were looted en route.
It's a pitiful amount of food. But one can only wish the Sderot scenario was the reality in Gaza. The situation there is much worse.’ Cont
‘3. In Gaza, the truck does not distribute food door to door. Half of the food it carries is unloaded in large piles in remote military zones. The gates there open for just 15 minutes a day, according to a random schedule. You're reading that right: 15 minutes a day.
People loot the other half of the goods straight from the trucks. In both cases, those who manage to get to the food are almost exclusively young men, those who can carry heavy loads, run fast and are willing to risk their lives.
Over 1,000 have died so far while crowding around to get food, since late May, most of them from Israel Defense Forces gunfire.
What happens to those who can't make it to the trucks or the distribution centers? What about the women, the disabled, the sick, the elderly? What about the unlucky?
They are starving to death.’ Cont
Louise Adler in The Guardian: 🧵
‘One must acknowledge the remarkably effective Jewish community organisations in Australia behind the latest antisemitism report. Collectively, with their News Ltd megaphone, they have successfully badgered the government of the day, cowed the ABC, intimidated vice-chancellors and threatened to defund arts organisations.
With the ability to garner prime ministerial dinners, a battalion of lobbyists has gained access to editors, duchessed willingly seduced journalists keen to enjoy junkets and corralled more than 500 captains of industry to subscribe to full-page ads against antisemitism and thereby blurring political argument with prejudice and bias. It is no surprise that this relentless propaganda effort has paid off…’
On those forever quoted statistics on antisemitism:
‘16 students at Sydney University feeling intimidated by the slogan “from the river to the sea” was reframed as 250 complaints submitted to parliamentary inquiry. A childcare centre that was not in fact a Jewish centre was added to the list of terrifying antisemitic attacks. The individuals police believe were hired by criminals seeking a reduction in their prison sentences who allegedly placed combustible material in a caravan became a “terrorist plot”’’
The figures include all the ‘fake’ antisemitism attacks by paid criminals orchestrated by a crime figure not in any way driven by antisemitism, antiZionism or anti Israel motivation. As for the keffiyeh and the phrase from the River to the Sea, interpreting the symbols and slogans of another group as threatening while promoting your own as needing protection is one eyed and undermines social cohesion.
‘The publication of the special envoy’s plan is the latest flex by the Jewish establishment. The in-house scribes have been busy: no institution, organisation or department is exempt from the latest push to weaponise antisemitism and insist on the exceptionalism of Australian Jewry. One might pause to wonder what First Nations people, who are the victims of racism every day, feel about the priority given to 120,000 well-educated, secure and mostly affluent individuals…
The envoy wants to strengthen legislation apparently. Isn’t that the role of the government of the day? Who is to be the arbiter? Who is to be the judge, for example, of universities and their report cards? Who will adjudicate “accountability” in the media? Who will recommend defunding which artist? Should this government endorse this proposal, it will clearly be the envoy.
Fortunately, a suite of laws protecting us from racism, discrimination, hate speech and incitement to violence are already deeply embedded in our civil society. No university is oblivious to these laws, no public broadcaster, no arts organisation.
Educating future generations about the Holocaust has long been a priority. I hope the envoy is aware of the work done engaging thousands of school students at such institutions as the Melbourne Holocaust Museum where my own mother was the education officer for over a decade. If the envoy is concerned that school students aren’t sufficiently well versed in the horrors of the Holocaust, she might take heart from such evidence as the sales of Anne Frank’s diary continue unabated, in the past five years more than 55,000 copies were sold in Australia.
The envoy helpfully proposes to nominate “trusted voices” to refute antisemitic claims – yet again seeking to prescribe who speaks and which views are deemed acceptable. One hopes that media organisations are resolute against the plan’s determination to monitor, oversee and “ensure fair reporting to avoid perpetually incorrect or distorted narratives or representations of Jews”. It seems that the envoy wants to determine what is legitimate reportage. Freedom of the press is of less importance. Independent journalism that is factual and speaks the truth is lightly abandoned.

What is Australia’s proposed antisemitism plan – and why are some parts causing concern?
Read more
Universities appear to be on notice: adopt the IHRA definition, act on it or be warned that in March 2026 a judicial inquiry will be established as the envoy demands.
Cultural organisations be warned – your funding could be at risk too. There isn’t a cultural organisation in the country that doesn’t have well-argued codes of conduct for staff, artists and audiences – in place well before the 7 October attack to combat homophobia, racism and hate speech. Now it is proposed that a Jewish Cultural and Arts Council is to advise the arts minister. To privilege one ethnic community over others is deeply offensive and dangerous.’
And there I’ll stop because Segal’s shopping list is deeply offensive and dangerous.
Breaking
ABC changes its position and defence, now acknowledging @antoinette_news IS Lebanese . A recognition the race exists 🤦🏻♀️
Today’s hearing began with the ABC apologising for filing an unredacted affidavit revealing the name of a complainant.
Two own goals for @ABCaustralia
With respect to the very wise move to change their position on race in this case, I think it can be assumed Chair Kim Williams would have come down on management like a ton of bricks. He has been outspoken on change required at the broadcaster, and this catastrophic case is public confirmation of the rectitude of that position.
@ABCaustralia Currently Ahern being cross examined by ABC - he is held responsible for hiring Lattouf. Next today will be then Chair Buttrose followed by Green, her direct supervisor whose evidence will be an integral piece in the puzzle of what Lattouf was told, as she did the telling.
In light of the ongoing court case brought by @antoinette_news against the @ABCaustralia for unfair dismissal, it’s worth recalling her proposal to the ABC in order to settle the matter which I’ll post in a thread below.
Instead, the ABC decided to defend their decision, exposed in excruciating detail and at enormous expense to the taxpayer - we are funding the 14 month battle (so far) and the massive US law firm Seyfarth the ABC has engaged to fight it. It will be costing a fortune.
Here is what she had asked for to settle it months ago:
🧵
Fascinating day in court as @antoinette_news lawyer outlines content of emails between senior members of the ABC prior to her HRW post, the pressure they came under from the lobby group Lawyers for Israel from the moment she was on air, because of her known political opinions, their conclusion the position was untenable but that they could not sack her abuse she had done nothing wrong and for fear of the phenomenal ‘blowback’.
The manner in which she was sacked - called to a brief meeting and told to collect her things and leave the building did not follow the proscribed procedure under the enterprise agreement according to her lawyer.
Her sacking followed her repost of a HRW report stating Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war.
Court adjourned briefly..
If you wish to follow, livestream here
Lattouf’s lawyer lists numerous additional complaints from the lobby group to the Chair and MD on the day she was sacked, and The Australian, which evidently knew of the complaints, called the ABC.
He says emails show ABC senior figures were sympathetic to the Israel lobby’s position.
A slide of AL’s post simply saying ‘HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war’ is shown - apparent this could not be construed as anything but a statement of fact, and in addition, with ABC news stories appeared on the HRW report prior to and after AL’s post.
Her lawyer refers to an unwritten expectation that ABC employees will not do at any time anything that may convey the view they are not impartial.
He says ABC claims it imposed on AL a bespoke rule (not to post about Gaza) and then sacked her for breaching that standard.
If Senior Exec Oliver Taylor asserts the post expresses an opinion, then the dismissal is because of her political opinions - ‘opinionated’ and ‘partial’ mean the same thing, so they hold the post revealed impartiality.
If Senior Management were agnostic on the Gaza issue, then they succumbed to a campaign.
Either ABC capitulated to a lobby or she breached a standard specific to her.
He says the ABC submission is long and an elaborate navigation for the ABC narrative, characteristic of a lawyers drafting, when there is ample material in the contemporaneous emails, in order to reinterpret clear statements in emails; the affidavits don’t deal with critical issues - who gave the direction and when? Her supervisor Green stated in their meeting that she did not give Lattouf a ‘directive’ not to post, she ‘advised’ her to avoid it. The complex affidavits don’t describe why the post was ‘partial’ - the post doesn’t appear in Taylor’s affidavit at all ie the very thing that was ostensibly the reason for the sacking.
Apropos communications, the ABC are prohibited from using Signal as they are subject to the Archives Act and can’t delete.
ABC Witness statements are he says replete with terms like ‘trust and confidence’, ‘impartiality’ etc
Oliver Taylor believes she was given a direction ‘bespoke to her’ not to post about Gaza, and her post ‘may’ have breached that direction.
He says the ABC justify not following their protocols for dismissal because a presenter can be removed even if she hasn’t done anything wrong (rostering change etc).
Lattouf asserts if she was not of the Lebanese race she would not have been removed in that way.
The ABC will assert says there is no evidence there is such a thing as a Lebanese race. The ABC lawyer rose - he objects to this being run as a discrimination case because it departs from the pleadings.
SAl’s lawyer says the issue is whether she was dismissed because of the HRW post, or because of objections to her political opinion by the lobby group and the Chair of the ABC.
Also, AL’s lawyer says that there could be no rational basis for Taylor to believe her post was a sackable offence. That the evidence she was given a directive particular to her was implausible given Green told management she didn’t issue a directive. Nevertheless, Taylor concluded a directive was given. And he thought there ‘may’ have been a breach of ABC social media policy.
1 of 2 for this morning session