Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[eirik]

Wait, are you saying that the investigation is discontinued? Why else would you bring it up?

Wow. Just... wow.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Just wanted to note that the case was never dropped entirely. The second prosecutor cancelled the arrest warrent, and then closed the case of the first woman (SW) on the basis that she felt it didn't meet the level required for rape. The second woman's (AA) case was not closed, and continued to go on as an investigation into sexual molestation. After the appeal, the original prosecutor's belief on the case was reinstated, sexual molestation still on case 2 (AA), and rape being reopened on case 1 (SW).

5. The reports were filed as:

i. Case No. K246314-10 [complainant SW] as ‘rape’.

ii. Case No. K246336-10 [complainant AA] as ‘molestation’.

7. A preliminary investigation was commenced and both women were interviewed (SW on 20th August, and AA on 21st August). At the conclusion of those interviews, on 21st August 2010, the case was taken over by the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm (Eva Finne). Having assessed the evidence, she cancelled the arrest warrant against the Appellant; she having made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape (against SW).

8. The preliminary investigation continued in respect of:

i. Whether the conduct alleged by SW could constitute some lesser offence,

ii. Whether the conduct alleged by AA could constitute ‘molestation’.

9. On 25th (sometimes erroneously referred to as 23rd) August 2010, the Chief Prosecutor determined that:

i. The conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed.

ii. The preliminary investigation into the conduct alleged by AA would continue (on suspicion of the offence of ‘molestation’ only).

11. Meanwhile, on 27th August 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealed the Chief Prosecutor’s decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Goteborg. On 1st September 2010, that prosecutor (Marianne Ny) decided that:

i. The Preliminary Investigation in respect of file K246314-10[SW] would be resumed, under the offence of ‘rape’.

ii. The preliminary investigation into K246336-10 [AA] would be expanded to include all the conduct in the complaint.

 

[Here_to_learn]

whose law partner was involved in facilitating the US illegal "extraordinary rendition" (abduction/torture) program.

And again, what source do you have, in this case that he actually was involved - not just that somebody claims that he was involved?

I was responding to eirik's unsourced assertion in kind.

This is the source of my statement:

'Assange And Sweden: Suspicious Behavior
The strange case of the WikiLeaks editor and the Swedish prosecutor ' pdf, page 24

He was acting for his clients, in the legal sense, but that is not evidence that the women "appealed and won over the prosecutions decision to drop the case". Borgström was in the driving seat and Wilén's personal wishes don't appear to have been taken into consideration at all.

And again, what is the source for that. I cannot see anything on page 24 that supports this, and the document from NNN is not sourced.

I notice that you haven't responded to my charge that you were splitting hairs, above.

The complaint that I used to many details in this discussion? No, I found that overall complaint quite hilarious, and WildCat answered on the specifics.

He stayed in Sweden for five weeks waiting for them to get their act together and offered to return to Sweden thereafter.

Yes. And when they asked for him to come, he didn't, so that promise turned out to be worth nothing.

For unknown reasons, the prosecutor, part of the same political milieu as Borgström and Ardin,

Excuse me - are you saying that Marianne Ny is an active member of the Social Democratic party? Again, what source do you have for that? Do note that Claes Borgström states that before this case, he has only met Ms Ny twice.

took the drama queen route (Red Notice) normally reserved for terrorists etc, leading to years of stalemate.

She used the EAW, that was approved by two Swedish courts, and deemed valid by three English courts.

You know - you could search yourself for if it's used, right now there are 160 persons wanted for sexual offences. http://www.interpol.int/Wanted-Persons. It is certainly not reserved for terrorists, which is very easy to see if you search.

 

[a_unique_person]

There is, but not like you think. None of them supports the notion that lawful extraditions in such cases are to be ignored, and exactly none of them states that it's OK to interfere in an open police investigation in a rape case.

I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the process of arriving at the decision to prosecute. Put the same evidence to two different prosecutors, and you get two different opinions. Does that make one of them a rapist lover.

 

[eirik]

There was, indeed, unsurprisingly, an unseemly eruption of conspiracy theories at the time. However, I wouldn't classify the list you have reproduced as an example as left-wing conspiracy-nut-slander,victim-blaming garbage. It appears, instead, that you are, as usual, just making shrill appeals to emotion (JMSATE), which is no more a useful an activity than concocting wild conspiracy theories.

Well, the conspiracy theories has taken over the entire first google search page of both the claimants. That means people like you click and share them.

And you certainly are happy to perpetuate these malicious myths here.

Most of the questions on the list are legitimate enough questions to ask in a highly politicized case. How is investigation possible without asking questions? The police do it all the time.

No they are not, unless you are a crazy slandering rape apologist.

However, I guess that for us mortals, asking questions is very dangerous and really has nothing to do with skepticism. Much better to just accept what the authorities say at face value because power knows best. Don't ask questions!

Yeah. Jaq'ing of indeed.

 

[JihadJane]

Wait, are you saying that the investigation is discontinued? Why else would you bring it up?

Sorry, I have no idea what you're on about here. Please explain your thinking.

Wow. Just... wow.

I am eagerly awaiting the documentation that supports your assertion that I am a "documented liar".

 

[a_unique_person]

No, and that's why the women appealed and won over the prosecutions decision to drop the case.



Rape-apologetics. Charming.

More abuse.

No, because they have, in contrast to you seen the available evidence, and try to make an objective decicion based on the law. And they didn't decide there was no crime, it's just you projecting. They assesed that the evidence was not sufficient to get a conviction. And the appeal authorities disagreed with that assesment.



Feel free to report me. If there is sufficient evidence of me commiting a crime, I should be prosecuted.

But with your grasp of law, and what constitutes abuse (rape is not abuse, but internet arguing IS apparantly..?) , I'm not very concerned.

Calling someone a liar is abusive. Take a good look at yourself.

 

[eirik]

I am eagerly awaiting the documentation that supports your assertion that I am a "documented liar".

Oh, OK. I wasn't sure if you were actually serious. Don't you remember your own lies?

Lie no. 1:

Neither woman has claimed to have been raped. Check your facts.

Lie no. 2:

It was the request of Claes Borgström, a political lawyer, not the women, that the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, reactivated the case.

So now we know you are a documented liar. Now what?

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's POSSIBLE that the US might try to extradite Assange. However, it's also possible that he'll turn himself in to Swedish authorities tomorrow and apologize for wasting their time (that'll be the day). The issue is the LIKELIHOOD of such an event occurring, and right now, the likelihood of Assange being extradited to the US is extremely low and has no evidence to support it beyond the suppositions of a few Australian diplomats who are not privy to the inner workings of the US government and the US judicial process.

The US has contingency planning in place should China, or North Korea, or even Russia, attack us without major provocation. The LIKELIHOOD of such an event is extremely low at this point in time, however, yet the preparations stay in place. Do you see now why we are dismissing the "preparations" of the Australian diplomats? One can be prepared for something and yet not expect it to happen barring some major change, you know.

From that article.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information laws, show Australia's diplomatic service takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/u...bles-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html#ixzz24kHErb00

It's more than just a contingency. You are also confusing the necessity to plan for something that is not likely to happen, but has severe consequences, and something that is likely, but does not have severe consequences. That is, we plan for events that are unlikely, but have to be catered for because the consequences are severe.

 

[eirik]

Calling someone a liar is abusive. Take a good look at yourself.

No, not if they are in fact lying. If people can't stand being called a liar, I would suggest refraining from lying.

I would recommend you take a long hard look at yourself - I am not the one with a position AGAINST due process and lawful extraditions in rape cases.

 

[a_unique_person]

Certainly. See any number of statutory rape cases.

Which is for minors who can't willingly consent legally.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's more than just a contingency.

Really? You get all that from a claim that Australia diplomats speculate that Assange might eventually face extradition? Exactly where is the evidence beyond speculation by people?

 

[a_unique_person]

This is getting ridiculous.

I give a statement, fully sourced, that answers a specific question.

Your answer consists of two parts. Neither of which is sourced in any way.

The first one is wrong, as you can see if you would have read the source link I included. Rape is not among the types of crime where the there is not an absolute duty to prosecute. If you claim that you are correct, you need to show a source that would be considered a better source than the Swedish Prosecution Service - for example the Swedish law.

The second part of your statement is speculation, but still wrong. Since if you read in the agreed facts, that has been linked so many times, you can see:

* The case was not dropped initially, it was dropped by the second prosecutor
* If was not dropped since she decided to ignore evidence, but because she didn't think there was evidence of a crime. The 1st and 3rd prosecutor, as well as two courts disagree.

Could we please try to have some quality in the discussions?

Perhaps there is some ambiguity in the wording. "Initially dropped" in the sense that there was a reason it was dropped when it was dropped.

From their own lawyer

There was nothing unusual about different prosecutors, of varying seniority, coming to different conclusions about whether a crime had occurred, he said. Rape was rarely a clear-cut case of an unknown man pouncing on a woman, he said, and this case, like most, was nuanced and complicated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations

Does this make their own lawyer a rapist apologist?

IMHO, the woman have on their part done nothing wrong, but it is naive to ignore the political aspects that have overtaken this case. The prosecution leaking details of the case, in my understanding, constitute grounds for an appeal since they deliberately poisoned public opinion against Assange. That is unprofessional behaviour either way, it is their duty to see that justice is done, not just that people are prosecuted.

 

[PhantomWolf]

From their own lawyer

There was nothing unusual about different prosecutors, of varying seniority, coming to different conclusions about whether a crime had occurred, he said. Rape was rarely a clear-cut case of an unknown man pouncing on a woman, he said, and this case, like most, was nuanced and complicated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations

Which is quite true, but to claim that after 2 prosecutors, 2 Swedish Courts and 3 English Courts have all looked at the evidence and said "yes it would be rape" that they are all wrong and the one prosecutor that said she thought it wasn't was right, sort of takes the cake. We're at a score of 7 Yes to 1 no. Backing the "no" against those odds screams of somewhat of desperation.

 

[eirik]

Which is for minors who can't willingly consent legally.

Excuse me, are you still arguing that the police are not obligated to prosecute rape?

 

[a_unique_person]

Really? You get all that from a claim that Australia diplomats speculate that Assange might eventually face extradition? Exactly where is the evidence beyond speculation by people?

It's not idle speculation by people on the internet, it's professional diplomats assessing the information they have.

Also from that article.

The cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high-level US advice on "the direction and likely outcome of the investigation" and "reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange".
The question of advance warning of any prosecution or extradition moves was previously raised by Australian diplomats in December 2010.
American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/u...bles-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html#ixzz24kPzpm5c

Australia has asked for advice on the US intentions, and have been told they aren't going to responded to, on the grounds that such disclosure could damage relations. If there was nothing to say, the answer would be just that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Excuse me, are you still arguing that the police are not obligated to prosecute rape?

I was responding to the specific point.

 

[PhantomWolf]

IMHO, the woman have on their part done nothing wrong, but it is naive to ignore the political aspects that have overtaken this case.

Except that there is no evidence of any political aspects affecting the decisions in the case, just a lot of claims with zero evidence.

The prosecution leaking details of the case, in my understanding, constitute grounds for an appeal since they deliberately poisoned public opinion against Assange. That is unprofessional behaviour either way, it is their duty to see that justice is done, not just that people are prosecuted.

It wasn't the prosecution. Early on there may have been a small one from the police, but from my understanding when it occured it's rather murky how that leak occured. I believe that that the Guardian stated that they were shown the files, but weren't allowed to take them.

The major leak of the prosecution files came from documents faxed to Assange's Lawyers.

The documents appear to consist of pretrial discovery material that prosecutors provided to Assange’s Stockholm lawyer Björn Hurtig last year, which Hurtig subsequently faxed to the office of Assange’s British attorney Mark Stephens. The documents begin with a Nov. 23 cover letter addressed to Stephens’ co-counsel, in which Hurtig advises: “Please note that the documents are legally privileged information for Mr Julian Assange and nobody else.”

Somehow, though, after arriving in London, the documents got out. They were anonymously posted to the Adobe Acrobat file sharing and collaboration site in recent days, and the link is being circulated on Swedish message boards and blogs. Stephens did not immediately return a phone call from Wired.com on Wednesday.

 

[eirik]

I was responding to the specific point.

Which was that the police could not prosecute rape without a victims consent. Which is wrong, it's basic law 101. The police prosecutes. It is the exeption that consent is needed, as in theft inside familes. Which has *already* been explained, so I don't know why i bother.

And it's a red herring, because the victim reported it to the police in the *first* place, and even appealed when the case got dropped, and later 5 different court decisions have agreed with her. So there's that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's not idle speculation by people on the internet, it's professional diplomats assessing the information they have.

So it's idle speculation by professional diplomats instead.

Australia has asked for advice on the US intentions, and have been told they aren't going to responded to, on the grounds that such disclosure could damage relations. If there was nothing to say, the answer would be just that.

I think you had better reread that quote again, that's not what it says at all.