Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[uke2se]

It was, it had nothing more to do with my post other than that it reminded me of something similar. It was not meant to show statistics.

Ok, it was irrelevant then. Got it.

Do you consider the two cases presented as fantasy?

No. Just biased editorials.

as not at all controversial?

Might be controversial. Why is this relevant?

Either they show that the swedish legal system when it comes to sexual crimes is not to be trusted, or they're false. Which do you claim it is?

False dichotomy.

 

[Jaxe]

False dichotomy.[/URL]

Not all either or choices are False dichonomy, you're arguing from the standpoint that the law is correct and that Assange has no reason to be worried if he's innocent. Remember i said he's a fugitive from the law, not necessarily justice?

My standpoint is that Swedish law, when it comes to sex cases, is not to be trusted. If the two cases i mentioned were all i had to go by that would still be the case. Even just one of them would be enough.

I don't believe there's any conspiracy to turn him over to the USA. I do believe that the two women wanted a slice of revenge (ie force him to get tested for HIV, if they could) and even if revenge was never a factor, this is still what they did. The officer who took their statements made the call that something illegal could be involved and since it would involve a sex crime she was obliged to report it.

It's about at this point that it spiraled out of control. Things got leaked to the papers and **** hit the fan.

Prosecutor closes it.

Sensationalist and AA's fellow radical feminist and lawyer Borgström enters the stage. Borgström on a first name basis with Ny (also a fellow radical feminist), who happens to be the one handling the case now reopen the case. The fact that these people involved here, are in the same group of people who took down Tito Beltran (Tomas Bodström is Borgströms partner in the firm), makes the justification for worries more than enough.

Now do i agree with Assanges decission to refuse to return to sweden? No i don't, i also think that the swedish authorities could've handled this much more diplomatically.

If he did, and even if he's innocent, i still see a pretty big risk of him getting sentenced for the crimes he is accused of.

 

[uke2se]

Not all either or choices are False dichonomy,

This one is, though.

you're arguing from the standpoint that the law is correct and that Assange has no reason to be worried if he's innocent. Remember i said he's a fugitive from the law, not necessarily justice?

I am arguing that the law is the law. If you want the law to be changed, you need to do something about it. Fact is that if Assange did what he is accused of, he broke the law in not just Sweden, but in the UK and other European countries as well.

One could always worry about being wrongly convicted. That doesn't mean we should stop pursuing lawbreakers.

My standpoint is that Swedish law, when it comes to sex cases, is not to be trusted.

The law is not to be trusted? The law is just text, you know. You can probably trust that. You mean the Swedish justice system can't be trusted. You have presented no rational reasons for this.

If the two cases i mentioned were all i had to go by that would still be the case. Even just one of them would be enough.

Nope, it isn't. No justice system is foolproof. Fact is Sweden has one of the best ranked justice systems in the world.

I don't believe there's any conspiracy to turn him over to the USA. I do believe that the two women wanted a slice of revenge (ie force him to get tested for HIV, if they could) and even if revenge was never a factor, this is still what they did. The officer who took their statements made the call that something illegal could be involved and since it would involve a sex crime she was obliged to report it.

Correction, since it would involve a crime she was obliged to report it. Sex crimes are treated just like other crimes.

You have presented no evidence that would back your beliefs in this matter. However, your beliefs don't contradict with extraditing Assange to Sweden and let a court make the judgment.

It's about at this point that it spiraled out of control. Things got leaked to the papers and **** hit the fan.

Prosecutor closes it.

Sensationalist and AA's fellow radical feminist and lawyer Borgström enters the stage. Borgström on a first name basis with Ny (also a fellow radical feminist), who happens to be the one handling the case now reopen the case. The fact that these people involved here, are in the same group of people who took down Tito Beltran (Tomas Bodström is Borgströms partner in the firm), makes the justification for worries more than enough.

So, you believe as you do because you dislike certain people involved in this case. I understand where you're coming from, but it's not a rational position, nor is it synonymous with skepticism as a philosophy.

By the way, Tito Beltran was shown to be guilty of raping an 18 year old girl and molesting an under aged girl. He had his day in court. Nobody has shown the verdict to be wrong. He's a disgusting kiddie-fiddler and rapist. Not the person you want to parade around as an example of an innocent man.

Now do i agree with Assanges decission to refuse to return to sweden? No i don't, i also think that the swedish authorities could've handled this much more diplomatically.

Then I ask again what I did several pages ago: What should the Swedish authorities have done?

If he did, and even if he's innocent, i still see a pretty big risk of him getting sentenced for the crimes he is accused of.

You base this on nothing rational. Just your own beliefs.

Also, please explain why you felt the need to lie about Anna Ardin's blog post.

 

[tyr_13]

I am not referring to the Swedish authorities, they are compelled to pursue this because of the law. One may have opinions on how the law is written (not to mention abused), but that's irrelevant here.

By witch hunt i refer to posters like Ben church, Tyr_13 et al who will take any angle, ignore anything that doesn't fit with the way they 'want' it to be. Just to call Assange a rapist. Sort of the opposite of the apologists... That's why i like Kaosium's summary, it's just the state of things, it's the way i would explain the situation if i were as handy with words as him. No conspiracy necessary

Well that's simply not true. I don't know that Assange is a rapist but believe he should stand trial for it in accordance with the legal system and court rulings. What points do you feel are being ignored?

So far the best criticism has been that the public evidence isn't sufficient to make a conviction. Well that's a matter of opinion, no legal standards or guidelines have held it insufficient, and we have a place to settle that, in court. I'm against treating rape accusations as automatically true. I'm against rape cases using a lower standard than other crimes. I'm against treating those accused of rape as if they were proven rapists before they actually are. 'Evidence' that is consistent with one view in addition to being consistent with others does not make that view the correct one. That's why so much of the 'evidence' about the Assange 'witch hunt' is identified as irrelevant (which is not the same as ignoring it). 'Red flags' are NOT evidence, and red herrings certainly aren't.

I don't believe everyone who feels differently is a stooge for Assange. It is telling however that all have repeated untrue claims and/or attitudes regarding rape that not only are backwards, but contrary to their own views on rape in other cases. Such excuses and attitudes about rape are a pet peeve of mine. This isn't a witch hunt against Assange for me.

It appears that the one ignoring things in order for things to be the way they 'want' them to be would be you in this instance.

 

[Jaxe]

Ok, so you are now arguing that Ardin knows about the system so she must have set Assange up?

i did not make that argument, the argument was that she was aware of what the trip to the police office would lead to without having to make any actual accusations herself, and that revenge was not beneath her.

A lie is never irrelevant. You felt the need to make this blog post into something that it isn't. Why did you feel the need to lie, Jaxe? I mean, especially if, as you say, "all the list needs to show is exactly what it says"? Do you think Anna Ardin is the only person in Stockholm who has written a diary or blog entry about getting revenge on a cheating lover? In Sweden? In the world?

It wasn't a lie, i remembered it wrong. The point that was made at the time i read it (over a year ago) was that she knew the legal system and she had the revenge thing on her blog. I admit my description of the blog was false, not a lie, but untrue.

But does she know how to game the system in order to frame someone for rape? That was your accusation, after all. Can you prove that she not only has this knowledge, but actually did it as well?

She has this knowledge. Did she use it? Who knows. If she did I do not believe this result was her intention. She had motive and the knowhow. It does not prove Assange innocent, nor does it prove this is what she did. They are simply circumstances that say that assuming Assanges guilt is wrong.

By the way, "Broderskapsrörelsen" (I'm happy you realize you were wrong about the name. An admittance of that fact would have been nice, though.) doesn't deal specifically with gender issues.

I refuse to admit something so blatantly obvious... They do not deal with gender issues specifically, they however do deal with them, specifically, she does...

Yes, the list includes seeking revenge on a cheating lover. I translated it above for all to see. What it doesn't do is show how to game the justice system in order to get revenge. Why did you lie and say that it did, Jaxe?

Again. The knowledge to game the system she already has, the list just shows revenge isn't beneath her.

I didn't make an ad hominem attack. You might want to read up on what that actually is. I simply guessed from your apparent unfamiliarity with women's feelings that you are quite young, and not very well versed in such things.

And we see from your arguments that the junk is what sticks.

I can only assume you're projecting.

This one is, though.

i disagree.

I am arguing that the law is the law. If you want the law to be changed, you need to do something about it. Fact is that if Assange did what he is accused of, he broke the law in not just Sweden, but in the UK and other European countries as well.

None of which has anything to do with what i said. You're evading.

One could always worry about being wrongly convicted. That doesn't mean we should stop pursuing lawbreakers.

Agreed, but in some cases the fear of being wrongly convicted can be greater than others, and thus justified, this is one of them.

The law is not to be trusted? The law is just text, you know. You can probably trust that. You mean the Swedish justice system can't be trusted. You have presented no rational reasons for this.

Are you saying The Billy Butt and the Tito Beltran cases were rational or irrational?

Nope, it isn't. No justice system is foolproof. Fact is Sweden has one of the best ranked justice systems in the world.

Is this the case for sex crimes too? I'd like to see the numbers on that. Going back to, oh let say the early 90's...

Correction, since it would involve a crime she was obliged to report it. Sex crimes are treated just like other crimes.

No, when it comes to suspicion, it depends on the type of crime. Not that it matters. She was obligated.

You have presented no evidence that would back your beliefs in this matter. However, your beliefs don't contradict with extraditing Assange to Sweden and let a court make the judgment.

Which beliefs are you referring to? I wan't Assange extradited, i believe his fears of being extradited to the US are wrong. But i also believe the charges against him are bogus, but even if he's innocent i still believe chances of him getting sentenced for what he's accused of are greater than they should be.

The kicker is i hope a high profile case could shine some much needed light onto the Swedish courts. Because, as you say 'Sweden has one of the best ranked justice systems in the world' ...

So, you believe as you do because you dislike certain people involved in this case. I understand where you're coming from, but it's not a rational position, nor is it synonymous with skepticism as a philosophy.

I consider them dangerous for the same reason i consider many other extremist groups dangerous.

By the way, Tito Beltran was shown to be guilty of raping an 18 year old girl and molesting an under aged girl. He had his day in court. Nobody has shown the verdict to be wrong. He's a disgusting kiddie-fiddler and rapist. Not the person you want to parade around as an example of an innocent man.

Based on no evidence other than hearsay. A case, btw that was what, 10 years old? Don't get me wrong i fully believe it possible, even probable, that he was guilty. I am no fan of his. I believe him to be rotten to the core. But isn't it supposed to be proven beyond reasonable doubt? There was no real evidence. Parts of what was submitted was faked, testimonies were rehearsed and prepared. It was horrible to watch.

Then I ask again what I did several pages ago: What should the Swedish authorities have done?

In my opinion? They should have agreed to do the questioning in the UK.

 

[Kaosium]

Ok, is it jealous women who want revenge or overzealous prosecutors who trumped up a case or a conspiracy by unknown organizations? You've advocated all three.

So far it looks like it started with the first, was advanced by the second, and the third I've not advocated at all in this case. I've just said there probably are some who'd like him punished and/or stopped, and they're probably laughing their asses off right now!

 

[Jaxe]

Well that's simply not true. I don't know that Assange is a rapist but believe he should stand trial for it in accordance with the legal system and court rulings. What points do you feel are being ignored?

That chances are that even if he's innocent he may still be convicted. That said i still want the trial done...

What bothers me is the terms rapist being thrown around all the time... There is no assumption of innocence. Just blind hatred for a man most people find to be a real jerk at best.

Truth is it's not irrational to believe they went to the station to teach him a lesson. Most of the details from the hearings solidified those suspicions. (Apart from a few left wing radicals i'm aquainted with who immediatly started shouting "rapist", based on nothing other than an article in a tabloid)

 

[PhantomWolf]

You can start a campaign to have rape laws altered in Europe (not just Sweden, as the courts have shown) if you want. Doesn't have any bearing on this case, or the fact that if it is shown that Assange did what he is accused of doing, the two women are real rape victims, and Assange is a real rapist, according to the legal definition of the word.

Just one woman. The sex itself with A was consensual, there is no argument there.

As for your opinion of what human rights are, I am simply appalled that you think forcibly holding down a woman when she wants you to wear a condom during sex, or penetrating an unconscious woman should be considered human rights.

This seems to be the major source of conflict here. I am a firm believer in a woman's right to determine how she uses her own body for sex, when she does that, and with who. This means that men need to change their ideas on what is right and wrong, Kaosium clearly is not interested in doing that. He states things like "But that would mean asking and getting a yes everytime." I'd answer, "exactly my point, this is what you should be doing." It is simply the polite, and in many countires, the legal way to do things. The law doesn't need to change, it's the attituides of men that are still stuck in the caveman era that need to change with a realisation that they are not allowed to overwrite the will of their partners anymore, and if they do, it can land them in legal hot water.

This whole issue could have been avoided by one simple thing, assuming the story is true. Assange simply being willing to accept the women's right that he had to wear a condom during sex. Had he respected their rights and done as asked, no one would have ever known about it. Instead he decided that his desires were more important than theirs and removed their rights by his actions. It's time for people to realise that such actions are not acceptable in modern society and deal with it. It doesn't hurt to respect your partner's wishes, and it takes no more than a second to ask first. If you can't be bothered, don't cry to me when you end up in court.

 

[Kaosium]

Oh, I was more expecting something like:

According to Brottsbalken, chapter 6, 1st paragraph, the definition of...

You know - a legal argument where you show that the actions alleged does not constitute a crime, and therefor the prosecutor is wrong. This is about the law.

Brilliant legal analysis. If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Have you ever read a judgement that was not a miscarriage of justice? If so, what factor did you use to come to that conclusion?

Yes, the judgments that weren't miscarriages don't read like sophistic bilge, i.e. facts not leading to conclusions, distortions of facts, egregious leaps of logic, missing exculpatory information etc.

However further reading on the judgement (of July 12-13) revealed in part why it read like that:

Although the 2003 Act does not mention the Framework Decision, it is now well established that Part 1 of the 2003 Act must be read in the context of the Framework Decision and that the national courts of the Member States should construe national laws so far as possible to attain the results sought to be achieved by the Framework Decision: see Criminal Proceedings against Pupino (Case Cl05/03 [2006] QB 83 at paragraphs 43 and 47 and Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid [2007] UKHL 6, [2007] 2 AC 31 at paragraphs 4 and 5 (Lord Bingham), paragraphs 15-22 (Lord Hope), paragraph 76 (Lord Brown); a helpful review is made by Professor John Spencer in (2009) 30 Statute Law Review 184.

In other words: twist your own laws to accommodate the requesting nation, you just don't have to break them. That makes sense of a lot I was wondering about.

This part I pretty much knew, as per the case of the Italian convicted in absentia on double hearsay evidence that I posted:

The purpose of the Framework Decision, as set out in the recitals to the Framework Decision and the EU Commission's Explanatory Memorandum (2001/0215 dated 25 September 2001) was to replace the European Extradition Convention of 1957 and other Conventions by a new regime. The new regime was to be a regime for surrender between judicial authorities founded on the basis of the common area for justice and the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgments as "the cornerstone of judicial co-operation in both civil and criminal matters". Recital (5) stated:

"The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters. covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice."​

It was intended to make a break with the previous regime which had been intergovernmental and replace it with a regime where:

"Each national and judicial authority should ipso facto recognise requests for the surrender of a person made by the judicial authority of a Member State with a minimum of formalities." (Paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum)​

In other words cough him up, this is a surrender agreement, not really extradition anymore. It might even be surprising it took as long as it did.

This explains a lot, they originally only made their decision on the basis of the EAW:

The Senior District Judge did not consider it necessary to examine the statements from the complainants which were the only material put before him in the course of the hearing. He looked only at what was set out in the EAW. He concluded that dual criminality was established for offences 1-3 and that what was described in relation to offence 4 was rape.

This High Court also chose to make their judgement solely on the basis of the EAW:

Although, it is always open to a Divisional Court of two or three judges not to follow the decision of a single judge, we entirely agree with the conclusion reached by Sir Anthony May. The decision in Castillo to admit extraneous material was made under the 1957 Convention under which the ultimate decision on extradition was for the Executive, not the judiciary. As is clear from the objectives of the Framework Decision (to which we have referred at paragraph 14 and following), that regime has been replaced by a regime of surrender between judicial authorities based on mutual recognition.

That necessitates a different approach for the reasons we have given; the statement as to the admission of extraneous material set out in Castillo does not apply to surrender under the provisions of the 2003 Act. Ordinarily, therefore, the judge in the executing state should scrutinise the terms of the EAW and make the decision to order surrender on the basis of what is contained in the EAW and not have regard to material extraneous to the EAW. That course gives effect to the underlying purpose of the regime and the principles of mutual recognition to which we have referred.

It is always possible, as Murua demonstrates, that there may be circumstances in which extraneous material should be admitted without undermining the principles underlying the Framework Decision. Such circumstances will be exceptional and therefore are likely to be very rare, given those underlying principles. In our view, those circumstances will not arise where the EAW is clear on its face and the evidence sought to be adduced does not show that the case actually being advanced by the prosecutor is different to the case set out in the EAW. Such circumstances will normally only occur where there has been a fundamental error or fundamental unfairness or bad faith on the part of the court or prosecutor in the issuing state. It is necessary to consider whether the request for Mr Assange's surrender is such a case.

(d) Offence 1: Dual criminality: consideration of the accuracy and fairness by reference to extraneous material

It is conceded the conduct described in relation to offence I in the EAW discloses dual criminality, and that therefore, if a UK court does not take account of the material in the prosecution file provided to Mr Assange, then this ground of objection to MrAssange 's extradition under the EAW would fall away in respect of this offence.

In our view, it is not apposite to take into account the material in the prosecution file:

[/CENTER]i) The description in the EAW sets out a clear description of the conduct that the Prosecutor alleges against Mr Assange. It is for the Prosecutor not the court to set out what is alleged.
ii) The Svea Court of Appeal has considered the offences and determined that there is cause to proceed.
iii) It cannot be said that what is set out is plainly wrong.
iv) No allegation of bad faith on the part of the Prosecutor was made in this court.
v) The facts set out were sufficient to lead to the inevitable inference of lack of consent to the specific matter alleged against Mr Assange and to the requisite knowledge on his part. In the case of the first offence, Mr Assange lay on AA forcibly restricting her movements to which she did not consent.
That is what would have to be proved. If he did those acts it would also be the inevitable inference, to the extent relevant, that he knew that she was not consenting.[/CENTER]

However, now it gets interesting!

Nonetheless, as the material was put before us de bene esse, we will express our view on what difference it would have made if we had taken it into account in determining whether the description of the conduct was fair and accurate.

So they apparently chose not to take this information into account, but for some reason decided to add their entirely meaningless and non binding opinion on it anyway. It was this part that I originally concentrated on, not being much interested in the boring ass stuff above, nor whether the prosecutor is a legal authority. It's this part that left me gobsmacked initially, reminding me of reading Massei, and now I know why: that's what it is! Not only is it legally irrelevant, they're only looking at whether it's possible the offence might be prosecutable, that's why they gloss over or fail to mention exculpatory indications! They're just looking for anything that might suggest the EAW was accurate, and that a jury might possibly find worthy of a conviction, to wit:

[It seems to us that the conduct described as offence 1 fairly and properly describes the conduct as set out in AA's statement in relation to what is complained of restricting her movement by violence. We accept that Mr Assange subsequently allowed AA to move so she could find a condom for him to use, but at the point in time to which the offence relates, we do not read anything in her statement to indicate consent to his restraining her. Indeed her statement indicates precisely the opposite at the point of time to which it relates. It of course might well be argued that his subsequent decision to let go of her might indicate a lack of coercion or consent to what followed, but at the point of time to which the offence relates, we consider the conduct of which he is charged to have been fairly and accurately described. As we have set out at paragraph 71.v) above, the matters alleged are sufficient, in our view, and to the extent relevant, to impel the inference of knowledge. The context does not change our view.

So in other words they know it's going to be argued that him letting her go (and them continuing consensual sex) destroys the charge, but that part in the EAW was actually in there!

In our view, therefore, s.76 has no application. The question of consent in the present case is to be determined by reference to s.74. The allegation is clear and covers the alternatives; it not an allegation that the condom came off accidentally or was damaged accidentally. It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that, if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom without her consent. His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act.

In other words, in keeping with the spirit of surrender they allow that a jury might buy the argument that he destroyed the condom and thus he raped her. That's why it reads like pure lunacy after they go through the one about the failure to disclose HIV and the prostitute not being paid: a jury might find that story plausible, and it's not their place to deny them the opportunity, what with being in the surrender business and all. More about what they're notactually interested in regarding that charge:

It is in our view clear from her statement that AA only wished to have sexual intercourse with Mr Assange if he used a condom. It is also clear that a case being made by the Prosecutor is that Mr Assange, knowing that, nonetheless broke the condom. It was submitted that it should have been made clear that the allegation was founded on her belief he had torn the condom and that the forensic science evidence did not support that belief; it was also submitted that the evidence showed she consented. Whether there is sufficient evidence is a matter with which this court cannot be concerned. Nor was it necessary to set out facts that might disprove her case that she did not consent, such as her invitation to him to remain in the flat.

The sole concern of this court is whether, on the basis that the fairness and accuracy of the description can be examined by reference to the materials in the prosecution file, the description of the conduct is fair and accurate. In our view, although the language could have been expressed more precisely, it is clear what is being said, namely that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her when not using a condom when he knew she would not have sex with him unless he was using a condom which protected her from his ejaculate entering her. It seems to us immaterial to the fairness and accuracy of the description of the offence whether that lack of protection arose out of his failure to wear a condom or his tearing or damaging the condom deliberately.

So in other words all exculpatory indications and evidence are irrelevant, and in the spirit of surrender they'll give her a break on the wording.

We do not consider that the offence was not fairly and accurately described. It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. "Consummated" refers to having intercourse, not to ejaculation. In our judgement it was not necessary to go further than was set out in the description of the conduct as it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.

Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages relied upon by Mr Assange assist. In one sent by her she described herself as "half asleep" and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep. These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail. It was not therefore necessary to set the details of these out. There is, therefore, nothing in the particulars which is neither fair nor accurate.

The gravamen of Mr Assange' s argument is that the description of the offence by the Prosecutor does not set out the continuum of events and the context, but seeks to isolate one aspect. That continuum and context showed that she agreed to sexual intercourse when she realised what was happening; it cannot therefore be alleged that he did not have a reasonable belief in consent. We accept Ms Montgomery's observations about how far it would be right to see what happened afterwards as consensual rather than reluctant submission. But the fact of protected sexual intercourse on other occasions cannot show that she was, or that Mr Assange could reasonably have believed that she was, in her sleep consenting to unprotected intercourse. The fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her. Once awake she was deciding whether to let him go on doing what he had started. However it is clear that she is saying that she would rather he had not started at all and had not consented. The prosecution case on rape is or includes the start of sexual intercourse: its references to "consummation" cannot in context be confined to its conclusion or to ejaculation. It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.

So all they're doing here is twisting themselves into contortions to allow for the possibility that a jury could hold the prosecution had a case as this doesn't prove him completely innocent, and everything in the EAW is actually in the statements, outside one little faux pas they're gonna be reasonable about.

No wonder it read like Massei, skipping blissfully past all the exculpatory information or coming up with lame reasons to still consider the charges valid, and as a matter of fact all they were really doing is making sure everything in the EAW was in the additional information and there was nothing in there that completely exonerated him, keeping in mind their mission was to surrender him to Swedish authorities. And of course, none of this was legally binding in the slightest so they could say whatever they wanted anyway.

There are several English lawyers and legal commentators that have analysed the English court decisions. For example http://www.headoflegal.com/, http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/joshua-rozenberg, http://jackofkent.com/blog/. Have you found support for your position there, or maybe you can show us how your legal analysis differ from theirs?

I've read through some of that, I was unable to find much outside excerpts and mentioning in passing from Jack of Kent regarding the High Court Ruling, which initially intrigued me. I found nothing from Rosenberg on it, as I understand it was released around November of '11? Perhaps I missed it but going there and scanning forward several months, and then back to July when the proceedings took place I found nothing about it. Ditto with the other link. I could personally care less (at this point) regarding a lot of the issues such as whether the EAW was issued properly or extradition which has consumed a lot of interest in this case.

Yes? You do know that EAW means European Arrest Warrant? At this stage it's all about an arrest. Charging may come later. The actual court case follows that. Then we will see if the evidence holds up.

Yeah, I'm starting to get a feel for what that means. It's a bit premature to be calling him a 'rapist,' and I've a question for you, I came across a couple things days back regarding the actual nature of the charges, but cannot find them now. Is there possible a translation problem with 'rape?' In other words he's actually charged with a lesser crime (for the most serious charge) and it just doesn't come across accurately when translated to English? This is 'lesser rape' or somesuch?

I don't know, what are you looking for? It's obviously a case that attracts a lot of media attention, as well as a case that probably will involve complex decisions on the law, so it would make sense to have a lawyer that is knowledgeable and experienced in the relevant area of law, as well as experienced in interacting with the media.

Please!

What? If you have some kind of smoking gun please show it.

Just curious about this Krans.

Do your research. MK was the on-duty prosecutor. EF took over when this moved into the regular day-job prosecutors.

I take it the day prosecutors have more authority which is why she was able to quash it?

Of course there is a difference, if you don't even know the basics of the Swedish legal system and the prosecution authority you can start for example on this link.

Thank you for the link.

Are you making up things as you go?

Jus' messin' wit ya!

Then do take a look at this post and maybe read up on what has actually happened in this case so far.

Thanks again.

 

[Kaosium]

Please prove your assertions. Failure to do so diminishes your credibility. I will keep reminding you.

Take a look at your posts to me and ask yourself if you really believe I would care about proving anything to you, or that I would care in the slightest about my 'credibility' in your eyes.

There's no need to number crunch the obvious. If you have the highest number (per capita) rape accusations, convictions around three-four times the European average and a low conviction rate that leaves a huge number of reported rapes not getting prosecuted. Being as the number of rape accusations increased on the order of 50% in the five years previous to this event either there is a rape epidemic of historical proportions going on in Sweden that authorities cannot possibly keep up with, or numerous false accusations are being made. Being as there's a helluva lot more support for that, and the simple fact that these accusations arising from consensual sex are still being pursued, I think it more likely that it has become quite the fad in Sweden to make rape allegations. It just so happens there's a lot of people saying that, too. Go figure!

We also have two prosecutors and three courts saying there is evidence of rape. This includes legal professionals in two nations.

How long was this 'first prosecutor' on the case?

As regards the 'evidence,' the British extradition courts don't actually determine that, and as I understand it the Swedish one merely ruled on the issuing of the EAW. There's no court that actually has seen the 'evidence' and as a matter of fact he hasn't even been charged yet, has he?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Borgström on a first name basis with Ny (also a fellow radical feminist),

Well, only in the meaning that most people are on a first name basis in Sweden, but if you are claiming that CB and MN are friends or anything like that the burden of proof is on you. CB writes that he had met her twice before the JA case.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Jus' messin' wit ya!

Well, I hope you are happy with that, but since you are not interested in a serious dialogue, I won't respond to the rest of your post or any following, except for commenting that you still don't seem to understand that the UK courts was a hearing regarding the EAW. This means that they should check for dual criminality, but it is not their job to examine the evidence. Still, they have looked at more than they usually do, and still came to the conclusion that he should be extradited.

Evaluating the evidence is for the Swedish courts to do, assuming that he actually ends up there.

 

[JihadJane]

Well, I hope you are happy with that, but since you are not interested in a serious dialogue, I won't respond to the rest of your post or any following, except for commenting that you still don't seem to understand that the UK courts was a hearing regarding the EAW. This means that they should check for dual criminality, but it is not their job to examine the evidence. Still, they have looked at more than they usually do, and still came to the conclusion that he should be extradited.

Evaluating the evidence is for the Swedish courts to do, assuming that he actually ends up there.

Cop-out.


____________________________________

'UK, Sweden are the most hated countries in Europe'

 

[uke2se]

i did not make that argument, the argument was that she was aware of what the trip to the police office would lead to without having to make any actual accusations herself, and that revenge was not beneath her.

So what does this mean?

It wasn't a lie, i remembered it wrong. The point that was made at the time i read it (over a year ago) was that she knew the legal system and she had the revenge thing on her blog. I admit my description of the blog was false, not a lie, but untrue.

The point wasn't made in the blog, though. It was a completely benign blog-post that doesn't show anything about gaming the justice system, nor does it show any knowledge of such from her.

She has this knowledge.

Because you say so?

Did she use it? Who knows. If she did I do not believe this result was her intention. She had motive and the knowhow. It does not prove Assange innocent, nor does it prove this is what she did. They are simply circumstances that say that assuming Assanges guilt is wrong.

I disagree. However, one should never assume guilt. You don't have to invent a whole song and dance number just to make that point.

I refuse to admit something so blatantly obvious... They do not deal with gender issues specifically, they however do deal with them, specifically, she does...

Evidence?

Again. The knowledge to game the system she already has, the list just shows revenge isn't beneath her.

Because you say so?

I can only assume you're projecting.

This is a non sequitur.

i disagree.

You're wrong.

None of which has anything to do with what i said. You're evading.

Evading what? You made no argument.

Agreed, but in some cases the fear of being wrongly convicted can be greater than others, and thus justified, this is one of them.

Nope.

Are you saying The Billy Butt and the Tito Beltran cases were rational or irrational?

Ehmm... odd question. The cases were of course rational.

Is this the case for sex crimes too? I'd like to see the numbers on that. Going back to, oh let say the early 90's...

Certainly. It's all here.

No, when it comes to suspicion, it depends on the type of crime. Not that it matters. She was obligated.

She was obligated because it was a crime. That it was a sex crime had nothing to do with it. Police combat crime, you know.

Which beliefs are you referring to? I wan't Assange extradited, i believe his fears of being extradited to the US are wrong. But i also believe the charges against him are bogus, but even if he's innocent i still believe chances of him getting sentenced for what he's accused of are greater than they should be.

You ask me "which beliefs" and then you list them.

The kicker is i hope a high profile case could shine some much needed light onto the Swedish courts. Because, as you say 'Sweden has one of the best ranked justice systems in the world' ...

You mean so that other nations can do what we do and get a less corrupt justice system?

I consider them dangerous for the same reason i consider many other extremist groups dangerous.

The Social Democrats are an extremist group?

`

Based on no evidence other than hearsay. A case, btw that was what, 10 years old? Don't get me wrong i fully believe it possible, even probable, that he was guilty. I am no fan of his. I believe him to be rotten to the core. But isn't it supposed to be proven beyond reasonable doubt? There was no real evidence. Parts of what was submitted was faked, testimonies were rehearsed and prepared. It was horrible to watch.

The courts disagree with you. No further argument needed.

In my opinion? They should have agreed to do the questioning in the UK.

So you think they should have violated Swedish judicial process just for Assange? What happened to "equal before the law"?

 

[uke2se]

Take a look at your posts to me and ask yourself if you really believe I would care about proving anything to you, or that I would care in the slightest about my 'credibility' in your eyes.

There's no need to number crunch the obvious. If you have the highest number (per capita) rape accusations, convictions around three-four times the European average and a low conviction rate that leaves a huge number of reported rapes not getting prosecuted. Being as the number of rape accusations increased on the order of 50% in the five years previous to this event either there is a rape epidemic of historical proportions going on in Sweden that authorities cannot possibly keep up with, or numerous false accusations are being made. Being as there's a helluva lot more support for that, and the simple fact that these accusations arising from consensual sex are still being pursued, I think it more likely that it has become quite the fad in Sweden to make rape allegations. It just so happens there's a lot of people saying that, too. Go figure!

Please prove your assertions. I will keep reminding you.

How long was this 'first prosecutor' on the case?

Relevance?

As regards the 'evidence,' the British extradition courts don't actually determine that, and as I understand it the Swedish one merely ruled on the issuing of the EAW. There's no court that actually has seen the 'evidence' and as a matter of fact he hasn't even been charged yet, has he?

Wrong. Evidence has been deemed sufficient to warrant an extradition.

 

[Kaosium]

Well, I hope you are happy with that, but since you are not interested in a serious dialogue, I won't respond to the rest of your post or any following, except for commenting that you still don't seem to understand that the UK courts was a hearing regarding the EAW. This means that they should check for dual criminality, but it is not their job to examine the evidence. Still, they have looked at more than they usually do, and still came to the conclusion that he should be extradited.

Yeah...I gathered that. I was more interested in their take on the evidence and why they did so, that didn't make sense. That one bit was a friendly joke, guess you didn't get it.

Oh. Well.

Evaluating the evidence is for the Swedish courts to do, assuming that he actually ends up there.

I've evaluated the evidence, there's not much of it, and it's wanting. No court should have to see that case, it suggests rank corruption just getting this far and in the manner it did. Actually that whole putrefying situation with all the bogus accusations regarding what is a serious crime in civilized climes might be more rancid than Chicago on a warm sunny day.

 

[uke2se]

I've evaluated the evidence, there's not much of it, and it's wanting. No court should have to see that case, it suggests rank corruption just getting this far and in the manner it did. Actually that whole putrefying situation with all the bogus accusations regarding what is a serious crime in civilized climes might be more rancid than Chicago on a warm sunny day.

Nobody cares, because, well, you're not relevant in this case. In a state governed by laws, we use trained legal professionals as opposed to anonymous forum posters to render judgment in court cases. Sorry if this bothers you.

 

[nathan]

as a matter of fact he hasn't even been charged yet, has he?

That is correct. He's not been charged because he's not in Sweden. Hence the EAW to get him to Sweden so he could be charged.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That is correct. He's not been charged because he's not in Sweden. Hence the EAW to get him to Sweden so he could be charged.

It might be worth noting that he can't be charges outside of Sweden either.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I've evaluated the evidence, there's not much of it, and it's wanting.

Wow, so countries could save themselves millions a year just by asking you to tell them if someone is guilty or not. Perhaps you should advertise your services.