Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[JihadJane]

'Gottfrid Svartholm Warg Charged Again In Sweden'

Pirate Bay co-founder Gottfrid Svartholm has been deported from Cambodia to Sweden to serve a one year jail sentence for breach of copyright. On arrival he was charged with a further offence; I have received several messages that this new charge relates to his work in hosting Wikileaks, but I have no confirmation at the moment and Svartholm is being held incommunicado. Can anyone confirm or contradict this?

Svartholm had been assured by Swedish authorities that, if he returned back to serve his jail sentence, he would not face further charges; that was broken the moment he arrived back in Sweden. That may well be a pointer for how seriously we can take assurances that the patently false “sexual assault” charges fabricated against Julian Assange are the real motive for the Swedish authorities’ pursuit of him.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Evaluating the evidence is also the task of the prosecutor and she (Eva Finné) did find that the evidence was not enough to proceed. What we have seen of the evidence, which is quite a lot, suggests that she was right. The suspicion that Marianne Ny re-opened the investigation for others reasons than just an objective evaluation of the evidence can not be dismissed, especially given the legal-political climate in Sweden regarding questions surrounding sex offense cases and the demands of feminist groups within and outside the legal system to change laws to protect victims of sex offenses better.

Sorry, but you are appealing to a wrong authority. Don't try to suggest that we should blindly believe the first expert to examine the evidence! That expert is clearly wrong, because the appeal to authority is a fallacy and also because they concluded that there was no case worth pursuing, and that is the wrong conclusion.

We should kowtow to the authority of courts later on in the process without examining the evidence, or pretend that there is secret evidence which the courts have seen and we have not, because the conclusion of those courts was the correct conclusion.

No real skeptic would rely on the appeal to authority argument when it's the wrong authority!

 

[eirik]

There is an imbalance in your judgment, a blatant double standard, that Assange acolytes share with conspiracy theorist in general.

Even though at least 3 courts has said the evidence in the case establishes that it is more probable that he raped and molested the women than not, and even though Assange ran from the Swedish and the English legal systems, they don't give any credence to it.

In order to believe this, however, they must give credence to conspiracy theories backed by zero evidence, smearing the rape victims, their lawyer, the Swedish prosecutor, the Swedish courts in general, the Swedish Prime minister, the Social Democrat party, the English corts, the US (of course), and anyone else who don't see Assange as being above the law.

Pathetic.

 

[Korren]

'Gottfrid Svartholm Warg Charged Again In Sweden'

To point out the obvious, Warg didn't return to serve his jail service; he was arrested and shipped back metaphorically kicking and screaming -- so any promises that might have been made by the Swedish prosecution for his voluntary return are clearly moot.

ETA: And for the curious, the new charge is not in any way related to hosting Wikileaks. He's been charged with illegal access of a computer system (hacking) and stealing protected personal data belonging to the Swedish tax department.

 

[Korren]

Sorry, but you are appealing to a wrong authority. Don't try to suggest that we should blindly believe the first expert to examine the evidence!

Second, actually.

 

[uke2se]

To point out the obvious, Warg didn't return to serve his jail service; he was arrested and shipped back metaphorically kicking and screaming -- so any promises that might have been made by the Swedish prosecution for his voluntary return are clearly moot.

ETA: And for the curious, the new charge is not in any way related to hosting Wikileaks. He's been charged with illegal access of a computer system (hacking) and stealing protected personal data belonging to the Swedish tax department.

The comments on that blog are hilarious and very telling as to what kind of people still support Assange. It's just your basic conspiracy theorists. One guy tried to inject some sanity into the proceedings, but was harshly voted down and all but called a "shill".

 

[Here_to_learn]

Evaluating the evidence is also the task of the prosecutor and she (Eva Finné) did find that the evidence was not enough to proceed.

I find this absolutely fascinating.

There has been a total of three Prosecutors involved, but for some reason one of them is correct, while the other two are wrong.

The 1st prosecutor found enough to start the investigation and order the arrest.
The 2nd prosecutor took over, and decided to drop first one, then the other of the allegations.
This decision to drop the investigations was appealed (just in the same way that JA appealed both the courts in Sweden and in England), and the investigation restarted, now with the third prosecutor.

Her decisions for the EAW was then confirmed by two Swedish courts after JA had appealed.

So two prosecutors and two courts agree, one prosecutor disagree, but still the the focus is on the single one that disagree.

When decisions are appealed in the legal system, it moves up the ladder, in this case to a prosecutor that has special experience and knowledge in the relevant area of law.

The Supreme Court decisions overrule the High court that overrule the Magistrates court.

The Prosecution Development Centres overrule the local prosecution offices.

That's how simple it is.

the demands of feminist groups within and outside the legal system to change laws to protect victims of sex offenses better.

So since there are persons in Sweden that want's laws to be changed, therefor JA is not guilty?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Sorry, but you are appealing to a wrong authority. Don't try to suggest that we should blindly believe the first expert to examine the evidence! That expert is clearly wrong, because the appeal to authority is a fallacy and also because they concluded that there was no case worth pursuing, and that is the wrong conclusion.

We should kowtow to the authority of courts later on in the process without examining the evidence, or pretend that there is secret evidence which the courts have seen and we have not, because the conclusion of those courts was the correct conclusion.

No real skeptic would rely on the appeal to authority argument when it's the wrong authority!

And a real skeptic would never involve the actual law, or the way the law is applied in the relevant country when analyzing the case.

All real skeptics can look at the interviews, and directly say that this is not rape. What the actual Sweden law says is irrelevant, since all real skeptics know that as long as you call yourself a skeptic, you can come to a conclusion on anything. There is no need to have any training or experience in a specific area, the skeptical process can be applied, and the answer will be obvious. There is not even a need to show sources, and explain why a description of an action does not match the description in the law, or in the prework (förarbete) behind the law.

 

[The Big Dog]

'Gottfrid Svartholm Warg Charged Again In Sweden'

JJ, did you spam post that in this thread to show us that you read completely uninformed and totally out out of date blogs?

 

[Alt+F4]

'Gottfrid Svartholm Warg Charged Again In Sweden'

You seem to have no independent thought or opinion of your own, you are nothing but a slave to your masters. Good luck with that.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

I guess the prosecution will just have to make the best case they can without it, when it goes to court. Oh, wait, I forgot: It can't go to court because Assange is a fugitive from justice.

Maybe Assange's lawyer can call an expert witness on this matter when the case goes to court.

Oops. I forgot again. Fugitive from justice.

Ah, I see. Any speculation about the evidence that doesn't support the prosecution has to be ignored, because Assange is a fugitive from justice. That's going to be a bit of a one sided thread. I don't suppose that for the interests of objectivity, you might post your 'fugitive from justice' comments in reply to all the speculation that Assange is a rapist?

 

[theprestige]

Ah, I see.

I doubt it.

Any speculation about the evidence that doesn't support the prosecution has to be ignored, because Assange is a fugitive from justice.

Any speculation about evidence that doesn't support the prosecution is just that: speculation. To see how much that evidence actually matters, and whether or not the prosecution has enough supporting evidence to get a conviction, the case will have to go to court. Which it cannot do, as long as Assange continues to flee the court.

That's going to be a bit of a one sided thread. I don't suppose that for the interests of objectivity, you might post your 'fugitive from justice' comments in reply to all the speculation that Assange is a rapist?

Certainly. Speculation that Assange is a rapist is just that: speculation. To see whether there's enough evidence to convict him of the charge, the case will have to go to court.

Aw, snap! There's that annoying "fugitive from justice" thing again.

Anyway, what's the result of your speculation? Do you agree that the prosecution should go to trial with the evidence they have, and make the best case they can?

Do you agree that Assange should comply with the requirements of the court, that he should stand trial, and make the best defense he can against the prosecution's case?

Or were you going somewhere else, in your speculation about the DNA on the condom? Perhaps you think the prosecution's case falls apart without it, and they should drop the whole thing and let Assange walk free?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

I doubt it.


Any speculation about evidence that doesn't support the prosecution is just that: speculation. To see how much that evidence actually matters, and whether or not the prosecution has enough supporting evidence to get a conviction, the case will have to go to court. Which it cannot do, as long as Assange continues to flee the court.


Certainly. Speculation that Assange is a rapist is just that: speculation. To see whether there's enough evidence to convict him of the charge, the case will have to go to court.

Aw, snap! There's that annoying "fugitive from justice" thing again.

Anyway, what's the result of your speculation? Do you agree that the prosecution should go to trial with the evidence they have, and make the best case they can?

Do you agree that Assange should comply with the requirements of the court, that he should stand trial, and make the best defense he can against the prosecution's case?

Or were you going somewhere else, in your speculation about the DNA on the condom? Perhaps you think the prosecution's case falls apart without it, and they should drop the whole thing and let Assange walk free?

As I've said in this thread already, I have no objection to Assange facing the trial in Sweden.

I think I have made my point re: the condom. It surprised me that no recoverable DNA was found on a condom that was allegedly used by Assange for intercourse. This surely will not help the prosecution; if there was expert testimony that it would be extremely unlikely to leave no DNA traces on such an intimate item, then I would speculate that this would be very harmful for the prosecution as it would raise the possibility that the evidence had been fabricated.

 

[PhantomWolf]

As I've said in this thread already, I have no objection to Assange facing the trial in Sweden.

I think I have made my point re: the condom. It surprised me that no recoverable DNA was found on a condom that was allegedly used by Assange for intercourse. This surely will not help the prosecution; if there was expert testimony that it would be extremely unlikely to leave no DNA traces on such an intimate item, then I would speculate that this would be very harmful for the prosecution as it would raise the possibility that the evidence had been fabricated.

It depends. If it is unlike for the condom given to the prosecution to not have had DNA that could be determined on it, then it'd probably be unlikely for the prosecution to even introduce it. The argument that the condom the prosecution didn't use as evidence had to be fabricated wouldn't go very far.

 

[Paninaro]

Sorry, but you are appealing to a wrong authority. Don't try to suggest that we should blindly believe the first expert to examine the evidence! That expert is clearly wrong, because the appeal to authority is a fallacy and also because they concluded that there was no case worth pursuing, and that is the wrong conclusion.

We should kowtow to the authority of courts later on in the process without examining the evidence, or pretend that there is secret evidence which the courts have seen and we have not, because the conclusion of those courts was the correct conclusion.

No real skeptic would rely on the appeal to authority argument when it's the wrong authority!

That Finné didn't find the evidence against Assange enough to prosecute suggests that the evidence is very weak at best. A look at the known evidence backs that conclusion. I never said that I know for sure there wasn't a case worth pursuing and that Finné was right, only that the suspicion that Ny re-opened the case for the wrong reasons can not be dismissed, especially not dismissed as a CT.

It's in Marianne Ny's job description to advance development in the area of sexual offenses. She is focused mainly on the facilitation for of the victims through the legal process. If you focus on that aspect you could be in danger of not focusing enough on the rights of the accused and the suspects.

Marianne Ny joined the Swedish Prosecution Authority as a prosecutor in 1985. In 2007 she was appointed the office of Deputy Director at the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg. The task of the Development Centre in Gothenburg is to conduct methodological and legal development within the area of crimes of violence and sexual offense and to be responsible for the overall knowledge within these areas.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/childjustice/Marianne Ny.asp

There are legal commentators in Sweden who have predicted that Assange will probably not be convicted of rape. Of course he should stand trial if Ny find that there's reason for him to do so. Which may very well never happen.

 

[theprestige]

That Finné didn't find the evidence against Assange enough to prosecute suggests that the evidence is very weak at best.

Or it suggests that Finné is less competent than other authorities that have reviewed the evidence. Or it suggests that the evidence is pretty strong, but Finné has unusually idealistic standards for what is strong enough to prosecute. Or it suggests that Finné is biased against rape accusers. Or it suggests that Finné, like yourself, is a reactionary against the perceived bias in favor of rape accusers on the part of Ny's office. Or it suggests that Finné is an Assange sympathizer, and did what she could to quash the case, so that his Great Work might continue. Or it suggests that Finné is a conspiracy theorist, and did what she could to help Assange escape Death by American Ninja.

That several other authorities did find the evidence enough to prosecute suggests that it isn't weak at all.

What a mystery!

 

[Paninaro]

That several other authorities did find the evidence enough to prosecute suggests that it isn't weak at all.

No one has found the evidence strong enough to prosecute yet, so that is not an argument at all.

The evidence for rape is really weak. I would say that there is a pretty strong consensus in Sweden about that, among those who have read through the material, including people who know Swedish law well. Of course this could change, maybe depending on the interview with Assange, and we probably don't have exactly all the fact. Just most of it.

 

[Korren]

No one has found the evidence strong enough to prosecute yet, so that is not an argument at all.

Uh? The case is being prosecuted. That's why there's an extradition process in play in the first place.

 

[theprestige]

No one has found the evidence strong enough to prosecute yet, so that is not an argument at all.

Is English not your first language? Because the evidence is pretty strong that you have no idea what the word "prosecute" actually means.

 

[Paninaro]

Uh? The case is being prosecuted. That's why there's an extradition process in play in the first place.

That's a matter of definition, since no legal system is exactly the same. The point is that Marianne Ny still could come to the same conclusion as Eva Finné did and dismiss the case for the lack of evidence. There is a strong possibility that this is what will happen. She just want to follow her own routine - see above - and do this in what she consider the proper way, so she continues the proceedings. And if someone like Claes Borgström says this is rape, she better be safe than sorry and not get any criticism from the strong pressure groups within the system who wants to make it easier to convict for rape. That is probably more important than the rights of Mr Assange as the suspect in this case. Or even more important than the feelings and the opinions of the alleged victims, Wilén and Ardin.