Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BenBurch said:
I still cannot understand how people who supposedly want justice in the world can be defending a rapist. If I were to do something like that for political "points" I wouldn't be able to wash the stench off. Sort of like Lady Macbeth...
Click to expand...

I think you mean alleged rapist.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
@PW:
Either it is within Swedish law to try people in absentia or it isn't. Obviously it is. Why would the cases have to be remotely similar?

You cherry picked one item when I listed 4. The strongest evidence against guilt is the inconsistent stories the women told.

Evidence of a secret indictment is more than zero, but believe whatever you want.
Click to expand...

It's not within the law to charge in absentia, as has been explained several times already.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
@PW:
Either it is within Swedish law to try people in absentia or it isn't. Obviously it is. Why would the cases have to be remotely similar?
Click to expand...

We're not talking about trying people in abstenia, especially in an appeal that was already scheduled, we're talking about charging them in abstenia. Notice the difference?

You cherry picked one item when I listed 4. The strongest evidence against guilt is the inconsistent stories the women told.
Click to expand...

The reports they gave to the police are not inconsistant. Most of the claims of inconsistancy come from people who keep mixing the women up with what they claim each of them did.

Evidence of a secret indictment is more than zero, but believe whatever you want.
Click to expand...

I said the evidence of a conspriacy between Sweden and the USA was zero. I said that there was an email that speculated about a grand jury, but nothing has ever come from it. There has never been anything substantial or proven towards an inditement or a grand jury, and in fact there is nothing the US can even charge Assange with.

If you plan to argue, at least argue again what I said instead of making things up.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
It's not within the law to charge in absentia, as has been explained several times already.
Click to expand...
Explain then, why Sweden tries other people in absentia.

It's rather ludicrous all the pompous statements on the side of guilt as if any convincing evidence has actually been presented in this thread. Earth to Assange haters: people in the thread have posted varied opinions in the thread, convincing evidence of the truth, not so much.

Except for one thing, the absentia farse:

The real reason why Assange is not questioned in London: ”A matter of prestige”
STOCKHOLM (FRIA TIDER). ...It seems increasingly clear that the prosecutor’s refusal to accept Assange’s offer to be interviewed in London has much to do with prestige and little with law.

One of the most vexing questions in the Assange case is why the Swedish prosecutor insists on having him extradited to Sweden, instead of simply questioning him in London. A long series of contradictory explanations has been provided by the Swedish Prosecution Authority throughout the proceedings.

In the early stages of the extradition process, the prosecutor in charge of the case, Marianne Ny, frequently claimed that British as well as Swedish law prevented her from interrogating Assange anywhere but in Sweden....

Two months later, Ms. Ny suddenly changed her story. In a witness statement submitted in the extradition proceedings in London, dated 4 February 2011, she admitted that it was possible for her to interview Assange in London within the framework of a system for legal co-operation called Mutual Legal Assistance. However, Ms. Ny claimed, that would not be ”an appropriate course” to take, because she considered it necessary to interrogate Assange ”in person”.
The legal basis for Ms. Ny’s comments appears dubious, to say the least. The rules setting out the procedures for Mutual Legal Assistance make clear that a foreign prosecutor can question a suspect in the UK by telephone, videolink, or through British police (see Mutual Legal Assistance Guidelines for the United Kingdom, 8th edition, pp. 15, 20 and 29). ...

As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad. Doing so is, in fact, a routine matter. An example: In late 2010, at roughly the same time that Ms. Ny decided to issue a European Arrest Warrant for Assange, Swedish police officers went to Serbia to interview a well-known gangster suspected of involvement in an armed robbery. ...

In a radio interview last Friday, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law, Ove Bring, confirmed that there are no legal obstacles whatsoever preventing Ms. Ny from questioning Assange in London. When asked why the prosecutor would not do so, Professor Bring responded that ”it’s a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system”. Professor Bring also stated that the charges against Assange would probably have to be dropped following an interview, since ”the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime”.
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Explain then, why Sweden tries other people in absentia.
Click to expand...

You are aware that "charging" and "trying" are two totally different things right? The Swedish Government would have to actually change their law to charge in absentia, currently they can't do it. The Swedish system is NOT the US one, it doesn't work the same way.

It's rather ludicrous all the pompous statements on the side of guilt as if any convincing evidence has actually been presented in this thread. Earth to Assange haters: people in the thread have posted varied opinions in the thread, convincing evidence of the truth, not so much.
Click to expand...

The statement to the police is what is convincing to me, if you are going to make something up, that isn't it.

Except for one thing, the absentia farse:

The real reason why Assange is not questioned in London: ”A matter of prestige”
Click to expand...

Except that these aren't contradictory. Previous to the Assange case there was a case where the prosecutor DID conduct the interview via the phone, it resulted in the case being thrown out. Whether or not there is an actual law I'm unsure, but the Swedish courts certainly frown on and are quite likely to toss cases where the interviews are not done face-to-face.

That leaves only the option of going to London, just as was done in the Serbia, except one thing. In Serbia the prosecutors got to directly question the suspect themselves, in the UK the law prohibits that. Only the UK police or a UK prosecutor can do the interview, meaning that the Swedish Porsecutor is nothing more than a bystander and witness. In fact your own article states exactly that.

The rules setting out the procedures for Mutual Legal Assistance make clear that a foreign prosecutor can question a suspect in the UK by telephone, videolink, or through British police (see Mutual Legal Assistance Guidelines for the United Kingdom, 8th edition, pp. 15, 20 and 29). If the latter option is used, it is possible for officers from the foreign state to be present during the interview
Click to expand...

So under the Mutual Legal Assistance options Ny could have 1) Used the Telephone of a Videolink, both previously shown to have been unacceptable to the Swedish Courts, or 2) Gone to London and watched as the British Police interviewed Assange. As she states, 2 is also unacceptable as she wants to conduct the interview herself.

Where are the contradictions?
 
Zeuzzz said:
I'm glad skeptic ginger has started posting here :)
Click to expand...

Ys, it's amazing how others that share your bias sound convincing to you, unless of course you bother to do the skeptical thing and actually check out what they are claiming as true.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Ys, it's amazing how others that share your bias sound convincing to you, unless of course you bother to do the skeptical thing and actually check out what they are claiming as true.
Click to expand...


Do I need to recap my previous position for you? About the political ties, associates and inconsistencies of the woman who has made these accusations?

I can re-quote my analysis if you want, but it involves some serious thread digging.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Ys, it's amazing how others that share your bias sound convincing to you, unless of course you bother to do the skeptical thing and actually check out what they are claiming as true.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming to know more than the Swedish professor re Swedish law? And you don't see any confirmation bias in your position?
:id:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you claiming to know more than the Swedish professor re Swedish law? And you don't see any confirmation bias in your position?
:id:
Click to expand...

Again an example of your failure to read more than a headline.

His statement was that "Under Swedish law it is possible to interrogate people abroad."

This is entirely true, we already know that they have gone other places and done it.

What we also know is that under UK law they can't participate in any interrogation in the UK, they can only watch it as an observer.

So, under Swedish law, they can go abroad and do interrogations. Under UK law they can't be actively involved in the interrogation.

See the issue?

Is there a matter of pride in Ny wanting to conduct the interrogation herself and also in not allowing a suspect to dictate terms, I'm more than sure there is, any justice system in the world, including the US's would not want to have to play the game by a suspect's rules. But at the end of the day because of the respective laws of the two nations, the only way that Ny can conduct an interview with Assange herself is for it to be done face-to-face in Sweden, and nothing you have post contradicts that, in fact what you have linked to actually confirms that by giving the regulations that any interview in the UK would be held under.
 
I read just fine PW, without trying to make facts fit my pre-existing beliefs when they do not fit.

Bottom line here is re interviewing Assange, not trying him in absentia and the excuses why that interview could not have been done in the UK are specious.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I read just fine PW, without trying to make facts fit my pre-existing beliefs when they do not fit.

Bottom line here is re interviewing Assange, not trying him in absentia and the excuses why that interview could not have been done in the UK are specious.
Click to expand...

Really? Please describe exactly how Ny can actively conduct an interview with Assange in England that is in compliance with both Swedish and UK law?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Really? Please describe exactly how Ny can actively conduct an interview with Assange in England that is in compliance with both Swedish and UK law?
Click to expand...
I did very specifically address this in my post. You refuse to believe while clinging to your previously determined belief. That's the definition of confirmation bias.

The legal basis for Ms. Ny’s comments appears dubious, to say the least. The rules setting out the procedures for Mutual Legal Assistance make clear that a foreign prosecutor can question a suspect in the UK by telephone, videolink, or through British police (see Mutual Legal Assistance Guidelines for the United Kingdom, 8th edition, pp. 15, 20 and 29). If the latter option is used, it is possible for officers from the foreign state to be present during the interview. In fact, Ms. Ny had a wide range of options for interrogating Assange in the UK: by telephone, video link or by interviewing him in person, together with British police.
As for Swedish law, there are no provisions preventing prosecutors from interrogating suspects abroad.
Click to expand...

So which is it, Assange cannot dictate his terms or Ny cannot legally interview Assange n the UK? It's clear as day, Ny could have legally interviewed Assange in the UK. I'd be pissed if I was paying the taxes that paid the bill for Ny's ego trip.
 
Last edited:
"It is possible for officers from the foreign state to be present during the interview" != "it is possible for officers from the foreign state to conduct the interview themselves".

So that's pretty much fail for that argument, S_G: phone/video interviews have a precedent of being thrown out in Swedish courts. In-person interviews are not permitted by UK law, only in-person observation of an interview conducted by UK authorities.

These aren't excuses, these are facts. For Ny to conduct a satisfactory interview in accordance with Swedish jurisprudence, she must have Assange in Sweden. A conclusion upheld repeatedly by UK courts. And an outcome strenuously avoided by Julian Assange.

Ny doesn't need to make excuses. She needs to demand what is Sweden's lawful right. And Assange needs to comply.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I did very specifically address this in my post. You refuse to believe while clinging to your previously determined belief. That's the definition of confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

No, the only one with a confirmation bias is you, I'm trying to lead you to the point where you realise why you are wrong but you are so stuck in your trying to be right, you don't even read what you are quoting and realise why there is an issue.

So which is it, Assange cannot dictate his terms or Ny cannot legally interview Assange n the UK? It's clear as day
Click to expand...

Yes it is, if you bother to open your eyes and actually read what is writen in that quote.

Ny could have legally interviewed Assange in the UK.
Click to expand...

No she could not have, UK law does not allow for that to occur. What she legally could have done was gone to the UK and then sat there as a passive observer watching as the UK police interviewed Assange. Do you understand this now?

I'd be pissed if I was paying the taxes that paid the bill for Ny's ego trip.
Click to expand...

It has little to do with a ego trip, it has to do with conducting the interview personally rather than having to hand it over and just passively watch others that are unfamiler with both Swedish law and the case conduct the interveiw while you have zero control in the direction it goes.

What don't you understand about this? The UK courts figured it out without an issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom