Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/17/us/2-temple-u-students-are-reported-raped.html

http://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/234199-blood-obsessed-rapist-may-never-be-freed-warns-judge/

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jan1996/gr_112034_1996.html

How many do you want? Takes some time to weed out the ones who were drinking...

I want one that isn't just a news account. You said Kinsey. They studied people having sex. News stories are not any more reliable than the anecdotes they report.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently SG is under the impression that the investigators must prove their case prior to investigating it.

Straw.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry for the oversight.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4164846,00.html

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/police-woman-raped-while-sleeping/nGZj4/

http://capitola.kionrightnow.com/news/crime/deputies-aptos-woman-raped-while-sleeping/456819

Many more at google.com

How many of these women, upon realising that someone had invaded their vagina (or whatever orifice), allowed the person to continue having sex with them without asking them to stop?

If a woman was half asleep or half awake she would be somewhat aware of someone else fondling her and trying to initiate sex, and therefore would be conscious enough to inquire if the person was wearing a condom and conscious enough to demand they stop if they weren't. The victim never claimed to be deep asleep, she admitted to being at least half aware when she said she was half asleep. If Assange knew that she had gotten up to get them breakfast, then when she came back to bed he had every reason to think that she would be awake and conscious of him trying to initiate sex. There's nothing to indicate that they hadn't had any interactions while she was falling back to sleep.

 

[BenBurch]

I want one that isn't just a news account. You said Kinsey. They studied people having sex. News stories are not any more reliable than the anecdotes they report.

Third in that list is a court decision. I could give you a few dozen decisions.

I'll make a deal with you; Pay my way to Bloomington and my library fees and I will find you the manuscripts I reviewed.

However, there are real people serving real sentences for exactly the crime Assange most likely committed.

 

[BenBurch]

How many of these women, upon realising that someone had invaded their vagina (or whatever orifice), allowed the person to continue having sex with them without asking them to stop?

If a woman was half asleep or half awake she would be somewhat aware of someone else fondling her and trying to initiate sex, and therefore would be conscious enough to inquire if the person was wearing a condom and conscious enough to demand they stop if they weren't. The victim never claimed to be deep asleep, she admitted to being at least half aware when she said she was half asleep. If Assange knew that she had gotten up to get them breakfast, then when she came back to bed he had every reason to think that she would be awake and conscious of him trying to initiate sex. There's nothing to indicate that they hadn't had any interactions while she was falling back to sleep.

He can make that case in court. Or he can live like a rat in a hole. I honestly don't care which. He's punished himself more with his paranoia and screwing over those who supported him than he ever would have if he had gone to Sweden. (And in Sweden, such cases RARELY result in conviction, so it would have been all over by now.)

 

[Skeptic Guy]

He can make that case in court. Or he can live like a rat in a hole. I honestly don't care which. He's punished himself more with his paranoia and screwing over those who supported him than he ever would have if he had gone to Sweden. (And in Sweden, such cases RARELY result in conviction, so it would have been all over by now.)

Exactly. If he'd gone to Sweden to be questioned, he'd be back at Wikileaks DEFENDING THE WORLD as the Caped Crusader he thinks he is.

 

[BenBurch]

More legal documents;

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20120628_C304459_59_304459.OPN.PDF

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/169/487.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/179/193.html

http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19870807_0001.MI.htm/qx

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...1537.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

 

[Here_to_learn]

Apologies - long post coming up...

In case you didn't notice, the thread is 30 pages long. When did you come in? Did you bother to bring yourself up to speed in the discussion?

Yes, I did follow the thread from when it started. I decided to join later.

My job to re-post what I already posted because you came to the thread late?

I really do believe that it is your job to post evidence that support your position. I haven't seen such an evidence, but I'm fully willing to concede that I might have missed something. But since I have (according to you) been posting new facts into the thread while you stay with your opinion, I still think it's up to you show some facts behind your opinion.

How big is the department, how many people work under Ny and how common is it for her to take a minor case? I didn't argue with your information on the appeal process.

Again, that was not the issue. The issue was, did Ny get involved because of this personal contact or was she simply assigned to the case, as would have happened with any case. You keep insisting it was just procedure and ignoring the irregularities in the procedure.

Ok, let's take this step by step. I'm starting after the case initially was dismissed (Aug 25th).

On Aug 27th the case was appealed by the counsel for the two women (CB). Again, this is in the agreed facts as well as on the Prosecution Authorities home page. Now, if you disagree that he was the counsel, or claim that he didn't appeal you will need some very good sources, since you will have to show that the not just the prosecutor but that the Swedish Prosecution Authority lies, and that the legal counsel for JA either ignored that lie, or did not have as good sources as you do when they signed the agreed facts document.

When an appeal arrives as the prosecution authority, it is assigned to one of the Development centres (UC). The speficic centre is picked based on what they specialize in. That list is available here (unfortunately only in Swedish). As can be seen on that page, the “UC Göteborg” is responsible for sexual crimes (sexualbrotten).

At the UC, the case is reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecution (överåklagare) who is tasked with deciding if the case is to be reopened. Ms Ny holds that position at UC Göteborg.
On Sep 1st, she made the decision to continue the investigation.

At this stage, I’d like to hear if you agree with all the steps up to this, and if not, that you show why with good sources. I believe that I with this have shown step by step why the case (after appeal) could not end up with anybody but Ms Ny, and as such that she has not inserted herself into the case.

Next step is more interesting, I’m sorry I’ve had a busy day first at the office and then I got to visit my grand child that was born just two days ago, so I didn’t have time to post on what you picked up also.
The home page I linked to quotes as its next step that the case should be referred back to the original chamber. I don’t know what has happened here, and why Ms Ny is still involved. I have (this morning) sent an email to UC Göteborg and asked them about it, but I have no idea if they will respond, and if so when. If I get a response I will of course share it here.

Let's cut to the chase here. You say routine, following procedure, nothing unusual.
I say a political prosecution.
If anyone doubts politics are involved here:The rest of the blog has even more discussion of CB's fanatical political history.

Now, let’s see if I understand you correctly. Since CB has worked with gender equality issues as a political nominee and is a member of a political party, for this reason everything he does is political? He is (as far as I know) a member of the Swedish Bar Association, so if he is acting against the law, it’s fully possible to make a formal complaint. The link is on that web page.

You seem to be saying that since he has a political history (that you call “fanatical” – do you judge that based on your knowledge of Swedish politics, or again against your US framework?), he can never be trusted to do anything that is not political?

This one's interesting: The Duckpond and Julian Assange. There is so much already-summarized material here, I don't know what to quote. In essence, it's a list of all the political influences in the JA case. The list is long and involves everyone from the accusers to the press. It gives some interesting insight into the overlap of gender issues in the case, well beyond the Wikileaks and potential rendition issues. It explains how CB got involved. I had forgotten AA's feminist role was so involved.

Ok, this is interesting.

1st of all – of course several of the players have ties to the Social Democratic Party – JA specifically contacted them when he asked to be invited to Sweden to get away from FBI acting in the UK.
Second of all – that site (JA-positive and all) says that CB was contacted by one of the women on aug 22nd, well before the appeal was sent.

[One might get the impression that feminism has gone wild in Sweden. And that's coming from one who considers herself more liberated than average.

I certainly do not agree with everything that happens in the name of feminism in Sweden. I definitely do not agree with a lot of the political statements that some of the players involved has made in the past. But just because I don’t agree with the political views of a person does not mean that I consider that person a liar, or decide that the person is corrupt. As far as I know Sweden is one of the least corrupt countries in the world (4/183) and 3/142 on judicial independence so it takes a lot more than just showing that two key players happened to know each other before, or are members of the same political party for before you can call corruption.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

More legal documents;

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20120628_C304459_59_304459.OPN.PDF

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/169/487.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/179/193.html

http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19870807_0001.MI.htm/qx

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...1537.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

Did you read them or just start linking to whatever came up.

From the first one:

Around dawn, the victim awoke when she felt defendant move her shorts and penetrate her
vagina with his finger. The victim pulled away and became hysterical.

Link 2

Thirteen-year-old Jerine and her fifteen-year-old sister Eryine lived with their sister Anrica and her husband, Kusumoto. One afternoon, when Jerine was sleeping on the couch, she awoke to find Kusumoto's hand in her shorts and his finger in her vagina. She cussed him and went into her room. A couple of weeks later, while Jerine was sleeping on the couch late at night, she again awoke to find Kusumoto's hand in her shorts and his finger in her vagina. She went to her room and closed the door. fn. 2

One the women in the JA case are not that young and the kid woke up.


I'm not going to go through the rest of them until you read the crap you are posting and post relevant links.

 

[Here_to_learn]

That does not say the director takes the case, it says something else:Neither of those courses of action say director personally takes on the case.

Agreed, as I said in my previous long post it says that the director is responsible for handling the appeal, but it does not say that the directory can/should be involved after that decision. I have emailed UC Göteborg and asked them about this, and will share any responses.

This could possibly point to that she kept her self involved longer than the procedure required, but as I have described in my previous post, the reason she got involved in the first place is entirely within regular procedure.

I can see several reasons for her to continue to be involved.

1. Your reason - malicious prosecution for political reasons
2. She is the senior prosecutor with the most experience in handling sexual crimes.
3. Since she was the one that made and released the decision, she was already publicly involved in a case that caused a lot of press, and it made sense to keep her on the case instead of handling it to somebody else with maybe less experience with "big" public cases.
4. The procedure described on the home page is not complete in all details, and there are options available for specific situation.

Or of course a combination of the ones above. I will wait for a response from the prosecution authority to see if that can bring any clarity into it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Third in that list is a court decision. I could give you a few dozen decisions.

I'll make a deal with you; Pay my way to Bloomington and my library fees and I will find you the manuscripts I reviewed.

However, there are real people serving real sentences for exactly the crime Assange most likely committed.

Third link in your post is not a legal report, it's a news account and it doesn't even say if penetration was involved.

Deputies say that the victim met a 23-year-old Charles Lee Steppes, Jr. while she was out with friends in mid March. Stepps and the victim allegedly went to a house in Aptos, where the woman fell asleep.

The woman says that she woke up to find Steppes sexually assaulting her and forced Steppes to leave the house, deputies say. The victim called the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office to report the crime.

Friday Steppes was arrested for one count of rape of an unconscious person at his home in Monterey.

An arrest is not a conviction and from the news report we don't know why the woman was "unconscious". If JA's accuser had said she was too drunk to wake up, that would be credible. That's not what she said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agreed, as I said in my previous long post it says that the director is responsible for handling the appeal, but it does not say that the directory can/should be involved after that decision. I have emailed UC Göteborg and asked them about this, and will share any responses.

This could possibly point to that she kept her self involved longer than the procedure required, but as I have described in my previous post, the reason she got involved in the first place is entirely within regular procedure.

I can see several reasons for her to continue to be involved.

1. Your reason - malicious prosecution for political reasons
2. She is the senior prosecutor with the most experience in handling sexual crimes.
3. Since she was the one that made and released the decision, she was already publicly involved in a case that caused a lot of press, and it made sense to keep her on the case instead of handling it to somebody else with maybe less experience with "big" public cases.
4. The procedure described on the home page is not complete in all details, and there are options available for specific situation.

Or of course a combination of the ones above. I will wait for a response from the prosecution authority to see if that can bring any clarity into it.

Now here's a post I can agree with. You are considering multiple possibilities.

 

[Here_to_learn]

In the speech today outside the embassy, among other things the following was said:

"Mr Assange did not feel safe from US extradition in the UK. We are all too aware of the abuses of the US-UK extradition treaty. Although Mr Assange has been trapped in the UK, under dangerous circumstances, he at least has had the freedom to apply for political asylum.

So now it's not an issue that according to JA it would have been easier to extradite from Sweden - now it's just a matter of applying for asylum.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Now here's a post I can agree with. You are considering multiple possibilities.

I have all the times. But I require evidence, so I go out searching for it. I do not get persuaded by bloggers that say things like "look how these people know each other - therefore politically motivated", instead I go to the sources.

Are you considering multiple possibilities, and if so, what would it take for you to change your mind?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Now, if you disagree that he was the counsel, or claim that he didn't appeal

I don't know what lies you are referring to but I never contested this.

...When an appeal arrives as the prosecution authority, it is assigned to one of the Development centres (UC). The speficic centre is picked based on what they specialize in. That list is available here (unfortunately only in Swedish). As can be seen on that page, the “UC Göteborg” is responsible for sexual crimes (sexualbrotten).

You continue to address an issue that is not the issue.

...
At this stage, I’d like to hear if you agree with all the steps up to this,

For the third time, I don't dispute this.

...The home page I linked to quotes as its next step that the case should be referred back to the original chamber. I don’t know what has happened here, and why Ms Ny is still involved. I have (this morning) sent an email to UC Göteborg and asked them about it, but I have no idea if they will respond, and if so when. If I get a response I will of course share it here.

OK, now you are getting there.

...Now, let’s see if I understand you correctly. Since CB has worked with gender equality issues as a political nominee and is a member of a political party, for this reason everything he does is political?

That's quite a distortion you created there. Try this instead:

The guy has a long history of being an extremist on feminist issues and seeking out publicity. For that reason it is logical to conclude CB is invested in creating a mountain even if he only has a molehill.

...He is (as far as I know) a member of the Swedish Bar Association, so if he is acting against the law, it’s fully possible to make a formal complaint. The link is on that web page.

Straw man, I never said he was crossing legal lines though someone like JA might think he was.

...You seem to be saying that since he has a political history (that you call “fanatical” – do you judge that based on your knowledge of Swedish politics, or again against your US framework?), he can never be trusted to do anything that is not political?

It's how I read the Duck Pond web site list.

...1st of all – of course several of the players have ties to the Social Democratic Party – JA specifically contacted them when he asked to be invited to Sweden to get away from FBI acting in the UK.
Second of all – that site (JA-positive and all) says that CB was contacted by one of the women on aug 22nd, well before the appeal was sent.

Because the woman had past ties to CB. I had forgotten that.

...I certainly do not agree with everything that happens in the name of feminism in Sweden. I definitely do not agree with a lot of the political statements that some of the players involved has made in the past. But just because I don’t agree with the political views of a person does not mean that I consider that person a liar, or decide that the person is corrupt. As far as I know Sweden is one of the least corrupt countries in the world (4/183) and 3/142 on judicial independence so it takes a lot more than just showing that two key players happened to know each other before, or are members of the same political party for before you can call corruption.

Corruption is a relative term and in this case you may define it differently than I do. Maybe the words, feminism and feminist causes, are also coming across differently to each of us.

The women and CB all are invested in their respective socio-political causes. Being in a circle JA was moving in, it is not surprising.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...[snipped the condescension]

Are you considering multiple possibilities, and if so, what would it take for you to change your mind?

It would help if you would tone down the holier than thou stuff. You are not the only evidence based skeptic in the room.

I have said there is no certainty here in multiple posts. But I have also said I lean toward a particular conclusion.

There is evidence supporting the women's stories being exaggerated. They had consensual sex followed with sour grapes fits the evidence better than other explanations.

That JA is being sought by the US and they aren't treating Bradley Manning very well are facts. The US may not have the goods on JA just yet, but they certainly made no secret of the fact they think he's done political damage to the US.

Ny, CB and maybe the women all have an interest in making a big deal of this case whether the sex crimes were a big deal or not. They are invested and out on a limb that is difficult to back down from.

All of this suggests to me the more likely thing going on here is, the women beefed up the complaint in order to meet the standard the prosecutors or police were suggesting was needed in order to pursue the case. JA should have apologized and gotten an HIV test when the women first confronted him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In the speech today outside the embassy, among other things the following was said:


So now it's not an issue that according to JA it would have been easier to extradite from Sweden - now it's just a matter of applying for asylum.

I think you are painting the words with your confirmation bias.

It has always been the case that extradition could occur from either country but from the UK the legal hurdles were bigger. And I'm guessing Ecuador has an embassy in Sweden.

 

[BenBurch]

I admit there is a limit to how much I can read while posting on my phone. Now, some of those links as I recall had multiple cases and some had the interesting material in citations. Also possibly I wasn't pasting what I thought I was. When I can, I'll dig up a few dozen more that I can read on a real screen.

But you are really grasping at a straw when you insist it cannot occur. I mean that's an idea really so stupid you must have known it wasn't true the moment you thought of it, but don't let that stop you from using it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I admit there is a limit to how much I can read while posting on my phone. Now, some of those links as I recall had multiple cases and some had the interesting material in citations. Also possibly I wasn't pasting what I thought I was. When I can, I'll dig up a few dozen more that I can read on a real screen.

But you are really grasping at a straw when you insist it cannot occur. I mean that's an idea really so stupid you must have known it wasn't true the moment you thought of it, but don't let that stop you from using it.

I'm not the one grasping at straws. You are the one who posted news accounts as if they were evidence and court cases based on titles without looking at what was even in the links.

Here's the deal, I can do a Google search. You claimed there was evidence and made a reference to a well known sex researcher. Then you posted junk and clutter.

Take your time. Wait til you're back to your keyboard. Post something specific, not a data dump for other people to filter.

Think, science not news. If you post a court case we need to know the age, sobriety and that it was a penis not a finger. The accusation is not that JA got a finger up the woman before she woke up. It's not the same as getting your penis in.

 

[Korren]

It has always been the case that extradition could occur from either country but from the UK the legal hurdles were bigger.

Some people have claimed that, but that's not been the case. The legal hurdles for an extradition to the US from Sweden is greater than from the UK, particularly for someone who has first been surrendered from another EU nation such as would be the case for Assange.

From the Swedish prosecutor office: Facts-about-extradition-of-a-person-who-has-been-surrendered/