Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[nathan]

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/29/julian-assange-ecuadorean-embassy-statement:

The issues faced by Mr Assange are serious. His life and liberty and the life and liberty of his organisation and those associated with it are at stake.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen:

Well, they're informants, So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.

 

[Here_to_learn]

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

Then I must have misunderstood these comments from you:

Again, was Ny personally contacted or were papers simply filed

I don't even recall the women actively 'appealed' the fact the first prosecutor opted not to pursue the case.

You continue to address an issue that is not the issue. For the third time, I don't dispute this.

Good, then we agree that it’s perfectly according to documented procedure that Ms Ny got involved in the case – in fact it’s her responsibility to handle the decision of the appeal.

OK, now you are getting there.

Ok, so all the time when you said “inserted herself” or “no reason to get involved” you didn’t mean that she got involved in the first place, but that she continued to be involved after the appeal had been handled. I’m sorry, but that was not clear to me at all.

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

But the first point in the code of conduct for the bar association is representing the best interests of the client – if CB is doing this for political reasons rather than based on the interest of the clients and in line with the law, he would be breaching the code of conduct, and that should be dealt with.

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

As I said, and as the article starts – it’s a small country. Smaller than several of the metropolitan areas in the US. So it’s not surprising that there are links between involved people. But of course, including the Norwegians like the “duck pond” post does will increase the size of the population.

It's 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.

I’m sure it does. Judging the politics and the sayings from politicians is hard even within a country, trying to judge it across the gap of different political, cultural and language barriers would be a lot harder. The definition of Feminism can vary in Sweden, depending on who you talk with, and sometimes is used quite a far way from the basic definition of “equal rights for women and men”.
Just as I (think I) understand that “liberal” is sometimes in the US used as something very negative.

 

[Here_to_learn]

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.

What evidence is there that their story is exaggerated? Note, I'm not talking about your suggested explanation of their behaiviour - I'm talking about actual evidence that they have lied or exaggerated.

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.

I'm sure that's true, but that does not mean that it in any way has affected the women, their counsel or the prosecution i this matter. Correlation does not mean causation.

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.

Really - after all the women has been through on the Internet? And do you really think that it would be good for Ny and CB if they fail to collect evidence to charge JA, or if the even charge him and he goes free in court?

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.

And that would mean not only that they made it up in the first place, but that they (experienced as they are) expect to get away with this all the way through the courts (more than one, since it would probably be appealed).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then I must have misunderstood these comments from you:

You keep insisting that because a procedure was followed, nothing outside of that procedure also occurred. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I already agreed I had forgotten that one of the women knew CB and it was related to how he got involved. Given that the same woman also knew the police interviewer and others involved in the case, who knows who pushed for the appeal first. But it's a minor part in the story.

Good, then we agree that it’s perfectly according to documented procedure that Ms Ny got involved in the case – in fact it’s her responsibility to handle the decision of the appeal.

You are slipping back down the slope here to your old position. "Decision of the appeal" is not the same as taking the case personally.

And, I also don't see that there is enough evidence to pursue the case. Ny could have agreed with the first prosecutor. She was not obligated to try the case just because it was appealed.

I don't think your argument, "a routine appeal process occurred", proves Ny was neutrally involved.

Ok, so all the time when you said “inserted herself” or “no reason to get involved” you didn’t mean that she got involved in the first place, but that she continued to be involved after the appeal had been handled. I’m sorry, but that was not clear to me at all.

I can see why it looked that way. But I saw no reason to get involved in a minor case just because the case was being reviewed by the department. You've done nothing to convince me Ny personally decides/reviews every single case that is appealed through her department. If she does then I take back "no reason to get involved". If Ny doesn't normally review an appeal of minor rape charges, but rather, it is a task delegated to someone else in the department, then I maintain the charge. Regardless I still don't see "normal" or "routine" in Ny personally handing the case.

But the first point in the code of conduct for the bar association is representing the best interests of the client – if CB is doing this for political reasons rather than based on the interest of the clients and in line with the law, he would be breaching the code of conduct, and that should be dealt with.

Yes because we all know every lawyer is ethical and surely personal gain would be provable. Oh, and what was that unethical thing CB was already infamous for doing?

...But of course, including the Norwegians like the “duck pond” post does will increase the size of the population.

A little resentment there?

I’m sure it does. Judging the politics and the sayings from politicians is hard even within a country, trying to judge it across the gap of different political, cultural and language barriers would be a lot harder. The definition of Feminism can vary in Sweden, depending on who you talk with, and sometimes is used quite a far way from the basic definition of “equal rights for women and men”.
Just as I (think I) understand that “liberal” is sometimes in the US used as something very negative.

The Republics made the term, liberal, connote a negative image. Marketing political ideology is a science in this country.

Again, from my perspective, trying this case as some kind of rape seems to be taking feminism to an extreme. They had consensual sex and the women complained AFTER THE FACT. They don't even say they told JA to stop, made an effort to stop, or were upset at the time of the sex. They became upset when they found out about each other. And that's the answer to your subsequent post.

What evidence is there that their story is exaggerated?

They did not say, stop, made no attempt to stop, and the evidence is that they became upset when they found out about each other prompting them to ask JA for an HIV test. Their initial complaint was not "We were raped," it was, "Can we force JA to get an HIV test." That's someone with buyer's remorse for having consented to sex without the condom with a guy who was sleeping around. That's someone who asked the police how they could force an HIV test and subsequently being coaxed to change the complaint to one that reached the level of a crime.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I'm sure that's true, but that does not mean that it in any way has affected the women, their counsel or the prosecution i this matter. Correlation does not mean causation.

My position on this is, and always has been, that I do not know if there is a coordinated plot here, and if there is, who is involved and who is just being used, but it is rational for JA to fear this.

...Really - after all the women has been through on the Internet? And do you really think that it would be good for Ny and CB if they fail to collect evidence to charge JA, or if the even charge him and he goes free in court?

The desire for fame is a funny thing. That the case may be unprovable suggests there is US involvement here and the goal is extradition to Sweden, not conviction of the charges.

Tell me this, other than "he said, she said", what evidence is there here that JA forced himself on these women? What is there the prosecutor expects to get from an interview with JA that would actually hold up in a Swedish court? Does Ny think she's so clever she'll trick JA into confessing? Is there a reasonable expectation he might say something other than, they are lying, they never said, "no"?

Where's the evidence that would be admissible in court here?

...And that would mean not only that they made it up in the first place, but that they (experienced as they are) expect to get away with this all the way through the courts (more than one, since it would probably be appealed).

"Made it up" is another relative term in this case. It's more like changed the story to fit the needs of the legal case.

The sex was consensual. Did you look at all those cases Ben cited? Was there a single one where a woman with whom the assault began while the woman was asleep and who woke up, that did not stop the act upon awakening?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/29/julian-assange-ecuadorean-embassy-statement:


From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen:

For the record, I've never said JA was not a creep.

It sounds like he's so 'anti-US war in Afghanistan' that he sees US allies as equally guilty. Definitely not a hero for freedom of information needed for a successful democracy.

 

[nathan]

... deleted

 

[Here_to_learn]

You keep insisting that because a procedure was followed, nothing outside of that procedure also occurred. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I agree, but the argument of not following procedure, and the argument of CB not being the counsel, and the argument of not having a proper appeal have all been used in this thread to support the conclusion that the case is malicious. I cannot see any way to prove that the case is prosecuted in an malicious way, neither can I see any way to prove that it isn't. The best I can do is take one argument at a time, look for facts, and then show those.

You've done nothing to convince me Ny personally decides/reviews every single case that is appealed through her department. If she does then I take back "no reason to get involved".

That's good, since I can do that (and have before):

At the prosecution development centre, the case will be reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecution, who will then make a decision on, for instance, the resumption of a discontinued investigation or that certain investigation measures should be taken.

Yes because we all know every lawyer is ethical and surely personal gain would be provable. Oh, and what was that unethical thing CB was already infamous for doing?

Do you mean the Quick case? There is an ongoing discussion about that, but CB specifically asked the Swedish Bar Association to look into the allegations that CB had acted unethically. This is what I found as a comment from the Bar Assiciation on a quick search.

Advokat Tomas Nilsson, ordförande i Advokatsamfundets styrelse, förstår Claes Borgströms frustration i den här situationen.

- Det är två viktiga principer som en advokat måste följa, nämligen tystnadsplikten och lojalitetsplikten mot klienten, som har orsakat hans dilemma, säger Tomas Nilsson

Quickly translated, the chairman of the Bar Association says that he understands CBs frustration, but that there are two important principles, the need for confidentiality and the need to be loyal to the client, and those have caused CBs dilemma. For that reason they will not run any further disciplinary hearings around it.

So even though there have been discussions, I have not seen firm conclusions from a knowledgeable source that he actually has acted unethically. But maybe you mean something else, or have that source?

A little resentment there?

Against Norway? Absolutely not - got family and friends there. But I found it very funny that the post described the duck pond of Sweden without apparently realizing that one of the companies described actually is Norwegian. They also seems to think that Media is only newspapers...

Again, from my perspective, trying this case as some kind of rape seems to be taking feminism to an extreme.

But this case is not about your perspective, it's about he perspective of Swedish law, and those seems to me to differ quite a lot. So you cannot judge this case from your perspective, you have to judge it from the perspective of what the law says.

They had consensual sex and the women complained AFTER THE FACT. They don't even say they told JA to stop, made an effort to stop, or were upset at the time of the sex. They became upset when they found out about each other. And that's the answer to your subsequent post.They did not say, stop, made no attempt to stop, and the evidence is that they became upset when they found out about each other prompting them to ask JA for an HIV test. Their initial complaint was not "We were raped," it was, "Can we force JA to get an HIV test." That's someone with buyer's remorse for having consented to sex without the condom with a guy who was sleeping around. That's someone who asked the police how they could force an HIV test and subsequently being coaxed to change the complaint to one that reached the level of a crime.

So you mean that your interpretation of their actions equals evidence that they exaggerated their story. That doesn't cut it for me.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Tell me this, other than "he said, she said", what evidence is there here that JA forced himself on these women? What is there the prosecutor expects to get from an interview with JA that would actually hold up in a Swedish court? Does Ny think she's so clever she'll trick JA into confessing? Is there a reasonable expectation he might say something other than, they are lying, they never said, "no"?

Where's the evidence that would be admissible in court here?

I don't know, but I'm not a lawyer, neither am I involved in the investigation, so I wouldn't expect to know. However, that's exactly why we have laws, prosecutors, courts and counsel - they have the knowledge and skills, as well as access to all relevant information to be able to judge that. I have no doubt that the Swedish legal system can handle this case according to Swedish law.

The sex was consensual.

Well, I can see that you have settled your mind on it. As I said above, I'd like a legal opinion on it, based on Sweden law.

Did you look at all those cases Ben cited? Was there a single one where a woman with whom the assault began while the woman was asleep and who woke up, that did not stop the act upon awakening?

No, I did not look at all those cases. I have no doubt that women that are raped or molested acts in different ways depending on the situation. I also happen to think that if a women tells me that "I do not want to be beaten", I should not get away with "but you didn't protest when I started to beat you".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know, but I'm not a lawyer, neither am I involved in the investigation, so I wouldn't expect to know. However, that's exactly why we have laws, prosecutors, courts and counsel - they have the knowledge and skills, as well as access to all relevant information to be able to judge that. I have no doubt that the Swedish legal system can handle this case according to Swedish law.

Well, I can see that you have settled your mind on it. As I said above, I'd like a legal opinion on it, based on Sweden law.

No, I did not look at all those cases. I have no doubt that women that are raped or molested acts in different ways depending on the situation. I also happen to think that if a women tells me that "I do not want to be beaten", I should not get away with "but you didn't protest when I started to beat you".

I'm still gathering sources on Ny's involvement, there are contradictory accounts. In the mean time, your new post:

You seem to believe you can rely 100% on the legal system, they can do no wrong, you are too [fill in the blank] to dare believe your own assessment could possibly be wiser.

I don't see it that way. I trust my own judgement. The legal system is wrought with flaws and political influence. I don't trust without evidence that the legal system has some secret knowledge we the readers of the press are not privy to in cases as public as this.

You have repeatedly discounted what I said was evidence, claiming instead that blind reliance on the legal system is superior.

What secret evidence do you hypothesize is there beyond he said/she said? I don't see any or any reason to think any exists.

 

[Korren]

You seem to believe you can rely 100% on the legal system, they can do no wrong, you are too [fill in the blank] to dare believe your own assessment could possibly be wiser.

Whereas you appear to believe that if there can be a political conspiracy here, there must be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whereas you appear to believe that if there can be a political conspiracy here, there must be.

You present a perfect example of confirmation bias. Compare your statement to my actual position:

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

I have said there is no certainty here in multiple posts. But I have also said I lean toward a particular conclusion....
All of this suggests to me the more likely thing going on here is, ....

My position on this is, and always has been, that I do not know if there is a coordinated plot here, and if there is, who is involved and who is just being used, but it is rational for JA to fear this....

How many more examples of my actual position would you like?

When someone does not agree with you, be careful not to assume they must be with you or against you. Some people actually are somewhere in between.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I'm still gathering sources on Ny's involvement, there are contradictory accounts.

Ok, looking forward to your sources when you decide to share them.

You seem to believe you can rely 100% on the legal system, they can do no wrong, you are too [fill in the blank] to dare believe your own assessment could possibly be wiser.

My thinking is the same as regarding science. Science with methods like double-blind randomized trials and peer-review as examples have still been shown to go wrong. For example people misuse the methods, or misrepresent the results. Still science and the scientific method is the best we got. To start making decisions based on personal anecdotes is flawed in so many ways.

In the same logic, the legal system is not perfect. There may be personal bias, decisions may be based on rhetorics instead of facts and evidence and so on. But again, it's the best we got. To replace proper handling by the legal system with my personal decision is not something I can see would be better. I don't presume that I'm flawless and better than everybody else.

You have repeatedly discounted what I said was evidence, claiming instead that blind reliance on the legal system is superior.

I'm not saying blind reliance on the legal system, just like I'm not saying blind reliance on science. But reviewing the system does not mean throwing it out, and replacing it with anarchy.

Also, I think you base your thoughts on the quality of the legal system on your US perspective, not on your experience on the Swedish system. Since you say that you do not trust the Swedish legal system, why do you trust anonymous blog posters that say things about it?

What secret evidence do you hypothesize is there beyond he said/she said? I don't see any or any reason to think any exists.

I don't hypothesize about that. I know that the JA defence team has complained that Swedish law does not allow them to gain access to all information the prosecution has unless JA is charged. They seem to expect that there is more, and they are in a better position than I am to judge that.

And if there is no more evidence, the prosecution and the courts will judge what is there, and if there is not enough, this saga is over.

 

[Jaxe]

Ok, looking forward to your sources when you decide to share them.

My thinking is the same as regarding science. Science with methods like double-blind randomized trials and peer-review as examples have still been shown to go wrong. For example people misuse the methods, or misrepresent the results. Still science and the scientific method is the best we got. To start making decisions based on personal anecdotes is flawed in so many ways.

In the same logic, the legal system is not perfect. There may be personal bias, decisions may be based on rhetorics instead of facts and evidence and so on. But again, it's the best we got. To replace proper handling by the legal system with my personal decision is not something I can see would be better. I don't presume that I'm flawless and better than everybody else.

I'm not saying blind reliance on the legal system, just like I'm not saying blind reliance on science. But reviewing the system does not mean throwing it out, and replacing it with anarchy.

Also, I think you base your thoughts on the quality of the legal system on your US perspective, not on your experience on the Swedish system. Since you say that you do not trust the Swedish legal system, why do you trust anonymous blog posters that say things about it?

I don't hypothesize about that. I know that the JA defence team has complained that Swedish law does not allow them to gain access to all information the prosecution has unless JA is charged. They seem to expect that there is more, and they are in a better position than I am to judge that.

And if there is no more evidence, the prosecution and the courts will judge what is there, and if there is not enough, this saga is over.

I like this post, you explain your position well, however the topic and op is about whether JA is a rapist or not, not whether the definition of rape should be the way it is described in swedish law. I have no idea whether JA did something that may be considered a crime or not, i'm fairly certain that if he did, it cannot be proven with any of the evidence so far provided. However all the evidence, all the inteviews, nothing about it even suggests there has been an actual rape.

For the record i find JA to be a distasteful person, every time i see him i'm filled with a sense of distaste. But a rapist he is not.

So it bothers me when people take the stance that he should rot in jail, be extradited to the us, or even assasinated. It doesn't make sense...

 

[Here_to_learn]

the topic and op is about whether JA is a rapist or not, not whether the definition of rape should be the way it is described in swedish law.

But then you have to find a definition of rape that everybody in the world agrees on?

I thought the topic was whether JA is guilty of what is accused of, and that has drifted into whether the way the case has been handled according to procedure, or if JAs case is handled differently due to his history with Wikileaks/US and so on.

If he would be charged based on the allegations as described in the EAW, and if that would lead to a conviction (both big ifs..), he could be called a rapist based on Swedish law, or more correctly, he could be called a "våldtäktsman", since Swedish law is written in Swedish... Everything else is just translations, that of course can be discussed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... My thinking is the same as regarding science. Science with methods like double-blind randomized trials and peer-review as examples have still been shown to go wrong. For example people misuse the methods, or misrepresent the results. Still science and the scientific method is the best we got. To start making decisions based on personal anecdotes is flawed in so many ways.

Are you aware of the concept of "repeatable results"?

....In the same logic, the legal system is not perfect. There may be personal bias, decisions may be based on rhetorics instead of facts and evidence and so on. But again, it's the best we got. To replace proper handling by the legal system with my personal decision is not something I can see would be better. I don't presume that I'm flawless and better than everybody else.

I find this to be a false dichotomy. "Best we got", and, have to accept it, are not the only options. Best we got and we should question the results, is an option you seem to be omitting.

....I'm not saying blind reliance on the legal system, just like I'm not saying blind reliance on science. But reviewing the system does not mean throwing it out, and replacing it with anarchy.

Straw man.

....Also, I think you base your thoughts on the quality of the legal system on your US perspective, not on your experience on the Swedish system.

Yes but human nature is the common denominator.

....Since you say that you do not trust the Swedish legal system, why do you trust anonymous blog posters that say things about it?

Straw man or a total distortion of my posts on your part, take your pick.

....And if there is no more evidence, the prosecution and the courts will judge what is there, and if there is not enough, this saga is over.

Or, could have ready made this obvious call and saved Swedish taxpayers a few million.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Are you aware of the concept of "repeatable results"?

Yes? Are you saying that you repetably have better results that the Swedish legal system?

I find this to be a false dichotomy. "Best we got", and, have to accept it, are not the only options. Best we got and we should question the results, is an option you seem to be omitting.

Well, you could have read my next line in the post, and you would have gotten that answer. But in you post that I answered you do not say question the results, you specifically say "you are too [fill in the blank] to dare believe your own assessment could possibly be wiser" and "I trust my own judgement. The legal system is wrought with flaws and political influence."

Straw man.

You really like to say that, it's in many of your posts. But you specifically say that you are wiser than the legal system, and that you do not trust the legal system.

Yes but human nature is the common denominator.

And with that I can presume that you are not human?

Straw man or a total distortion of my posts on your part, take your pick.

Well, since you still are collecting sources, that you may share in the future, I look forward to you showing that you have something thrustworthy to base your opinion on.

Or, could have ready made this obvious call and saved Swedish taxpayers a few million.

I'm glad that you think it's obvious, but mayby the world is not as simple as you think it is. But even though you say that you trust your judment more than the legal system, I still would like to refer you to the high court decision after JAs defence team tried to argue exactly that:

In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures argued by on behalf on Mr Assange would have proved to practicable or would have not been the subject of lengthy disputes.

(any errors in the quote comes from my transcription, full text is in the link).

 

[Korren]

Or, could have ready made this obvious call and saved Swedish taxpayers a few million.

I don't think it's at all obvious, I don't think this case will cost the Swedish prosecution anywhere near millions, and surely you can't hold the general view that the justice system should be more concerned about the bottom line than about furthering justice.

Although the prosecutors have by necessity to consider budgets and money in overall terms, equality before the law is a bearing principle of a modern rule of law and so they have to develop a large degree of budget-blindness when it comes to particular cases. It might be a lot more expensive to prosecute a well-lawyered, well-connected cause celebre like Assange than it might be to prosecute a blue-collared Medelsvensson for the same crime, but we can not allow that to enter into the prosecutor's decision of whether or not a case should be investigated or charges should be filed.

By their nature, rape cases are in general poorly sourced: there's rarely uninvolved witnesses, the physical evidence is often inconclusive or equally explainable by either side's story, and often the legal question boils down to intangibles like consent which can be all but impossible to establish post facto for an outside agent like a court. (The case against Assange is better sourced than most, just in having two different alleged victims.) Not surprisingly, rape charges have a very low conviction rate and so it's not cost effective to prosecute them -- but we can't have a legal system that doesn't prosecute rape charges just because they're expensive and have a low "yield".

 

[Here_to_learn]

I don't think it's at all obvious, I don't think this case will cost the Swedish prosecution anywhere near millions, and surely you can't hold the general view that the justice system should be more concerned about the bottom line than about furthering justice.

Good points Korren.

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.

I've had an email conversation today with Karin Rosander (informationsdirektör - I would translate that to Director of Public Relations or something like that) at the Swedish Prosecution Authority.

She explained that after the appeal, "in most cases" the investigation is assigned back to the originating chamber. However, in a small number of cases each year the responsibility for the investigation remains with the development center.

I then asked on what grounds that decision are made in general, and on what grounds it was made in the JA case, and got the response that one common reason for it to stay with the Development center is when there are only a few steps left before finishing the investigation and charging a person.

Specifically for the JA situation, the following reason was given:

There had been criticism that too many prosecutors had already been involved, so it was decided that it was better to keep the responsibility for leading the remaining part of the investigation with Ms Ny instead of involving yet another prosecutor that would have to get familiar with the case.


So, with that, I'm happy with the explanation on why the case is still with Ms Ny, if anyone else needs more information the contact information for the prosecution authority is on their web page.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes? Are you saying that you repetably have better results that the Swedish legal system?

Your answer suggests you are not familiar with the scientific process. Scientists do not accept very many single studies as conclusive evidence. To address your point, "Science with methods like double-blind randomized trials and peer-review as examples have still been shown to go wrong.", my point was, we know that. Those possible errors are a given in science. That's why repeatable results is such an important concept.

... "I trust my own judgement. The legal system is wrought with flaws and political influence."

And yet you keep using the argument by authority fallacy.

You really like to say that, it's in many of your posts. But you specifically say that you are wiser than the legal system, and that you do not trust the legal system.

Like this comment, for example. Here you are saying the legal system is wiser, so if I have a different assessment based on the evidence as I see it, I must be wrong. You are not addressing the evidence when you argue the court must be superior.

And with that I can presume that you are not human?

This is a non-sequitur. You said the two court systems, Swedish and American differed. I agree, but the things that are problematic in this case are not based on the systems, the problems are based in human nature which does not differ between the countries.

I'm glad that you think it's obvious, but mayby the world is not as simple as you think it is. But even though you say that you trust your judment more than the legal system, I still would like to refer you to the high court decision after JAs defence team tried to argue exactly that:
(any errors in the quote comes from my transcription, full text is in the link).

The UK was only deciding on extradition and that was based on technical legal issues. They did not address the wiseness of the decision to pursue a case with such little evidence.