Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Even if millions is more than the actual cost, surely it will in the hundreds of thousands to pursue this case.

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".

I'm not arguing rape cases should not be pursued because they are expensive. So you've built a straw man to argue with here.

I am talking about this case where there is no evidence other than he said/she said. So whose word do you take in the trial? Is the prosecutor planning to seek a conviction based on people's dislike of JA?

 

[Korren]

I am talking about this case where there is no evidence other than he said/she said. So whose word do you take in the trial? Is the prosecutor planning to seek a conviction based on people's dislike of JA?

I'd expect the prosecutor to find out what he actually does say before making a decision to dismiss the case (or not). Wouldn't you?

 

[Here_to_learn]

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 started out with comparing science and the legal system exactly for that reason. The scientific method has been built specifically to avoid individual bias, in the same way the legal system with multiple levels of review has been built to avoid errors based on individuals. You claimed that you could do better as an individual than the Swedish legal system, which is way I asked if you had repeated experiments where you can show that you are more correct in judging actions according to the Swedish law.

I now see that you avoid that question by trying to bring the discussion to be about my understanding of the scientific process. I can't see that that type of discussion has any bearing on the subject of this thread.

And yet you keep using the argument by authority fallacy.

Come on, a debate really disintegrates if it goes into a "straw man"/"argument by authority"/"look how many fallacies I can name" pie throwing contest. Can't we just avoid that?

Besides, you are wrong. That is not a fallacy if the authority cited is an expert in the subject, and a consensus exists among legitimate experts.

I do consider the Swedish Prosecution Authority an expert in what their policies are on how the handle cases, I'd be hard pressed to find someone with more expertise. And I'm still waiting for you to show any legitimate experts on that subject that offer another opinion.

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.

Good, now you've got the point that we are talking about your assessment of the evidence, and that that assessment in it self is not evidence.

And I'm not arguing about the evidence in it self - I do not claim to be able to access to all of it, neither do I claim that I can judge what is available publicly according to the relevant Swedish laws. You claim that you can do that, and yes, I trust the Swedish Legal System to be able to do that a lot better than you can.

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.

But still you claim that you are better, and not affected on those problems.

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.

Please go back and read what I linked to. You are wrong. The UK High court decided on:

• Judicial Authority
• Dual Criminality
• The meaning of "accused"
• If the EAW was propotional

For the 2nd and 4th point, the UKHC looked at the alleged actions, as well as the actions taken.

 

[BenBurch]

I'd expect the prosecutor to find out what he actually does say before making a decision to dismiss the case (or not). Wouldn't you?

No, she expects we should have given him a pass. To hell with Sweden. To hell with the victims. His Narcissistic Personality Disorder-driven paranoid fantasies are far more important than any women the little oily psychopath might have injured.

 

[Here_to_learn]

• Judicial Authority
• Dual Criminality
• The meaning of "accused"
• If the EAW was propotional

For the 2nd and 4th point, the UKHC looked at the alleged actions, as well as the actions taken.

For completeness, I should add that on the 4th point above the UKHC pointed back to the Appeal Court of Svea (Svea Hovrätt), they did look into this area on Nov 24th, 2010. Before that (on Nov 18th), the Stockholm District Court had approved a domestic detention order in absentia, so two Swedish courts have reviewed if the prosecution has enough to continue the investigation.

 

[Jack of Kent]

Hi guys, just popping in.

I set out at Jack of Kent why the one allegation made in Sweden would also constitute rape under English law. This point has been dealt with *twice* by the English courts: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/

There is a staggering amount of misinforrmation on the internet about this case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd expect the prosecutor to find out what he actually does say before making a decision to dismiss the case (or not). Wouldn't you?

By phone or by sending someone to the UK, sure. But extradition to interview someone not even charged with a crime based solely on the complaint? Puhleese.

Can you imagine every disgruntled lover with an ex that left the country being able to make that ex return by simply making an accusation?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....

There is a staggering amount of misinforrmation on the internet about this case.

Rather than parsing the charges, do tell us what the actual evidence is? I don't mean the charges, I mean the evidence.

So far we have 2 women who said so, and JA who says not.

What other evidence is there?

 

[Korren]

By phone or by sending someone to the UK, sure. But extradition to interview someone not even charged with a crime based solely on the complaint? Puhleese.

Considering that Assange bailed out on an earlier interview that was scheduled while he was still in Sweden, that doesn't strike me as odd in the slightest. That's the kind of stupid behaviour that will get the book thrown at one.

 

[Korren]

Rather than parsing the charges, do tell us what the actual evidence is? I don't mean the charges, I mean the evidence.

How on earth would he know? At this point, only the Swedish prosecution knows that (as one would expect for a case that's still being investigated.)

 

[Here_to_learn]

How on earth would he know? At this point, only the Swedish prosecution knows that (as one would expect for a case that's still being investigated.)

I can only add to that comment that from what I understand, enough has been presented by the prosection in two Swedish courts (Stockholms Tingsrätt and Svea Hovrätt), for them to be satisfied and allow the EAW to be used for the investigation to proceeed.

So apparently the prosection as well as two different Swedish courts have found enough evidence for continued investigation.

 

[BenBurch]

Hi guys, just popping in.

I set out at Jack of Kent why the one allegation made in Sweden would also constitute rape under English law. This point has been dealt with *twice* by the English courts: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/

There is a staggering amount of misinforrmation on the internet about this case.

Thanks for the injection of reason.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, things are getting repetitive again in this thread. There's no benefit to just repeating the same points over and over.

I will address the Ny issue since I said I would earlier. I started this reply earlier so the following has been resolved:

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

If nothing else is known one could see that a chief prosecutor would have reason to get involved in an infamous case for obvious reasons.


On to the unresolved part.

It does not explain pursuing a prosecution on no more than one word against another, especially considering the circumstances of these complaints.

This has probably been posted but it's relevant here:
'Try Me for Rape Too, Marianne Ny!'

there have been 75 cases of sexual abuse in our 38 years of marriage. In all cases it's about the condom coming loose without my pointing it out to my partner. Most of the time I didn't even notice it myself.

And the past few months I've realised I've raped my wife perhaps 100 times through completed sex - often without a condom, but when she was half asleep.

I now understand, after having drilled down into my suppressed memory, that I'm a simple rapist and should be treated accordingly.

This is no joke, Ms Prosecutor. My wife will corroborate the details when you summon her to interrogation.
...

...I wish at the same time to file charges against my wife for sexual assault and sexual coercion. We've gone together through dozens of cases where she's taken a firm grip of my arms and held onto me. And even if I didn't say 'no', I very often felt helpless - I couldn't extricate myself from her iron grip even if I liked the rest of what she did.

More times than I can count she wanted to but I didn't. Most often things ended with me going along with it because I felt pressured and more or less forced

Looking further I found this, granted from a biased source. It was submitted in the UK extradition hearing on JA's behalf:

"I can confirm that Ms. Ny is not the Director of Public Prosecutions, as she is incorrectly described in the English version of the EAW (see page 5). The Swedish word to denote her title is överåklagare and in fact means ’Senior Prosecutor’ and she is one of a number of senior prosecutors. The Director of Public Prosecution in Sweden (i.e. the most senior Prosecutor in Sweden and the equivalent of the DPP in England, Keir Starmer) is the Riksåklagaren - the Prosecutor General - Mr. Anders Perklev."
Even if Ms. Ny were to technically fall under this category, Ms. Ny’s personal and professional investment in the Assange case (see Sundberg-Weitman’s comments about Ny under Gender Politics) would cast into doubt her suitability as a judicial authority.

A link to the full testimony is linked in the column.

....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.... I have not seen firm conclusions from a knowledgeable source that he actually has acted unethically.

Regardless, the point was: not every case of ethics is as clear cut as you imply. The issue of CB's ethics is a red herring in this thread. If you are claiming no one in this case is interested in fame &/or politics &/or some feminist ideology, and everyone is just doing a peachy keen professional job, I claim that is idealistically laughable.

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.

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

I have an opinion. I don't expect that opinion to influence anything in the case one way or the other. So I'm not sure what you are claiming here except for again using the argument from authority fallacy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How on earth would he know? At this point, only the Swedish prosecution knows that (as one would expect for a case that's still being investigated.)

The case is completely in the public sphere. Do you think the prosecutor has secret evidence?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Considering that Assange bailed out on an earlier interview that was scheduled while he was still in Sweden, that doesn't strike me as odd in the slightest. That's the kind of stupid behaviour that will get the book thrown at one.

He was interviewed.

31 August 2010

Mr Assange is questioned by police for about an hour in Stockholm and formally told of the allegations against him, according to his lawyer at the time, Leif Silbersky. The activist denies the charges.

 

[Here_to_learn]

This has probably been posted but it's relevant here:
'Try Me for Rape Too, Marianne Ny!'

So, you could explain with references to the relevant Swedish laws why this post by a journalist is relevant?

Looking further I found this, granted from a biased source. It was submitted in the UK extradition hearing on JA's behalf:A link to the full testimony is linked in the column.

Yes? So the titles translated from Swedish into English does not match what you would put into that title in another country? I don't get what the smoking gun is here? Even if the title "director of public prosecution" means exactly the same in every country that uses English as an official language, the title in it self is irrelevant. What is important is the responsibilities that comes with the position.

Regardless, the point was: not every case of ethics is as clear cut as you imply. The issue of CB's ethics is a red herring in this thread. If you are claiming no one in this case is interested in fame &/or politics &/or some feminist ideology, and everyone is just doing a peachy keen professional job, I claim that is idealistically laughable.

When did I say that it was clear cut? I specifically linked to a source that described it as a dilemma, which I think is anything but describing it as clear cut. You however specifically claimed that he had done an unethical thing, - that's making it out to be clear-cut to me.

And I have never claimed that nobody involved is interested in fame or politics, but just because they are does not automatically make everything they do ignorable or wrong. This is basic scepticism - people are not wrong for who they are, but for what they do. JA is not more guilty, neither is he less guilty due to his work with Wikileaks. CB is not automatically wrong due to him being a member of a political party.

And regardless of what CB and MN does, there are several layers of courts involved that reviews them. If you are building up that CB and MN is conspiring to prosecute this case maliciously, you also have to explain why the Stockholm District Courts (Stockholms Tingsrätt) and the Svea Court of Appeals (Svea Hovrätt), as well as the courts that have been involved in England all goes along with them. Again, do take a look at Transparency Internationals rating of Sweden in the area of Judicial independence. You may also compare that with for example the US (or just for fun - Ecuador).

I have an opinion. I don't expect that opinion to influence anything in the case one way or the other. So I'm not sure what you are claiming here except for again using the argument from authority fallacy.

Oh, you do like your fallacies. Again you bring it up, even though I showed that you were wrong the last time. It's not a fallacy if the person quoted is an expert in the field, and a consensus exists among legitimate experts. Show me specifically where I use sources that are not experts, or where consensus is missing among legitimate experts.

Note that several of the things I have referred to have been settled in courts of law, like for example what Jack of Kent describes in his blog post.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The case is completely in the public sphere. Do you think the prosecutor has secret evidence?

No, we don't think - we know that the prosecution hasn't shared all facts, since JAs legal team has complained about that. That has been mentioned several times in this thread.

JAs legal team has asked to see everything that the prosecution has, and that request has been denied, Swedish law ensures that the information is made available when (if) charges has been made, but not before that. If I remember correctly, it was in one of his conditions to return to Sweden.

 

[Here_to_learn]

He was interviewed.

Yes, but Korren was (I assume) talking about the later stages in the investigation. And this can be read in the agreed facts:

On 21 st September 2010
, the prosecutor contacted the Appellant’s counsel by text message to ask whether the Appellant could be made available for an interrogation on 28th September 2010. The date wasprovisionally agreed.

On 27th September 2010
, the Appellant’s counsel advised theprosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested.

On 30th September 2010
, the Appellant’s counsel was advised of the existence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27th September 2010.

[..]
On 12th October 2010
, the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor indicated her intention to issue an EAW if the Appellant did not attend for interview

The whole saga can of course be read in the document.

 

[tyr_13]

Hi guys, just popping in.

I set out at Jack of Kent why the one allegation made in Sweden would also constitute rape under English law. This point has been dealt with *twice* by the English courts: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/

There is a staggering amount of misinforrmation on the internet about this case.

Good work as usual good sir. One of your pingbacks is also very useful, if those who keep asserting misinformation choose to digest it. 'Rape Myths' and the Case of Julian Assange.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Good work as usual good sir. One of your pingbacks is also very useful, if those who keep asserting misinformation choose to digest it. 'Rape Myths' and the Case of Julian Assange.

That's all well and good but as far as my position (there are many positions here) it is a straw man.

It's not date rape that I'm saying didn't happen.

First, how do you prove the women's accounts are truthful? And if you can't prove it in a court, why waste all these resources on trying to?

Even if the date rape scenario were true, and it couldn't be proved in court, it happens. Life is not fair. The legal system is not perfect.

If the claims of the women were false, and it JA was found guilty, life wouldn't be fair to him either.

The bottom line, why is the default position here that they are describing exactly what happened, no exaggerations and no adjusted stories in order to meet a legal standard?


My assessment of the scenario puts a lot of weight on the fact these women did not complain until they learned about each other, and, they initially only wanted JA to get an HIV test and he brushed them off.

It has nothing to do with date rape not being a real crime.