Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes. Very possibly. The more clever a suspect believes he is, the more likely he will play with what he says in a clever way and hang himself.

He's had an awful lot of time to be briefed by expert lawyers. It might be a pleasant fantasy for people who think Assange is guilty of something that The Awful Truth Will Be Revealed if a prosecutor gets a chance to question him, but it seems rather improbable to me regardless of what the truth is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He's had an awful lot of time to be briefed by expert lawyers. It might be a pleasant fantasy for people who think Assange is guilty of something that The Awful Truth Will Be Revealed if a prosecutor gets a chance to question him, but it seems rather improbable to me regardless of what the truth is.

This^

Which makes one wonder why Ny is wasting everyone's time and money. Are Swedish courts in the habit of convicting people on as flimsy evidence as this?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This^

Which makes one wonder why Ny is wasting everyone's time and money. Are Swedish courts in the habit of convicting people on as flimsy evidence as this?

With "date rape" charges where relevant hard evidence is inherently difficult or impossible to come by, two different people both alleging similar crimes independently would be about as good as evidence gets.

The problem of course is that we know that the two different people did not come up with their accusations independently.

I can only guess that the prosecutor thinks they are in with a chance at persuading a jury to convict on the basis of that evidence.

 

[tyr_13]

I can only guess that the prosecutor thinks they are in with a chance at persuading a jury to convict on the basis of that evidence.

Or they found something that they might be able to use in his statements that he's already given and are hoping to get him to repeat it. Or another person made statements that support their versions.

We can speculate all day on what they might or might not have, but as it's an ongoing criminal investigation we just can't know for sure. Not that that will stop the guessing, but we should be aware of the limitations of the speculation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or they found something that they might be able to use in his statements that he's already given and are hoping to get him to repeat it. Or another person made statements that support their versions.
...

Yeah right, there could be magical evidence, how would we know given this very public case?

 

[tyr_13]

Yeah right, there could be magical evidence, how would we know given this very public case?

Answer that question. How would we know? What makes you think we would? Assange's legal council doesn't know and would like to, so how do you think we would?

Also, how are statements that might be incriminating magical?

Hell, while you're at it explain why you don't think this type of case should be fully investigated. Though luck for anyone who is date raped by someone powerful enough to make investigation expensive. And before you try to straw man me yet again, I'm not saying that Assange is definitely guilty or that what we know would be enough to convict.

 

[theprestige]

This^

Which makes one wonder why Ny is wasting everyone's time and money. Are Swedish courts in the habit of convicting people on as flimsy evidence as this?

That's begging the question. We don't know if it's wasted or not until the process reaches its conclusion and the results are made known.

And even then, is it really a waste to investigate a suspect, if you end up concluding they are innocent?

Anyway, your objection to Assange wasting everyone's time and money is essentially an appeal to incredulity combined with an appeal to conspiracy theory. Don't think we haven't noticed.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah right, there could be magical evidence, how would we know given this very public case?

Really? The suspect is a celebrity, therefore all the information you need to competently second-guess the prosecutor is publically-available and already known to you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Also, how are statements that might be incriminating magical?

"Magical" means evidence that doesn't exist but which is postulated to exist.

....Hell, while you're at it explain why you don't think this type of case should be fully investigated. Though luck for anyone who is date raped by someone powerful enough to make investigation expensive. And before you try to straw man me yet again, I'm not saying that Assange is definitely guilty or that what we know would be enough to convict.

This is a straw man argument. I do believe date rape cases should be investigated and prosecuted when they can be. Claiming that is my argument is bull-straw that I have refuted again and again in this thread. But you have no other argument against my position and that leads you all to keep repeating and this fighting straw man.

This case has been investigated, FULLY. One more interview of JA is highly unlikely to add anymore to the case. And if you look at the evidence which is clearly in the public sphere, there is not enough of a case to reasonably convict.

And of course JA's attorneys are going to ask for all the prosecution has. That is the attorneys' job. That doesn't mean they expect any additional evidence to be forthcoming.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's begging the question. We don't know if it's wasted or not until the process reaches its conclusion and the results are made known.

And even then, is it really a waste to investigate a suspect, if you end up concluding they are innocent?

Anyway, your objection to Assange wasting everyone's time and money is essentially an appeal to incredulity combined with an appeal to conspiracy theory. Don't think we haven't noticed.

I'm appealing to the evidence. The fact there is nothing logical yet to be discovered is shown by the fact no one can even name a hypothetical possibility which another interview of JA could possibly reveal other than a confession. And a confession is not going to happen.


But go ahead, keep repeating that the magical evidence no one can name could exist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really? The suspect is a celebrity, therefore all the information you need to competently second-guess the prosecutor is publically-available and already known to you?

This same claim was made in the hundreds of pages of discussion in the Amanda Knox thread. In the end, all the evidence was indeed in the public sphere. No magical prosecution evidence existed there either.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Answer that question. How would we know? What makes you think we would? Assange's legal council doesn't know and would like to, so how do you think we would?

Also, how are statements that might be incriminating magical?

Anything's possible, but I can't recall seeing anything that resembled evidence that some such secret evidence existed and was likely to convict Assange.

There's also strong reason to doubt that such evidence exists, specifically that they'd probably have put any such evidence forward as a reason to extradite him.

So although anything is possible, I'd be very surprised indeed if they were sitting on some damning piece of secret evidence.

Hell, while you're at it explain why you don't think this type of case should be fully investigated. Though luck for anyone who is date raped by someone powerful enough to make investigation expensive.

I would agree that every single date rape accusation must be fully investigated, if we lived in a world where doing so was free. Since we don't, any money spent investigating a date rape accusation which is highly unlikely to pan out is money which could have been spent on something else. At some point we just have to say "Forget this one, we can do more social good elsewhere with this money".

I'm nor sure what currently available evidence should incline me to the view that the case against Assange is likely to lead to proof beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt of something.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I would agree that every single date rape accusation must be fully investigated, if we lived in a world where doing so was free. Since we don't, any money spent investigating a date rape accusation which is highly unlikely to pan out is money which could have been spent on something else. At some point we just have to say "Forget this one, we can do more social good elsewhere with this money".

But that option is not even available to the Swedish Prosecution. They cannot decide to drop the investigation based on budget issues, neither can they drop them based on if the victim asks them to.

I'm nor sure what currently available evidence should incline me to the view that the case against Assange is likely to lead to proof beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt of something.

The prosecutor has stated to the Magistrates Court in England that barring new information she would expect to charge him, and what has been presented to two Swedish courts has been enough for them so far.

 

[Here_to_learn]

This case has been investigated, FULLY.

So in that post you know everything about Swedish criminal investigation practices and can judge all of the evidence, while in this post you don't know what Swedish courts considers as evidence:

Are Swedish courts in the habit of convicting people on as flimsy evidence as this?

no one can even name a hypothetical possibility which another interview of JA could possibly reveal other than a confession. And a confession is not going to happen.

Why do you keep on repeating this standpoint when I've already showed you that it's not what the prosecution expects.

I'll type it in here, for everybody that can't be bothered to read it in the source document:

Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter

 

[nathan]

You do know you are wrong, right?

You're the one who keeps bleating on about logical fallacies. Just in case you've failed to infer what I'm talking about: a (possibly fictitious) anecdote about a married couple is not evidence about the legality of what is alleged to have happened the morning after a one-night-stand.

You are confusing the conclusion with the evidence.

No I am not.

Relaying a single observation (an anecdote) is not likely to be evidence of causality. In other words random anecdotal evidence is very unreliable.

Which is what you did. And an irrelevant anecdote at that.

But if you can collect anecdotes systematically, using controls to rule out other variables, then anecdotal evidence is very useful.

Which is not what you did.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The Ecuadorian foreign minister also knows everything about the the case and finds it hilarious:

– Personligen tycker jag detta är dråpligt, säger Ricardo Patino till reportrar. Han hävdar att Assange är misstänkt i Sverige på grund av att en kondom gick sönder.

My translation: "Personally I find this hilarious, says Ricard Patino to a reporter. He asserts that Assange is a suspect in Sweden due to a condom that broke."

 

[tyr_13]

"Magical" means evidence that doesn't exist but which is postulated to exist.

Nice cut to try to dodge. Answer the question. How would you know what evidence they have? The evidence presented to multiple courts have convinced them to continue and to extradite.

This is a straw man argument. I do believe date rape cases should be investigated and prosecuted when they can be. Claiming that is my argument is bull-straw that I have refuted again and again in this thread. But you have no other argument against my position and that leads you all to keep repeating and this fighting straw man.

No straw man, but your own arguments put back at you. If you find that vile, change your arguments. Here is the problem, the objections you put forth to the investigation leave it so that practically no such cases should be investigated past asking for a confession. Accusers might be jealous? Accused powerful enough to make it costly? Accused afraid of some conspiracy to get him to some other enemy? Accusers didn't fully realize what had been done to them? Might come down to statements only? Well, let's not bother too much investigating then! These are your arguments and they suck. Almost all such cases involve one of your objections. The conclusion to your objections is that which you call a straw man. If you don't like that, I can't change it for you.

Back to the 'magical' evidence, even if it's he said-they said, something he said might have inadvertently supported what they said. That would certainly explain why the courts want to continue.

This case has been investigated, FULLY. One more interview of JA is highly unlikely to add anymore to the case. And if you look at the evidence which is clearly in the public sphere, there is not enough of a case to reasonably convict.

According to you, not according to the authorities and multiple courts. I agree with the courts. You believe you know better, and as much, as they do on the matter which is laughable. Normally having a different opinion from the courts/authorities is justified with a disclaimer, 'based on what we have available'. You on the other hand think we have enough available while repeatedly ignoring some of the stuff even we have.

And of course JA's attorneys are going to ask for all the prosecution has. That is the attorneys' job. That doesn't mean they expect any additional evidence to be forthcoming.

They didn't just ask for it, they made it a condition for return. Besides that, of course it wouldn't be forthcoming. That says nothing about the existence or non-existence of evidence.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The Ecuadorian foreign minister also knows everything about the the case and finds it hilarious:

And here's an english version of the story.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But that option is not even available to the Swedish Prosecution. They cannot decide to drop the investigation based on budget issues, neither can they drop them based on if the victim asks them to.

The prosecutor has stated to the Magistrates Court in England that barring new information she would expect to charge him, and what has been presented to two Swedish courts has been enough for them so far.

And two paragraphs down she said the opposite. That's what I pointed out to you but you choose not to consider.

As for not being able to drop the matter without interviewing JA, again you cherry pick what you choose to look at. Is there a Swedish law that would have prevented Ny from interviewing JA outside of Sweden? Clearly procedural precedent suggests there is not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So in that post you know everything about Swedish criminal investigation practices and can judge all of the evidence, while in this post you don't know what Swedish courts considers as evidence:...

I answered this, but Kevin did a better job.

And contrary to tyr_13 calling it a dodge, the concept, people are looking for magical evidence, is not a dodge.

Claiming, only the prosecutor knows, and the legal system hasn't FULLY investigated, relies on the underlying premise of deferring to authority. That is not the same as deferring to someone with greater expertise.

That there is no secret evidence, and no evidence another interview of JA is likely to uncover, is by far the most probable truth here. Any other truth is highly improbable.

A person like myself, who does not defer to authority on that basis alone, looks instead at the evidence in the public sphere and the likelihood there is possibly any more evidence not in the public sphere, and comes to my own conclusion. If there was any evidence/reason to believe there could possibly be secret evidence as yet not discovered or as yet not in the public sphere, I would have no problem deferring the the prosecutor's expertise. But secret/undiscovered evidence is improbable here. Ny's authority is not a reason to doubt my layperson's expertise (expertise as in, common sense, this is an easy call; not expertise as a prosecutor or lawyer).

Why do you keep on repeating this standpoint when I've already showed you that it's not what the prosecution expects.

I'll type it in here, for everybody that can't be bothered to read it in the source document:

Why do you keep ignoring what that same document says in #144 ii) & iii)?

"no decision to prosecute had been made"
"preliminary investigation and possible prosecution"

And if you do want to rely on the implication Ny is ready to charge JA, then you need to address the likelihood, given no more is likely to be found interviewing JA, of a conviction.

Yes, there are two similar stories, evidence leans against JA.
But the fact the women didn't come forward until learning about each other, and then only to force JA to have an HIV test, pretty much negates the weight of two complaints. That evidence leans for JA.

It's a wash. Anyone convicting JA on such equivocal grounds would be basing that conviction, not on the evidence, but on their personal bias.