Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Here_to_learn]

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

First of all, section 144 is the judges text, not Ms Ny, although he references her. But could you please quote the exact text line that you claim is contradicting.

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.

And that has been argued by JAs legal team in the English courts, and the courts did not agree with them. So no matter how much you say "Clearly", the courts disagree with you.

Paragraph 160:

We would add that although some criticism was made of Ms. Ny in this case, it is difficult to say, [...] that her failure to take up the offer of a video link for questioning was so unreasonable as to make it disproportionate to seek Mr. Assange's surrender, given all the other matters raised by Mr. Assange in the course of the proceedings before the Senior District Judge. [...] In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf or Mr. Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.

(Any errors are probably mine from transcribing it, full text available at above link).

Also, as a little thought experiment, from the perspective of the prosecution:
1. The Swedish prosecutor expects to be able to charge and convict JA.
2. JA was hard to get hold of, and he left the country when they asked for an interview via his legal counsel.
3. JA did not return for a new interview as expected
4. Result - JA is now outside Swedish jurisdiction
5. If prosecution interviews JA via video link/at Scotland Yard/at Piccadilly Circus/wherever outside of Sweden, and decides to charge him, he will have plenty of time to leave England and travel to an outside country before:
5.1 Sweden can charge him
5.2 Swedish court approves the charge
5.3 An EAW is approved and sent to member states
5.4 Scotland Yard is able to act on it.

And given were is is right now, it's not like the suspicion that he would run away from Sweden was wrong...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And here's an english version of the story.

Your first comment doesn't make it clear you get the gist of that story though your second comment suggests you do.

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

Ecuador finds sex claims against Assange 'hilarious' as WikiLeaks announces Syrian leak

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First of all, section 144 is the judges text, not Ms Ny, although he references her.

He quotes her! He quotes her letter! Look closer and no, I don't need to type out the full sentence for you to be able to read it.

But could you please quote the exact text line that you claim is contradicting.

I did quote it and cited it exactly which is more than you did with that document dump simply because you couldn't cut and paste. But I digress....

And that has been argued by JAs legal team in the English courts, and the courts did not agree with them. So no matter how much you say "Clearly", the courts disagree with you.

Paragraph 160:
(Any errors are probably mine from transcribing it, full text available at above link).

Also, as a little thought experiment, from the perspective of the prosecution:
1. The Swedish prosecutor expects to be able to charge and convict JA.
2. JA was hard to get hold of, and he left the country when they asked for an interview via his legal counsel.
3. JA did not return for a new interview as expected
4. Result - JA is now outside Swedish jurisdiction
5. If prosecution interviews JA via video link/at Scotland Yard/at Piccadilly Circus/wherever outside of Sweden, and decides to charge him, he will have plenty of time to leave England and travel to an outside country before:
5.1 Sweden can charge him
5.2 Swedish court approves the charge
5.3 An EAW is approved and sent to member states
5.4 Scotland Yard is able to act on it.

And given were is is right now, it's not like the suspicion that he would run away from Sweden was wrong...

None of this is stuff not already addressed ad nauseum in this thread.

We're past that part, move on to this part, please:

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.

 

[Silhouette]

They didn't just ask for it, they made it a condition for return.

Is there a reasonable explanation for why the prosecutor is unable to give Julian Assange's legal team all of the information they have against him? Is it unusual for someone to ask for the evidence against them and be refused in Sweden? If being able to charge him depends upon him being present in Sweden, then why not give him the information since he made his extradition contingent upon him receiving this material. Is it traditional for prosecutors to withhold evidence against a suspect during investigation if the suspect requests information about the allegations against him?

 

[Here_to_learn]

I answered this, but Kevin did a better job.

And I've answered him, as have others. Money is not an argument.

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

At this stage, I'm going to give you a quote regarding your use of the word "magic":

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Just because you can't understand what would be considered valid evidence in Swedish courts, and don't understand Swedish policies and procedures for investigation and prosecution, does not mean that nobody does.

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.

You claim they have fully investigated, Swedish prosecution authority claims they haven't. Are you saying that you have greater expertise on investigations according to Swedish law than two Swedish courts and the Swedish Prosecution Authority? Not even JAs Swedish Legal Counsel argues this in his Guardian letter, the closes he says is "The allegations against Assange, in contrast, are not nearly so serious [as Breivik], but a case of "he said, she said". He's not putting forward the argument that JA couldn't be convicted based on what is currently known, and he should be in a position to know.

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).

And of course, we do know that the less a person know about a subject, the more he/she is likely to overestimate his/her knowledge.

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"

I don't ignore it, since it in no way contradicts the other point, in fact it perfectly well supports it. The decision to charge has not been made, but unless something new comes up during the interview, Ms. Ny expects that she will charge him.

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.

Nope, I do not have to do that. That's the prosecutions job, not mine. I do not have the skills, knowledge or experience enough of Swedish rape law to be able to do that. The Prosecution, defence and the courts have.

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.

It's clear that you have made up your mind. I prefer to see justice run it's course. The Swedish legal system is not a perfect system, but I trust it a lot more than I trust random people on the Internet.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Is there a reasonable explanation for why the prosecutor is unable to give Julian Assange's legal team all of the information they have against him? Is it unusual for someone to ask for the evidence against them and be refused in Sweden? If being able to charge him depends upon him being present in Sweden, then why not give him the information since he made his extradition contingent upon him receiving this material. Is it traditional for prosecutors to withhold evidence against a suspect during investigation if the suspect requests information about the allegations against him?

According to information I've seen (and was included in the English courts documents), Swedish police and prosecution is never supposed to hand out information about an ongoing investigation to a suspect. However when a person is charged, they have to hand it over. JAs Swedish counsel is probably perfectly aware of that.

(At least some of the information had to be presented to the courts for the decision on the detention and EAW, that was later leaked via JAs English law firm, if I remember correctly).

 

[tyr_13]

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.

How do you know? How would we know? What is the source of this knowledge?

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.

The prosecutor and at least three other courts that is, who all agree. In this case it is several people with not only greater expertise, but with better access to the information than you. In legal matters, yes, the authorities whose job it is to interpret and rule on legal matters are deferred to.

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.

The courts disagree with your assessment.

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.

No one is deferring to authority on that basis alone. Your conclusion leads to no such cases being meaningful perused. That's inescapable.

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).

As they disagree with your assessment of even the available evidence, I doubt it.

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.

That's abhorrent. Your reasoning is not sound. Just because they didn't object enough at first? That they only initially wanted assurance that they weren't harmed more? These things are irrelevant, and at worst do not negate the accusation.

You play fast and loose with the evidence with poor cherry picking and accuse others of personal bias? Rubbish.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I did quote it and cited it exactly which is more than you did with that document dump simply because you couldn't cut and paste. But I digress....

Yes, we cross posted. See my reply later down.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And I've answered him, as have others. Money is not an argument.

Sigh.... Your answer suggests you didn't even look at the post I linked to:

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.

There is no reason to think magical evidence is out there.

At this stage, I'm going to give you a quote regarding your use of the word "magic":
Just because you can't understand what would be considered valid evidence in Swedish courts, and don't understand Swedish policies and procedures for investigation and prosecution, does not mean that nobody does. [snipped more of the same]

You are back to argument from authority.

 

[BenBurch]

If there is no reason to think there is any evidence to convict him, what the **** is all this drama about?

Let the Swedes have him.

Then after he rots in a Swedish jail for a couple years (flight risk, no bail) while his Swedish legal team fights to keep him there by trying to get the interview vacated, they will finally interview him and then let him go.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you know? How would we know? What is the source of this knowledge?

Kevin said it well enough:

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.

The prosecutor and at least three other courts that is, who all agree. In this case it is several people with not only greater expertise, but with better access to the information than you. In legal matters, yes, the authorities whose job it is to interpret and rule on legal matters are deferred to.

The courts disagree with your assessment.

All arguments from authority. They must know something not in the public sphere. They must have some expertise that makes their assessment superior even if I can't articulate what that special knowledge could possibly be.

No one is deferring to authority on that basis alone. Your conclusion leads to no such cases being meaningful perused. That's inescapable.

That's abhorrent. Your reasoning is not sound. Just because they didn't object enough at first? That they only initially wanted assurance that they weren't harmed more? These things are irrelevant, and at worst do not negate the accusation.

You play fast and loose with the evidence with poor cherry picking and accuse others of personal bias? Rubbish.

If you think there is enough evidence in this case to convict JA without secret magical knowledge you hypothesize the prosecutor has/can get, then we simply assess the evidence differently.

Tell me, why are you assuming the women are truthful and accurate and JA isn't if you are not injecting bias?

Two against one is reasonable, however, two women colluding against one is not. Whether they are truthful and accurate has been tainted by their collusion. Life's not fair.

I think JA's a creepy guy. I still think he has a right to be treated fairly.

I like some stuff Wikileaks has done but not everything. It has nothing to do with my thinking JA is a creepy guy.

So where's my bias here? It's my opinion I'm being more impartial than you are.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Sigh.... Your answer suggests you didn't even look at the post I linked to:There is no reason to think magical evidence is out there.

Maybe you didn't read, the half you didn't quote uses the money argument.

You are back to argument from authority.

For the third time, you are wrong (you do not have a good track record on this...).

You have not at any stage shown any knowledge or experience in Swedish law, or how it's applied in Swedish courts. The Swedish legal system has.

Show me persons with relevant expertise (knowledge of Swedish law, and specifically how rape law handled, and how evidence is evaluated in Swedish courts) that have relevant arguments, until you do that, you are just plain wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's nothing new to reply to there, HTL. Sorry.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Sorry.

I'm not.

 

[Silhouette]

According to information I've seen (and was included in the English courts documents), Swedish police and prosecution is never supposed to hand out information about an ongoing investigation to a suspect. However when a person is charged, they have to hand it over. JAs Swedish counsel is probably perfectly aware of that.

(At least some of the information had to be presented to the courts for the decision on the detention and EAW, that was later leaked via JAs English law firm, if I remember correctly).

Thanks! This is helping me to see two sides to this situation. I read that Assange's Swedish lawyer was able to see the evidence that the Prosecutor had, but was unable to make any copies of it or use it in court. He said that there was evidence that the two women had texted each other about the situation and believed that there was exculpatory evidence within those texts. If that is true, I can understand why they are pressing so hard for this info. It is unfortunate that Julian Assange would have to allow himself to be extradited just to find out what all the evidence is in the case. I can also see that the Swedish prosecutor has a certain protocol that she has to follow.

Tell me, why are you assuming the women are truthful and accurate and JA isn't if you are not injecting bias?

Two against one is reasonable, however, two women colluding against one is not. Whether they are truthful and accurate has been tainted by their collusion. Life's not fair

.

If the women had gone on their own, of their own accord, then it would make them seem more credible. Because they talked about it together before hand, it definitely leaves open the possibility that they colluded beyond just going to the police to force a blood test. I'm not saying that that's what they did, but it does throw the allegations into suspicion, from my point of view, particularly in light of the fact that there appears to be no physical evidence to back up the claims.

 

[Here_to_learn]

It is unfortunate that Julian Assange would have to allow himself to be extradited just to find out what all the evidence is in the case.

On top of that he would have to be charged to see the evidence, if he's not charged obviously there was not evidence of a crime committed by him and the case will be dismissed - so nothing to show.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... He said that there was evidence that the two women had texted each other about the situation and believed that there was exculpatory evidence within those texts. If that is true, I can understand why they are pressing so hard for this info. It is unfortunate that Julian Assange would have to allow himself to be extradited just to find out what all the evidence is in the case. I can also see that the Swedish prosecutor has a certain protocol that she has to follow. ....

If you read JA's lawyer's response you'll see JA did offer to return and that there are numerous reasons to think Ny is up to more than a routine investigation, namely the fact cherry picked information was leaked to the press, it would be legal to interview JA in the UK, and Ny has been inconsistent with saying she is and is not ready to charge JA, among other things.

As for the texts, that was discussed earlier, thanks for reminding us. There was the web page of one of the women that was taken down shortly after it was exposed with the "how to get even with a cheater" advice on it and the texts between the two women which despite not being officially released to JA and his attorneys is nonetheless out there on the net.

Nordic News Network; Assange & Sweden - Miscellaneous Information: Part 2 - 17 December 2010 – 17 February 2011

"There are many more text and SMS messages from and to the
complainants which have been shown by the assistant prosecutor to the Swedish
defence lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, which suggest motivations of malice and money in going
to the police and to Espressen and raise the issue of political motivation behind the
presentation of these complaints. He [Hurtig] has been precluded from making notes
or copying them.
"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual
relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first
complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the
respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to
her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.
"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out
about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual
intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom--
a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.
"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only
to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown
evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain
money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters
including a desire for revenge."

 

[BenBurch]

So the dictator's flunky thinks rape is hilarious?

Assange will fit RIGHT IN.

 

[Here_to_learn]

If you read JA's lawyer's response you'll see JA did offer to return

And of course, Hurtig had to change his testimony in front of the judge, since it become obvious that his written testimony was incorrect, especially around the area on what happened between Ny and himself, and what he passed on to JA.

All that can be read in the judgement, and that is also why you should read the "agreed facts" document instead - that's where the incorrect information from Hurtigs document has been cleaned up.

Hurtig was then warned by the Swedish Bar Association for his actions.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

Unless Sweden has a magical money tree that I don't know about, I think it's going to turn out that someone has the authority to drop a prosecution when it's going nowhere and costing a fortune.

You seem to want to bash the straw man "Swedish law says the prosecutor should drop the prosecution if it gets expensive". Nobody ever said that. My comments were in response to someone saying that "you don't think this kind of case should be fully investigated", which was probably another straw man in itself, and I was making the point that no, I don't think "this kind of case" should be "fully investigated" if "this kind of case" means an apparently unsupported and unprovable date rape allegation and "fully investigated" means an unsupported extradition demand.

Note that it was a statement about my opinion, not about any relevant law.

Hopefully you will now be able to leave that straw man alone.

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's the funny thing. You and tyr_13 (quote below) both buy this. Isn't critical thinking supposed to enter the picture at some point? Here's tyr_13's take:

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.

Now neither of you can articulate what the evidence is supposed to be, that would make a conviction plausible.

Yet you both claim to believe, based only on the fact that a court is going ahead with an extradition attempt, that they must have secret evidence sufficient to plausibly convict.

I saw exactly the same reflexive kowtowing to the courts in the Amanda Knox and Lockerbie threads. People seriously argued that even though all the publicly available evidence said that the courts had gone haywire, the courts must still be right because they are courts and they must know something we don't.

It's an unfalsifiable position, since no evidence can ever show that a prosecution has gone amok. If there's evidence for a conviction then a prosecution is justified, and if there is not evidence for a conviction then a prosecution is also justified because hey, secret evidence!

As a critical thinker, I think the currently correct position is that based on the available evidence, this prosecution doesn't have anything like enough evidence to convict. Therefore the rational belief at this stage is that this prosecution doesn't have anything like enough evidence to convict. Hence the prosecution is probably misguided, politically motivated or otherwise off the rails.