Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

More cherry picking on your part, HTL?

The English translation:

false statements about the prosecutor Marianne Nys attempt to get in touch with his client...

Riddle was referring to testimony in which Hurtig had said he had been unable to contact Assange last year when he was sought by Swedish prosecutors for questioning.

http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/10209-swedish-bar-association-warns-assanges-lawyer-

So how does that mistake have anything whatsoever to do with the part of the testimony I referred to? Did the UK judge say Hurtig was lying about the exculpatory text messages he said he saw but could not get copies of? Did the UK judge say Hurtig lied about JA initially offering to return to Sweden?

Do you not see you are biased when it comes to the legal sources on both sides of this charge? You discount Hurtig because he said he couldn't contact JA when he could. But you ignore all the issues related to Ny, brushing them off as her following procedures and nothing more.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

Mayhap if he'd tried a position other than "slip it in while she's napping" we'd never had heard of this. (Sorry, allegedly tried a position, etc ...)

I'd love to live in your world where police can talk with a suspect for one hour only and know everything they will ever find out about what he can tell them.

I'd not, except that it would allow my brother-in-law more time to golf and fish. He's a cop. He stays very busy.

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?

I'll answer this with Kevin's question.

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.

Because the prosecutor gets to try, that's why.

I don't think the prosecutor Ny is guaranteed a win (if the extradition deal ever goes through, which seems to me unlikely), but like prosecutors in my land, where not all prosecutions are successful (see OJ Simpson for a case in point) they do get to try with such evidence and argument as they can muster.

Kevin, you do make a decent point about the law of diminishing returns, but as this case has become entwined with politics, the "cost-benefit" argument is already dead. Sad to say, that's how it seems to play out in democracies.

 

[tyr_13]

Kevin said it well enough:



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.

That's a straw man. I'll address what Kevin said latter, but the authorities made compelling arguments while you did not. The subject is legal, so the authorities are the ones deciding what is legally right. Their authority is that their job is to interpret what is legally right. This isn't like the FAA saying that cell phones can be a danger to aircraft avionics where we can point to testing and prove it is not so.

Your argument being that they don't have enough to go on is moot. They are the ones who decide if they have enough to go on, and they have decided repeatedly that they do. If you believe them wrong, you'd have to have a strong legal argument to do so. You don't have one. They have the expertise, the information, and the compelling argument. So why is citing these an appeal to authority?

And where do you even get that I can't articulate what that knowledge (special is just a weasel word to try to mock here) could be? I've already given examples. However to expand, it need not be more 'evidence' per say. It could be a compelling logical argument, a wording of Assange's statements, legal minutia, or some other detail that just hasn't occurred to us. It could also be further supporting testimony or details not known to the public. This is speculation. It's also speculation that the authorities are all political motivated, inept, off tracks, or any combination thereof. You can put weight in some speculation for some speculation and dismiss other speculation for a variety of reasons, but I haven't found your dismissals (or other arguments for that matter) to be far off of weaksauce.

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.

Staggering. I'm going to quote myself here. "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. "

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 don't assume that. I feel that they have enough evidence to keep pursuing an investigation based on what is available and that they might have enough for charges with a bit more that they may or may not already have. I've explained before some reasons as to why I find their account plausible and why I find your dismissals standard rape apologetics. For instance you believe that they having not come forward till they found out about each other as evidence for them being either jealous and/or colluding. Well that's not necessarily so, and I find it less likely than common sexual assault dynamics. Victims often blame themselves, tell themselves it was something about them or that they did wrong, until they find out about other victims. Then they know that it wasn't just them, and that other people can keep getting hurt if they don't act. In this case (in my assessment), it let them get up the courage to confront him for an HIV test, and then when he refused try to compel him to get one. You contest that they could have colluded to get back at him from jealous. That's possible, but I find it highly unlikely because they probably would have just accused him of rape rather than going in and then having to be latter told in effect, 'what he did was assault you know'.

ETA: Would you dismiss the testimonials in the Sanduski trial for the same reasons? Many people come forward only after finding other victims.

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.

Of course you believe that. Your bias is the same one it always is. Whatever conclusion you come to first is right.

So what is my bias here? That I like some things Wikileaks has done but hate other things? That I generally argue against assuming rape charges are true and point out the harm that false allegations can have? That I'm American?

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:



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

I articulated some possibilities above in this post and in my very first response to your speculation. Your high horse has come out though, so I doubt this is going to stay productive. You aren't the arbiter of critical thinking, and critical thinking has played a role in the reasoning laid out by the courts, by the prosecution, and by other posters in this thread.

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.

No, not only and not 'must'.

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.

Agreeing with the court's assessment and the reasoning is not 'reflexive kowtowing' any more than your disagreeing is 'reflexive denial'.

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!

Oh? So how was it falsified in those other threads you reference? In other court cases? Of course it's falsifiable. In this case when charges are brought the evidence would be provided. In a court case the evidence is provided. See above about what I speculate this 'evidence' might entail.

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.

As a critical thinker I've found some of your speculation plausible, and some of it I disagree with. Your position isn't unsupported or supported by rape apologitics, so I haven't been objecting as much besides to point out that it's speculation. I don't think they have enough based on what we know, hence the prosecution and courts probably knows more about both the facts and evidence of the case and of the legal principals of both countries than I do. Maybe they are misguided, politically motivated, or otherwise off the rails, but in my assessment that's less likely than my view of the evidence simply being wrong.

EDIT: They apparently believe they have enough to go on, so it's their job and duty to do so.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Right, I see your point. He would have to be extradited in order for Sweden to charge him (according to the Prosecutor) at which point he could finally see all the evidence against him. This brings me back to the fact that the law allows for a person to be extradited to another country on allegations alone. I know that my opinion isn't going to change anything, but I do think that the burden should be on the Prosecutor to have more physical evidence before being able to extradite someone. Right now all they have is two people's words against another.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

..Because the prosecutor gets to try, that's why.

So you don't mind absolute unlimited government power?

Not to mention your answer ignores a number of issues like, JA was interviewed and JA could have been interviewed further in the UK if Ny wasn't on a power trip.

Kevin, you do make a decent point about the law of diminishing returns, but as this case has become entwined with politics, the "cost-benefit" argument is already dead. Sad to say, that's how it seems to play out in democracies.

It's not even cost benefit, it is, do they reasonably expect to have a case against JA that would be successful in court. Unless Sweden is in the habit of convicting guys because they are jerks, all there is here is a couple of women whose testimony can be ripped to shreds based on collusion and apparently incriminating emails between them.

There is no case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's a straw man. I'll address what Kevin said latter, but the authorities made compelling arguments while you did not.

By all means, summarize those compelling arguments and the evidence they are based on. When you have that I'll address the rest of your post. I wouldn't want to attack arguments you aren't making.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So the dictator's flunky thinks rape is hilarious?

Assange will fit RIGHT IN.

This is mind boggling. The dictator said charging someone for rape because a condom broke is hilarious.

You can't seem to argue the facts. You keep distorting and exaggerating them to rationalize your conclusions.

 

[tyr_13]

By all means, summarize those compelling arguments and the evidence they are based on. When you have that I'll address the rest of your post. I wouldn't want to attack arguments you aren't making.

You've already been attacking those arguments whenever Here_to_learn links to them. I don't see what restating them yet again would advance. Did you want me to repost the links?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You've already been attacking those arguments whenever Here_to_learn links to them. I don't see what restating them yet again would advance. Did you want me to repost the links?

Just a short summary please, not an info dump. And HTL has only posted procedure, he has not posted case arguments and supporting evidence.

Arguments and evidence:


You said I didn't get your argument correct, I argued a straw man. So lets hear your case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've summarized my arguments a number of times:

That there are 2 women with similar stories goes against JA.
That the women colluded nullifies the weight of their testimony.

It amounts to he said/she said and nothing else.

All there is here is a couple of women whose testimony can be ripped to shreds based on collusion and apparently incriminating emails between them.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Your argument being that they don't have enough to go on is moot. They are the ones who decide if they have enough to go on, and they have decided repeatedly that they do. If you believe them wrong, you'd have to have a strong legal argument to do so. You don't have one. They have the expertise, the information, and the compelling argument. So why is citing these an appeal to authority?

And where do you even get that I can't articulate what that knowledge (special is just a weasel word to try to mock here) could be? I've already given examples. However to expand, it need not be more 'evidence' per say. It could be a compelling logical argument, a wording of Assange's statements, legal minutia, or some other detail that just hasn't occurred to us. It could also be further supporting testimony or details not known to the public. This is speculation. It's also speculation that the authorities are all political motivated, inept, off tracks, or any combination thereof. You can put weight in some speculation for some speculation and dismiss other speculation for a variety of reasons, but I haven't found your dismissals (or other arguments for that matter) to be far off of weaksauce.

Jabs about "weaksauce" aside, there's nothing here except a circular argument that court decisions are right because they are made by courts, and a lot of speculation about where secret evidence might be hiding.

Sure the prosecution might have "a [secret] compelling logical argument" or "[secret] legal minutia". They also might have a secret, magical, talking cat that told them Assange did it. However lacking any positive reason whatsoever to believe in the existence of such secret evidence, we're back to arguing that the court is right because it's a court.

I articulated some possibilities above in this post and in my very first response to your speculation. Your high horse has come out though, so I doubt this is going to stay productive. You aren't the arbiter of critical thinking, and critical thinking has played a role in the reasoning laid out by the courts, by the prosecution, and by other posters in this thread.

If you think critical thinking has an arbiter you don't understand what it is in the first place.

Critical thinking is fixing your opinion based on the evidence. As we've just seen you've no evidence that the prosecution has anything even potentially resembling proof beyond reasonable doubt. All you've got is the argument that the court is doing it therefore the court is right to do it, and the argument that since you can imagine what secret evidence they might have, that should count as evidence that they really do have secret evidence.

Agreeing with the court's assessment and the reasoning is not 'reflexive kowtowing' any more than your disagreeing is 'reflexive denial'.

It is not reflexive kowtowing if you have evidence that the court's assessment is backed by sufficient evidence. However it is reflexive kowtowing if your best argument is that the courts know better than you or I, so if we think the evidence is inadequate we must be wrong.

Oh? So how was it falsified in those other threads you reference? In other court cases? Of course it's falsifiable.

Strictly speaking this argument relies on equivocation. Are we talking about whether the belief-system of people who prostrate themselves before courts is a falsifiable belief-system? Or are we talking about whether a rational person could be convinced by evidence that the claim "the court got it wrong" is true?

The belief-system that courts are always right is an unfalsifiable belief-system. Rational people outside the belief-system may realise the belief-system is dysfunctional and/or falsified, but that won't change the believer's mind.

In the Knox and Lockerbie cases, in my view as a rationalist there is solid proof that the courts' conclusions were nuts. That doesn't stop significant numbers of idiots remaining trenchantly convinced that the courts were right and no amount of evidence will convince those idiots.

I don't think they have enough based on what we know, hence the prosecution and courts probably knows more about both the facts and evidence of the case and of the legal principals of both countries than I do. Maybe they are misguided, politically motivated, or otherwise off the rails, but in my assessment that's less likely than my view of the evidence simply being wrong.

I have nothing like that degree of faith in courts, especially when politics is involved. I'm content to assume courts know better than I about cases I have made no effort to familiarise myself with, but once I know the same facts they do I have no faith whatsoever that a court is better equipped to analyse those facts than I am.

 

[tyr_13]

Just a short summary please, not an info dump. And HTL has only posted procedure, he has not posted case arguments and supporting evidence.

Arguments and evidence:


You said I didn't get your argument correct, I argued a straw man. So lets hear your case.

It's too late to go back through the thread again as I remember a linked to summery that I agreed with. Maybe tomorrow after work.

Jabs about "weaksauce" aside, there's nothing here except a circular argument that court decisions are right because they are made by courts, and a lot of speculation about where secret evidence might be hiding.

Sure the prosecution might have "a [secret] compelling logical argument" or "[secret] legal minutia". They also might have a secret, magical, talking cat that told them Assange did it. However lacking any positive reason whatsoever to believe in the existence of such secret evidence, we're back to arguing that the court is right because it's a court.

Court decisions on matters of law are right because that's the courts job until overturned by new legislation or another court. That's basically how they work. My speculation on what evidence they might be relying on, at this point, isn't less valid than your speculation that's it's all politics and there is no evidence. You assert that there are no positive reasons whatsoever to believe in the existence of compelling evidence. If it were one court I might agree. Three courts in two countries raises my eyebrows however.

If you think critical thinking has an arbiter you don't understand what it is in the first place.

Obviously I didn't believe that in the slightest but you continue to act as if you were one. Like here.

Critical thinking is fixing your opinion based on the evidence. As we've just seen you've no evidence that the prosecution has anything even potentially resembling proof beyond reasonable doubt. All you've got is the argument that the court is doing it therefore the court is right to do it, and the argument that since you can imagine what secret evidence they might have, that should count as evidence that they really do have secret evidence.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not the standard for continuing an investigation and I've not claimed to have such proof.

It is not reflexive kowtowing if you have evidence that the court's assessment is backed by sufficient evidence. However it is reflexive kowtowing if your best argument is that the courts know better than you or I, so if we think the evidence is inadequate we must be wrong.

The Swedish courts do know better than you or I about Swedish courts and legal standards. That's not even a question. I believe the public evidence isn't sufficient for a conviction based on what I know of US law, but as I don't know all the evidence and it's Swedish law...I'm betting it's plausible if not probable that I'm missing something.

Besides that, my 'weaksauce' comment could be correct no matter if I'm correct of not on other points. I don't need to be right for Skeptical Ginger's arguments to be wrong. Hell, her conclusion could be correct and the reasoning still unsound.

Strictly speaking this argument relies on equivocation. Are we talking about whether the belief-system of people who prostrate themselves before courts is a falsifiable belief-system? Or are we talking about whether a rational person could be convinced by evidence that the claim "the court got it wrong" is true?

The belief-system that courts are always right is an unfalsifiable belief-system. Rational people outside the belief-system may realise the belief-system is dysfunctional and/or falsified, but that won't change the believer's mind.

In the Knox and Lockerbie cases, in my view as a rationalist there is solid proof that the courts' conclusions were nuts. That doesn't stop significant numbers of idiots remaining trenchantly convinced that the courts were right and no amount of evidence will convince those idiots.

Good thing no one is saying that the courts are always right. I can site times where I think the courts got it wrong, both ways, on guilt or innocence. What I can't say is that the courts got it overall wrong on procedure until a higher court agrees with me.

There were trials there with the evidence laid out and arguments made for and against in a 'more or less' open manner where there could be enough for people to come to the conclusion that the courts were wrong. The question here isn't, 'are the courts wrong that the evidence will convict', but, 'are the courts wrong that there is legally enough for the courts to continue?' As the courts do continue, they would of course be right on the latter! The question of, 'should the courts continue?' is a little different still. Your cost/benefit equation rubs me the wrong way, but I can't slam it. Skeptic Gingers, 'they didn't object enough soon enough' or, 'Assange's lawyer says the women colluded for money' on the other hand I can find fault with as can I with, 'the courts ruled in away I disagree with, they must be politically motivated or something'.

I have nothing like that degree of faith in courts, especially when politics is involved. I'm content to assume courts know better than I about cases I have made no effort to familiarise myself with, but once I know the same facts they do I have no faith whatsoever that a court is better equipped to analyse those facts than I am.

I have nothing like that degree of faith in you or me at this stage.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's too late to go back through the thread again as I remember a linked to summery that I agreed with. Maybe tomorrow after work....

And you claim I dodged?

It's a simple matter, tyr, you don't need citations or complex arguments. What is the evidence that you think says JA will be convicted in a court?

Good thing no one is saying that the courts are always right. I can site times where I think the courts got it wrong, both ways, on guilt or innocence. What I can't say is that the courts got it overall wrong on procedure until a higher court agrees with me.

The appeal to authority fallacy does not rely on a person saying, "the courts are always right". You and Here_to_learn are both argung the authority of the court while not articulating any argument the court expertise supports.

..are the courts wrong that there is legally enough for the courts to continue?'

I think so. And I'd say Ny was behind it, not "the courts".

..As the courts do continue, they would of course be right on the latter!

That's an argument from authority fallacy no matter how you parse it.

..The question of, 'should the courts continue?' is a little different still. Your cost/benefit equation rubs me the wrong way, but I can't slam it. Skeptic Gingers, 'they didn't object enough soon enough' or, 'Assange's lawyer says the women colluded for money' on the other hand I can find fault with as can I with, 'the courts ruled in away I disagree with, they must be politically motivated or something'.

Your argument is not convincing.

It wasn't just that the women didn't object enough or soon enough. That's not my argument which is why it is a straw man. It's that they did not object until they found out about each other. That's different than simply not coming forward right away.

To say the courts ruled in a way I disagree with, they must be politically motivated or something' is another distortion of what I said. You ignore my point and make up your own, that is another straw man.


That's why I'm trying to get you to articulate the wheat of your position instead of this chaff.

Let me say it again:

That there are 2 women with similar stories goes against JA.
That the women colluded nullifies the weight of their testimony.

It amounts to he said/she said and nothing else.

All there is here is a couple of women whose testimony can be ripped to shreds based on collusion and apparently incriminating emails between them.

Address my argument, not your distortion of it, please.

 

[theprestige]

That there are 2 women with similar stories goes against JA.

Bare assertion. Are you a Swedish judge or prosecutor, or privy to their counsels, that you know what does and does not go against JA in Swedish law?

That the women colluded nullifies the weight of their testimony.

Bare assertion. Are you a Swedish judge or prosecutor, or privy to their counsels, that you know what does and does not nullify the weight of their testimony in Swedish law?

It amounts to he said/she said and nothing else.

Bare assertion. Are you a Swedish judge or prosecutor, or privy to their counsels, that you know what does and does not amount to this or that in Swedish law?

All there is here is a couple of women whose testimony can be ripped to shreds based on collusion and apparently incriminating emails between them.

Bare assertion. Are you a Swedish judge or prosecutor, or privy to their counsels, that you know what does and does not constitute robust testimony in Swedish law?

Address my argument, not your distortion of it, please.

Done and done.

You've said a lot in this thread about what you think and believe, but so far as I can tell, you've never once cited Swedish law, or shown any familiarity at all with that subject.

So, since you don't appear to know anything at all about Swedish law, your arguments, as they stand, undistorted, can be summarily rejected out of hand.

Maybe Swedish law is wrong. But you don't know that, do you? Maybe an informed critique of Swedish law could be made... but not by you, right? Maybe the judge or the prosecutor are acting outside of Swedish law. But you wouldn't have a clue about that, would you?

Is there a name for the fallacy of steadfastly refusing to consult actual experts in their actual field of expertise, and defer to their actual expert opinions in the face of your own actual ignorance?

There should be.

 

[Here_to_learn]

More cherry picking on your part, HTL?

Nope, I split your post into two parts. One part was about offers to return/offers to interview and what was going on between Ny, Hurtig and JA., and specifically about the value of the written testimony from Hurtig. The other part had to do with text messages and so on. I have all along in this thread said that I'm not judging the evidence. I do not claim to have the skills, knowledge or experience in doing that, so I leave that to the professionals.

However, stuff around what is known to have happened, and factual errors about what the procedure should be, I do comment on.

In the agreed facts you can read from page 5 and forward how the communication goes back and forth between Ny and Hurtig, and how Hurtig describes that when Ny asked for a specific date for an interview in Sweden, Hurtig cannot contact JA.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nope, I split your post into two parts.

The cherry picking I referred to had nothing to do with the parts of my question.

...I have all along in this thread said that I'm not judging the evidence. I do not claim to have the skills, knowledge or experience in doing that, so I leave that to the professionals.

I do not have that insecurity in my ability to judge the evidence. It's not complicated.

In the agreed facts you can read from page 5 and forward how the communication goes back and forth between Ny and Hurtig, and how Hurtig describes that when Ny asked for a specific date for an interview in Sweden, Hurtig cannot contact JA.

All of this has ZERO to do with my claim you are cherry picking. I'll try again. Perhaps you could start with the premise you might just have misread something and you could try again.

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.

To review, the parts of Hurtig's testimony I was referring to was:

• JA offered to return to Sweden to be interviewed, Ny complained they don't work on weekends.
• Some information, but conveniently not all the information, was leaked to the press.
• Hurtig cites the fact there are no legal reasons JA cannot be interviewed in the UK.
• Ny has been inconsistent saying she has enough to charge JA and she is not ready to charge JA.
• 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
• The texts between the two women, which despite not being officially released to JA and his attorneys, was seen by Hurtig

You will notice not a single thing on that list has to do with the part of Hurtig's testimony you are citing was false.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bare assertion. Are you a Swedish judge or prosecutor, or privy to their counsels, that you know what does and does not go against JA in Swedish law?

What are you talking about? I'm only talking about my assessment of the evidence. Two she-saids vs one he-said goes against JA. How is that opinion dependent upon Swedish law?

Bare assertion. Are you a Swedish judge or prosecutor, or privy to their counsels, that you know what does and does not nullify the weight of their testimony in Swedish law?


Bare assertion. Are you a Swedish judge or prosecutor, or privy to their counsels, that you know what does and does not amount to this or that in Swedish law?


Bare assertion. Are you a Swedish judge or prosecutor, or privy to their counsels, that you know what does and does not constitute robust testimony in Swedish law?

Bare argument from authority.

Two women said he did it, JA says he didn't. Why the hell would that need some Swedish law caveat to evaluate?


If Swedish law allows a conviction on such flimsy inconclusive evidence I should have no opinion on that evidence? Good grief!

 

[Here_to_learn]

I've slightly rearranged the order of your quotes to match my answer.

The cherry picking I referred to had nothing to do with the parts of my question. [...]

JA offered to return to Sweden to be interviewed, Ny complained they don't work on weekends.

Ah, true - if that was the only part you want to refer to, I'm fine with that, and agree that it's completely true. Now the followup question is of course - why does your history stop and start there, and not include the part before that when Ny suggested dates and Hurtig couldn't reach JA, or the dates after this when Ny again suggested dates and Hurtig couldn't reach JA?

I do not have that insecurity in my ability to judge the evidence. It's not complicated.

Then I assume that you are perfectly happy that Sweden does use Lay Judges as part in the lower courts. You have even less information today, than they have in the decision process.

Some information, but conveniently not all the information, was leaked to the press.

Yes, the leaks I totally disagree with. The first leaks happened long before Ny was involved though. One large was done with a document from JAs legal counsel in England. But regardless, I think it was wrong to leak JAs name, and I think it was wrong to leak the womens name later on. From what I understand, it's apparently not illegal according to Swedish to leak that information, but I still do not like it.

Hurtig cites the fact there are no legal reasons JA cannot be interviewed in the UK.

Yes, and as I have quoted the text before, the judges in England did not agree with him.

[*]Ny has been inconsistent saying she has enough to charge JA and she is not ready to charge JA.

That's your claim. You still haven't shown where that contradiction is. In one quote Ny says unless something new comes up, she's ready to charge after completing the interviews. In another quote she says that she cannot charge today. Those two statements are not contradictory.

[*]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[*]The texts between the two women, which despite not being officially released to JA and his attorneys, was seen by Hurtig[/list]

Yes, I do not dispute this, and as has been explained several times, the prosecution has no obligation to release anything to a suspect, only to a person that is charged.

And as I explained, I do not presume to be able to judge the value of this information.

You will notice not a single thing on that list has to do with the part of Hurtig's testimony you are citing was false.

See above.

 

[BenBurch]

Assange knows what he did.

That is obviously why he does not want to go back to Sweden.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Assange knows what he did.

That is obviously why he does not want to go back to Sweden.

Threads about contested court cases seem to attract these people who do not engage in serious discussion, but instead proclaim their faith in authority and in the guilt of the accused. Oddly you don't see the same kind of behaviour from people who doubt the verdict - there's some kind of asymmetrical pathology at work, where certain kinds of non-rational behaviour seem (here at least) to be more common to one mindset than another.

I don't pretend to know why this is, but it's interesting.