6 ms·

Anyone know why they dropped it?

by tray5 9y ago

tontonius 9y ago
Director of Public Prosecutions, Marianne Ny, will hold a press conference at 12:00 CET. EDIT: Marianne Ny has been a subject of heavy criticism in Sweden for her handling of the Assange case (primarily for refusing to take his statement remotely, and claiming his fears for extradition to nothing more than conspiracy theories).
- tray5 9y ago
  1 hour and 30 minutes from now for my lazy friends. Correction: 23 minutes from now, thanks svip
  - Svip 9y ago
    I think tontonius meant to say 12:00 CEST. It's summer time. So only 27 minutes from now.
coldtea 9y ago
Because it was a shady "character assassination" attempt without real standing in the first place... "*The woman of whom Mr. Assange is accused of the offence of "lesser rape" (a technical term in Swedish law) sent an SMS to a friend saying that she "did not want to accuse JA [of] anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". The other woman tweeted in 2013 that she had never been raped. Both women’s testimonies say that they consented to the sex. A senior prosecutor already dismissed the ’rape’ accusation, saying that there were no grounds for accusing Mr. Assange on this basis. But a third prosecutor, lobbied by a politician who was running for attorney general, took over the investigation and resurrected the accusations against Mr. Assange.* [1]" That's what happens when you mess with the big powers (and of course it doesn't stop to the "politician who was running for attorney general" being a single bad apple). [1] https://justice4assange.com/ https://justice4assange.com/
- tray5 9y ago
  I meant the justification for dropping it from the Swedes
  - walkingolof 9y ago
    Its a verdict in the Supreme court that regulates how long you can keep warrant for detention out that lead to this, but I'm not an lawyer so there maybe details to this that I miss.
    - Avalyst 9y ago
      Do you have a source for this verdict?
- notahacker 9y ago
  Strangely, the women's lawyers had a slightly different view of their desire to pursue the matter through the court than the Assange campaign to prevent the matter going to trial. It stretches credulity to argue that responsibility for the affair lies more with the "big powers" than the decision of two apparently major fans to report him to the police after comparing notes on his sexual behaviour. And suggesting the "bad apple" most at fault for the whole affair is somehow the second prosecutor to look at the case is just unhinged. Ultimately it was pursued then dropped then pursued then dropped because murky allegations of sexual impropriety are difficult to make up stand up in court, even when the alleged perpetrator isn't an articulate celebrity with an excellent defence team and the accusers desperately want him off the streets. If the state wanted to railroad Assange, he'd have been in jail a lot quicker on much more straightforward charges without the opportunity to change jurisdictions and identify new angles to try to dismiss the whole thing on a technicality.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > If the state wanted to railroad Assange, he'd have been in jail a lot quicker on much more straightforward charges Such as?
tontonius 9y ago
From Swedish news: Defence laywer Per E Samuelsson identifies two reasons to why the charges were dropped: – He had a solid explanation to what really happened that night. Which means the prosecutor can't expect a conviction in court. Secondly, we can prove that the US is after him. Proof which we didn't have when the Supreme Court tested this in 2015.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  >He had a solid explanation to what really happened that night. // So why not go to court with it? He believes Sweden would have handed him over for extradition?

Anyone know why they dropped it?

by tray5 9y ago

Anyone know why they dropped it?

Director of Public Prosecutions, Marianne Ny, will hold a press conference at 12:00 CET. EDIT: Marianne Ny has been a subject of heavy criticism in Sweden for her handling of the Assange case (primarily for refusing to take his statement remotely, and claiming his fears for extradition to nothing more than conspiracy theories).

tray5 9y ago
1 hour and 30 minutes from now for my lazy friends. Correction: 23 minutes from now, thanks svip
- Svip 9y ago
  I think tontonius meant to say 12:00 CEST. It's summer time. So only 27 minutes from now.

coldtea 9y ago

Because it was a shady "character assassination" attempt without real standing in the first place... "*The woman of whom Mr. Assange is accused of the offence of "lesser rape" (a technical term in Swedish law) sent an SMS to a friend saying that she "did not want to accuse JA [of] anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". The other woman tweeted in 2013 that she had never been raped. Both women’s testimonies say that they consented to the sex. A senior prosecutor already dismissed the ’rape’ accusation, saying that there were no grounds for accusing Mr. Assange on this basis. But a third prosecutor, lobbied by a politician who was running for attorney general, took over the investigation and resurrected the accusations against Mr. Assange.* [1]" That's what happens when you mess with the big powers (and of course it doesn't stop to the "politician who was running for attorney general" being a single bad apple). [1] https://justice4assange.com/ https://justice4assange.com/

tray5 9y ago
I meant the justification for dropping it from the Swedes
- walkingolof 9y ago
  Its a verdict in the Supreme court that regulates how long you can keep warrant for detention out that lead to this, but I'm not an lawyer so there maybe details to this that I miss.
  - Avalyst 9y ago
    Do you have a source for this verdict?
notahacker 9y ago
Strangely, the women's lawyers had a slightly different view of their desire to pursue the matter through the court than the Assange campaign to prevent the matter going to trial. It stretches credulity to argue that responsibility for the affair lies more with the "big powers" than the decision of two apparently major fans to report him to the police after comparing notes on his sexual behaviour. And suggesting the "bad apple" most at fault for the whole affair is somehow the second prosecutor to look at the case is just unhinged. Ultimately it was pursued then dropped then pursued then dropped because murky allegations of sexual impropriety are difficult to make up stand up in court, even when the alleged perpetrator isn't an articulate celebrity with an excellent defence team and the accusers desperately want him off the streets. If the state wanted to railroad Assange, he'd have been in jail a lot quicker on much more straightforward charges without the opportunity to change jurisdictions and identify new angles to try to dismiss the whole thing on a technicality.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > If the state wanted to railroad Assange, he'd have been in jail a lot quicker on much more straightforward charges Such as?

tontonius 9y ago

From Swedish news: Defence laywer Per E Samuelsson identifies two reasons to why the charges were dropped: – He had a solid explanation to what really happened that night. Which means the prosecutor can't expect a conviction in court. Secondly, we can prove that the US is after him. Proof which we didn't have when the Supreme Court tested this in 2015.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
>He had a solid explanation to what really happened that night. // So why not go to court with it? He believes Sweden would have handed him over for extradition?