3 ms·

I am not implying here that he is innocent - though I think he probably is. I'm just stating that the crime was and still is alleged. The fact that the Swedish

I am not implying here that he is innocent - though I think he probably is. I'm just stating that the crime was and still is alleged. The fact that the Swedish prosecutors never took up his invitation to question him in the embassy doesn't change that. You did a little more than imply he was guilty. You directly called him guilty when you used the phrase "a crime was committed". You are now contradicting yourself by agreeing that the crime was alleged.

untog 9y ago
Good grief, if that was your original point you really could have phrased it better, it wasn't clear at all. That said, mea cupla: you're right that my own phrasing could have been better, I've amended it. (it certainly wasn't directly calling him guilty in any case - people are arrested "in connection" to crimes all the time without being accused of being the perpetrator of that crime)
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >people are arrested "in connection" to crimes all the time Where the crime is known while the criminal is not this is true.