3 ms·

> the women admit to sleeping with him consensually before and after the alleged offenses, also housing him in their homes and hanging out socially It follows

by u10 7y ago

> the women admit to sleeping with him consensually before and after the alleged offenses, also housing him in their homes and hanging out socially It follows that using your logic, a husband cannot rape his wife, no matter the circumstances, which is not only sexist but incredibly stupid logic >the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station Why does that matter? >the initial prosecutor looking at the case dismissed it, but it was mysteriously re-opened by another prosecutor This happens all the time >once he left the country they raised an Interpol alert for his arrest, as if he was a terrorist Interpol is not just for terrorists >for years they refused to question him at the embassy, even though it was an easy way to move the 'investigation' forward That's not how Swedish law works, he does not deserve special treatment

ChrisSD 7y ago
Indeed, there was no mystery involved in the reopening of the case. After the preliminary investigation was initially dropped on 25 August 2010, a lawyer representing one of the alleged victims requested a review of the prosecutor's decision. On 1 September 2010 (a week later) it was decided that the investigation should be resumed.
- Tycho 7y ago
  It may interest you to know that this lawyer was a former government minister and then a named partner at Bodström & Borgström, the other partner being both the justice minister who once presided over the illegal rendition of two terrorist suspects from Sweden to Egypt where they were tortured for the CIA, and also a member of the organisation which invited Assange to Sweden for a talk (one of the women was also part of this org). So I’d say it’s at least a little mysterious.
Tycho 7y ago
> It follows that using your logic, a husband cannot rape his wife, no matter the circumstances, which is not only sexist but incredibly stupid logic That does not follow, but it does mean that in a case of one persons word against another, the subsequent behaviour of the accuser can make their accusation less or more believable. >>the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station >Why does that matter? Because when two people independently accuse someone of a something, it lends credibility. But if the two people in fact colluded in stating the accusation, they are not independent, and are less credible. > Interpol is not just for terrorists Sweden currently has 17 Interpol “red notices” and all of them are for murder and/or organised crime. I do not see any cases along similar lines to Assange, suggesting that the Swedish authorities were giving this case special treatment.

by u10 7y ago

ChrisSD 7y ago

Indeed, there was no mystery involved in the reopening of the case. After the preliminary investigation was initially dropped on 25 August 2010, a lawyer representing one of the alleged victims requested a review of the prosecutor's decision. On 1 September 2010 (a week later) it was decided that the investigation should be resumed.

Tycho 7y ago
It may interest you to know that this lawyer was a former government minister and then a named partner at Bodström & Borgström, the other partner being both the justice minister who once presided over the illegal rendition of two terrorist suspects from Sweden to Egypt where they were tortured for the CIA, and also a member of the organisation which invited Assange to Sweden for a talk (one of the women was also part of this org). So I’d say it’s at least a little mysterious.

Tycho 7y ago

> It follows that using your logic, a husband cannot rape his wife, no matter the circumstances, which is not only sexist but incredibly stupid logic That does not follow, but it does mean that in a case of one persons word against another, the subsequent behaviour of the accuser can make their accusation less or more believable. >>the accusations were made after the alleged victims consulted with each other at the police station >Why does that matter? Because when two people independently accuse someone of a something, it lends credibility. But if the two people in fact colluded in stating the accusation, they are not independent, and are less credible. > Interpol is not just for terrorists Sweden currently has 17 Interpol “red notices” and all of them are for murder and/or organised crime. I do not see any cases along similar lines to Assange, suggesting that the Swedish authorities were giving this case special treatment.