2 ms·

> Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime This seems to be false. There was a hearing, and a judge believed there was probable cause. From the Wik

by danso 8y ago

> Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime This seems to be false. There was a hearing, and a judge believed there was probable cause. From the Wikipedia page, under "Review of detention order": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Review_of_detention_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_... > On 16 July 2014, the Stockholm District Court reviewed the detention order on request by Assange. During the course of the proceedings, Assange's defence lawyers said that the prosecutors have a "duty" to advance the case, and that they had shown "passivity" in refusing to go to London to interview Assange. After hearing evidence, the district court concluded that there was probable cause to suspect Assange of committing the alleged crimes, and that the detention order should remain in place.

gcb0 8y ago
2014... after that they did go to London to interview him and did DNA testing and found nothing too.
- danso 8y ago
  This is where you do us the courtesy of citing a source. edit: I'll do some of the work for you: In March 2015, news reports said that Swedish prosecutors were negotiating a deal to question Assange in London, and that the visit could include taking a DNA sample [0]. The visit happened in Nov. 2016, though the only articles I've seen do not conclusively say whether Assange agreed to give a DNA sample [1]. In any case, prosecutors getting a DNA sample from him does not have anything to do with whether the prosecutors have their own evidence from their investigation, nevermind your baseless charge of "Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime." It's possible you're conflating Assange's 2016 London interview and potential DNA test with the 2012 reports that, according to Assange's lawyers, Swedish police did not find conclusive evidence of Assange's DNA on a torn condom -- although they did find DNA believed to be Assange's on a condom from a second accuser [2]. In any case, these reports happened in 2012; 2 years later, a Swedish judge apparently considered the same evidence and decided it was enough to uphold the arrest warrant [3]. So unless you care to share the source of your information, it looks like you've either confused your timestamps about the events, or are just making things up. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-assange-could-face-rape-questioning-london-n322766 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-assange... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange-to-face-swedish-prosecutors-over-accusation https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--report-20120916-260vs.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/julian-assange-swedish-judge-rules-arrest-warrant-live https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/julian-assange...

by danso 8y ago

gcb0 8y ago

2014... after that they did go to London to interview him and did DNA testing and found nothing too.

danso 8y ago
This is where you do us the courtesy of citing a source. edit: I'll do some of the work for you: In March 2015, news reports said that Swedish prosecutors were negotiating a deal to question Assange in London, and that the visit could include taking a DNA sample [0]. The visit happened in Nov. 2016, though the only articles I've seen do not conclusively say whether Assange agreed to give a DNA sample [1]. In any case, prosecutors getting a DNA sample from him does not have anything to do with whether the prosecutors have their own evidence from their investigation, nevermind your baseless charge of "Sweden didn't produce a single evidence of the crime." It's possible you're conflating Assange's 2016 London interview and potential DNA test with the 2012 reports that, according to Assange's lawyers, Swedish police did not find conclusive evidence of Assange's DNA on a torn condom -- although they did find DNA believed to be Assange's on a condom from a second accuser [2]. In any case, these reports happened in 2012; 2 years later, a Swedish judge apparently considered the same evidence and decided it was enough to uphold the arrest warrant [3]. So unless you care to share the source of your information, it looks like you've either confused your timestamps about the events, or are just making things up. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-assange-could-face-rape-questioning-london-n322766 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-assange... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange-to-face-swedish-prosecutors-over-accusation https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/14/julian-assange... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--report-20120916-260vs.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/julian-assange-swedish-judge-rules-arrest-warrant-live https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/julian-assange...