7 ms·
> a woman did NOT make a rape allegation against him in Sweden The article you linked seems to contradict you. It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously r
by erikpukinskis 7y ago
> a woman did NOT make a rape allegation against him in Sweden
The article you linked seems to contradict you. It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex, which would count as rape in my jurisdiction.
The article also recounts testimony of him waking up a woman by penetrating her which would also count as rape in my jurisdiction.
- humble_engineer 7y agoIt doesn't count as rape in any jurisdiction, but it is Orwellian newspeak at its finest.
- _-___________-_ 7y ago> It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex Actually, she supposedly accused him of intentionally breaking it, but also said that she didn't notice until later, which casts doubt on the "intentionally" part.
- tpetry 7y agoPoking holes in a condom is an intentional act and the woman wouldnt know. So as long as we dont know exactly what she meaned by „intentional breaking it“ we cant really guess who is wrong or right.
- _-___________-_ 7y agoI agree. More information is needed before any judgement could be made one way or the other.
- himinlomax 7y agoWhatever happened with that condom, that definitely falls under "reasonable doubt." Considering what happened to Assange after that, the first thing that comes to mind is the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
- lawtalkinghuman 7y agoWhether that amounts to reasonable doubt is something that could be determined by a jury in a court of law following rules of evidence and procedure, if Assange went to trial.
- bouncycastle 7y agoThe charges were dropped.
- DagAgren 7y agoBecause he successfully evaded capture for long enough that the case was no longer viable.
- himinlomax 7y agoThey could have interviewed him in the embassy but declined to do so.
- DagAgren 7y agoIt really isn’t their responsibility to accommodate a fugitive, is it.
- silverreads 7y agoIt is absolutely the responsibility of the state to act fairly to all.
- DagAgren 7y agoWhich means not making special exceptions for some people, like Assange here.
- 7y ago
- DagAgren 7y agoHow on god's green earth does that "cast doubt" on anything? That makes absolutely zero sense.
- _-___________-_ 7y agoWell, determining intent is difficult at the best of times, but it's hard to understand how you could determine the intent of something that you only noticed later.
- DagAgren 7y agoThe same way you do it many times a day in your everyday life?
- _-___________-_ 7y agoI'm confused why you seem to so vehemently disagree with me but simultaneously will only speak in generalities. Say for example I visit your house, and you notice many hours after I leave that a favorite ornament of yours is broken. How will you determine whether I broke it intentionally or not? If you watch me break it, you could make a reasonable judgement. If you only notice later, it's much harder. I don't understand what is controversial about this idea.
- zwirbl 7y agoThe article also explains that this is intentionally falsified by the Swedish police and lists emails as evidence that this tampering took place and contradicts the womans initial statement
- bjourne 7y agoThe email conversation is not evidence of tampering. The emails is from one interrogator emailing another on how to best record the witness statements in their system. See this thread for English translations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868
- boomboomsubban 7y agoThe witness statement is supposed to be verified by the witness at the end of the interrogation. Editing that statement without consulting the witness is tampering, no system would save statements like that.
- bjourne 7y agoBut the statement wasn't edited... It was copy-pasted into another record, just like the mail conversation shows. Also, in this supposed grand conspiracy to frame Assange, two crime detectives were dumb enough to leave their marks in emails available to the public, due to Offentlighetsprincipen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_public_access_to_official_records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_public_access_to_... It makes zero sense.
- boomboomsubban 7y agoThe original statement was overwritten, we only have some vague references about what it says. But moving it to another record without the witness present is still tampering. >Also, in this supposed grand conspiracy to frame Assange, two crime detectives were dumb enough to leave their marks in emails available to the public The conspiracy was to get Assange into US custody, not frame him of a crime, and that conspiracy has been proven to he true. The allegations didn't need to be flawlessly done.