6 ms·
Blog piece. What he did is known as "stealthing" and it strangely doesn't address that at all?
by jamespo 2y ago
Blog piece. What he did is known as "stealthing" and it strangely doesn't address that at all?
- iamtedd 2y ago> What he is alleged to have done FTFY
- jamespo 2y agoIf only this could have been decided in something known as a "trial".
- iamtedd 2y agoThe Swedish prosecutors dropped the case. Evidently, they didn't think they had enough evidence to bring it to trial. That's the way it goes sometimes. Not all cases are strong enough to allow justice to be done. That doesn't mean we can then say that he definitely did what people were accusing him.
- joshuamorton 2y ago> Evidently, they didn't think they had enough evidence to bring it to trial. I believe he basically hid in the Ecuadorian embassy until the statute of limitations ran out.
- vidarh 2y agoSwedish courts have sent investigators to interview suspects abroad before, and yet the Swedish prosecutor waited for years to do so. Swedish prosecutors have brought cases to court in absentia before, and yet she chose not to for those years. He didn't make it easy for them, but the prosecutor in this case also refused to make any of the moves available to her, and at least with respect to interviews outright lied and claimed it was impossible at a point where Swedish police had literally just done that in another case.
- joshuamorton 2y agoNone of this really matters, the interviews took place in the first half of Assange's stay in Ecuador. If the interviews were the sticking point, why would he stay after them? > Swedish prosecutors have brought cases to court in absentia before Yes, usually against heads of state for things like war crimes. I don't think there are similar cases I want you to take a moment to imagine your own outrage if Assange was tried in absentia in Sweden and found guilty. Whether or not it is technically possible, doing so would not be a legitimate option.
- vidarh 2y ago> None of this really matters, the interviews took place in the first half of Assange's stay in Ecuador. If the interviews were the sticking point, why would he stay after them? He entered the embassy in 2012. He was interviewed in 2016. His asylum was withdrawn in 2019. Mentioning "first half" of his stay while avoiding to mention that means he's been there for several years at that point comes across as attempting to downplay how long they waited. Can you explain why they didn't try in 2012? Or why she didn't try while he was in UK custody prior to his bail? The prosecutor was criticised by at least one Swedish legal expert at that time for failing to attempt to interview, and called out because she flat out lied and claimed it wasn't possible (and she herself proved that to be a lie when she several years later arranged to interview him). By the time he was interviewed, he'd already spent far more time in a combination of English jail and stuck in the embassy than he would've spent in a Swedish prison if convicted. By the time the rape case was dropped, the Swedish Prosecution Authority gave as a reason that "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question", but the bulk of that delay was down to the prosecutor choosing to hold off on interviewing Assange for 6 years claiming she could not do what she eventually did anyway. The less serious parts of the case were dropped due to the statute of limitations in 2015 before the prosecutor interviewed Assange, because the prosecutor chose not to do her job. You see why people question her motivations? As I've said many times, I think her own political/ideological motivations are more likely to be the reason she acted this way than US involvement, but to me it appears to be a clear failure of justice intentionally caused by the prosecutor - whether to Assange or the woman in question depends on what actually happened, and we will probably never find out because this prosecutor failed to do her duty. > I want you to take a moment to imagine your own outrage if Assange was tried in absentia in Sweden and found guilty If the trial was conducted fairly, I would take no issue with it. Whether they'd be able to carry a case to conclusion in a fair manner without his presence is a separate matter. The issue is that they failed to try.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- belter 2y ago[flagged]
- jamespo 2y agoI see you're trying the same thing. To answer, no but stealthing does.
- belter 2y agoExcept you are making an unproven accusation. Just because Swedish prosecutors do, you should not.
- jamespo 2y agoHow can it be "proven" if he flees justice?
- belter 2y ago[flagged]
- jamespo 2y agoYes, I remember his bad faith offers, thinking that he has the right to decide on how a sovereign country's justice system should work. What I don't remember was any reasoning on why he thought it more likely that he'd be extradited from Sweden to the US rather than from the UK, who are particularly close? Anyway, I see you've drunk the koolaid and are in full defense mode, so I'll leave you to it.
- BSDobelix 2y agoKind of sad that mindset's like yours exist, i don't want a society where such a prosecution can be called fair and legal, but maybe we come from different worlds.
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- josefx 2y agoThe blog explicitly mentions them but describes them as questionable. Basically claiming they where fabricated by a person with close ties to the police after their attempt to push the first set of rape accusations failed when the original victim refused to cooperate. It gives a few official documents that ordered changes to the original testimony as proof that the Swedish authorities where not above fabricating evidence push the rape claim.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- slim 2y agothat word was invented after Assange was persecuted
- Qwertious 2y agoThe practice wasn't, though, and has always been immoral. If (if) Assange did it, he's a scumbag. Obviously.
- blueflow 2y agoImmoral, but was it also illegal?
- rvnx 2y agoInjecting a foreign substance into your body without consent, does that sound legal ?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- blueflow 2y agoIts not that clear: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Stealthinglaws.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Stealthi...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- slim 2y agoI'd argue you should not give implicit consent to insert a syringe in your body if you don't want a foreign substance injection. Now all this would be solved if consent was explicit, but how explicit ? Should we require a signed contract before intercourse ? in fact that's how it's supposed to work in a lot of countries. The contract is called Marriage and intercourse without marriage is forbidden
- coldtea 2y agoStealthing sounds like a great way to say "The sex happened consentually, but we'll add the fishiest and most easy to claim without proof accusation we can, since the previous drummed up charge didn't stick"
- jamespo 2y agoSexual assault is very hard to prove, and attitudes like yours continue to show why.
- blueflow 2y agoWhy do you blame that user and not the US/Sweden?
- Levitz 2y agoDying on that hill precisely on this case is absurd though. There is a good chance the guy would have end up suicided. There is still a good chance he meets some questionable end. Fabricating charges of what is probably the worst crime with plausible deniability you can do is more than a possibility.
- coldtea 2y agoIn this particular context, it's also very easy to abuse to frame someone, and attitudes like yours continue to show why. Would you say the same for this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till