3 ms·

The 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

The 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 ago
  Swedish 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 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? > 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 His asylum was withdrawn in 2019.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.
      - joshuamorton 2y ago
        > 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? I think the prosecutors own justification, which she stated quite plainly is both valid and convincing: There was very little reason to put effort and resources in conducting an interview with Assange, since he would need to return to Sweden for a fair trial to be conducted. She was, of course, proven correct when after the interview, Assange continued to refuse to return to Sweden for a number of additional years. Had they conducted an interview after 2 weeks, the outcome would have been the same. > You see why people question her motivations? Given Assange's behavior, no, not really. She seems to have made a plainly correct judgement of his actions and resources, and attempted to treat Assange like any other defendant, at least until he turned the situation into an international political incident to try and avoid trial. > If the trial was conducted fairly, I would take no issue with it. Note how in the very next sentence you leave the door open to object to any trial on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently fair. This is my point, Assange's defenders cannot really be placated. There's always some thing to be concerned about, some reason to believe Assange is being treated uniquely unfairly. It's reminiscent of how Trump and his supporters cry out about how unfairly he's treated by the legal system, when in fact both are treated quite normally, Assange just made things worse for himself by turning himself into an international fugitive out of conspiratorial fear.

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 ago
Swedish 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 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? > 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.
    - joshuamorton 2y ago
      > 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? I think the prosecutors own justification, which she stated quite plainly is both valid and convincing: There was very little reason to put effort and resources in conducting an interview with Assange, since he would need to return to Sweden for a fair trial to be conducted. She was, of course, proven correct when after the interview, Assange continued to refuse to return to Sweden for a number of additional years. Had they conducted an interview after 2 weeks, the outcome would have been the same. > You see why people question her motivations? Given Assange's behavior, no, not really. She seems to have made a plainly correct judgement of his actions and resources, and attempted to treat Assange like any other defendant, at least until he turned the situation into an international political incident to try and avoid trial. > If the trial was conducted fairly, I would take no issue with it. Note how in the very next sentence you leave the door open to object to any trial on the grounds that it wasn't sufficiently fair. This is my point, Assange's defenders cannot really be placated. There's always some thing to be concerned about, some reason to believe Assange is being treated uniquely unfairly. It's reminiscent of how Trump and his supporters cry out about how unfairly he's treated by the legal system, when in fact both are treated quite normally, Assange just made things worse for himself by turning himself into an international fugitive out of conspiratorial fear.