4 ms·
Thanks. I guess that's the '27 August 2010' update in that document - is there more to read on it somewhere? The doc I linked suggested it was the police who m
by henryaj 2y ago
Thanks. I guess that's the '27 August 2010' update in that document - is there more to read on it somewhere?
The doc I linked suggested it was the police who modified SW's statement, which triggered the re-evaluation of the case.
"AA took SW to a police station, so SW could enquire whether she could force Assange to take an HIV-test. There, they were questioned together by an investigating officer who knew AA personally and ran on the same political party ticket as AA in the general elections three weeks later. When superior investigators insisted on registering SW’s enquiry as a report of “rape” and to immediately issue an arrest warrant against Assange, SW reportedly refused to sign her statement and became so emotionally distraught that the questioning had to be suspended. While at the police station, SW even texted that she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange” but that “the police were keen on getting their hands on him” (14:26); and that she was “chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him” because she “only wanted him to take a test” (17:06). Once Chief Prosecutor Finné had intervened and closed the case, it reportedly was again the police (not SW) who “revised” her statement lodged in the police system to better fit the crime of “rape” before it was resubmitted by a third Social Democrat politician to a different prosecutor who was prepared to re-open the case."
- mjg59 2y agoThe "Social Democrat politician" was Claes Borgström (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claes_Borgstr%C3%B6m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claes_Borgstr%C3%B6m) - calling him a politician without noting that he was a qualified lawyer with a track record in representing women in sexual assault and trafficking cases is incredibly misleading.
- henryaj 2y agoIs it? It's missing context but it's not misrepresenting the facts of the case.