9 ms·

Swedish woman's texts could clear Assange

99 points by tuukkah 12y ago

streptomycin 12y ago
I don't see what this will change. If this lady didn't really want to press charges, she's had a few years to publicly tell people that. Even if such a text exists, it doesn't mean she couldn't change her mind. Or maybe she was lying in the text for some reason.
- seren 12y ago
  And there is still someone else pressing charge, isn't it ? I don't think the headline makes any sense.
  - hga 12y ago
    Yes. It took some time to confirm this starting from the relevant Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...), because the suspected offenses were changed/lowered (he's not been formally charged yet, in Swedish law arrest happens before that), but this http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html U.K. Supreme Court decision a year and a half after that confirms it: "The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010."
- rmc 12y ago
  And does it matter if she didn't want him arrested? Sometimes you can't choose to not press charges. The USA changed their law about child abuse & choosing to press charges after Micheal Jackson paid off someone to withdraw charges. The article further states he's wanted for rape of 2 women. So if it's reduced to 1, he'd still be extradited.
  - efdee 12y ago
    He's not "wanted for rape". They want to "ask him some questions".
    - mpyne 12y ago
      Which is a formal part of the Swedish legal process, unless you're trying to imply that English-style common law should be the one and only legal system practiced in any country?
      - rmc 12y ago
        English-style common law isn't even practiced in the whole of the UK! Scotland has a different system.
    - panarky 12y ago
      There are many ways to "ask him some questions" that don't involve traveling to Sweden in the custody of the police. Phone call, video conference, written correspondence, etc.
    - rmc 12y ago
      It's the UK equivalent of arrest.
- Fuxy 12y ago
  That is assuming that the rape actually happened however she being shocked of the arrest would imply a amicable relationship not a I don't want to press charges relationship. Not to put down rape or anything but any woman in your life could say you raped her and if she's a good enough actress you could go to prison without any proof. Or she could just get payed off to get him into the country for a different purpose which judging by the fact that he was granted asylum seems very likely to me.
  - collyw 12y ago
    Having done jury service in the UK, we were instucted to base the decision on evidence. It was disturbing to see how many other members of the jury ignored that and went on "gut feeling".
  - king_jester 12y ago
    > Not to put down rape or anything but any woman in your life could say you raped her and if she's a good enough actress you could go to prison without any proof. This is such a myth and I'm really tired of hearing it. The fact is the vast majority of sexual assault and rape prosecutions and charges do not end in any conviction. Also, rates of false accusations are far, far smaller than rates sexual assault and rape, so the reality is that it is rare when something like that happens. Most women you attempt to press for a sexual assault charge are often unable to get one on the very basis on which you seem to think they can magically send you to jail: people don't believe them, proof is often hard to come by due to the nature of sexual assault, and misogynistic cultural stereotypes are often held up as reasons why sexual assault couldn't have possibly happened.
    - mafribe 12y ago
      Exactly on what objective evidence do you base your claim that "rates of false accusations are far, far smaller than rates sexual assault and rape"? The subject of rape and/or sexual assault is highly controversial: to give you but one example, a lot of black men were lynched in the US because they allegedly raped white women. If you were to take your claims seriously, then you would have to agree with the Ku Klux Klan on this matter. Do you really want to do that?
- XorNot 12y ago
  The state in almost every country can, for certain crimes, independently press a case for the exact reason that witness intimidation is a very real problem (and has been in full force against the women involved in this case via the internet hate machine).
  - LaGrange 12y ago
    And, in fact, rape is often one of those, exactly because there's a lot of pressure on victims to not press charges. We don't know the details, we don't know the actual texts, but "she did not want to press charges against him for rape" sounds so familiar it's enough to make one shudder inside. And it's very, very different from "she didn't consider it a rape". Which might be the actual content of the text itself, but we don't know that.
benzoate 12y ago
I wonder even if he is cleared in Sweden he would still be self imprisoned in the embassy, since he broke UK law by breaching his bail conditions?
- dspillett 12y ago
  Breaching his bail conditions would be a lesser offence though.
  - onion2k 12y ago
    Still serious enough to be arrested, and as soon as he's arrested the US authorities will request extradition which the UK will agree to. Leaving the embassy is certainly going to lead to a life behind bars in America. It doesn't matter what any of the charges are outside of the US.
    - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
      If that was going to happen then why didn't it happen when he was in court in the UK? Remember, he was in the UK on bail for months before he went near the embassy.
      - hga 12y ago
        A year and a half on bail, from 16 December 2010 to 19 June 2012 per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_.... Also per that Wikipedia article, he fled to the U.K. while under suspicion in Sweden, and "He left Sweden on 27 September 2010. The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest."
- aylons 12y ago
  He is not in the embassy because of the Brits, he is in the embassy because he fears being deported to the US by the Swedens.
preinheimer 12y ago
This is a really good read about his actual legal state: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...
- Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
  It's a very good piece and it's worth noting that David Allen Green (who wrote this and blogs about the law as Jack of Kent - he's a practicing solicitor in the UK) is pretty liberal, not just in his writing but also his actions (he was part of the defence team who got the twitter airport bomb hoax defendant cleared, was involved in the Simon Singh chiropractic libel case on Singh's side) and the New Statesman is a left leaning publication which has frequently published articles in support of Assange. DAG isn't a man you can easily accuse of being the sort who would be rabidly anti-Assange - almost the opposite.
  - id 12y ago
    I don't think his past clients have necessarily something to do with his view on Assange. Lawyers often plead somebody's cause without endorsing their actions.
    - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
      My point is that cries which are often heard around these matters of "he would say that" don't really ring true here - this is a qualified solicitor with solid liberal credentials. People may not like what he says but there is little reason to believe he's not telling the truth.
- nols 12y ago
  This one (linked to in that article) is more in-depth. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythol...
marvin 12y ago
Let's not kid ourselves. It is terribly naïve to believe that this whole situation has been about rape allegations. The only reason Assange was charged in the first place was political pressure from the United States, which would provide the opportunity for an extradition (on some suitable pretext) even in the absence of a conviction. This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process. The political situation will not change even if this case falls apart - so Assange would still be a refugee or a fugitive, depending on who you ask. British authorities would certainly find some pretext to arrest him and extradite him even if the Swedish government publicly verifies his safety and innocence. I would love to be proved wrong if someone is better informed about this than I, but this just seems completely obvious.
- mortov 12y ago
  Regardless of whether the case by the Swedish authorities is dropped, he still faces prosecution by the UK now for the breach of bail conditions - distinct offence in UK law with severe penalties regardless of the state of the original reason for being placed on bail. Many people end up in prison on the UK for breach of bail despite being aquitted in court of the original charge they faced and it is naive to think that any hypothetical dropping of charges by Sweden is either the end of the matter or the end of the risk of a one-way ticket to the US.
  - sigzero 12y ago
    Isn't most of that then HIS fault? Yes, I think it is.
- PeterGriffin 12y ago
  And the omnipresent, omniscient commenter who can solve a rape case by reading about it online strikes again. Good job, sir. Good job.
- jamespo 12y ago
  Please explain exactly how a rape charge changes the opportunity for extradition?
- 12y ago
kgogolek 12y ago
he was accused of raping two women, so even if they discard the first charge, the second still stands.
sid6376 12y ago
I wonder what happens according to this new law, if I send a text message from someone else's phone. At the point of committing many crimes, access to the phone may not be very hard for the criminal.
nemetroid 12y ago
It's worth mentioning that in Sweden, the only crimes where the plaintiff can choose not to prosecute are libel, slander, trespassing, and maybe a few more (and even then with special cases)[0]. 0: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Decision-to-prosecute/Duty-to-prosecute/ http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor...
- CurtHagenlocher 12y ago
  Is this true? It seems odd to me that it was downvoted rather than refuted with evidence to the contrary.
  - nemetroid 12y ago
    Maybe it's because I didn't link to a source. Edited in one now.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 12y ago
Why can't Sweden just try him in absentia and get this over with?
- nols 12y ago
  Swedish law prevents this. In order to charge him they need to question him another time, that's actually been a major part of the fray so far. Check the New Statesman link that's posted around here for more information about the legalities surrounding this whole process.
  - true_religion 12y ago
    Why can't they question him by video?
    - nols 12y ago
      It is part of a criminal proceeding, they don't just want to question him. They want to question and arrest him, they must question him again before they can arrest and charge him. They already discussed the case with him once, this second time is more of a "convince us not to arrest you".

99 points by tuukkah 12y ago

I don't see what this will change. If this lady didn't really want to press charges, she's had a few years to publicly tell people that. Even if such a text exists, it doesn't mean she couldn't change her mind. Or maybe she was lying in the text for some reason.

seren 12y ago
And there is still someone else pressing charge, isn't it ? I don't think the headline makes any sense.
- hga 12y ago
  Yes. It took some time to confirm this starting from the relevant Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...), because the suspected offenses were changed/lowered (he's not been formally charged yet, in Swedish law arrest happens before that), but this http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html U.K. Supreme Court decision a year and a half after that confirms it: "The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010."
rmc 12y ago
And does it matter if she didn't want him arrested? Sometimes you can't choose to not press charges. The USA changed their law about child abuse & choosing to press charges after Micheal Jackson paid off someone to withdraw charges. The article further states he's wanted for rape of 2 women. So if it's reduced to 1, he'd still be extradited.
- efdee 12y ago
  He's not "wanted for rape". They want to "ask him some questions".
  - mpyne 12y ago
    Which is a formal part of the Swedish legal process, unless you're trying to imply that English-style common law should be the one and only legal system practiced in any country?
    - rmc 12y ago
      English-style common law isn't even practiced in the whole of the UK! Scotland has a different system.
  - panarky 12y ago
    There are many ways to "ask him some questions" that don't involve traveling to Sweden in the custody of the police. Phone call, video conference, written correspondence, etc.
  - rmc 12y ago
    It's the UK equivalent of arrest.
Fuxy 12y ago
That is assuming that the rape actually happened however she being shocked of the arrest would imply a amicable relationship not a I don't want to press charges relationship. Not to put down rape or anything but any woman in your life could say you raped her and if she's a good enough actress you could go to prison without any proof. Or she could just get payed off to get him into the country for a different purpose which judging by the fact that he was granted asylum seems very likely to me.
- collyw 12y ago
  Having done jury service in the UK, we were instucted to base the decision on evidence. It was disturbing to see how many other members of the jury ignored that and went on "gut feeling".
- king_jester 12y ago
  > Not to put down rape or anything but any woman in your life could say you raped her and if she's a good enough actress you could go to prison without any proof. This is such a myth and I'm really tired of hearing it. The fact is the vast majority of sexual assault and rape prosecutions and charges do not end in any conviction. Also, rates of false accusations are far, far smaller than rates sexual assault and rape, so the reality is that it is rare when something like that happens. Most women you attempt to press for a sexual assault charge are often unable to get one on the very basis on which you seem to think they can magically send you to jail: people don't believe them, proof is often hard to come by due to the nature of sexual assault, and misogynistic cultural stereotypes are often held up as reasons why sexual assault couldn't have possibly happened.
  - mafribe 12y ago
    Exactly on what objective evidence do you base your claim that "rates of false accusations are far, far smaller than rates sexual assault and rape"? The subject of rape and/or sexual assault is highly controversial: to give you but one example, a lot of black men were lynched in the US because they allegedly raped white women. If you were to take your claims seriously, then you would have to agree with the Ku Klux Klan on this matter. Do you really want to do that?
XorNot 12y ago
The state in almost every country can, for certain crimes, independently press a case for the exact reason that witness intimidation is a very real problem (and has been in full force against the women involved in this case via the internet hate machine).
- LaGrange 12y ago
  And, in fact, rape is often one of those, exactly because there's a lot of pressure on victims to not press charges. We don't know the details, we don't know the actual texts, but "she did not want to press charges against him for rape" sounds so familiar it's enough to make one shudder inside. And it's very, very different from "she didn't consider it a rape". Which might be the actual content of the text itself, but we don't know that.

benzoate 12y ago

I wonder even if he is cleared in Sweden he would still be self imprisoned in the embassy, since he broke UK law by breaching his bail conditions?

dspillett 12y ago
Breaching his bail conditions would be a lesser offence though.
- onion2k 12y ago
  Still serious enough to be arrested, and as soon as he's arrested the US authorities will request extradition which the UK will agree to. Leaving the embassy is certainly going to lead to a life behind bars in America. It doesn't matter what any of the charges are outside of the US.
  - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
    If that was going to happen then why didn't it happen when he was in court in the UK? Remember, he was in the UK on bail for months before he went near the embassy.
    - hga 12y ago
      A year and a half on bail, from 16 December 2010 to 19 June 2012 per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_.... Also per that Wikipedia article, he fled to the U.K. while under suspicion in Sweden, and "He left Sweden on 27 September 2010. The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest."
aylons 12y ago
He is not in the embassy because of the Brits, he is in the embassy because he fears being deported to the US by the Swedens.

preinheimer 12y ago

This is a really good read about his actual legal state: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...

Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
It's a very good piece and it's worth noting that David Allen Green (who wrote this and blogs about the law as Jack of Kent - he's a practicing solicitor in the UK) is pretty liberal, not just in his writing but also his actions (he was part of the defence team who got the twitter airport bomb hoax defendant cleared, was involved in the Simon Singh chiropractic libel case on Singh's side) and the New Statesman is a left leaning publication which has frequently published articles in support of Assange. DAG isn't a man you can easily accuse of being the sort who would be rabidly anti-Assange - almost the opposite.
- id 12y ago
  I don't think his past clients have necessarily something to do with his view on Assange. Lawyers often plead somebody's cause without endorsing their actions.
  - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
    My point is that cries which are often heard around these matters of "he would say that" don't really ring true here - this is a qualified solicitor with solid liberal credentials. People may not like what he says but there is little reason to believe he's not telling the truth.
nols 12y ago
This one (linked to in that article) is more in-depth. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythol...

marvin 12y ago

Let's not kid ourselves. It is terribly naïve to believe that this whole situation has been about rape allegations. The only reason Assange was charged in the first place was political pressure from the United States, which would provide the opportunity for an extradition (on some suitable pretext) even in the absence of a conviction. This is a textbook example of a large, public extrajudicial process. The political situation will not change even if this case falls apart - so Assange would still be a refugee or a fugitive, depending on who you ask. British authorities would certainly find some pretext to arrest him and extradite him even if the Swedish government publicly verifies his safety and innocence. I would love to be proved wrong if someone is better informed about this than I, but this just seems completely obvious.

mortov 12y ago
Regardless of whether the case by the Swedish authorities is dropped, he still faces prosecution by the UK now for the breach of bail conditions - distinct offence in UK law with severe penalties regardless of the state of the original reason for being placed on bail. Many people end up in prison on the UK for breach of bail despite being aquitted in court of the original charge they faced and it is naive to think that any hypothetical dropping of charges by Sweden is either the end of the matter or the end of the risk of a one-way ticket to the US.
- sigzero 12y ago
  Isn't most of that then HIS fault? Yes, I think it is.
PeterGriffin 12y ago
And the omnipresent, omniscient commenter who can solve a rape case by reading about it online strikes again. Good job, sir. Good job.
jamespo 12y ago
Please explain exactly how a rape charge changes the opportunity for extradition?
12y ago

kgogolek 12y ago

he was accused of raping two women, so even if they discard the first charge, the second still stands.

sid6376 12y ago

I wonder what happens according to this new law, if I send a text message from someone else's phone. At the point of committing many crimes, access to the phone may not be very hard for the criminal.

nemetroid 12y ago

It's worth mentioning that in Sweden, the only crimes where the plaintiff can choose not to prosecute are libel, slander, trespassing, and maybe a few more (and even then with special cases)[0]. 0: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Decision-to-prosecute/Duty-to-prosecute/ http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor...

CurtHagenlocher 12y ago
Is this true? It seems odd to me that it was downvoted rather than refuted with evidence to the contrary.
- nemetroid 12y ago
  Maybe it's because I didn't link to a source. Edited in one now.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

oh_sigh 12y ago

Why can't Sweden just try him in absentia and get this over with?

nols 12y ago
Swedish law prevents this. In order to charge him they need to question him another time, that's actually been a major part of the fray so far. Check the New Statesman link that's posted around here for more information about the legalities surrounding this whole process.
- true_religion 12y ago
  Why can't they question him by video?
  - nols 12y ago
    It is part of a criminal proceeding, they don't just want to question him. They want to question and arrest him, they must question him again before they can arrest and charge him. They already discussed the case with him once, this second time is more of a "convince us not to arrest you".