4 ms·

Because it is during this interview that the prosecutor makes it official what you are or are not accused of. If this was made over telephone to a foreign count

by xorcist 12y ago

Because it is during this interview that the prosecutor makes it official what you are or are not accused of. If this was made over telephone to a foreign country, odds are that what is now a suspect would not come to the questioning. That's why you are required to be present in person. A better question would be why the prosecutor didn't conduct this interview during the week the stayed in Sweden after the accusations were officially in the media? The anwer to that is probably that the justice system can be inflexible and slow moving at times. (I hesitate to take stronger words in my mouth, but those may be true as well.) Ludicrous or not, all justice systems have their reasons why they work in a certain way.

lepidoptera 12y ago
> A better question would be why the prosecutor didn't conduct this interview during the week the stayed in Sweden after the accusations were officially in the media? He was interviewed during this period, and the transcript of the police interview was leaked onto the internet: http://pastebin.com/HAc6HjVn http://pastebin.com/HAc6HjVn After the interview the allegations were dropped, but then the prosecutor reopened them. And he didn't stay there just for a week after that. He stayed there over a month, and only left after having been given permission to leave by the prosecutor. It's all in this court document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case
im3w1l 12y ago
For those without showdead, lepidoptera[noobtor] wrote: > A better question would be why the prosecutor didn't conduct this interview during the week the stayed in Sweden after the accusations were officially in the media? He was interviewed during this period, and the transcript of the police interview was leaked onto the internet: http://pastebin.com/HAc6HjVn http://pastebin.com/HAc6HjVn After the interview the allegations were dropped, but then the prosecutor reopened them. And he didn't stay there just for a week after that. He stayed there over a month, and only left after having been given permission to leave by the prosecutor. It's all in this court document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case
mike_hearn 12y ago
> A better question would be why the prosecutor didn't conduct this interview during the week the stayed in Sweden after the accusations were officially in the media? Different prosecutor, one less high up in the system there. The original prosecutor made the right decision. The chance of a conviction is zero. No sane jury in a civilised country will find a man guilty of raping a woman who made him breakfast and went out with him the next day, tweeted about the incident positively and generally acted as happy as can be until she decided ... much later ... that actually she had been raped. (then she started trying to delete the evidence that she was lying). The case just has no merit at all, which is why Assange thinks it's a set up - the new prosecutor is either a tool of the USA or some kind of bizarre ultra feminist who thinks women never ever lie about rape. Whatever the cause, Assange doesn't want to go there for obvious reasons.

by xorcist 12y ago

lepidoptera 12y ago

> A better question would be why the prosecutor didn't conduct this interview during the week the stayed in Sweden after the accusations were officially in the media? He was interviewed during this period, and the transcript of the police interview was leaked onto the internet: http://pastebin.com/HAc6HjVn http://pastebin.com/HAc6HjVn After the interview the allegations were dropped, but then the prosecutor reopened them. And he didn't stay there just for a week after that. He stayed there over a month, and only left after having been given permission to leave by the prosecutor. It's all in this court document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

im3w1l 12y ago

For those without showdead, lepidoptera[noobtor] wrote: > A better question would be why the prosecutor didn't conduct this interview during the week the stayed in Sweden after the accusations were officially in the media? He was interviewed during this period, and the transcript of the police interview was leaked onto the internet: http://pastebin.com/HAc6HjVn http://pastebin.com/HAc6HjVn After the interview the allegations were dropped, but then the prosecutor reopened them. And he didn't stay there just for a week after that. He stayed there over a month, and only left after having been given permission to leave by the prosecutor. It's all in this court document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

mike_hearn 12y ago

> A better question would be why the prosecutor didn't conduct this interview during the week the stayed in Sweden after the accusations were officially in the media? Different prosecutor, one less high up in the system there. The original prosecutor made the right decision. The chance of a conviction is zero. No sane jury in a civilised country will find a man guilty of raping a woman who made him breakfast and went out with him the next day, tweeted about the incident positively and generally acted as happy as can be until she decided ... much later ... that actually she had been raped. (then she started trying to delete the evidence that she was lying). The case just has no merit at all, which is why Assange thinks it's a set up - the new prosecutor is either a tool of the USA or some kind of bizarre ultra feminist who thinks women never ever lie about rape. Whatever the cause, Assange doesn't want to go there for obvious reasons.