Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
1–10 of 784 posts
Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
#2> "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question."
I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?
Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
#3> "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question." I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?
Memory weakens over time, and the case would've largely hinged on memory-based testimony.
Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
#4> "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question." I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?
Eyewitnesses’ memories get worse, records get lost, etc. This is one of the reasons that statutes of limitations exist.
Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
#5> "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question." I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?
If I recall the evidence was always pretty weak. I don’t have time to find the news article from back then, but it was “sexual assault” because he didn’t wear a condom and at the time the woman (perhaps plural) didn’t want to really participate.
Could be wrong though...
Does anyone have some news from back then?
Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
#6> "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question." I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?
The charge had served its purpose and the evidence was eventually going to actually be scrutinized.
It was just lawfare all along.
Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
#7So the rape allegations were in fact bogus and just an excuse to persecute him. Now he's in prison and has to fight extradition to the US. It's ridiculous how transparent and shallow this entire ruse is, and how the public just doesn't get how everyone involved here was a US puppet. Shame on Sweden, the UK and the US, honestly.
Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
#8Does it mean he is free again?
Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
#9So he still gets almost another full year in a UK jail. After that, where can he go?
Let's just say he's somehow successful at avoiding US extradition (unlikely), he's not going to be able to stay in the UK (unless he has dual citizenship or can somehow claim dual citizenship through a relative). He'd have to request asylum from another European nation that he can safety get to without flying.
Australia did little to help him in his situation, and it would be likely America could extradite him from there. There's a good chance it may never be safe for him to return home.
Re: Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation
#10> "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question." I'm not sure I understand what's meant by this. Did the victims testimony change? How does evidence weaken over time?
If I recall the evidence was always pretty weak. I don’t have time to find the news article from back then, but it was “sexual assault” because he didn’t wear a condom and at the time the woman (perhaps plural) didn’t want to really participate. Could be wrong though... Does anyone have some news from back then?
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/julian-ass...
> Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
> Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.