51–60 of 784 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Memory weakens over time, and the case would've largely hinged on memory-based testimony.
Yeah, but the testimony was surely recorded already some years ago? Or did they just wait.. I doubt so.
[flagged]
> "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?
If true, his attitude reminds me of Jeff Epstein's plan to "seed the human race with his DNA" by impregnanting a bunch of women on a ranch he owned. These people see their own supposed genius as justification for violating moral norms.
You can still think Assange is right (or at least important), but he's a deeply flawed person and it's not all propaganda.
It's not torture if you can leave at any time. He wasn't being held in the embassy, he was hiding there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they probably shouldn’t. Statute of limitations should only be to protect against fast changes to the law that apply retroactively.
The notion that a new law does NOT retroactively apply to acts done before the law was enacted is not called a 'statute of limitations'. A statue of limitations serves a few purposes. 1. At some point closure is better than justice, or at least, that's a theory. Better to get a crime on record because the committer of it confesses to it than not. The idea being that after, say, 10 years, the odds that the criminal wo…
Its existence points towards having a “legal system” rather than a “justice system”.
> "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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
"didn't really want to participate" is basically the definition of sexual assault.
Yes, but is also a case of "your word against mine" unless supported by verifiable data.
> "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.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...
It sounds like the women didn't really want to pursue the case (which is not at all uncommon in sexual assault cases!), they just wanted to track down Assange and make him take an STD test after he had unprotected sex with them, and the police said, well now that you've told us this, we're going to tell the prosecutor.
(One plausible interpretation is that the assaults did in fact happen as described and that the Swedish justice system was pressured by the US to prosecute it aggressively with the goal of getting him into US custody - the two are not necessarily contradictory.)