Rapey Aussie to face brutality of Swedish justice

[mids]

You! No, you!

[auldhippy]

Mar 4, 2011 8:45:55 GMT lala said:

What hypocrisy is that? Refusing to believe in a conspiracy where there isn't any evidence for one?

There is, evidence of a conspiracy albeit circumstancial.

The US sabotaged assange's residency in Switzerland. His residency in Sweden now also sabotaged.

[noam]

Yeah, that Obama eh?

[noam]

Mar 4, 2011 7:14:44 GMT auldhippy said:

Mar 1, 2011 21:07:07 GMT lala said:

I assume there may be some physical evidence wih regards the second (most serious) charge, where he penetrated Miss W while she was asleep. While the Miss A allegations probably won't hold up (how do you know if someone deliberately tears a condom?), if it can be shown he had unprotected sex with Miss W, that she would not normally have consented to this, then I think there's a good chance of a conviction on that count.

As for the other points you raise, they are mostly flim-flam. The women may not have been interested in pursuing rape/sexual assault charges against Assange. The authorities may have decided to do so anyway, once the women reported their stories. That would also explain the text messages about making money - a bemused response to the process they were caught up in.

Have you read the 'tabloid' interview one of the women gave? Or are you just reguirgitating bile from other sources? You're aware, I assume, that Assange and his team have also been quite hapy to talk about the allegations with the media. Does that make them, also, tabloid 'kiss and tell tarts'?

So we're agreed that in relation to woman a there is no evidence of rape.

There is also no evidence of rape for woman B because she did not go to the police for several days.

I made no claim as to the content of the tabloid interview. Only that there was one.

What kind of evidence did you have in mind? That they slept togetheris beyond doubt, the issue surely is whether it was consensual within the mewaning of Swedish law. The allegations do seem odd, but that is exactly why Assange should return for questioning forthwith, to clear it up.

[lala]

I don't think I've denied the possibility of a conspiracy. I'd suggest it's so absurdly unlikely that you'd have to be motivated by something other than the evidence to defend the position you've taken. Allegations have been made, the process should be followed.

As I said a while back, if they are ludicrous (see, acknowledgement that they might be) then this will be exposed in court.

[auldhippy]

Exactly why is a conspiracy so absurd?

Is not Assange, or more exactly Wikileaks, a major annoyance to the US? Is the re-opening of the charges without any new evidence not suspicious? Is the lack of evidence other than allegations not suspicious?

[lala]

The lack of evidence is not suspicious. That is not uncommon in rape and sexual assault cases.

The conspiracy angle is absurd because, at this point, there is no need for it. It seems to be something put out by Assange's coterie - right from the start - which those prone to swallowing conspiracy have accepted. It raises more questions than it answers.

[auldhippy]

The lack of evidence is unusual for prosecutions!

No point to it?? The point is to have Assange and thus Wikileaks castrated.

Even in the UK he was refused bail at his extradition hearing precisely because of his lack of residency, the likelyhood of bail in Sweden even more remote and in custody is exactly where the US would like him and it is the US who have sabotaged his attempts to get residency.

Incidentally Manning has now been charged with the capital offence of giving aid to the enemy (although it is said they will not seek the death penalty) and if a conection is made Assange would face terrorism charges. Assanges future depends on keeping his freedom.

[lala]

I don't think it is that unusual for rape / sexual assault prosecutions to proceed on this amount of evidence. From the CPS website:

Rape often occurs in private and the victim is often the only witness. This means that unless the defendant pleads guilty, it will usually be necessary for the victim to give evidence in court, to establish the basis for a prosecution. This can sometimes make it difficult as the issue is very often whether the victim consented to an act of intercourse which is admitted by the defendant. However, we will actively consider what other evidence may be available. Corroboration or supporting evidence is not essential but is always looked for, particularly any medical or scientific evidence. However, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution; that is, it is for the prosecution to establish the defendant's guilt. Therefore the prosecution must adduce evidence upon which, if it is accepted, a reasonable jury may convict.

How would increasing Assange's profile, making him a martyr, and confirming people's suspicions about Evul UnKKKul Samz NEOCONspiraciez 'castrate' wikileaks?

If US courts won't even find Al Queada operatives guilty of terrorism, I suspect your suggestion that Assange might be up for it is a bit far fetched.

[auldhippy]

It is not Assange's profile that would be raised but an ambitious Director of Prosecutions and a publicity seeking arch feminist lawyer (that the women are unlikely to be able to afford) with more than a little sympathy for Uncle Sam's pain.

It is precisely the US's failure to bring prosecutions that is of concern to Assange and the reason he strives to remain free from the custody of a nation known to be overtly complicit in rendition.

[lala]

Ah, yes, resort to sniping at the alleged motivations of the prosecutors.

Who can recall, without resort to search engines, the names of the DoP or the lawyer involved? Yet we all 'know' who Assange is, what his organisation is and how he's being set up Uncle Sam / the Jews / Space Lizards / Thatcher / whoever. His organisation is running a very impressive propaganda campaign and you're buying its crap.

[auldhippy]

Mar 5, 2011 20:33:09 GMT lala said:

Ah, yes, resort to sniping at the alleged motivations of the prosecutors.

Who can recall, without resort to search engines, the names of the DoP or the lawyer involved? Yet we all 'know' who Assange is, what his organisation is and how he's being set up Uncle Sam / the Jews / Space Lizards / Thatcher / whoever. His organisation is running a very impressive propaganda campaign and you're buying its crap.

I haven't "resorted", it's the position I've maintained since the beginning. The DoP's name is Nye, the lawyers, I don't remember.

[lala]

You 'resorted' to attempted to discredit the authorities because I'd challenged your claim that the rape claim was not adequately evidenced to proceed.

But I'll leave it there. As I remarked some time ago, this is different from my endless wars with Kog, where you poke him and some new madness comes out. This is decreasing circles.

Just accept, a serious allegation has been made about the man's behaviour, and it should be examined in court.

[auldhippy]

Your challenge amounted to no more than confirmation of the weakness of the evidence.

[noam]

You don't normally have a whole lot of evidence in many rape and sex cases. It's often a case of one person's word against another's. What were you expecting - four male witnesses?

[auldhippy]

"What were you expecting - four male witnesses? "

I'd only expect that at your house.

[Repat Van]

Ouch...

[noam]

That's not an answer. What evidence would you expect in an allegation of this nature, other than the testimony of those people involved?

[auldhippy]

Mar 6, 2011 22:49:55 GMT noam said:

That's not an answer. What evidence would you expect in an allegation of this nature, other than the testimony of those people involved?

I covered that in previous posts. If the threshold of reasonable doubt is to be passed I'd expect more than the testimony of the complainants as Assange's testimony would carry equal weight.

I consider several factors work against the believabiliy of their testimony:

!) These women both agreed to consentual sex. Admitted.

2) Both agreed to sex on the day they met Assange. Not necessarily a negative thing until you consider their claim that their original and principle concern was Assange's negative attitude to women. They took no time to ascertain Assange's "attitude" before agreeing to sex.

3) Both failed to report their complaints to the police for several days. In the case of woman over 10 days.

4) Both only went to the police after learning of each other.

5) Both never intended to charge rape when they did go to the police.

6) Both sent SMS texts at the time alluding to how exciting their lives were.

7) Both received SMS texts after the event alluding to how much money they could make.

8) Woman A's (even Lala admits has a weak case) complaint is about a broken condemn.

9) Woman A allowed Assange to continue staying in her flat and her bed for a week.

10) Woman B can't remember how many times they had sex when awake but can when asleep.

[wonder]

10) Woman B can't remember how many times they had sex when awake but can when asleep.

lol!