|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 1, 2011 8:54:30 GMT
The original prosecutor finding no evidence of rape!
So because Ms Ny did, she's a lackey of the USA.
Thats what your resting your case on?
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Mar 1, 2011 9:09:29 GMT
Yup! Are you suggesting the US incapable or lacking a history? Even if Assange offers no defence, or even outright denials, the likelyhood of a safe conviction based only on allegations is remote. Ah, the full Rumsfeld. You'll recall that worthy claiming, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to justify invading Iraq. You've become everything you pretend to hate. You're denying the possibilty of Assange being a seedy sexual predator. You're implying the women who do so are politically motivated, wolf-crying liars, and the attempts to get him to answer the charges made against him are a politically motivated sham. |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,065
|
Post by mids on Mar 1, 2011 9:12:12 GMT
Don't prosecutors change their minds when new evidence comes to light? Or is criminal justice like Mastermind and your first 'answer' is the only one that counts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 1, 2011 9:25:02 GMT
You might want to check the phone hacking scandal for that, but clearly the cps is now the poodle of the USA govt prosecuting Murdoch for its own ends.
Maybe Murdoch is behind Wikileaks, then.
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Mar 1, 2011 9:39:51 GMT
The original prosecutor finding no evidence of rape! So because Ms Ny did, she's a lackey of the USA. Thats what your resting your case on? Not solely. If this was a typical prosecution it would not involve the Director but a nominal prosecutor like the original. The prosecutions are being made on allegations only with no supporting "evidence". In any judicial system of merit Assanges testimony of denial would carry equal weight meaning the likelyhood of a successful prosecution extremely remote. So too would their own admissions that they agreed to sex, so too would their tardiness in reporting any crime, so too would the SMS texts they sent before and after their encounters and so too would would one of them telling (selling?) their story to a tabloid. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 1, 2011 9:48:58 GMT
bearing in mind Mark Stephens, Assange's lawyer has complained that he doesn't know what evidence there is against Assange, I'd be keen to know how you do.
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Mar 1, 2011 9:49:29 GMT
Yup! Are you suggesting the US incapable or lacking a history? Even if Assange offers no defence, or even outright denials, the likelyhood of a safe conviction based only on allegations is remote. Ah, the full Rumsfeld. You'll recall that worthy claiming, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to justify invading Iraq. You've become everything you pretend to hate. You're denying the possibilty of Assange being a seedy sexual predator. You're implying the women who do so are politically motivated, wolf-crying liars, and the attempts to get him to answer the charges made against him are a politically motivated sham. & now you are just inventing my position Cobbstyle. I've never denied the "possibility" of his guilt and maintain the standard of evidence, allegations only, fail to meet the standards that would be required for Joe Blogs. Of course the possibilty exists that he is a sexual predator but the evidence doesn't. Neither have I said the actions of the women were politically motivated, their lawyer and the Director of Prosecution, most certainly. I would suggest (only a suggestion) they are financially motivated like the kiss and tell tarts so favoured by famous footballers and this is alluded to in SMS texts they received. Already one of them has given (?) an interview to a tabloid. |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Mar 1, 2011 9:51:57 GMT
bearing in mind Mark Stephens, Assange's lawyer has complained that he doesn't know what evidence there is against Assange, I'd be keen to know how you do. There can only be the statements of the women. If video's or recordings or witnesses existed we wouldn't be having this discussion. |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,065
|
Post by mids on Mar 1, 2011 9:54:12 GMT
Statements from women are often all there is in rape cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 1, 2011 10:03:07 GMT
Should be a reasonably straightforward acquittal then.
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Mar 1, 2011 10:04:23 GMT
Don't prosecutors change their minds when new evidence comes to light? Or is criminal justice like Mastermind and your first 'answer' is the only one that counts? We can only debate the subject on what is known and there is no suggestion of evidence other than the testimonies of the women. That is not beyond reasonable doubt (assuming Swedish standards of proof do not vary too much from ours). It is not known if the original prosecutor changed her mind. Only that her boss overruled her. |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Mar 1, 2011 10:09:16 GMT
Should be a reasonably straightforward acquittal then. You'd think. |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Mar 1, 2011 10:12:44 GMT
Statements from women are often all there is in rape cases. & in a scenario how many are successfully prosecuted? |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 1, 2011 10:13:02 GMT
We can only debate the subject on what is known and there is no suggestion of evidence other than the testimonies of the women. That is not beyond reasonable doubt (assuming Swedish standards of proof do not vary too much from ours).
I think your getting yourself confused. its up to the Prosecution to decide if there is enough evidence to take it forward not whether it's beyond reasonable doubt, that is for the jury.
In this instance the prosecutors feel there is. Assange could have turned up at the interview he promised to attend and potentially put the matter to bed.
he chose not to. So they have had to drag him kicking and screaming.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,065
|
Post by mids on Mar 1, 2011 10:18:00 GMT
Statements from women are often all there is in rape cases. & in a scenario how many are successfully prosecuted? I don't know but I sat on a jury where a man was found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman in the laundry room of a block of flats where only him and the woman were present. Almost all the prosecution had was her word against his. What swung it against him for me though (and the rest of the jury) were inconsistencies in his story. I don't think such prosecutions are uncommon. |
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Mar 1, 2011 10:21:57 GMT
We can only debate the subject on what is known and there is no suggestion of evidence other than the testimonies of the women. That is not beyond reasonable doubt (assuming Swedish standards of proof do not vary too much from ours).I think your getting yourself confused. its up to the Prosecution to decide if there is enough evidence to take it forward not whether it's beyond reasonable doubt, that is for the jury. In this instance the prosecutors feel there is. Assange could have turned up at the interview he promised to attend and potentially put the matter to bed. he chose not to. So they have had to drag him kicking and screaming. Wrong, at least here in the UK the CPS must anticipate a reasonable chance of successful prosecution. From memory this was Jack Straw's reason for not extraditing Pinochet. |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,065
|
Post by mids on Mar 1, 2011 10:25:02 GMT
The CPS usually look for at least a 50% chance of prosecution, estimated by them of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Mar 1, 2011 10:27:24 GMT
So basically what were saying is, you don't think there is enough evidence to prosecute, the swedish prosecutor does, and er that's it.
|
|
auldhippy
New Member
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." Orwell
Posts: 27,830
|
Post by auldhippy on Mar 1, 2011 10:30:14 GMT
& in a scenario how many are successfully prosecuted? I don't know but I sat on a jury where a man was found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman in the laundry room of a block of flats where only him and the woman were present. Almost all the prosecution had was her word against his. What swung it against him for me though (and the rest of the jury) were inconsistencies in his story. I don't think such prosecutions are uncommon. Successful prosecutions for rape are uncommon across the board, I would suggest convictions based solely on testimony are even rarer. |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,065
|
Post by mids on Mar 1, 2011 10:34:21 GMT
Possibly. It's not a nice thought but I wonder if we'd have found him guilty if she'd claimed he raped her?
|
|
