Rapey Aussie to face brutality of Swedish justice

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

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.

Was he a foreigner, or a bit of a dusky hue?

[mids]

Hahaha, yeah. He was Scottish actually.

[auldhippy]

Mar 1, 2011 10:27:24 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

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.

The original prosecutor didn't with the caveat about the smaller charges. If this were Joe Blogs there would quite probably be no arrest warrant and no extradition hearing for what would only generate a community service sentence or similar.

The women's lawyer and possibly the Director of Prosecutions have political milage to gain from a high profile case.

Aside from the obvious possibility of US interference the lawyer is a renowned feminist advocate who believes all men have a collective responsibility for violence towards women. This high profile case can only serve to promote his career.

The US Ambassador to Switzerland but the kybosh on Assange's application for residency there and now this case has sabotaged his application for residency in Sweden.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

So in a nutshell, yes then?

[mids]

Anyway, I hate him. I don't care if he's guilty but I hope he gets found guilty and bummed to death in a Swedish prison.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

I have to say I'm not that bothered either way.

it's just interesting how relatively straightforward it is and how Pilger and the rest of the coterie of clowns have been wailing and gnashing and ignoring the facts. When I first heard about the case my first instinct was that it was fishy as hell, but it was mainly just the press reporting the defence lawyers sh*t without really checking it. Turns out the defence lawyer couldn't lie straight in bed and even the Guardian has had to row back from it.

[auldhippy]

Mar 1, 2011 10:48:11 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

So in a nutshell, yes then?

I'm of the opinion the decision to prosecute is politically motivated. It's a position I've maintained from the start.

I've never held a postion contrary to Pilgers either.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

I'm of the opinion the decision to prosecute is politically motivated. It's a position I've maintained from the start.

We've seen your evidence for this and frankly it makes the evidence against Assange look cast iron.

[auldhippy]

Mar 1, 2011 10:54:41 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

I have to say I'm not that bothered either way.

it's just interesting how relatively straightforward it is and how Pilger and the rest of the coterie of clowns have been wailing and gnashing and ignoring the facts. When I first heard about the case my first instinct was that it was fishy as hell, but it was mainly just the press reporting the defence lawyers sh*t without really checking it. Turns out the defence lawyer couldn't lie straight in bed and even the Guardian has had to row back from it.

What facts?

[auldhippy]

Mar 1, 2011 11:05:23 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

I'm of the opinion the decision to prosecute is politically motivated. It's a position I've maintained from the start.

We've seen your evidence for this and frankly it makes the evidence against Assange look cast iron.

It's the lack of evidence, there is none other than the testimony of the women who both admit agreeing to sex, both were tardy in reporting a crime, were not intending to report rape when they did and who both stand to make a lot of money.

If Assange own testimony carries equal weight in Swedish law I fail to see how guilt could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[noam]

The prosecutors probably have a duty to investigate allegations however late they are. Assange should do and face questioning and clear it up.

[auldhippy]

He did.

[Muz]

He didn't return for the questioning to finish.

[lala]

Mar 1, 2011 11:21:42 GMT auldhippy said:

It's the lack of evidence, there is none other than the testimony of the women who both admit agreeing to sex, both were tardy in reporting a crime, were not intending to report rape when they did and who both stand to make a lot of money.

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'?

[lala]

Mar 1, 2011 9:49:29 GMT auldhippy said:

& 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.

Fair enough, my wording there was inappropriate.

But if you accept the possibility he is a seedy sexual predator, then you have to accept that he should be accountable for his actions? He may well have abused these two women. They claim he has, the prosecution seem satisfied there is enough evidence to proceed, if the charges are hooey then that will become apparent at trial.

The claim that the prosecution is politically motivated is a diversion; the case will stand or fall based on the evidence put forward. The prosecutor would look very silly, and Assange greatly enhanced, if the case falls apart before or at trial, which undermines the argument the prosecution is motivated by politics or ambition. I seem to recall similar comments were made about Baltasar Garzon over the Pinochet arrest. Again, you've become everything you purport to hate.

[auldhippy]

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

Mar 1, 2011 11:21:42 GMT auldhippy said:

It's the lack of evidence, there is none other than the testimony of the women who both admit agreeing to sex, both were tardy in reporting a crime, were not intending to report rape when they did and who both stand to make a lot of money.

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.

[auldhippy]

Mar 1, 2011 21:21:55 GMT lala said:

Mar 1, 2011 9:49:29 GMT auldhippy said:

& 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.

Fair enough, my wording there was inappropriate.

But if you accept the possibility he is a seedy sexual predator, then you have to accept that he should be accountable for his actions? He may well have abused these two women. They claim he has, the prosecution seem satisfied there is enough evidence to proceed, if the charges are hooey then that will become apparent at trial.

The claim that the prosecution is politically motivated is a diversion; the case will stand or fall based on the evidence put forward. The prosecutor would look very silly, and Assange greatly enhanced, if the case falls apart before or at trial, which undermines the argument the prosecution is motivated by politics or ambition. I seem to recall similar comments were made about Baltasar Garzon over the Pinochet arrest. Again, you've become everything you purport to hate.

Just as you accused me (falsely) of ignoring the possibility of his being a sexual predator you ignore the possibility of there being political motives behind the prosecutions.

Both the Director of Prosecutions and the arch feminist women's lawyer stand to gain political milage from the prosecution of a high profile accused.

Already Assange has been refused residency in Sweden (as he was in Switzerland following the US Ambassadors involvement) which would play nicely into the hands of Uncle Sam.

[lala]

Good grief, man, look at what you are posting. Two women who are like "kiss and tell tarts" and who "stand to make a lot of money," abetted by the "arch femnist women's lawyer," and the "politically motivated" DPP.

Youi refer darkly to a 'tabloid' interview that you admit you haven't seen. Do you even know what paper it was in? And why is Assange allowed to run a sophisticated media campaign while these women aren't even allowed to give an interview?

Your hypocrisy in this is astonishing.

[auldhippy]

less astonishing than your own

[lala]

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