Defending Assange against sexual assault allegations

[DisgustipatedinCA]

186. I've finished reading the fact finding document

First, thanks for the link. It really was interesting reading. Next, let me dispel any notion that I'm going to argue legal points of European law with you. You're an attorney, and I'm not. Moreover, I know less about Sweden's and the UK's legal system than I know about the US system. But I did read every word of the document, and I read it for understanding. Here's how I see it: Chief Magistrate Riddle made what appears to this layman to be a good case to extradite Assange to Sweden. He found holes in the logic of the defense witnesses who traveled to the UK to testify. One was repeating hearsay, another apparently lied (if the meaning of prevarication hasn't changed since I last looked), and all brought up points that Riddle says are beyond his purview, and therefore, he didn't consider those points. There was a lot of discussion about whether the prosecutor's intent was to interrogate Assange or prosecute him. The magistrate found that the prosecutor, in his view, was clear that her intent was to prosecute Assange. So again, it looks like the magistrate made a solid case for Assange's extradition to Sweden, absent some mistake that I'm not trained enough to spot.

A question for you at this point: if you agree with me that it looks like the magistrate made a good case that Assange should be extradited, I'd like to lean on your legal knowledge and ask you to answer this: if he'd had a mind to, could the magistrate have come up with just the opposite finding, without raising eyebrows in the parts of the legal community that look at such decisions? It's a leading question, but hopefully a compelling one. It looks to me like Riddle could have answered in the negative, and could have come up with decent backing for that point of view. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that.

Things that bothered me in the document: rape trials are held in secret in Sweden, at least most of the time, as decided by the court that has jurisdiction. One of the victims was apparently scrubbing her social media posts about being "half-asleep" (half-aslessp vs. fully asleep turns out to be important in these proceedings, according to the finding) and about wanting revenge. I'll state a couple of things plainly here, so that there's no misunderstanding: I don't get to make European law. I don't get to adjudicate whether the law is applied fairly between one EU member and another. I do get to decide what I don't like about a case, and these two items both bothered me. I understand the reasoning behind the behind-closed-doors trial, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I'm not sure I completely disagree either. I'm uneasy on that point. If Julian Assange raped someone, he needs to be judicially punished. If he didn't, if the sex was consensual, that's a completely different story. I'm a little mystified as to why he couldn't have been interviewed over a videoconference. There's no EU law prohibiting such a thing, and the Swedish prosecutor's refusal to conduct this remotely only makes sense when you consider that they definitely intend to prosecute. Still, isn't there such a thing as being convicted in absentia, and if so, wouldn't that make his host embassy a little less eager to give him shelter?

Summary: from my layman's point of view, the British magistrate had his ducks in a row.

Next: the extra-judicial, and this is the part you were waiting for. I have absolutely no confidence that this attempted prosecution of Assange isn't politically-related, and of course, none of that would show up in a finding of fact document. I'm not at all comfortable with the ties one of these women apparently had to the CIA. I'm not comfortable with the notion that Assange was warned of "sex traps" before this happened. The items that bother me about this case won't be subject to court proceedings. My suspicions may be well-founded, or they may be groundless, but this wouldn't come out in a court proceeding. Nothing that the good magistrate said in making his decision indicates that the US isn't behind this attempted prosecution, which stands to reason, as I'm sure Mr Riddle wouldn't be privy to such information. This is the point at which you or others are free to sling CT labels at me. Whatever it takes--I don't trust that my government is truthful, and there's plenty of evidence to back that up.

Finally, I'll point out that when I made my original post, responding to the OP, I mentioned primary sources. This document may count as a primary source in legalese, or it may not, I have no idea. But when I told BB that if she had any primary-sourced information, I meant directly from Assange or from the victims. I meant to say that if she didn't have any more information than the rest of us have, it's kind of ridiculous to talk about how you don't intend to brook any argument, etc. Honest people can argue about what they think of Assange and of his accusers. But claiming some sort of undefined and exclusive knowledge, and therefore stating you won't be listening to any opposing points of view, is a non-starter with me, and it always will be. I initially addressed you by reminding you of something you're already aware of: you're acerbic. But so far as I'm aware, you're also an honest person, and I appreciate that, if only academically.

Thanks.