Sweden Drops Julian Assange Rape Investigation (cnn.com)

rmdingler writes: "Sweden is dropping its investigation into WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on rape allegations, according to a prosecution statement released Friday," reports CNN. "Assange, who has always denied wrongdoing, has been holed up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, in an effort to avoid a Swedish arrest warrant." Despite Friday's announcement, he's unlikely to walk out of the embassy imminently. There is no apparent change in the risk of being detained in the west, particularly in the U.S., but it's definitely a win for Assange. Joshua.Niland adds: The pressure on Julian Assange may have lifted ever so slightly with Swedish prosecutors dropping their investigation into the allegations of rape. A brief statement ahead of a press conference by the prosecutor later on Friday said: "Director of Public Prosecution, Ms Marianne Ny, has today decided to discontinue the investigation regarding suspected rape (lesser degree) by Julian Assange." This will not likely deter the United States from pursuing their own charges against him for publishing tens of thousands of military documents leaked by Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning. After describing the development as "an important victory," Assange said, "[...] it by no means erases seven years of detention without charge under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight. Seven years without charge while my children grow up without me. That is not something I can forgive. It is not something I can forget."

Comments

Assange should hold his promise

[Vadim Makarov]

and surrender to the US. https://www.usnews.com/news/na...
Manning is free. That was the condition. Please Mr Assange, honor your own words.

Sweden finally did the right thing

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

Let's put this in a less charged context than rape. Suppose a woman did some lines of cocaine with a man and the claims "he forced me to do that last line of cocaine!" In a system that isn't based on presumed guilt, you know what the court and/or jury are going to see?

1. She was there of her own free will.
2. She did cocaine with him freely, by her own admission, for most of that time.
3. She lacks signs of coercion.
4. Police have found not traces of evidence to plausibly back up her sudden change of mind.
5. Another line of cocaine made it into her system.

Now, if you are a judge or jury who is not a psychopath, you are probably going to weigh that evidence and conclude that you have a non-trivial chance of being the implement of someone's revenge. You are a decent person who doesn't want to throw someone in prison on a "maybe" or a "it looks bad, but I don't know." You're going to side with Assange here.