"I don't want to deny it" would be interpreted in the UK as a tacit admission of guilt, as any reasonable person should seek to defend themselves.
They are innocent until proven guilty, and failing to come up to your expectations of the what a “reasonable” person would do to defend him/her self is not proof of guilt.
It’s too subjective. How much money, time, and effort should a “reasonable” person expend trying to defend themselves against trumped-up charges when they know that the deck is stacked against them?
The problem with the pen I see, for me, is that I can't write as fast as the lecturer can speak. So if I tap on a word, the audio is probably rather farther ahead than what it refers to.
It shouldn’t be too hard to find... just tap a few lines above it.
Ok. In that case, I'm not sure what bearing you think this has on the truth or falsehood of the accusations.
A lot, actually. If they’d never had consensual sex, they could probably have just produced a semen-stained article of clothing and get a conviction. Once it’s established that they did have consensual sex, it becomes a much more difficult matter of proving that this particular instance was rape.
In a murder trial, would you point out that, at some determined point in time prior to the victim's death, they were most definitely not being murdered by the defendant?
Suppose (to go out on a really bizarre hypothetical here) it was an established fact that they engaged in asphyxiation fetish which was mutually consented to and enjoyed by both. If the death really was an accident, pointing this out very well might be appropriate; the murder charge might be reduced to involuntary manslaughter.
Granted that’s quite a bit more extreme than a condom breaking, but hopefully I made the point. (And a condom breaking could result in being exposed to deadly STDs, so it’s not really too over-the-top.)
First of all, the consequences of rape are not just physical. Secondly, there’s still the risk of transmission of STDs.
And thirdly, speaking of pregnancy, is it rare for a woman to say she’s on the pill when she isn’t so as to get pregnant (aiming for either child support or a hasty marriage, I suppose)? And is that rape?
They had him in the country, available for questioning. If they didn’t put him under oath (or whatever the hell they do there in Sweden), that’s their problem. See dreampod’s comment above.
But, it does show an inconsistency in your beliefs and actions which throws doubt on your veracity in regards to both.
No, it shows that I am consistent even when I think the person’s an ass. My opinion of him doesn’t change the facts of the case, and the fact of this case is that there is no case. It’s an unsubstantiated allegation.
So, when someone is accused of a crime and he says "I didn't do it", all questioning should stop and the suspects word should be considered the unvarnished truth?
If there’s no other evidence whatsoever, damn right it should. And you’re an ass.
Actually, “here in the U.S.” (not everyone who reads Slashdot lives in the U.S. you know), the case would be inadmissible since it’s double jeopardy: you can’t be tried twice for the same crime. They already investigated him and dismissed the case.
And, so the investigators can try to find a hole in either party's story. That is how investigations work and how one can find lies and distortions, by repeated questioning and looking for inconsistency in the tellings and re-tellings.
So? All he has to do is say he didn’t do it, and give the same story again. And they have no proof, so it’s a complete waste of everyone’s time.
They already investigated, already questioned him (when he was in the country), they determined there was no case, dropped it, and told him he was free to leave the country. He did.
Any inconsistency in his tellings and re-tellings would be due to the fact that it happened 4 months ago.
Pleading “no contest” is not the same as pleading guilty, fwiw. At least, it isn’t in the US – I have no idea whether or not Sweden has similar provisions.
Ironic, isn’t it. And I don’t think they shouldn’t investigate, but I’m also not convinced that they need to question Assange. They already know what his version of the story is.
the women only decided to invent stories about rape after learning of the other woman he’d been fucking to join up for revenge and publicity with against an internationally known fugitive with many enemies.
FTFY.
Tell me, if it were not Assange, but someone you did not support, would you feel the same way?
I don’t support Assange. I think he’s an ass, and I think it’s clear that his website is mainly just interested in publishing things that make the US look bad.
You don’t understand how davev2.0 interprets that (I do, I’ve had arguments with him previously). To him, that means that until you’ve proven that these women are lying, you have to assume that they’re innocent (and lock up Assange just to be on the safe side).
Slashdot Mirror
To be allowed to leave Sweden, Assange most have accepted conditions that he later broke.
Must he have? That assumption is false.
"I don't want to deny it" would be interpreted in the UK as a tacit admission of guilt, as any reasonable person should seek to defend themselves.
They are innocent until proven guilty, and failing to come up to your expectations of the what a “reasonable” person would do to defend him/her self is not proof of guilt.
It’s too subjective. How much money, time, and effort should a “reasonable” person expend trying to defend themselves against trumped-up charges when they know that the deck is stacked against them?
You're a complex person, despicable and admirable in equal turns.
I find that most people are like that, and it’s one reason that I’m usually reluctant to use the Foe feature.
Theoretically one of the Iraqis could spit a pumpkin seed far enough and in just the right way to kill a soldier
No, that is not even theoretically possible.
due to personal experience with how far that really is, I'd be really impressed to see anything rocket-propelled (without guidance) fly that far
Are you claiming that it actually can’t fly that far, or are you claiming that since it’s unguided it’s very unlikely to hit you?
The problem with the pen I see, for me, is that I can't write as fast as the lecturer can speak. So if I tap on a word, the audio is probably rather farther ahead than what it refers to.
It shouldn’t be too hard to find... just tap a few lines above it.
Did they mean there’s no longer any advantage to using Genuine Office?
Ok. In that case, I'm not sure what bearing you think this has on the truth or falsehood of the accusations.
A lot, actually. If they’d never had consensual sex, they could probably have just produced a semen-stained article of clothing and get a conviction. Once it’s established that they did have consensual sex, it becomes a much more difficult matter of proving that this particular instance was rape.
In a murder trial, would you point out that, at some determined point in time prior to the victim's death, they were most definitely not being murdered by the defendant?
Suppose (to go out on a really bizarre hypothetical here) it was an established fact that they engaged in asphyxiation fetish which was mutually consented to and enjoyed by both. If the death really was an accident, pointing this out very well might be appropriate; the murder charge might be reduced to involuntary manslaughter.
Granted that’s quite a bit more extreme than a condom breaking, but hopefully I made the point. (And a condom breaking could result in being exposed to deadly STDs, so it’s not really too over-the-top.)
First of all, the consequences of rape are not just physical. Secondly, there’s still the risk of transmission of STDs.
And thirdly, speaking of pregnancy, is it rare for a woman to say she’s on the pill when she isn’t so as to get pregnant (aiming for either child support or a hasty marriage, I suppose)? And is that rape?
Well, sex which starts consensually but continues after consent is withdrawn is not consensual sex. So that's the first two lines shot.
Had they previously had consensual sex? Then the first two lines were factual.
If the allegations are true, they didn't just "come up with a story"
I meant came forward.
there's no reason to put rape in quotes; the events, as described by the accusers, are rape.
Ok. I should have said allegedly raped, not “raped”.
[a bunch of bullshit which you don't, in any sense of the word, 'know']
It was a sequence of events which the stories either agreed on or weren’t disputing. Was there any particular part that you wanted to dispute?
Not under oath.
They had him in the country, available for questioning. If they didn’t put him under oath (or whatever the hell they do there in Sweden), that’s their problem. See dreampod’s comment above.
Ho
Who you be callin’ a ho?!
But, it does show an inconsistency in your beliefs and actions which throws doubt on your veracity in regards to both.
No, it shows that I am consistent even when I think the person’s an ass. My opinion of him doesn’t change the facts of the case, and the fact of this case is that there is no case. It’s an unsubstantiated allegation.
So, when someone is accused of a crime and he says "I didn't do it", all questioning should stop and the suspects word should be considered the unvarnished truth?
If there’s no other evidence whatsoever, damn right it should. And you’re an ass.
Actually, “here in the U.S.” (not everyone who reads Slashdot lives in the U.S. you know), the case would be inadmissible since it’s double jeopardy: you can’t be tried twice for the same crime. They already investigated him and dismissed the case.
And, so the investigators can try to find a hole in either party's story. That is how investigations work and how one can find lies and distortions, by repeated questioning and looking for inconsistency in the tellings and re-tellings.
So? All he has to do is say he didn’t do it, and give the same story again. And they have no proof, so it’s a complete waste of everyone’s time.
They already investigated, already questioned him (when he was in the country), they determined there was no case, dropped it, and told him he was free to leave the country. He did.
Any inconsistency in his tellings and re-tellings would be due to the fact that it happened 4 months ago.
The evidence is their word. His defense is his word.
They already have it.
Who knows what other evidence there is? Perhaps they have the broken condom with his and her DNA.
Oh, don’t make me laugh. Now you’re just making stuff up out of thin air...
Pleading “no contest” is not the same as pleading guilty, fwiw. At least, it isn’t in the US – I have no idea whether or not Sweden has similar provisions.
But, they did not co-ordinate their stories... In order for their stories to be co-ordinated, both would have the same story
You don’t seem to know what the word co-ordinate means.
That is why it needs to be investigated and he needs to be questioned.
So that he can deny it? Again?
Ironic, isn’t it. And I don’t think they shouldn’t investigate, but I’m also not convinced that they need to question Assange. They already know what his version of the story is.
Whoops, where’d you come from? I thought I was replying to davev2.0 again. Disregard...
The claim against him was that he committed “alleged sexual misconduct”. Can you not read?
the claims should not be investigated, at all, ever.
Have they any evidence? Without even a shred of evidence they shouldn’t even be allowed to drag him into court.
Do an investigation by all means, but it doesn’t necessitate Assange’s presence.
It obviously shows that the official and religious rules do not dictate such pathetic acts. The court has ordered protection for the lady.
The High Court, which only had to get involved because the lower-level authorities had dictated those acts.
the women only decided to invent stories about rape after learning of the other woman he’d been fucking to join up for revenge and publicity with against an internationally known fugitive with many enemies.
FTFY.
Tell me, if it were not Assange, but someone you did not support, would you feel the same way?
I don’t support Assange. I think he’s an ass, and I think it’s clear that his website is mainly just interested in publishing things that make the US look bad.
You don’t understand how davev2.0 interprets that (I do, I’ve had arguments with him previously). To him, that means that until you’ve proven that these women are lying, you have to assume that they’re innocent (and lock up Assange just to be on the safe side).