(September 17, 2012 at 7:52 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Bullshit.
You have to prove he did not use a condom (IE a positive claim).
Lack of evidence in a court of law is just that -- lack of evidence.
To proceed further, the prosecution must provide alternative compelling evidence or even more compelling arguments. This runs afoul of the defense's increasing case of procedural and legal malpractice.
The prosecution has submitted evidence that has yet to be determined to be false under the eyes of the Law.
However, the expert witnesses called forth by Assange's squad, if not suitably countered, can indeed get this evidence declared as a falsehood.
Perjury may have (likely) been committed by the prosecution.
You are an expert on Swedish law are you?
How can the prosecution have 'already committed perjury? There has been no court hearing yet. The prosecution has not submitted any evidence at all.
I have no idea where your various ideas come from.
