No DNA On Assange's Alleged Torn Condom

[jonb]

Stop, just a sec, wasn't the accusation that he did not use a condom, would not this be proof it was not used, even if it was found in the room?
It would be nice if we had a clear answer, but even if conclusions were reached in court there will always be questions hanging over this one.

[Rev. Rye]

Options:

1: Have it unwrapped and ready to go already.
2: Beat the victim until their fight has left them.
3: Tie the victim up (optional: gag them too).
4: Coerce the target into submitting without (much of?) a fight.
5: Kidnap the target and take them somewhere unfamiliar, deserted, and perhaps confined.
6: If one enjoys the fight, then let them attempt to fight it. The aggressor should win, no?
7: Fillet them emotionally to shake them to the point that the fight is only blind lashing out.
8: Drug them/ze old chloroform. Easy target, and depending on how it's done they might not recognize you. Even better time to use a condom, since there can likely be no allegation made. At the least... I know one of the first things I'd do is shower.
9: Pay off her roommate/caretaker/parents/guardians/friends or otherwise obtain their trust... and then abuse that to easily get to the target in a place he/she can't run from.
10: Choke the victim into unconsciousness.
11: Break the victim's arm/leg/fingers/whatever.
12: Make the target a retard.
13: Kill the target and make use of the still warm body.

The question for the ages has been answered.

[Autumnlicious]

Stop, just a sec, wasn't the accusation that he did not use a condom, would not this be proof it was not used, even if it was found in the room?
It would be nice if we had a clear answer, but even if conclusions were reached in court there will always be questions hanging over this one.

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.

[jonb]

Stop, just a sec, wasn't the accusation that he did not use a condom, would not this be proof it was not used, even if it was found in the room?
It would be nice if we had a clear answer, but even if conclusions were reached in court there will always be questions hanging over this one.

Bullshit.

Yes your right, It's just I have an affiliation to the awkward squad, and aware of this I have to question my own motivations.

[Puddleglum]

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.

[Waratah]

As far as I'm aware the Swedish authorities just want to question Assange at this point of time. He has not been charged for anything, only accused.

[Puddleglum]

Almost right. He has not been prosecuted or accused (which amounts to the same things) he is merely wanted for questioning as a preliminary to ascertaining whether a prosecution should happen at all.

Frankly Assange has nothing to lose by going to Sweden. Either i) the Prosecution fails to prove their case (which seems rather likley) and he goes free or ii) the prosecution does prove their case, Assange serves a tiny sentence in a comfortable Swedish jail whilst still maintaining his innocence, he makes himself out to be a martyr and then is free to travel wherever he wishes after serving his tiny sentence.

To those of you loony conspiracy theorists who have decided that he is in danger of being extradited to the USA could you please answer me me the following:

1) Since the UK is so much closer allied to , and legally deferential to, the USA than Sweden is then why has the USA not requested that Assange be extradited from the UK to the USA?

2) If a person is extradited to a country if a third party wishes to extradite him to their country then they must have the permission of both the original country and the one that now holds that person. So it would be twice the trouble to extradite him to the USA, so why is it easier to extradite him from sweden to the USA than from the UK?

never heard any Assange fan who can answer me this.

[Autumnlicious]

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.

You are making that assertion, not I.

There is an entity that is putting forth a need for questioning in order to evaluate if the case can be reasonably carried out within the scope of law.

That is most likely the side that would carry out the prosecution (the norm in most countries).

The prosecution must build a case in order to proceed further and secure a trial. This means they must assemble a set of documents.

Some of those documents would contain affidavits pertaining to the veracity of their evidence as true.

So far, the supposed evidence that would be utilized in such a case is now released to the media as improper.

However, the analysis of said evidence (condom) from one group of forensics states that there is none of Assange's DNA on it.

This is one group.

It is quite plausible to contest that finding and is expected, until a body of evidence shows otherwise.

At this time, there is a singular claim by one group of forensic scientists that supports Assange's claims on one front.

Which means that it is still possible to take it to trial. Whether or not the charges truly stick is unknown, but doubtful they will.

Assange has consistently stated that, given the revelations of Sweden violating it's own treaties and laws to ship off people to countries where the threat of torture is reasonably expected, being in Sweden is the first step to opening up that possibility.

He does have a vested interest in both hyperbole and keeping where he is.

---

Frankly Assange has nothing to lose by going to Sweden. Either i) the Prosecution fails to prove their case (which seems rather likley) and he goes free or ii) the prosecution does prove their case, Assange serves a tiny sentence in a comfortable Swedish jail whilst still maintaining his innocence, he makes himself out to be a martyr and then is free to travel wherever he wishes after serving his tiny sentence.

Sweden cannot prevent a US-backed extradition as it is within the US-Sweden treaties unless a set of conditions (threat of torture, death) is met.

Sweden also has in recent memory a case where they violated that precise set of conditions in deference to Egypt, a country with nowhere near as many economic, military and political ties as Sweden does with the US.

Explain why Assange should place good faith in the Swedish system.

It is well within the legal framework of Sweden to bring him there for questioning. Either decide that they don't have a case or attempt to proceed to trial. They'll waste some time and probably drop the charges on lack of evidence.

It is then they may receive a judicial extradition request from the US and comply.

Explain why the above presented is false.

1) Since the UK is so much closer allied to , and legally deferential to, the USA than Sweden is then why has the USA not requested that Assange be extradited from the UK to the USA?

The House of Lords has a say in the matter in the UK as to whom may get extradited.

Gary McKinnon has been fighting the US extradition request for over eight years now. Some would call that a success in preventing extradition, at least to this date.

Given the above, your statement would appear to be weak and unsupported.

Furthermore, there is actual evidence in the case in Sweden of them shipping the aforementioned Egyptian to Egypt in violation of Swedish law.

Thus, I raise the question, precisely how easy is it to extradite from Sweden compared to the UK? And how might one go about weighing the relative prospects of both?

So far, it has been put forth a question as to the integrity and good faith of the Swedish legal system.

A question that is dismissed and ignored by certain parties.

2) If a person is extradited to a country if a third party wishes to extradite him to their country then they must have the permission of both the original country and the one that now holds that person. So it would be twice the trouble to extradite him to the USA, so why is it easier to extradite him from sweden to the USA than from the UK?

I cannot find information as to such, nor a legal mechanism to enforce it. Can you provide some source material?

[Jaysyn]

2) If a person is extradited to a country if a third party wishes to extradite him to their country then they must have the permission of both the original country and the one that now holds that person. So it would be twice the trouble to extradite him to the USA, so why is it easier to extradite him from sweden to the USA than from the UK?

I cannot find information as to such, nor a legal mechanism to enforce it. Can you provide some source material?

I've also read this in the news (don't remember where, it was linked off of Google News), but Sweden has already shown blatant disregard for their own law as well as international law regarding extradition.

If they really wanted to interview him, they could do it via video. Supposedly they have a convenient law disallowing this as well.

[Puddleglum]

I've also read this in the news (don't remember where, it was linked off of Google News), but Sweden has already shown blatant disregard for their own law as well as international law regarding extradition.

That sounds like great evidence to me. Surely you can find it if it is out there Sweden is a social democrat country with no great love for the US ,it isn't even a NATO member, couple with which the USA hasn't actually asked for him. Unattributed assertions are worthless. You probably read it on some Assangista website

Sweden cannot prevent a US-backed extradition as it is within the US-Sweden treaties unless a set of conditions (threat of torture, death) is m

yes- it needs permission from the UK to do so.


Gary McKinnon has been fighting the US extradition request for over eight years now. Some would call that a success in preventing extradition, at least to this date.

Whilst people have been packed off for 'crimes' committed in the UK that aren't even illegal in the UK -check out the Nat West 3. The UK is absurdly generous to the US in handing over its citizens. the US has never reciprocated.


Thus, I raise the question, precisely how easy is it to extradite from Sweden compared to the UK? And how might one go about weighing the relative prospects of both?

have you not ever considered finding out?

Explain why Assange should place good faith in the Swedish system.

Because Sweden is a modern northern European country with well established system of checks and balances. Unlike the UK ,for instance, Sweden was a haven for Vietnam war resisters