Eyewitness testimony is indeed powerful in cases that clearly involve only sexual behaviour. But the circumstances (and thus the circumstantial evidence) would imply that such eyewitness evidence needs a more detailed examination than is standard such cases.
Assange was specifically warned about the dangers of such situations. Or so we are told.
I have no idea what the truth is, but it seems to me we should take a very close but fair look at any evidence. You can't be me, I'm taken
I'm not discounting 'black ops' but there hasn't been ANY evidence provided that they took place. The fact that no evidence has been presented is important. Finally, the circumstances of the alleged incidents, and who the alleged victims are, is not at all clear. So, the "more detailed examination" you feel is needed should not discount the testimony of two apparently independent eyewitnesses to conduct allegedly in violation of the law. If Assange's excellent defense attorney turns up 'dirt' on the two witnesses, or on the police or prosecutors, fine, but why not wait and see what he can turn up?
I agree, let's take a look at all the evidence: allegations of conspiracy are not evidence. fairleft
