"To clarify: the women are charging that although the sex began as consensual it became non-consensual to some extent (to what extent I do not know) when Assange refused to wear a condom." fairleft
What people say about somebody's actions is not yet "strong evidence".
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
you are the media you consume.
apparently independent witnesses
Nope.
Prosecutors may decide today on charges against WikiLeaks founder | Media | The Guardian
On Friday last week, Ms A and Ms W together approached police in Stockholm and reported that they had been sexually assaulted by Assange. ...One source who is closely involved said neither of them had originally wanted the case prosecuted; that Ms W had wanted to report the alleged rape to police without their pursuing it, and that Ms A had gone with her to give her moral support and then become embroiled with the police, who had insisted on passing a report to prosecutors...
...One source who is closely involved said neither of them had originally wanted the case prosecuted; that Ms W had wanted to report the alleged rape to police without their pursuing it, and that Ms A had gone with her to give her moral support and then become embroiled with the police, who had insisted on passing a report to prosecutors...
As for the insufficient detail in "embroiled with the police", that's relevant to the question of how much police influenced to flow of events on its own initiative, not the independence of witnesses... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
So they were absolutely not independent, but you may separately talk about the degree of prior agreement between what they said -- just like in the case of any other non-independent witnesses. Do you want to walk yet another round?... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I'm not sure 'independent' legally means much, fairleft
it is not certain whether the two witnesses are 'independent' or not, and how 'independent' their testimony was at the police station
Given how competently and honestly the police has handled everything else in this case, I would be exceedingly surprised if they had properly separated the witnesses while interviewing them.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
