Because they timed out, I thought. Something about him not being formally chargeable until he was in the country, and cases needing to be dropped if there was no formal charge after a certain period.
“Arrested on suspicion” (and “skipping bail”) being separate to that.
Claims in an Internet forum aren't evidence. Also, rape victims back out of accusations all the time because of the trauma involved. Is there evidence?
Yeah, lots in this case. The reason so many say the Assange charges are a setup is that the case was dropped initially by the prosecutor after it became clear the women were lying, their stories simply didn't stack up so there was no chance of a conviction. Assange hung around in Sweden after the charges were filed and requested permission to leave after the charges were dropped, the Swedish police said they were done with him. Then after he left a different prosecutor mysteriously reopened the case and demanded he return for questioning again, though nothing had changed in the case, no charges were filed and the chance of a successful prosecution was still zero.
Probably because you're asking people to Google stuff for you? It's all public.
There are two women. One posted on Twitter the next day boasting about the awesome night she'd had with Assange. She later deleted the post but others had recorded it already. The other woman sent lots of text messages saying she wasn't raped and only reported Assange because she wanted him to take an std test, that the police had blown it up and seemed to want to get him.
Moreover the women only filed these charges after they met each other and realised they'd both slept with him.
Look, I don't know why you're being so skeptical about this. False reports of rape are extremely common. Most credible studies I've seen peg it at 50% or higher. You should never take such an accusation at face value before a case has been won and in this case we don't even need a trial - the women both created documentary evidence they were lying and one even attempted to destroy it.
> Probably because you're asking people to Google stuff for you? It's all public.
The burden of proof is on the commenter posting the claims.
The article linked in the parent merely is a description of Assange's own statement, his side of the story, which certainly has no more credibility than the alleged victim and the legal authority. For example, regarding Assange's claims about text messages, the article makes a point of saying, "The ABC has not seen the text messages."
> the women both created documentary evidence they were lying and one even attempted to destroy it.
Again, any credible evidence? Surely this story would be in the NY Times and other major publications.
> False reports of rape are extremely common. Most credible studies I've seen peg it at 50% or higher.
I don't agree and I've never heard of such a study. We also are not talking about 'reports' by alleged victims, but an indictment by legal authorities after they examined the evidence. Again, perhaps the parent can provide some the evidence they say they've seen supporting this extraordinary claim about rape accusations, because false claims on the Internet are certainly even more common.
"The burden of proof is on the commenter posting the claims."
The burden of the person who wants to learn rather than argue is to do research for themselves. I don't care whether you believe me or not - I mean, why would I?
I'm not talking about hypothetical rape allegations. I'm talking about the Assange rape allegations. Educate yourself about the subject before just talking about it otherwise what's the point?
