WikiLeaks founder rape probe reopened

P

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,371
Reaction score
3
Location
Cape Town
Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape,
Click to expand...

LOL a nice neutral statement.

Looks like someone has already decided a crime has been committed.

I know everyone has their own personal opinions but when you're commenting in an official capacity on legal matters you really should try not to refer to what happened as a crime. An alleged crime maybe, but not a crime.
 
porchrat said:
LOL a nice neutral statement.

Looks like someone has already decided a crime has been committed.

I know everyone has their own personal opinions but when you're commenting in an official capacity on legal matters you really should try not to refer to what happened as a crime. An alleged crime maybe, but not a crime.
Click to expand...

She is probably referring to the fact that the prosecutors now know for a fact that a crime has been committed based on the evidence. It is no longer ALLEGED that a crime has been committed... that is no longer in dispute. What remains to be determined is who committed the crime. In that case you refer to the charged person as the ALLEGED perpetrator.

What floors me though is how quick people on this board are to jump to conclusions. "Oh, he did it" or "Oh, they are being framed" ... when the case has not even gone to trial yet. Are you omniscient? Do you know more than the prosecutors or judge in this case? Why not wait to see what comes out in the trial? Surely that would be a more appropriate time to make declarative and judgmental statements?
 
Garyvdh said:
What floors me though is how quick people on this board are to jump to conclusions. "Oh, he did it" or "Oh, they are being framed" ... when the case has not even gone to trial yet. Are you omniscient? Do you know more than the prosecutors or judge in this case? Why not wait to see what comes out in the trial? Surely that would be a more appropriate time to make declarative and judgmental statements?
Click to expand...

They see this scumbag as a real world Luke Skywalker. He's wouldn't rape anybody he's too busy fighting the evil empire :erm:

Clearly the guy has no respect for Afghan women so why would he respect women in general.
 
Alan said:
They see this scumbag as a real world Luke Skywalker. He's wouldn't rape anybody he's too busy fighting the evil empire :erm:

Clearly the guy has no respect for Afghan women so why would he respect women in general.
Click to expand...

I love your posts. Its like an opinion from the 80`s.
 
Garyvdh said:
What floors me though is how quick people on this board are to jump to conclusions. "Oh, he did it" or "Oh, they are being framed" ... when the case has not even gone to trial yet. Are you omniscient? Do you know more than the prosecutors or judge in this case? Why not wait to see what comes out in the trial? Surely that would be a more appropriate time to make declarative and judgmental statements?
Click to expand...

It is surprising.

Did the prosection previously decide to drop the charges ... or did the alleged victim withdrew them ?
 
Garyvdh said:
She is probably referring to the fact that the prosecutors now know for a fact that a crime has been committed based on the evidence. It is no longer ALLEGED that a crime has been committed... that is no longer in dispute. What remains to be determined is who committed the crime. In that case you refer to the charged person as the ALLEGED perpetrator.
Click to expand...
That is good point. Problem is this is her full statement:

"There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape,"

So there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed and her personal opinion is that a crime has been committed. Well her personal opinion doesn't belong in an official statement when she is a prosecutor for the state.


What floors me though is how quick people on this board are to jump to conclusions. "Oh, he did it" or "Oh, they are being framed" ... when the case has not even gone to trial yet. Are you omniscient? Do you know more than the prosecutors or judge in this case? Why not wait to see what comes out in the trial? Surely that would be a more appropriate time to make declarative and judgmental statements?
Click to expand...
I agree people shouldn't be passing judgement. Let the court proceedings unfold and lets see what happens. Nobody knows what evidence the state has nor do we have Assange's side of the story as to his whereabouts etc.. Under those circumstances people really need to just wait and see.
 
Last edited:
Alan said:
...a real world Luke Skywalker. He's wouldn't rape anybody he's too busy fighting the evil empire.
Click to expand...

True. And the evil empire is squirming and flailing about declaring innocence to all and sundry and attempting to demonise the harassing mosquito. Heh, heh.
 
Well if he is convicted of rape he'll only face 2-6 years
 
porchrat said:
That is good point. Problem is this is her full statement:

"There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape,"

So there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed and her personal opinion is that a crime has been committed. Well her personal opinion doesn't belong in an official statement when she is a prosecutor for the state.



I agree people shouldn't be passing judgement. Let the court proceedings unfold and lets see what happens. Nobody knows what evidence the state has nor do we have Assange's side of the story as to his whereabouts etc.. Under those circumstances people really need to just wait and see.
Click to expand...

I find nothing wrong with that statement. She categorised the type of crime - eg molestation, assault, attempted murder, murder, theft etc. It falls under rape or sexual assault or whatever the correct translation was - I guess she spoke Svenska.

Also no-one here is an expert of Swedish law. My knowlegde of Sweden is limited to watching Ingmar Bergman films but unless someone here is an actual expert of Swedish law or has good knowlegde thereof any speculation over a translated news release will only be hot air.
 
PeterCH said:
I find nothing wrong with that statement. She categorised the type of crime - eg molestation, assault, attempted murder, murder, theft etc. It falls under rape or sexual assault or whatever the correct translation was - I guess she spoke Svenska.

Also no-one here is an expert of Swedish law. My knowlegde of Sweden is limited to watching Ingmar Bergman films but unless someone here is an actual expert of Swedish law or has good knowlegde thereof any speculation over a translated news release will only be hot air.
Click to expand...

You have no problem with someone stating their personal opinion when they are a representative of the state?

She isn't there for her personal opinion she is there to prosecute someone.

Sort of like when someone is reading out the SA rugby team announcement and says "well in my personal opinion he is a bad player". That isn't what she is there to do. She is there to stick to the law and the law says there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. End of story.
 
Last edited:
porchrat said:
You have no problem with someone stating their personal opinion when they are a representative of the state?
Click to expand...

Why do you say it's a personal opinion. The woman is a prosecutor. She would know what an alleged crime when she reads the statement and looks at the evidence.

So when someone is charged with x, it is always the personal opinion of the professional who charged them with x that it is x? No-one is saying the guy is guilty but what they're saying is that there may be grounds for an indictment hence more investigation is necessary. Last time the allegations of rape were not credible or not substantial enough to warrant pursuing them. Now the situation may have changed.
 
porchrat said:
Sort of like when someone is reading out the SA rugby team announcement and says "well in my personal opinion he is a bad player". That isn't what she is there to do. She is there to stick to the law and the law says there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. End of story.
Click to expand...

Could you post your law degree and license to practice in Sweden for us?
 
porchrat said:
"There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape,"
Click to expand...

Yes, her judgement is not guilt but that the crime which is considered, is rape and not burglary or assault. This statement is fine. I guess you're confusing 'judgement' as used here with 'judgement' as used by a court judge. Bear in mind, as I've already said, that this is no doubt a translation or she spoke in English and Swedes speak Swedish hence maybe the term is not to your liking. You're making a mountain out of nothing (not even a molehill) here.

In Cape Town, the driver of the taxi which was hit by that train is being charged with culpable homicide. It was the 'judgement' of the prosecutor that that would be the crime he would be charged with. The drive has not been found guilty or judged by the magistrate yet and may very well be found innocent and set free.
 
Last edited:
PeterCH said:
Yes, her judgement is not guilt but that the crime which is considered, is rape and not burglary or assault. This statement is fine. I guess you're confusing 'judgement' as used here with 'judgement' as used by a court judge. Bear in mind, as I've already said, that this is no doubt a translation or she spoke in English and Swedes speak Swedish hence maybe the term is not to your liking. You're making a mountain out of nothing (not even a molehill) here.
Click to expand...

The first statement says the official stance that there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed (keep in mind not that a crime was actually committed). This part I have no problem with.

However in her next sentence she discusses her personal opinion saying that it IS a crime and that that crime is rape. Her personal opinion has no bearing on the case. She is welcome to say that that is what the state is going to argue but her personal opinion does not belong in an official statement regarding the case.

I know you don't like this Wikileaks guy but honestly look past that for a moment and understand what I'm saying. She is an official representative of the state. Her personal opinion is not relevant. She speaks as a prosecutor on behalf of the state thus everything she says in relation to the case in an official capacity needs to be the official state position and not her personal opinion.
 
porchrat said:
2-6 years in a Swedish prison nogal. Those aren't like South African prisons. They treat you with base levels of human dignity over there.
Click to expand...

Being Swedish they're probably pampered at the tax payers expense of course.

Then again Sweden has only a 10% conviction rate for rape with the highest incidence of reported rape in Europe so he could well get away with it if he did it.

Sweden needs to do much more to clamp down on rapists, according to reports from Amnesty International and the United Nations. Jennifer Heape examines the disparity between the country's high incidence of rape and its low conviction rate.

A recent study commissioned by the European Union (EU) found that Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe.

And an Amnesty International report on rape in the Nordic Countries took Sweden to task last autumn for what the human rights organization saw as an abysmally low conviction rate for rape cases.
Click to expand...

http://www.thelocal.se/19124/20090428/
 
Last edited:
porchrat said:
The first statement says the official stance that there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed (keep in mind not that a crime was actually committed). This part I have no problem with.

However in her next sentence she discusses her personal opinion saying that it IS a crime and that that crime is rape. Her personal opinion has no bearing on the case. She is welcome to say that that is what the state is going to argue but her personal opinion does not belong in an official statement regarding the case.

I know you don't like this Wikileaks guy but honestly look past that for a moment and understand what I'm saying. She is an official representative of the state. Her personal opinion is not relevant. She speaks as a prosecutor on behalf of the state thus everything she says in relation to the case in an official capacity needs to be the official state position and not her personal opinion.
Click to expand...

LOL, first let's get over the paranoia here. I don't have issues with the guy which are so strong I want him fried or in trouble. That's not it.

This prosecutor is the professional who makes a decision whether an indictment has to be made on the suspicion of crime. If they think a crime has been committed they go ahead. So she thinks in her professional opinion that YES there are grounds for an investigation. The type of crime this would be investigated at present is RAPE and not say money laundering.

You have issues with the way she said this, but unless you tell me she did something against Swedish law I will have to say you're incorrect here. You're welcome to explain to me which statute of the Swedish law she broke however if you know that. This woman is more than able to categorise the type of crime which has happened.

It may very well be that prosecutors in Sweden are allowed to say what they want, while in America, they have to be careful not to say to much or suggest something which can open them to a lawsuit or a civil rights violation or could prejudice the jury.
 
Last edited:
Alan said:
Being Swedish they're probably pampered at the tax payers expense of course.
Click to expand...
LOL yeah probably get a plasma TV in your cell, Internet access and all the reading material you would ever need. Nice meals. All of a sudden being convicted of rape doesn't seem like such a bad deal :p


Then again Sweden has only a 10% conviction rate for rape with the highest incidence of reported rape in Europe

http://www.thelocal.se/19124/20090428/
Click to expand...

Wow I didn't know that. Interesting. I wonder why that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X