A couple legal questions

[repoman]

I have a couple questions that popped in my head as I watched the old movie "Raw Deal" and read about Julian Assange.

In Raw Deal it starts with a mob hit on a witness. So when can an assassinated witness's testimony still be used? This would make less motivation for killing them.

The Julian Assange thing is about Sweden agreeing to talk to him and take DNA from him in the embassy. So can Assange get what the DNA that is expected to be shown to him or his lawyer BEFORE he gives his sample? This would be a clear way to stop one way to frame him. This is not really about this case but other cases in general.

 

[NobleSavage]

I have a couple questions that popped in my head as I watched the old movie "Raw Deal" and read about Julian Assange.

In Raw Deal it starts with a mob hit on a witness. So when can an assassinated witness's testimony still be used? This would make less motivation for killing them.

It's been a long time since I studied this, so I'm probably wrong. However, to introduce any evidence (eyewitness or other) you have to lay a foundation. The rules are easier for eyewitness testimony that other types of evidence. I'm guessing if you want to introduce a written statement of a dead person you would need to bring in the cop who wrote down the answer. Maybe have someone verify the signature. A video tape would be pretty damming, I would think. I would assume for important stuff they would get video. If you feel like it, dig through this: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/chevigny_f04b.doc

The Julian Assange thing is about Sweden agreeing to talk to him and take DNA from him in the embassy. So can Assange get what the DNA that is expected to be shown to him or his lawyer BEFORE he gives his sample? This would be a clear way to stop one way to frame him. This is not really about this case but other cases in general.

That's fucking Sweden, who knows.

Can you clarify the bolded part? I'm not sure what you are asking.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's been a long time since I studied this so I'm probably wrong. However, to introduce any evidence (eyewitness or other) you have to lay a foundation. The rules are easier for eyewitness testimony that other types of evidence. I'm guessing if you want to introduce a written statement of a dead person you would need to bring in the cop who wrote down the answer. Maybe have someone verify the signature. A video tape would be pretty damming, I would think. I would assume for important stuff they would get video. If you feel like it, dig through this: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/chevigny_f04b.doc

The Julian Assange thing is about Sweden agreeing to talk to him and take DNA from him in the embassy. So can Assange get what the DNA that is expected to be shown to him or his lawyer BEFORE he gives his sample? This would be a clear way to stop one way to frame him. This is not really about this case but other cases in general.

That's fucking Sweden, who knows.

Can you clarify the bolded part? I'm not sure what you are asking.

I don't get it either. But as far as I know, none of this last thing is according to the books. According to the rules he needs to be in Sweden. Our judicial branch is showing flexibility in order to embarass our diplomatic branch less.

On the other hand, why would he agree? The case is that he removed the condom during consensual condom-sex turning into non-consensual non-condom sex. I don't thimk anybody here is sure that this means it therefore counts as rape. This sort of thing hasn't been tried before. He aledgedly did this with two different women.

He's not denying having sex with them. Nor is he denying that the condom "broke". So what would a DNA rest prove? If he agrees isn't he agreeing that the DNA-test proves something?

 

[NobleSavage]

I have a couple questions that popped in my head as I watched the old movie "Raw Deal" and read about Julian Assange.

In Raw Deal it starts with a mob hit on a witness. So when can an assassinated witness's testimony still be used? This would make less motivation for killing them.

If you are going to do this the goal is to scare the shit out of anyone who might testify. And you need to do it ASAP.

 

[barbos]

The Julian Assange thing is about Sweden agreeing to talk to him and take DNA from him in the embassy. So can Assange get what the DNA that is expected to be shown to him or his lawyer BEFORE he gives his sample? This would be a clear way to stop one way to frame him.

As was mentioned Assange pretty much admitted that they do in fact have his DNA, so this DNA testing is pointless.
But if we assume that they don't have his DNA and are trying to frame him by planting DNA he provides as evidence then they may as well accuse his lawyers in lying too.

But you bring a question that has been bothering me too. People say DNA is incontrovertible proof, but that's bullshit. You can always get anybody's DNA and plant it anywhere you want, especially if you are a government. Fact is, government have ability to frame anybody.

 

[tupac chopra]

He's not denying having sex with them. Nor is he denying that the condom "broke". So what would a DNA rest prove? If he agrees isn't he agreeing that the DNA-test proves something?

I think the Swedes think they have nothing to lose by asking for it. It is evidence as well if they issue an arrest warrant following the interview.

Assange can I imagine say no (and he has already provided DNA), and maybe look uncooperative or he can say yes and help those trying to punish him.

What I'm wondering is , what is the least charge they can issue an arrest warrant for? Can they issue an arrest warrant for something more trivial than rape?

 

[DrZoidberg]

He's not denying having sex with them. Nor is he denying that the condom "broke". So what would a DNA rest prove? If he agrees isn't he agreeing that the DNA-test proves something?

I think the Swedes think they have nothing to lose by asking for it. It is evidence as well if they issue an arrest warrant following the interview.

Assange can I imagine say no (and he has already provided DNA), and maybe look uncooperative or he can say yes and help those trying to punish him.

What I'm wondering is , what is the least charge they can issue an arrest warrant for? Can they issue an arrest warrant for something more trivial than rape?

Legally they're still at the stage called "förundersökning". It could be translated to "preliminary investigation". The police is doing the first examination of the events to establish:

1) has the law been broken
2) if, yes, which law has been broken.

Only after this has been concluded does the police start investigating it. And he definitely hasn't been charged with anything yet. Worth noting is that one of these women doesn't want to press charges. But according to Swedish law once a report has been made there's nothing the "victim" can do to stop the investigation. It's also interesting how this came to be reported at all. Both the victims know each other. They both were attached to the organisation that invited Assange to Sweden. They both slept with Assange at different times.

After Assange had moved out of both women's apartments (he was at different times staying with both of them) they talked to each other and they both established that the condom "broke". They assumed that Assange has a lot of sex with various women, and suspected that he always removes the condom, which made them worried that they might have been infected with an STD. If this is a pattern when he's fucking, then it's an understandable worry. Now the case gets bizarre. Instead of simply just going to get tested, they both go to the cops and want to report Assange to force him to get tested. I have no idea why they thought this was a good idea. But this is what happened.

This lead to the cops/prosecutor having to figure out wtf they were going to do. There's no clear course of action according to Swedish law. So they simply asked Assange if he wanted to cooperate. Which he did. He didn't have STDs. Wilfully spreading STDs is against Swedish law. But that wasn't what was going on. The girls are happy. Now this should have gone away. But they can't withdraw their accusation. Now it's in the hands of the prosecutors. It's still unclear what law is broken if a condom is wilfully removed. Way after the event one of the women supplied the condom. According to the police crime lab there is technical evidence that this condom had the tip ripped off. But it's not yet established what law this breaks either. This is the point that the investigation turns into politics. Assange's lawyer thinks that this should all go away now, but it isn't. A Sweden puts their top prosecutor on the job. This is when Assange skips the country and assumes he's the target for a political conspiracy. Which at this point isn't completely crazy considering how bungled this case has been so far.

I think rape is off the books at this point. If he had had an STD it would have counted as sexual assault (ie technically rape). But he didn't. So it isn't. (Also the only reason the women reported him to begin with). The debate is whether or not this counts as "sexual molestation" (sexuellt ofredande) or just regular "molestation" (ofredande). The legal difference is invasive touching of another person. If it's of a sexual nature it's judged as more severe. Either way it's unlikely this can give more than just a fine. For this to lead to prison the victim needs to be under age. And this is assuming he can be found guilty. Which is a big if. According to the press there is questions regarding the supplied broken condom really is the one Assange was wearing during the sex, since it apparently is devoid of the victim's vaginal secretions.

Right now the primary investigation is stalled awaiting Assange to come to Sweden. The Swedish police is refusing to travel to London to hear him over there. Which I don't understand really. Nobody else seems to understand this refusal either. So now they're just waiting.

This has been tossed around the Swedish press a lot. According to various legal experts that have made statements in the press what would happen if Assange would come to Sweden is that the cops would ask him some questions and then the ruling would be "förundersökning nerlagd på grund av at brott ej styrkts". Which can be translated to, case closed due to no law being broken. Most experts think it's highly dubious this would even make it into court.

 

[repoman]

Maybe he is trying to expose the women to the truth of the feel of his penis.

 

[tupac chopra]

Right now the primary investigation is stalled awaiting Assange to come to Sweden. The Swedish police is refusing to travel to London to hear him over there. Which I don't understand really. Nobody else seems to understand this refusal either. So now they're just waiting.

I think that has changed now.

Swedish Prosecutor Opts to Interview Julian Assange in London

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has spent nearly three years in an Ecuadorian embassy in London in an effort to avoid both charges from the United States regarding the dissemination of classified information as well as a nearly five-year investigation that alleges Assange committed sex crimes in Sweden. With the statue of limitations in the latter case set to expire this August, Swedish prosecutors hope to travel to London to interview Assange in the near future in a last-ditch effort to decide whether to pursue charges.

I think the statute of limitations is only set to expire on some of the lesser charges, not the more serious one.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that has changed now.

Swedish Prosecutor Opts to Interview Julian Assange in London

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has spent nearly three years in an Ecuadorian embassy in London in an effort to avoid both charges from the United States regarding the dissemination of classified information as well as a nearly five-year investigation that alleges Assange committed sex crimes in Sweden. With the statue of limitations in the latter case set to expire this August, Swedish prosecutors hope to travel to London to interview Assange in the near future in a last-ditch effort to decide whether to pursue charges.

I think the statute of limitations is only set to expire on some of the lesser charges, not the more serious one.

I doubt that's the critique. Swedish prosecutors have had no problems travelling around the globe interviewing people for another high profile case. I think somebody high up in the government have had enough and took the prosecutor by the ear and made this happen. I think that's the most reasonable explanation.

edit: of course completely unofficially since the executive branch isn't allowed to meddle in judicial branch business.

edit2: It should be mentioned that influential (and not crazy voices) have started speculating openly that this in fact could be a CIA conspiracy. Not that the two women were CIA agents or even that them reporting it was influence by the CIA. But that CIA has been influencing how the prosecutors have handled this. Which isn't a crazy conspiracy theory at all. It would be fairly easy for the CIA to influence this exceedingly USA-friendly government. They could be doing it with non-monetary incentives. There's quiet a few sort-of-shady-but-not-really ways for the CIA to be pulling strings here.

 

[repoman]

If I was accused of rape without a condom, would my lawyer be able to get the DNA readout from the rape kit before I gave my sample to the prosecution? Same thing for fingerprints.

I think that if I were on jury selection for a rape case I would ask that question.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If I was accused of rape without a condom, would my lawyer be able to get the DNA readout from the rape kit before I gave my sample to the prosecution? Same thing for fingerprints.

I think that if I were on jury selection for a rape case I would ask that question.

Rape kits aren't relevant. Nobody is denying they had consensual sex or that they had sex without a condom. The issue is whether or not Assange removed it on purpose. I'd find it incredible that Assange could get convicted for that. How the hell could anybody prove it?

 

[repoman]

Dammit, i should have stripped out Assange from my question. Post #11 is what i should have asked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a couple questions that popped in my head as I watched the old movie "Raw Deal" and read about Julian Assange.

In Raw Deal it starts with a mob hit on a witness. So when can an assassinated witness's testimony still be used? This would make less motivation for killing them.

Some places allow deposition testimony to be used if the guy dies before the trial.

The Julian Assange thing is about Sweden agreeing to talk to him and take DNA from him in the embassy. So can Assange get what the DNA that is expected to be shown to him or his lawyer BEFORE he gives his sample? This would be a clear way to stop one way to frame him. This is not really about this case but other cases in general.

What would be the point? You say the lab framed you? Simply have the test run again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I was accused of rape without a condom, would my lawyer be able to get the DNA readout from the rape kit before I gave my sample to the prosecution? Same thing for fingerprints.

I think that if I were on jury selection for a rape case I would ask that question.

Rape kits aren't relevant. Nobody is denying they had consensual sex or that they had sex without a condom. The issue is whether or not Assange removed it on purpose. I'd find it incredible that Assange could get convicted for that. How the hell could anybody prove it?

Yeah, if she knew it at the time why didn't she stop it? And after the fact how do you prove it was on purpose?

I have no problem with it being a crime (consenting to sex with a condom isn't the same as consenting to sex without a condom, although it should be a lesser offense than rape) if it can be proven, I just have big doubts about proving it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Rape kits aren't relevant. Nobody is denying they had consensual sex or that they had sex without a condom. The issue is whether or not Assange removed it on purpose. I'd find it incredible that Assange could get convicted for that. How the hell could anybody prove it?

Yeah, if she knew it at the time why didn't she stop it? And after the fact how do you prove it was on purpose?

There's two women who he had sex with on multiple occasions. Not all of those times was without condom. But there are two aggravating situations:

One was when he had sex with one of them (let's call her Girl A) when she was asleep. She woke up during sex. This wouldn't have been a problem if it wasn't for the fact that she then realized that he wasn't wearing a condom. At that point she terminated the sex. I think this is the point when she told him to get the fuck out of her apartment. A part of this rape charge has to do with him refusing to leave her apartment. I'm not sure exactly how that transpired. But he had to be forced somehow. Either way he overstayed his welcome.

With the other girl (Girl B) he claimed that the condom broke during sex. She didn't notice until afterwards. This only happened once and they had sex on multiple occasions with condoms.

Girl B has been described as a total Assange groupie. And totally infatuated with him. Girl A has described herself as having been seduced by him. Their story is that she offered Assange to stay at her place when he first visited Sweden. Since she would be out of town during that period, and wouldn't be using her apartment. She didn't know Assange other than via reputation. Assange was originally only intended to hold a talk in Sweden at this political organisation (both Girl A and B) both were members of. But Assange liked Sweden so much that he stayed longer than intended. Mostly for business reasons. Ie moving the Wikileaks servers to Sweden. Girl A offered Assange to keep staying in her apartment even though she now would be home in Stockholm. During this period he seduced her. During this time he also seduced Girl B. Who he moved in with after getting kicked out of Girl A's apartment.

A part of this is the fact that Girl A thought that Assange was exclusive with her. When she found out that he wasn't she also got very angry, adding to the feeling of being raped. Infidelity isn't illegal in Sweden. So I'm not sure why that is part of the story. But there you have it. Girl A contacted Girl B. They shared stories and decided to go to the police. It should be pointed out that Girl B never felt raped. She did however express a concern that she might have been infected by an STD.

So that's the whole sordid story.

I have no problem with it being a crime (consenting to sex with a condom isn't the same as consenting to sex without a condom, although it should be a lesser offense than rape) if it can be proven, I just have big doubts about proving it.

Wilfully spreading STD's does fall under the same category as rape according to Swedish law. It counts as a kind of sexual assault. That's the only reason this has at all been labelled as a rape. But since he didn't have an STD and none of the girls were infected with anything it no longer falls under the rape category.

 

[arkirk]

Yeah, if she knew it at the time why didn't she stop it? And after the fact how do you prove it was on purpose?

There's two women who he had sex with on multiple occasions. Not all of those times was without condom. But there are two aggravating situations:

One was when he had sex with one of them (let's call her Girl A) when she was asleep. She woke up during sex. This wouldn't have been a problem if it wasn't for the fact that she then realized that he wasn't wearing a condom. At that point she terminated the sex. I think this is the point when she told him to get the fuck out of her apartment. A part of this rape charge has to do with him refusing to leave her apartment. I'm not sure exactly how that transpired. But he had to be forced somehow. Either way he overstayed his welcome.

With the other girl (Girl B) he claimed that the condom broke during sex. She didn't notice until afterwards. This only happened once and they had sex on multiple occasions with condoms.

Girl B has been described as a total Assange groupie. And totally infatuated with him. Girl A has described herself as having been seduced by him. Their story is that she offered Assange to stay at her place when he first visited Sweden. Since she would be out of town during that period, and wouldn't be using her apartment. She didn't know Assange other than via reputation. Assange was originally only intended to hold a talk in Sweden at this political organisation (both Girl A and B) both were members of. But Assange liked Sweden so much that he stayed longer than intended. Mostly for business reasons. Ie moving the Wikileaks servers to Sweden. Girl A offered Assange to keep staying in her apartment even though she now would be home in Stockholm. During this period he seduced her. During this time he also seduced Girl B. Who he moved in with after getting kicked out of Girl A's apartment.

A part of this is the fact that Girl A thought that Assange was exclusive with her. When she found out that he wasn't she also got very angry, adding to the feeling of being raped. Infidelity isn't illegal in Sweden. So I'm not sure why that is part of the story. But there you have it. Girl A contacted Girl B. They shared stories and decided to go to the police. It should be pointed out that Girl B never felt raped. She did however express a concern that she might have been infected by an STD.

So that's the whole sordid story.

I have no problem with it being a crime (consenting to sex with a condom isn't the same as consenting to sex without a condom, although it should be a lesser offense than rape) if it can be proven, I just have big doubts about proving it.

Wilfully spreading STD's does fall under the same category as rape according to Swedish law. It counts as a kind of sexual assault. That's the only reason this has at all been labelled as a rape. But since he didn't have an STD and none of the girls were infected with anything it no longer falls under the rape category.

So what is the elephant in the teapot? The U.S. trying to get at Assange and make an example of him...and it is not about sex at all.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So what is the elephant in the teapot? The U.S. trying to get at Assange and make an example of him...and it is not about sex at all.

This went swish over my head. What are you talking about?

 

[arkirk]

So what is the elephant in the teapot? The U.S. trying to get at Assange and make an example of him...and it is not about sex at all.

This went swish over my head. What are you talking about?

Do you think the Ecuadorian embassy is harboring a rapist? You yourself pointed out that Sweden is clearly in the U.S. orbit and CIA friendly. Don't try to bullshit me with this business of broken condoms. I have led community groups on environmental issues and have seen the morals police used before on matters that had nothing to do with the issues we were working on. My condoms did not break. Hasn't this issue been worn to death? Just because you had consensual sex with someone doesn't forever license all sorts of extradition and legal charges for the rest of your life.

There is no doubt this would not have been happening if Assange had kept his pecker in his pants but I bet if he had, there would be other trumped up charges. You admit they really are still afraid to charge the man and can only keep it that way by not dealing with Assange in London. You covered that case really clearly. It is possible you simply do not appreciate hot tea that is years old.

 

[Nexus]

He didn't understand the "tempest in a teapot" picture you posted. I don't think English is his native language so its reasonable to assume he didn't get the photo reference to a somewhat obscure idiom.