Assange - police versions
Dec. 11th, 2010 12:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bemused_leftistWhat if it's not her ... and it's not him ... it's Them?
Martha Stewart was sentenced to prison not for anything she'd done -- but for 'lying to investigators.'
In the US, if you talk to the police and later dispute THEIR version of what you said -- YOU can go to jail charged with 'lying to investigators.' Even if you're not the one charged with any crime.
Monica Lewinsky, threatened with proseution for not supporting everything Ken Starr wanted to charge President Clinton with, was given a deal that strictly limited what she could say publicaly afterwards. Julie Hyatt Steele was tried for not supporting a charge by Starr.
I do have good cites* for the following (some of them from previous posts here), just no time for all the search and paste.
The women did not go to the police to report rape of any 'degree'. They inquired about whether Assange could be forced to be tested for STD.
The older woman, a knowledgeable feminist, originally said she did not consider her incident 'rape' and was not afraid of Assange. It was a prosecutor who put that label on Assange's action. Another said "she didn't know" she had been raped because "she's not a jurist."
Then there was a dance of prosecutors being replaced, withdrawing the charge, being replaced again at the urging of the celebrity figure who is now the women's lawyer. He now says there was legitimate disagreement among the prosecutors as to whether the action constituted rape. Her lawyer says the whole thing needs to be reviewed by somene higher up before they decide whether to even charge Assange and try him, the odds of it coming to trial being apparently not far over 50/50.
If even the prosecutors can't agree -- then imo there is room for outsiders to have some legitimate doubts about the case.
In criticizing the statements attributed to the women BY THE POLICE, we are not necessarily critizing the actual women. We are critizicing the POLICE VERSION -- ie the prosecution version.
*Most of this comes from their own lawyer's statement, see my previous post/s.
Also, here's an article which claims to be based on the actual
police reports. It gives some reasonable perspective (tho it sounds like it
was copyedited by Rita Skeeter).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307137/Supporters-dismissed-rape-accusations-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange–women-involved-tell-different-story.html
Martha Stewart was sentenced to prison not for anything she'd done -- but for 'lying to investigators.'
In the US, if you talk to the police and later dispute THEIR version of what you said -- YOU can go to jail charged with 'lying to investigators.' Even if you're not the one charged with any crime.
Monica Lewinsky, threatened with proseution for not supporting everything Ken Starr wanted to charge President Clinton with, was given a deal that strictly limited what she could say publicaly afterwards. Julie Hyatt Steele was tried for not supporting a charge by Starr.
I do have good cites* for the following (some of them from previous posts here), just no time for all the search and paste.
The women did not go to the police to report rape of any 'degree'. They inquired about whether Assange could be forced to be tested for STD.
The older woman, a knowledgeable feminist, originally said she did not consider her incident 'rape' and was not afraid of Assange. It was a prosecutor who put that label on Assange's action. Another said "she didn't know" she had been raped because "she's not a jurist."
Then there was a dance of prosecutors being replaced, withdrawing the charge, being replaced again at the urging of the celebrity figure who is now the women's lawyer. He now says there was legitimate disagreement among the prosecutors as to whether the action constituted rape. Her lawyer says the whole thing needs to be reviewed by somene higher up before they decide whether to even charge Assange and try him, the odds of it coming to trial being apparently not far over 50/50.
If even the prosecutors can't agree -- then imo there is room for outsiders to have some legitimate doubts about the case.
In criticizing the statements attributed to the women BY THE POLICE, we are not necessarily critizing the actual women. We are critizicing the POLICE VERSION -- ie the prosecution version.
*Most of this comes from their own lawyer's statement, see my previous post/s.
Also, here's an article which claims to be based on the actual
police reports. It gives some reasonable perspective (tho it sounds like it
was copyedited by Rita Skeeter).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307137/Supporters-dismissed-rape-accusations-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange–women-involved-tell-different-story.html
