Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Julian Assange row: Britain seeking diplomatic solution in Ecuador standoff [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That makes it a he said v. she said case. And because of the political baggage impossible to decide fairly. To whom does the judge/prosecutor give the benefit of the doubt?
She could have been telling the truth, but she could have lied in order to have a better chance of getting an AIDs test that she wanted.
She may have been angry that he two-timed her and tried to get revenge. Women can be very angry when they find out that they are being two-timed.
So, how do you decide?
The judge has to make a subjective judgment. And at least in our system, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt since you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- somewhere been 80-100% probably. That would be impossible on facts like these unless there is some witness or some physical evidence -- both of which are pretty impossible.
Pursuing these claims could be harassment, could be grandstanding by someone in Sweden, or could be a political ploy -- could be a psy-ops campaign against Assange. Who knows? But these charges would be difficult to prove.
There are cases in which claims of rape defined as sex during sleep could be proved -- with medical, physical evidence. This is not one of them. Someone is not thinking logically, not putting this puzzle together intelligently -- or has some other motive for pressing these charges.