Comment by nsajko | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nsajko | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So the prosecutor's and the police opinion are just "some random opinions"?

Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged, assuming one is not going to just take his word for it.

Imagine someone else was sought by Sweden for multiple counts of sexual offence on different women, and then he (and his team of lawyers) used the extradition process to wait for the statute of limitations to pass so he would dodge even an investigation of the accusations.

> During the period of time in question, such questioning between Sweden and England took place in 44 other cases. It was only in Julian Assange’s case that Sweden insisted that it was essential for him to appear in person.

This "smells" bad, but really even that (without elaboration) does not excuse the attacks on the Swedish justice system. I would like for someone from the Swedish prosecutors' side to explain that, though. I think there very well could be a reason for video-linked questioning to be appropriate in 44 cases, but not in Assange's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...

EDIT: Replying to children: The interview makes a narrative by presenting things out of context, but what they are doing is actually quite inappropriate in the case of the sexual assault allegations. Some examples:

* They present the potential victims as unwilling regarding charging Assange with rape. The first problem with this is that it implies that rape is a civil matter, when (as is well known) it is in fact a crime. Thus the potential victims are only relevant as witnesses, they would not be parties to the case except as witnesses (and maybe they could get some damages). The second problem is that the two women were in fact quite interested in getting Assange prosecuted: they got legal representation, and prevented the prosecutors from dropping the investigation.

* I do not think that it is necessarily suspicious that no DNA could be recovered from the condom. Especially in the context of the allegation, with Assange allegedly breaking the condom on purpose.

> Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged

What makes you think that there was any evidence at all, to begin with?

I can only point to the order of events: A woman walks into a police station. She doesn’t want to file a complaint but wants to demand an HIV test [from Assange]. The police then decide that this could be a case of rape and a matter for public prosecutors. The woman refuses to go along with that version of events and then goes home and writes a friend that it wasn’t her intention, but the police want to «get their hands on» Assange. Two hours later, the case is in the newspaper. As we know today, public prosecutors leaked it to the press – and they did so without even inviting Assange to make a statement. And the second woman, who had allegedly been raped according to the Aug. 20 headline, was only questioned on Aug. 21.

Not a single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could be detected in the condom that was submitted as evidence.

> I would like for someone from the Swedish prosecutors' side to explain that, though.

Yes, the UN special rapporteur wanted that too. He was ignored. What makes you think you'll fare better?

> Not a single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could be detected in the condom that was submitted as evidence.

Uh, is it the condom that Assange is accused of not actually using that Melzer is talking about?

no, it is not. you are mixing up the two cases, one were there was no condom indeed with S.W., and the other case with the other woman A.A. where the condom was allegedly damaged.

If a person walks into a police station and describes an event that is legally rape, then it's down to the police whether they pursue it. The person providing the evidence isn't the person charged with interpreting the law. So a woman can walk into a police station and describe something they don't think is a crime but that doesn't stop it being a crime. Now, according to the rapporteur, that's not true, according to the rapporteur, it's the other way around.

Yes, I would like the Swedish government to respond, too. According to the interview - with the UN Rapporteur on Torture - he asked them and they refused to comment. Again, according to this fellow - who has experience in talking to governments - "No comment" is highly unusual _when the government in question has nothing to hide_.

Are you resisting / dismissing that Assange may actually be innocent of the crimes that he is accused of because the implications are so terrifying? If so, I get it, man.

Are you resisting / dismissing that Assange may actually be guilty of the crimes that he is accused of because the implications are so terrifying?

Or just that the prosecutors and the police had good reason to believe so?

Snark isn't really necessary.

It's fine that you think he's guilty. It would be great if you had salient responses to the specific claims of the article.

Do you think the article is wrong irrespective of your feelings about Assange? If so, what?

I do not "think he's guilty", but thanks for trying to discredit me by labeling me like that anyway.

> Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged, assuming one is not going to just take his word for it.

If Melzer was just "some random opinions" it would be easy to dismiss. But as UN Special Rapporteur on Torture one should probably put some weight on his professional opinion. Or Swedish officials should explain why the allegations are wrong, but they reportedly refuse to do so.

Also if Melzer fabricates the allegations here, that would be a problem for credibility of the position of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and investigated. Another reason for Swedish and UK officials to answer in some form.

The article also contains original copies of the mail exchanges between the Swedish police (at least it says so), but I don't speak Swedish and so cannot read it.

The mails discuss how some unclear problem (apparently related to completeness) should be handled, and arrives at saying that the unnamed police should make a new document, paste "the text" into it, and then sign. The Named superior will then write a PM about the fact that there are now two "interviews" when only one was formally held by the unnamed officer.

Do I understand correctly that Melzer is then either lying or wrong about the emails ("Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement")?

Yes, I would say Melzer is wrong or misinformed. The document is a copy of RE: RE: RE:-type mail conversation and has to be read from the bottom up to make proper sense (the included timestamps support this reading). When one does this it is clear that there will in fact be two documents regarding the interrogation and a separate PM explaining this.

However, if you read it top down you might come to the honest (but erroneous) conclusion that someone is being told to manipulate the original document directly.

> When one does this it is clear that there will in fact be two documents regarding the interrogation and a separate PM explaining this.

Melzer claims there is only one statement/document. From the article: "We don’t know, because the first statement was directly written over in the computer program and no longer exists."

Indeed, but the provided scan states there will be two documents about the interrogation and a separate PM. This is why I said Melzer was wrong.

There is no reason to believe there actually is two documents. It could just as well have been removed, either by accident or on purpose. I certainly trust Nils Melzer more than any police employee.

This is the only additional information on this I could find: https://data.ddosecrets.com/file/Assange/Assange-Sthlm-polis...

What exactly are you saying you trust Melzer word on? Do you trust his word that the document provided is evidence of tampering of the record?

Because anyone that understands swedish and reads the text in the chronological order indicated by the datetimes will conclude that the final word is that two documents are to be created. Weird flex, but ok..

Have you taken a look at the entire freedom of information document? I am interested if the possible missing context changes your understanding of the situation.

Anyway, I submitted a post on HN to request speakers of Swedish to try and make sense of the situation, that presumably includes you :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868

I trust him when he says:

> We don’t know, because the first statement was directly written over in the computer program and no longer exists. We only know that the original statement, according to the chief public prosecutor, apparently did not contain any indication that a crime had been committed. In the edited form it says that the two had had sex several times – consensual and with a condom. But in the morning, according to the revised statement, the woman woke up because he tried to penetrate her without a condom. She asks: «Are you wearing a condom?» He says: «No.» Then she says: «You better not have HIV» and allows him to continue. The statement was edited without the involvement of the woman in question and it wasn’t signed by her. It is a manipulated piece of evidence out of which the Swedish authorities then constructed a story of rape.

I went back to look at documents submitted with the häktespromemoria[1]. There is no second document and no PM written by Mats Gehlin but there is a PM by Irmeli Krans (the other person in the conversation) on page 15. It dosen't say what was changed but it says "förhöret skulle renskrivas" which to me implies that the changes should be in spelling, grammar, and structure and should not significantly alter the meaning of the text. It does however seem likely that the meaning was altered as the edited version alleges criminal conduct while the first allegedly did not. It appears the first version that according to the PM was only a draft was saved separately and not in the DurTvå system that Krans claimed not to have had access to at the time it would normally have been saved. I assume it was deleted after the new version was uploaded to DurTvå.

[1]: https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com