Hacker News Reader

Comment by scott_s | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious how you were able to come to the conclusion that the charges are "clearly false." The charges sound serious to me, and while I have not concluded on their truth, I cannot dismiss them. They sound like they have enough merit for a trial. For example, "Given that one of the women said she awoke to find Mr. Assange having unprotected sex with her, she could not possibly have given her consent, Ms. Montgomery argued." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/europe/12assange.htm...)

View on HN

The evidence suggests it is highly unlikely they are true.

Most rape victims don't tweet about how it's "amazing" to hang out with "cool" and "smart" people after being raped, or throw a party for their rapist.

http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml

Nor do they usually invite their rapist to stay at their house 4 days after the rape.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/crayfish_parties_and_br...

It's also a rather implausible coincidence that after these events, the rape charge only surfaced after a) Assange failed to call either Anna Ardin or Miss W. back and b) Ardin and W each discovered he was sleeping with the other one.

I think the story itself justifies a very low probability of being true - in my estimation, probably considerably less than 1%.

Most rape victims don't tweet about how it's "amazing" to hang out with "cool" and "smart" people after being raped, or throw a party for their rapist.

Nor do they usually invite their rapist to stay at their house 4 days after the rape.

Stockholm syndrome?

i can't figure out if that's sarcasm or a dumb sheeped down comment :p

Why?

I too think the charges are trumped up, but Stockholm is a possibility until one or both of these women come out with the truth of what actually happened.

It's not a possibility, because he did not hold them captive. Stockholm Syndrome only refers to situations where people who are held against their will have positive feelings towards their captors.

I'm pretty sure rape constitutes being held against one's will.

I'm pretty sure HN is the only place where a bad pun can spawn pages of earnest analysis and semantic argument.

Sure it's a possibility, but the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that it was Stockholm syndrome. You can't get by just claiming possible scenarios that explain something. You have to actually provide evidence that your claim is true (unless you're defending creationism)

That also applies to the proposed conspiracy theory between the two women.

apply Occam's razor

It's also possible Anna Ardin is suffering from multiple personality disorder and one of her alternate personalities threw the party for Assange, tweeted about how cool he is, and invited him to stay with her 4 days after the rape.

We could make up all sorts of implausible, but theoretically possible scenarios.

But at this point, the most likely possibility seems to be that Ardin and W are jilted lovers who want revenge against Assange.

>We could make up all sorts of implausible, but theoretically possible scenarios.

That is the entire point, none of us know with any degree of certainty what has happened, the evidence does not suggest anything concrete for or against the validity of the charges, so to immediately dismiss one way or dismiss the other way is flawed.

.. or that as his lover, she was convinced to give testimony that lets authorities go after him while simultaneously hurting his reputation. Something very useful if you don't want to prevent further leaks.

Since I've been downmodded about 100 times for this comment, I thought I'd point out that it's Stockholm that's trying to get him extradited.

It was a play on words, guys.

Even as a pun it is the kind of comment that belongs on reddit instead of HN.

How can I even downvote? I only see upvote arrow.

And how did your playfulness bring any relevant information to the discussion? There's nothing wrong with being funny but it should go alongside with usefulness; otherwise you end up with pun-festing.

You don't have enough karma to downvote. At one time, the threshold was 200 points. I'm not sure if it is still the same.

It's more than 400 now and has been for some time.

Very well put!

Since when has the burden of proof been with the accused? Do either of these women have evidence other than their own testimony?

The burden of proof is on the accusers, but "not proven" is a long way off from "clearly false".

Men accused of sexual offences have been presumed guilty until proven innocent for the past two decades. Didn't you get the memo?

And that's why so many of them have gone to jail recently...oh wait.

Not sure what you're trying to say there. Men go to jail on all the time purely on the strength of the victim's testimony. Seems like every week I'm reading a story in the newspaper about a guy who got released from jail after being cleared by a DNA test.

I agree that the accusations aren't clearly false, but note that he hasn't been formally charged with a crime. He will be extradited to Sweden to be questioned (!). AFAIK nobody said he's not going to court yet.

That's another scandal. Swedish prosecutors never issue international arrest warrants to question random Joe Sixpacks, certainly not for very dubious accusations like these. It's a shame that such a civilized country is being dragged through the mud by politically-motivated scumbags.

And the same British government refused to extradite General Pinochet to Spain for war crimes because there wasn't enough evidence!

The courts are going to be very busy if months after every club 18-30 holiday you can regret a drunken 'romance' and have the other party extradited.

Uh, no, that's not why he was released.

Agreed, I do not believe the rape accusations were politically motivated but the international warrant obviously was. It is probably the first time ever sexual misconduct with weak evidence has resulted in an international arrest warrant.

s/he's not going/he's going/

Isn't it the case when you sympathise with someone one gives them the benefit of doubt --but when one dislikes someone one envisions the worst?

1. Imagine a good friend accused of something (ex. aggr. assault). 2. Imagine a good friend accuses someone of the same thing.

If instead of Assange, the accused were a live Qaddafi, or, say the Dalai Lama, would we not see things a bit differently, in each case, due to bias?

We just don't know. It's all conjecture at this point with he said, she said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com