Hacker News Reader

Comment by patrickg_zill | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone believe it?

I would need to see a lot more proof... remember that Julian Assange of Wikileaks was accused of rape in an attempt to discredit him.

View on HN

The indictment alleges that the party contracted to perform the hit was an undercover cop. Generally, when you hire a cop to kill someone, you're prima facie guilty of hiring someone to commit murder, though I suppose there's always some possible mitigating factor like entrapment or falsified evidence. You can be damned sure the police have scrupulously documented their methods and recorded/logged all their interactions with Ulbricht, to address just such charges being raised.

Also, Assange wasn't accused of rape, but a lesser form of sexual assault, defined under Swedish law. Moreover, his counsel has stipulated both that the sex occurred, and that it was unprotected, which is the central issue in the charges, as I understood them. The question isn't whether or not he raped the women (plural!), or even whether or not he had sex with them, but whether or not they asked him to use a condom, and whether or not he refused.

Is there some evidence that vindicates Julian Assange that I'm unaware of? If not, how do you know the accusations aren't valid?

Is there some evidence that says that god is not real?

That's not really a great argument... the burden of proof is on the person claiming it.

the burden of proof is on the person claiming it.

And where might they present their proof? Perhaps in court, in a trial? Like the sort of trial they tried to have, before Assange fled, preventing a trial?

That someone evaded having evidence be brought against them does not qualify as evidence having been brought against them.

Sure, but by the same token you can't claim the lack of a guilty conviction is evidence he's innocent, when he will not stand trial.

Never did. But my point is that evidence of innocence should only be necessary as a counter to evidence of guilt, and if there is no evidence of guilt, one should be considered innocent, at least legaly, even without evidence of innocence. That's the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

patrickg_zill is making a claim - that the rape accusations are to discredit Assange.

Until proven, they are just accusations, aren't they? His "claim" is regarding motives for the accusations, which really isn't the same thing, is it?

That's kind of sidestepping my point. He said two things:

1) There was a rape accusation

2) The accusation was made to discredit Assange

My statement that "the burden of proof is on the person claiming it" is relevant to both parts individually. Neither the rape accusation or the discredit argument have been proved, therefore judgment should be withheld on both. Just because the second is a claim that hasn't been proven, doesn't mean the first is true.

So do you, or do you not, believe that there was a rape accusation?

Yes there was an accusation, and I don't understand your point in asking.

Edit: getting pedantic with this but oh well. I guess the language "doesn't mean the first is true" was ambiguous. I did not mean to say that #2 being a claim that hasn't been proven meant that #1 may or may not have happened in the first place, I meant to say that #2 being a claim that hasn't been proved does not mean that the accusation itself, which truly was made, was true.

I think we agree! Of course Assange is innocent until proven guilty.

I find it very annoying when people say the rape accusation is fabricated to smear Assange.

Did you read the indictment? Unless they are just making everything up, it's pretty detailed: https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238...

Selective credulity amuses me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com