| Kasz216 said: If the CIA was out to get him, they'd of dump child porn on his computer or frame him for murder. They aren't going to frame him for a crime that has an 8% conviction rate, where pretty much everbody is on the accused rapists side to begin with. |
Kasz, I didn't say the CIA was actually trying to get him. It was just something I threw out there.
| alekth said: Well, hope that rape case (that is now called sex by surprise lol) is handled soon... though I do wonder what sort of new evidence there could be in a case like that, since it's been dismissed once already. How do you prove, after half an year, that you didn't consent to having sex without a condom, but were tricked (not forced) into doing it. And basically that only concerns the morning sex with the second lady. Because if a court manages to judge whether a condom broke or was torn on purpose months earlier, well that's one pretty messed up court. He refused to get tested for VD though and that also appears to be punisheable... but really curious what new evidence motivates reopening the case. |
How is that messed up? I don't think it's too hard to run some lab tests to see how the condom was ripped.
It would be just like how they can tell if a rope was cut or if it was worn away. You just need to study the matieral on the ends to see if it was old and stretched or just ripped and if it's consistant with the rest of the condom.
Kenology said:
Kasz, I didn't say the CIA was actually trying to get him. It was just something I threw out there. |
If you don't think it's a setup, why do you want him freed? It's ok to allegedly rape people if your doing something people think is important?
If she kept the condom and presented it, those lab tests would have been possible before the case was shot down earlier this year.
i've been out of the media loop
is this wikileaks guy assange swedish
wonder how did he end up hiding in london,he must of thought hard where to go
Above & Beyond
| Kasz216 said: So, they are illegally hacking websites that have exercised their legal right to choose who they do buisness with, because someone got arrested for a rape charge that will only help him and his cause. Not sure i'm getting the why.
Also, why are they saying they don't know who committed the Cyberattacks? Some guy claimed responsibility for those.
The rape charges are completely unrelated, I mean they do nothing but hurt the US since everyone thinks it's behind it anyway. Don't think the government is that stupid. |
You know the rape charge is legitimate and not made up in order to shut down Wikileaks? What i can see regarding this issue is that governments are trying to shut down Wikileaks permanently, so information they don't want to get out, won't be revealed. It is more than just the names of agents and operations for security, it is also diplomatic relations, and other questionable activities they want hidden.
| alekth said: If she kept the condom and presented it, those lab tests would have been possible before the case was shot down earlier this year. |
So? The case got shot down withing a couple days after it changed prosecutors... which itself could be seen as done for politcal reasons.
The lead prosecutor gets replaced and the charges get shut down immiedatly?
The tests may not have gotten done until after that.
Besides after that, you don't want to reopen charges until you have all your ducks in a row. Heck, maybe in the past 3 months they've found more witnesses who can testify to similar behavior.
richardhutnik said:
You know the rape charge is legitimate and not made up in order to shut down Wikileaks? What i can see regarding this issue is that governments are trying to shut down Wikileaks permanently, so information they don't want to get out, won't be revealed. It is more than just the names of agents and operations for security, it is also diplomatic relations, and other questionable activities they want hidden. |
I don't know if the rape charge is legitamite. I do know it's not made to shut down Wikileaks though... becuase it wouldn't shut down Wikileaks.
You know how I know? Assange is in jail.... and Wikileaks is still leaking stuff.
Because Wikileaks isn't one guy... and if it was a plan to "make him look bad" I'd think they'd pick a crime where people don't side with the accused immediatly. Which tends to be the case with regular rape cases... let alone high value ones.
Kasz216 said:
I don't know if the rape charge is legitamite. I do know it's not made to shut down Wikileaks though... becuase it wouldn't shut down Wikileaks. You know how I know? Assange is in jail.... and Wikileaks is still leaking stuff. |
And look for everything in the power of governments to end up trying to permanently shut it down. This could even prove to be cause for Obama to argue that he needs a killswitch on the Internet.
richardhutnik said:
And look for everything in the power of governments to end up trying to permanently shut it down. This could even prove to be cause for Obama to argue that he needs a killswitch on the Internet. |
Now that I agree with... and disagree with. In that there shouldn't be a killswitch on the internet.
I can't see anyway for the govenrments to peramently shut it down though... outside of chinese type options, which are currently illegal, and would be got around anyway via constant mirroring.
I'm not saying that government's aren't trying to take them out. I'm just saying this isn't a way they are... because it would literally make no sense, as it does nothing but help the guy's cause. I mean, if you could frame someone for any crime... why would you pick one with an 8% conviction rate, where people usually believe the defendent even while guilty?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
