[jusben1369]

I know it's very contrarian to not be 100% pro Assange on this board but all I ever see are the pro Assange interpretation of the facts. Some things to consider:

- "Sometime during Wilen's questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation." This was the initial questioning by local authorities. So unless every police station in every part of Sweden had been told to get Assange no matter what at any opportunity it's unlikely this was some conspiracy. Perhaps the local police station over reacted - but no conspiracy

- "Within 24 hours, a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations, leaving only the lesser accusation of molestation. Assange willingly went to the police on August 30th and made a statement." Ok so the further up the chain it goes the initial charge is reduced. If there was a conspiracy at this point wouldn't it work the other way?

- Can't avoid this piece of irony: "During the interview he expressed his fears that anything he said would end up in the tabloid newspaper Expressen. The interviewing police officer said: "I'm not going to leak anything." The interview was leaked."

- "On September 15th, the prosecutor told Assange he was permitted to leave Sweden." More than two weeks after the initial report he's still allowed to leave Sweden. Surely if the US government wanted to use this case to trump up charges and have him arrested and deported via a proxy state (as is so often stated) wouldn't they have gotten the ball rolling within those two weeks?

- JEFFREY L. BLEICH, US AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA (May 2012): "It's not something that the US cares about, it's not interested in it, it hasn't been involved in it - and frankly, if he's in Sweden, there's a less robust extradition relationship than there is between the US and the UK, so I think it's one of those narratives that has been made up - there's nothing to it."

If this is a conspiracy to get Assange then it's a pretty poorly orchestrated one at this stage.

Anyway, just wanted to highlight some counter points that won't sit well with many people here but that's probably even more reason to point them out.

[vidarh]

> "Sometime during Wilen's questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation." This was the initial questioning by local authorities. So unless every police station in every part of Sweden had been told to get Assange no matter what at any opportunity it's unlikely this was some conspiracy. Perhaps the local police station over reacted - but no conspiracy

I mostly agree with your conclusion, but keep in mind that Wilen and Ardin went to a specific police station out of their way where they knew someone. So if there was a conspiracy that involved them, then that would be the likely means - a co-conspirator at this specific police station. That said, I think it's more likely they were "just" trying to cause inconveniences for Assange based on Ardin's infamous "revenge" blog post (commentary on using vague statements to the police to trigger an investigation as a means of "legal revenge")

> - "Within 24 hours, a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations, leaving only the lesser accusation of molestation. Assange willingly went to the police on August 30th and made a statement." Ok so the further up the chain it goes the initial charge is reduced. If there was a conspiracy at this point wouldn't it work the other way?

You miss the point afterwards where the prosecutor changed.

The senior prosecutor that dismissed most of the allegations is NOT Marianne Ny - the current prosecutor. Marianne Ny took the extremely unusual step of stepping in to take over the case after this other senior prosecutor had all but closed it after finding that no crime had occurred.

So indeed, if there is a conspiracy, the conspirators stepped in at this point, and the very fact a prosecutor stepped in like this is strange. It is not a common occurrence, and certainly not to have a prosecutor so publicly pretty much totally reversing the decision of another.

> "On September 15th, the prosecutor told Assange he was permitted to leave Sweden." More than two weeks after the initial report he's still allowed to leave Sweden. Surely if the US government wanted to use this case to trump up charges and have him arrested and deported via a proxy state (as is so often stated) wouldn't they have gotten the ball rolling within those two weeks?

Personally I think it is more likely that this is Marianne Ny and the advocate for the alleged victims deciding they have a chance of trying to push for even stricter interpretations of Swedish rape law. They are both known to be extremely radical in their opinions on the subject, and that fits better with both of them swooping in.

IF the US wants to use this as an opportunity, I believe it would be just that: An opportunity that might open up. That the whole case is a premeditated conspiracy does seem like far too big a stretch.

But if they want to get hold of him, Sweden is a convenient place to have him holed up, as the CIA has repeatedly shown they are willing to risk diplomatic incidents with Sweden (and/or obtain assistance from Swedish authorities).

> if he's in Sweden, there's a less robust extradition relationship than there is between the US and the UK

That's just pure comedy gold. There are several high profile extradition cases between the US and UK that have gone on for years. E.g. McKinnon who is still in the UK 10 years after his initial arrest. Meanwhile, Sweden tends to rubberstamp extraditions, and Swedish police have handed people over to CIA goons without due process. If I was at risk of extradition to the US, I'd much rather be in the UK than Sweden.

> If this is a conspiracy to get Assange then it's a pretty poorly orchestrated one at this stage.

I agree. It is probably not a conspiracy, at least not to extradite him. Though of course it is working wonderfully if it is an intentional attempt to ruin his credibility.

But assuming it's not, that doesn't mean it might not be convenient, and it also doesn't mean that there's not reason to believe that there's politics involved in this case, though I'd be more inclined to believe that would be due to Marianne Ny (the prosecutor).

[philwelch]

> So indeed, if there is a conspiracy, the conspirators stepped in at this point, and the very fact a prosecutor stepped in like this is strange. It is not a common occurrence, and certainly not to have a prosecutor so publicly pretty much totally reversing the decision of another.

The exact same type of about-face happened in the case of George Zimmerman's alleged murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida. In both cases, the Occam's Razor explanation is this: the public notoriety of the case led a senior prosecutor to pay closer attention and countermand the decision of junior prosecutors not to pursue it.

[vidarh]

Except in this case it was senior prosecutor that dismissed the case initially, after having been in her own words extremely surprised at the unusual manner the police had treated the case in, including a number of irregularities in the interviewing (such as not recording them).

Yes, it is possible that it was "just" public scrutiny, but Occam's Razor is a guideline, not a law of nature - less likely things with more convoluted explanations happens all the time.

It also runs into the question of why this has not happened more regularly, given that Swedish media regularly gives copious attention to outcry over rape cases that don't get pursued.

Sweden has an amazingly high frequency of reported rape cases. It would seem odd if this prosecutor does not have a long string of rape cases with much more serious allegations to look at, rather than stepping in to take over another senior prosecutors case and spend massive amounts of resources on a case that she herself has been conducting in a manner that virtually guarantees that she on her own accord will not be able to move the case forward anytime soon.

If we do accept that it was more public scrutiny that triggered this, how do we explain why she doggedly insists on not questioning Assange, while clinging to the outright lie that she can't question him abroad (as pointed out over and over again: Swedish authorities do this all the time)?

[olofsj]

Thank you for a very thoughtful post. A politically radical prosecutor stepping in to push her own agenda in a case with exceptionally high media coverage sounds much more likely than a conspiracy involving the CIA.

[vibrunazo]

> If this is a conspiracy to get Assange then it's a pretty poorly orchestrated one at this stage

Which should be a giant red flag that it is indeed true and not a random made up rumor. You sound like those who claim the Osama raid was fake because it was messy. When the fact that it was messy should give you a smell of reality in it. Real life is messy. The conspiracy to get Kim Dotcom to the USA was just as messy, and real. The fake weapons of mass destruction on Iraq were absurdly messy from day 1. And it was a real conspiracy. You can tell that those "911 was an inside job" conspiracies are made up because 1000's of human beings would need to be perfectly orchestrated for it to work.

Something of the size of trying to get Assange to the US on fake rape charges, would obviously have its own screw ups. Implying there's nothing to see here because it's not perfectly orchestrated like a Hollywood movie, would be rather naive.

[olofsj]

On the other hand, assuming it is true because it's messy would be just as naive.

[gasull]

What Julian fears is that he will be extradited to the US from Sweden, because both countries have a special treaty. So the "conspiracy" is not about jailing him for rape, is about having him in a Swedish prison long enough so the US can formally charge him for espionage and request his extradition. Even if he is found innocent of the rape charges, that would take days, long enough for the US to request the extradition. But if this is done while Assange is in the UK, then he most probably would win the appeal against being extradited to Sweden in the first place.

Also, this is very time-consuming and Wikileaks is hardly publishing as much as it used to. So in some way, the "conspiracy" is working out.

[dalke]

"If there was a conspiracy at this point"... If there was a conspiracy at that point, then why did Assange go to Sweden at all? Why does a (postulated) conspiracy have to be well organized and able to operate at the spur of the moment? How long does it take to get the jurisdictional pieces in play/place? How often do the (hypothetical) people involved get a chance to practice for this sort of event?

I have very little experience with such matters. In reading various historical events (I'm reading about the founding of Panama now), it seems that a lot of luck is an important factor.

[hnolable]

Let me point out. There is at least _one_ conspiracy here.

Either some combination of the US/UK/Sweden is conspiring to bring Assange to the US. OR. Ecuador is granting Assange's asylum not because in their best judgement they believed it was warranted but for some more nefarious, maybe political, reason like spiting Sweden or the UK.

Or maybe there is no conspiracy and Ecuador is just as stupid as most HN commenters.