Just a few points:
Initially neither of the victims accused Assange of anything we would call "rape" in the UK. One did go on to accuse him of "sleep rape" (though said she was awake on Twitter) but, even then, she stated she consented on being awoken. This would, apparently, not result in a prosecution under the standard scheme of things due to there being insufficient indication of lack of consent.
The two women were interviewed together. This does not happen and would constitute another grounds for the case not making court.
Two alleged rape victims are being allowed to take on the same (corporate) lawyer. Apparently a legal first in Sweden.

So there is some evidence that Swedish procedure was not followed correctly (there is more if you look). The fact that the UK courts didn't seem to take that into account seems odd too -- though I don't suppose it's their job to check whether the charges look "trumped up".

As for the US being after him -- the US are well known for using snatch teams and other illegal methods to grab people to torture and kill and, apparently, Mr Assange and his legal team see more threat from that in Sweden than the UK. Why they think that is hard to ascertain. The UK intelligence services admitting to being party to rendition to torture on a number of occasions and having to answer for it before been "warned off" may have something to do with it? There's mention of Sweden allowing CIA snatch teams to operate there but I can't be arsed grepping through Wikileaks etc. to look for it.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:02, 2 replies)

Or no points, even.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:03, closed)

Typo/connection problem which has been corrected.

(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:26, closed)

Nope, still no points, just tinfoil hatting.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:31, closed)

Tinfoil hat, why? Where did I mention any conspiracies?
If my points don't at least show you that the case in Sweden is unusual then you're deliberately ignoring them.
Funny how there was to be no prosecution until Claes Borgström persuaded his friend Marianne Ny they should pursue a case against Assange. Nothing fishy about that, no.
The above has nothing to do with the US government, you'll notice. My point is Swedish law is not being followed by Swedish courts and the Swedish prosecutors made some odd decisions. This was all brought up at the time by many people.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:09, closed)

You're now into a negative number of points and enough tin foil to double wrap a cow.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:04, closed)

Why would I need a tinfoil hat?
Forget all the other crap for a minute, how is this a normal Swedish case?
I see no responses to my points (all raised by people conversant with Swedish law at the time of the original accusations).
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 0:21, closed)

Come in out the rain, your tinfoil hat'll rust.

( Amorous Badger NAKED BEA ARTHUR PHOTOS 4U, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 0:54, closed)

Try some socks.
Your metal boots must be cold.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 1:27, closed)

You haven't made any points.
You've waved your hands about and repeated the same bland assertion that there is something unusual about the timing of the accusations and now you're assigning it to unnamed "experts" to give your non-point the weight of authority.

Null points.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 7:41, closed)

Here's a thought
read the transcripts of the UK court documents (i've kindly linked them at the top since apparently knowing how to google for reliable information seems a little challenging for some here) rather than some generic "the internet" as a source of your knowledge of the case notes regarding the charges made.

Conclusions: at every court level in the UK what he is accused of, and has always been accused of, is demonstrably rape both in Sweden and the UK. Doesn't make him guilty, does mean he must be questioned and arrested if needs be. Swedish law is being entirely followed, hence why the UK courts questioned an absolute fuckton of Swedish law experts during the course of all three court cases

The only serious thing the UK courts found was odd was the leaking of information to the press, but that was found to be a local police station, not the victims or the prosecutors. On the other hand, they found Assange's lawyer to be a lying, manipulating fuckweasel at every turn, who repeatedly "forgot" to arrange for his client to be questioned, amonst other things, while he helped arrange for him to leave Sweden. You want a conspiracy? that's the only one here. Lawyer aids wanted man in fleeing rape charge shocker.

Am I allowed to get on with my life, now, or do I still have to keep coming back and explaining the difference between reality and Assange-based tinfoilery?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 10:48, closed)

Hang on, right.
you can't be arsed trawling through Wikileaks? Information placed on the internet by Assange*, to which no-one could possibly verify the authenticity of, which magically might show Assange is at risk of some CIA thing, and you can't see the epic fucking flaw in that?

Jesus wept. I need to stop wasting effort writing actual proper peer reviewed scientific papers and just start publishing on the web I can cure cancer and make new organs from scratch. As if I say it that's apparently enough to make it true.

*I appreciate not actually directly by him, but the point is the same
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 10:53, closed)

That'd make you a post-normal scientist.
Bonus points for using your academic standing to discredit anyone who dares to question your methods, or even just ask for the raw data.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 23 Aug 2012, 1:20, closed)

Woodside, I gave them the raw data.
in links up there. The actual facts, the court transcripts, as opposed to half baked persecution complexes. No-one cares about what's actually true.

The academic comment is a completely valid point. "because someone on the internet says so" has become the currency of truth. Wikipedia is, apparently, a valid reference resource in science (at least according to some of my younger and more gullible students). The press leap on things pre-peer review. It's a fucking shambles.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 23 Aug 2012, 10:35, closed)