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, 2 replies)

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)