Today, Sweden’s deputy director of public prosecution, Eva-Marie Persson, commented on her decision to drop charges against Assange:
“I would like to emphasize that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. Her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed; however, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation.”
What exactly does that mean, that an ‘evidential’ situation has been weakened? Does this mean that the coherence, extension, and detail with which a charge of sexual assault is formulated, are sufficient criteria to put a man behind bars? That the coherence, extension, and detail of such a charge are susceptible to ‘evidential weakening’ over time? And more specifically, does this mean that any deputy director of public prosecution, by the powers vested in her, is at liberty to prosecute a man who is sought for capital offenses elsewhere?
And how exactly does one have to understand the charge? An adult woman claims she slept with Julian Assange in one bed, and complains that he had sex with her while she was sleeping? If she really wanted to have slept that night, what did Assange do in her bed in the first place? To what extent is an adult, economically and emotionally independent woman, who freely chooses to take a man in her bed, entitled to the accusation of rape? Should we really be concerned about the plaintiff’s conditions to her private sex life? Why does she not ask a previous written declaration from her bed invitees, in which they submit to her private sexual conditions? Worst of all: the plaintiff asserts that Assange committed this form of harassment several times. One cannot but conclude that the plaintiff willingly took Assange into her bed, in spite of her realizing the risk she was taking in doing so. This account might sound coherent, extensive, and detailed to Mrs. Persson, but the problem is that it makes no sense.
Persson’s decision to reopen an already dropped rape investigation, casts doubt on her role of Swedish deputy director of public prosecution, as she is being instrumental in having Assange handed over to those US authorities who seek his extradition over conspiracy charges relating to one of the biggest ever leaks of classified information. These leaks led to the exposure of Hillary Clinton as the prime cause of the Libyan humanitarian disaster, and as the prime funding agent of ISIS.
Per Samuelson, Assange’s lawyer in the Swedish prosecution, refers that he has not been able to speak to his client —not even by telephone— during the last two years.
This is outrageous. Would Persson have been unaware of this circumstance? Would she have been unaware of the fact that in May 2019 the British judge had given the US government a one month deadline (June 12) to outline its case against Assange?