From the always-good Scott Horton, comes a whole lot more detail on the Assange rape-but-not-really story.
This is bar none the best account I've found of what's happened. I really want to print the whole thing — it's that good. But I'll make do with a taste (I'll find a prime slice) and then strongly suggest you read it all. Horton's a lawyer and an expert in these things; he's also a hell of a researcher.
The prime slice (with my secondary emphasis):
This weekend, the controversies surrounding WikiLeaks took another strange turn. Late on Friday, the Swedish newspaper Expressen disclosed that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was the subject of an arrest warrant arising out of charges by two female witnesses that he had raped them within a three-day period. The late-hours special duty prosecutor, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, issued an arrest warrant for Assange, who quickly protested his innocence and charged that the claims against him were a “dirty trick.” Within twenty-four hours, Swedish prosecutors did a near complete about-face. . . . One of the women behind the charges gave an interview to the Swedish paper Aftonbladet on Sunday, backpedaling furiously. She stated that she was surprised to learn that the accusations were treated as a rape charge and denied that there had been any encounter with Assange involving violence or force. She suggested that the controversy had to do with Assange’s failure to use a condom during intercourse. In the meantime, Sweden’s Justice Ombudsman was demanding a formal investigation into how the accusations came to be sensationalized by the press on the basis of an improperly issued arrest warrant.This doesn't begin to do justice to this valuable piece. Please do click through.
A few points should be noted about this case. . . . [U]nder the Swedish criminal justice system, like in many others, the preliminary investigation of allegations of a crime is a secret matter. That is doubly the case in questions relating to sexual misconduct, since disclosure may do severe damage to the reputation of all the parties involved. In this case, the information was fanned in a tabloid-style paper within minutes of its being opened. The prosecutors involved insist that they did not disclose this information. Who did? The Guardian speculates that it was the Swedish police.
Assange, however, quickly laid the blame on the Pentagon.
Note in just this small bit, we get the name of the prosecutor, the way that system works, and links to original sources — Expressen, Aftonbladet and de Verdieping Trouw — with information none of the English-language papers offered.
Why are we getting this information? Because Horton's consulting Swedish and Dutch sources and passing the info along instead of keeping it all safely low-key. (I assume Horton reads Swedish and Dutch himself; he reads everything else.)
Scott Horton is a valuable resource, someone to keep on the radar. For me he's a daily read.
Our own earlier coverage of the rape charge is here. The asymmetrical war, coming to a homeland near you. As I said, stay tuned.
GP
UPDATE: From The Local: Sweden's News in English, the initial prosecutor has been "reported for violating rules on the confidentiality of preliminary investigations."
The prosecutor on duty, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, decided on Friday to issue a warrant to arrest Assange on suspicion of rape. She later confirmed to Expressen that there was a case and that Assange was charged in absentia. The warrant was withdrawn one day later. . . .Two dots left to connect. The on-call prosecutor confirmed the case to the tabloid. Who tipped the tabloid to ask about it? (Thanks to Marshall for tipping us.)
According to the organisation, the prosecutor violated the confidentiality of preliminary investigations by giving the media information about this case, DJ reported.
