> Her objective, and her statements has so far been very clear on that point.
Yes. They very clearly made accusations in statements to the police, hired a high-profile lawyer to very aggressively press the case after the initial decision to close it and did not retract the allegations.
One of them (the one the Assange defense team claims expressed reluctance to pursue the case in unseen correspondence) got fed up with that lawyer, fired him, and ended up with another one who issued the following very clear statement of her position:
My client has the right to her day in court for the rape she's reported to the police and for which Assange is today suspected of. She has the right as a plaintiff to have her case tried in a customary way in accordance with the Swedish judicial system.
The rape Assange is suspected of has left deep scars and meant a serious violation of her personal integrity. The violation is especially serious and the psychological symptoms are there every day. Assange's behaviour and prolonging of the preliminary investigation in this case exacerbate the suffering of my client when the preliminary investigation does not move forward. The wait is long and the suffering great.
Speculations in the media have been many and directly erroneous. This preliminary investigation is about suspicion of rape for the part concerning my client. There is no form of conspiracy as has been claimed by the media. My client is both a plaintiff and a crime victim just as many others I represent daily in numerous cases. Her rights as a plaintiff shall not be forgotten in the process.
> hired a high-profile lawyer to very aggressively press the case after the initial decision to close it and did not retract the allegations.
hmmm, got source for that statement? Hiring laywers is the exception in Sweden, and the common method is for the state to provide one to everyone involved.
In this case however, it seems that lawyers are being paid by outside parties or provided pro-bono. That means to me that I will take such statements with a slight of salt in favor of direct statements from the person herself. There is a bit too much media circus to take such statements as representable of their client, when the client is not the person paying the bill...
Yes. They very clearly made accusations in statements to the police, hired a high-profile lawyer to very aggressively press the case after the initial decision to close it and did not retract the allegations.
One of them (the one the Assange defense team claims expressed reluctance to pursue the case in unseen correspondence) got fed up with that lawyer, fired him, and ended up with another one who issued the following very clear statement of her position:
My client has the right to her day in court for the rape she's reported to the police and for which Assange is today suspected of. She has the right as a plaintiff to have her case tried in a customary way in accordance with the Swedish judicial system.
The rape Assange is suspected of has left deep scars and meant a serious violation of her personal integrity. The violation is especially serious and the psychological symptoms are there every day. Assange's behaviour and prolonging of the preliminary investigation in this case exacerbate the suffering of my client when the preliminary investigation does not move forward. The wait is long and the suffering great.
Speculations in the media have been many and directly erroneous. This preliminary investigation is about suspicion of rape for the part concerning my client. There is no form of conspiracy as has been claimed by the media. My client is both a plaintiff and a crime victim just as many others I represent daily in numerous cases. Her rights as a plaintiff shall not be forgotten in the process.
[Pro-Assange] source for the statement: http://rixstep.com/1/20130526,00.shtml