Notices by Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp) (lxo@gnusocial.net), page 21
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp) (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jun-2024 06:39:33 EDT
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp)now, does the denounced fabrication of a case rule out the possibility that the women were actual victims of some sort of sexual misconduct? it doesn't. the false evidence, their insistence in not pressing charges, recorded in their own messages, casts serious doubt on the fabricated case, suggesting something very fishy in which they might or might not have been accomplices. but that's besides the point. we're not judging them. we're trying to figure out whether there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. I can't read swedish, but even if the manufactured narratives could be enough to justify investigations, someone who can read swedish and who frequently deals with abuse of authority, and who overcame the flood of smearing propaganda to the point of examining it found it laughable and corrupt. that kind of corruption doesn't require an international conspiracy. an overzealous law enforcement agent who perceives an opportunity for career advancement by catching a big fish is enough to get it started, and once it's set in motion, once a twisted narrative hits the public knowledge and gets spread like this one did, it becomes very costly, to that same career, to retreat. that others would find it advantageous to their own causes to take advantage of those false narratives to advance smokescreens and smearing campaigns adds complexity, but it doesn't require a nefarious international conspiracy. not that we can rule it out either.
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp) (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Jun-2024 06:21:23 EDT
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp)there are tons of conflicting allegations in that wikipedia article. wikipedia aims at a neutral PoV, but it fails to hide a certain bias in this article. for one, it doesn't attempt to explain the contradiction that the swedish authorities couldn't file charges before questioning, but he *had* been questioned before on at least one of the allegations, and yet even that one was allowed it to lapse without charges. why? it's also worth noting that the controversy around the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, whose interview you disqualify, is covered only to the extent of describing and linking the very interview I mentioned as a source, then describing and linking to a critical response to a much earlier article he published, and linking without describing his own response. even more interestingly, the one point that the critical response quoted and criticized, about the way he exposed to ridicule the fabrication of the accusations by authorities (that the critical response misrepresents as ridiculing the alleged victims), is not even present in the interview that wikipedia misrepresents as the criticized article. the article that wikipedia doesn't even reference, at https://web.archive.org/web/20240106123432/<https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768>, is *far* more damning to the case than the interview, even if you dismiss the criticized bits. the controversy is another element of the smokescreen of smearing and distraction
I can never pass those captchas tests that require electronic appendages for running javascript. I figure that that would be cheating, and I can't really run that much javascript in my head.