Hacker News Reader

Comment by cup | Hacker News Reader

I'm more intrigued by the complete lack of information about the two women involved in the case. You would think journalists would be trying to speak to them or trying to get their side of the story but theres been complete radio silence.

It's very suspect.

View on HN

It's not suspect at all: it's called contempt of court.

Journalists really aren't allowed to go around interviewing either plaintiffs or defendants in criminal trials for fairly obvious reasons. Cases all across the world have been undone by press coverage that has contaminated the jury pool. In many countries victims of sexual assault and rape cases are also entitled to have their identities withheld, again for fairly obvious reasons.

It is not for the court of public opinion to decide the outcome of a criminal case, although that is certainly how this particular one seems to be playing out (unfortunately).

There was actually quite a bit written about them, and their stories, when all this first came out. Some googling should turn up a few stories.

What do you mean by "their side of the story"? The claims they made are their side of the story, what more is there that they could say? I believe their identities are not released because that's Swedish law.

Julian Assange always seemed quite paranoid to me -- maybe rightfully -- so it seems strange that he would have sex with 2 women he met at a conference (I think that's what happened, I'm not 100% sure of the case details as I can't find a detailed summary) if he believed there would be attempts to set him up for crimes, it seems more the behaviour of someone that lives care free.

Their identities are public and have been publicly reported in international media:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28...

"The claims they made are their side of the story, what more is there that they could say?"

Then what's the point of having them witness in a trial? They've already gave "their side of the story" right? Wrong.

I'll rephrase:

What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion.

"What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion."

Your cynicism here is way overboard and borders on intellectual laziness. There have been many instances in the past of details coming out and changing public perception of a sexual assault case. The supposed Duke rape case a few years back is a prime example. Initially everybody and their dog just "knew" those boys were guilty of raping that stripper. But as details began to trickle out and she changed her story multiple times, the whole thing ultimately culminated in the disbarment of the prosecuting attorney Mike Nifong and subsequent jail time (albeit 1 day). Obviously that was a judicial decision but to pretend that the "minor details" didn't adjust public perception is absolutely untrue.

Most countries prohibit this prior to trial otherwise it will influence the jury pool.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com