The article also explains that this is intentionally falsified by the Swedish police and lists emails as evidence that this tampering took place and contradicts the womans initial statement

The email conversation is not evidence of tampering. The emails is from one interrogator emailing another on how to best record the witness statements in their system. See this thread for English translations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868

The witness statement is supposed to be verified by the witness at the end of the interrogation. Editing that statement without consulting the witness is tampering, no system would save statements like that.

But the statement wasn't edited... It was copy-pasted into another record, just like the mail conversation shows.

Also, in this supposed grand conspiracy to frame Assange, two crime detectives were dumb enough to leave their marks in emails available to the public, due to Offentlighetsprincipen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_public_access_to_... It makes zero sense.

The original statement was overwritten, we only have some vague references about what it says. But moving it to another record without the witness present is still tampering.

>Also, in this supposed grand conspiracy to frame Assange, two crime detectives were dumb enough to leave their marks in emails available to the public

The conspiracy was to get Assange into US custody, not frame him of a crime, and that conspiracy has been proven to he true. The allegations didn't need to be flawlessly done.

The FBI does that.

> It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex

Actually, she supposedly accused him of intentionally breaking it, but also said that she didn't notice until later, which casts doubt on the "intentionally" part.

Poking holes in a condom is an intentional act and the woman wouldnt know. So as long as we dont know exactly what she meaned by „intentional breaking it“ we cant really guess who is wrong or right.

Whatever happened with that condom, that definitely falls under "reasonable doubt."

Considering what happened to Assange after that, the first thing that comes to mind is the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Whether that amounts to reasonable doubt is something that could be determined by a jury in a court of law following rules of evidence and procedure, if Assange went to trial.

The charges were dropped.

Because he successfully evaded capture for long enough that the case was no longer viable.

They could have interviewed him in the embassy but declined to do so.

It really isn’t their responsibility to accommodate a fugitive, is it.

It is absolutely the responsibility of the state to act fairly to all.

Which means not making special exceptions for some people, like Assange here.

Are you denying that his claims of being persecuted by the US government were unfounded, given that they have been proven right?

I deny that this is a valid reason to flee prosecution in Sweden.

Does that apply to all proven victims of state persecution or just Assange?

I agree. More information is needed before any judgement could be made one way or the other.

How on god's green earth does that "cast doubt" on anything? That makes absolutely zero sense.

Well, determining intent is difficult at the best of times, but it's hard to understand how you could determine the intent of something that you only noticed later.

The same way you do it many times a day in your everyday life?

I'm confused why you seem to so vehemently disagree with me but simultaneously will only speak in generalities.

Say for example I visit your house, and you notice many hours after I leave that a favorite ornament of yours is broken. How will you determine whether I broke it intentionally or not? If you watch me break it, you could make a reasonable judgement. If you only notice later, it's much harder. I don't understand what is controversial about this idea.