Is it not strange that it is Horace Engdahl, Lena Andersson and a handful of others that have realized that the judgment against Jean-Claude Arnault not agree? Reasonably, it ought to be more people who can see through it.

It is obvious that this is a case of guilt by association. The right has fallen into the trap – a law well-known trap – based Arnaults general behavior as a womanizer conclude that a woman is telling the truth about the two rapes.

the Trial of the so-called kulturprofilen is one of the most noted in this century. It depends on a combination of conditions.

metoo-the campaign last fall and Today’s News interview with 18 women who testified about an overly intrusive Arnault and sexual harassment.

the Forum is run by Swedish Academy member Katarina Frostenson and her husband Jean-Claude Arnault. The academy has contributed much money to the business on the Forum.

When the DN publishes troublesome criticism of Jean-Claude Arnault, it was also a concern for the Swedish Academy on the basis of the honourable member Katarina Frostenson relationship to the accused. Arnault also been accused for having spread information about the nobel prize winners before they were public.

the battle between those who support the Katarina Frostenson and those who are of the highest permanent secretary Sara Danius page. Several members have dropped out or are not participating in the activities.

the Situation worsened when one of the interviewed women claimed she had been raped by Arnault. In June, the defendants Jean-Claude Arnault suspected of rape in two cases against the same woman in 2011.

On 24 september was arrested he on probable grounds suspected of rape. The district court in Stockholm sentenced Arnault to two years in prison for a rape. Both Arnault and the prosecutor appealed the decision of the Svea court of appeal was Jean-Claude Arnault påbackning to two-and-a-half years for two rapes of the same woman.

Elisabeth Massi Fritz smiling contentedly about this. The trial went her way.

Only a few of the accused women has appeared with the name. And the woman who claims to been raped is still anonymous. Would normally be the veracity to be questioned. Where have akademiledamoten Horace Engdahl right in their criticism.

There is much else in this story which is strange. Obviously, the anonymous woman seven years ago is not then perceived that she was the victim of a rape. In another case, had she not continued to hang out with Arnault also in his apartment?

Where is it according to her later version, even a rape. This prevents her to continue to hang out with Arnault. She travels for example to Paris to hang out with him there.

a efterhandskonstruktion of the woman and a few girlfriends under the influence of hysteria surrounding the metoo, that feminist Elisabeth Massi Fritz manages to get the right to believe in.

Hovrättslagman Lars zeus condemned and appeals judge Marianne Lishajko writes in the ruling: ”the prosecution submits that the accused has committed rape against the victim on two occasions, on 5 and 6 October 2011 and on 2 and 3 december 2011.” … “The court considers, as well as in the assessment of the previous incident, that the plaintiff’s story has given a credible impression. Her story may also in the central parts of the strong support of what several witnesses stated that the victim told them. The court of appeal deems that the plaintiff and the witnesses and the data is reliable and that the evidence overall is sufficient for a conviction.”

as usual, the people had they probably wondered how it could be that this woman continued to spend time with Arnault. The plaintiff gets the support of what several witnesses stated that the plaintiff told him.

This is an amazing example of what in English is called ”Guilt by association” (roughly: guilt by association). How can a hovrättsdom based on something that in the law recognising it as a dangerous argumentationsfälla not to end up in. Because Arnault is a womanizer, it is likely that he also raped X number of times.

Elisabeth Massi Fritz points out: ”It also shows, I think, that there is an equality of everyone before the law. The defendants have not in any way särbehandlats.”

the Verdict against kulturprofilen shows that not everyone is equal before the law. It has been Arnault in the keg that apparently he is a “womanizer” and has the reputation of being close with women.

It is probably also spoken against him to the goal indirectly came to deal with the relations to the Swedish Academy. Contrary to what people usually think have Arnault had not had any new to be a celebrity.

Massi Fritz says that the woman in question is afraid of Arnoult, as a proof that she is telling the truth about the rape, and that it is because of the fear that she continued to hang out with Arnault. Now that she is afraid may possibly depend on the fact that she lied about the rape and the allegations against Arnault.

around the sexual acts and the absolute requirement for consent can enough anyone find that in retrospect, not have been 100 percent sure that intercourse was done under mutual consent.