Link: "A Bayesian Take on Julian Assange"

Naomi Wolf had a similar take. Around the world -- even in Sweden -- when people are raped by attackers other than Julian Assange, there is no global manhunt, no INTERPOL, no imprisonment without bail prior to questioning. Most rapes are not even investigated. We do have reason to believe that the Assange investigation would have gone quite differently if he had not been the founder of WikiLeaks.

Someone should ask Nate Silver to try a take on Amanda Knox.

The linked post makes a good point — it's unlikely that there would be sufficient legal evidence to convict Assange if his were an ordinary case. But the question of whether Assange actually raped anyone is different. A man not being convicted of rape is not as strong evidence of his moral innocence as we'd like.

A datum relevant to the latter question would be the proportion of rape accusations in Sweden that are true.

Prediction re conviction: http://predictionbook.com/predictions/1976

They might also injure Mr. Assange’s reputation among the public: certainly I have learned more about details Mr. Assange’s personal life in recent days than I would care to know.

When I heard about the charges, I ignored them, and I know just about nothing about them, and I prefer to keep it this way. Is this justified? That is:

Should I be repeating my litany: "If Assange is a sex offender, then I want to believe that Assange is a sex offender"?

Or should I be ignoring the case, on the grounds that any information about it is likely to make my opinion of the real Wikileaks issues More Wrong?

Edit: or should I repeat the litany of the News of the World: "If there is a possibility of a sex scandal, then I want to believe there is a sex scandal. And I want to know ALL about it!"

This case may also turn out to be a good way of calibrating a person's predictions.

Right now people are throwing out a lot of predictions, ranging those who think, on one extreme:

1. Assange is guilty as charged.
2. The prosecutors have evidence to proceed against Assange
3. The US government had nothing to do with it.
4. They aren't going to try to have him extradited to the US/no charges will be brought

To the other extreme:

1. Assange was entrapped by a US government (probably CIA) plot
2. The charges against Assange are totally specious, any sex was entirely consensual
3. Right now, there is a grand jury meeting in Alexandria, Virginia, to try to charge and extradite Assange to the US.
4. The Swedish prosecutors know they have no viable evidence, but want him held in jail until the US extradition can go through.

Of course there are other theories, for example, that the plot had no USG involvement, and is just a case of angry ex-lovers seeking revenge against an innocent man.