Moderated: Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If you had read the police files and the Court documents you'd have more than "an idea" you would know. As it is the answer has been posted multiple times in this thread. Here_to_learn has posted a entire list of commonly misbelieved things about the case, with links to agreed upon facts and other documents, and has done so multiple times. Try actually reading some of the previous 3900 odd posts.

It's not even that--all the basic facts have been cited at least once on the previous 3-9 pages.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Nice replies. Truly great, packed with information for me to comment on.

Start with the below since you're incapable of reading the preceding posts
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/da...ge-extradition

[000063]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Pretty much anyone without blinders on can look at all the evidence and conclude there girls are not only lying about the rape charges but have no evidence and ulterior motives. I have linked to just a few previously. Apart from John Mekki they were all ignored and other parts of my posts chosen to be replied to by people that disagreed. Pretty funny.

Well poisoning.

[Zeuzzz]

I know. Hate wells, and the people that use them.

Nice productive comment there.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I know. Hate wells, and the people that use them.

Nice productive comment there.

Seriously, is there any chance we'll get you to actually read the facts of this case - facts that have been linked to several times in this thread, as well as quoted verbatim?

If not, why should any of us pay you any attention whatsoever?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by Wudang

Start with the below since you're incapable of reading the preceding posts
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/da...ge-extradition

Thanks.

Doesn't seem to address the facts of the case though, or what people involved in the case are saying.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Thanks.

Doesn't seem to address the facts of the case though, or what people involved in the case are saying.

That exactly addresses the facts of the case and what the people involved in the case are saying.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Thanks.

Doesn't seem to address the facts of the case though, or what people involved in the case are saying.

It does address the facts of the case, and it links to the three UK court rulings on Assanges extradition appeal. Please, for once in your life, act like a proper skeptic.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by uke2se

It does address the facts of the case, and it links to the three UK court rulings on Assanges extradition appeal. Please, for once in your life, act like a proper skeptic.

Very much from a legal or law perspective though. Good informative article in all, don't disagree with anything it says, apart from the generalization of Ecuador without taking into consideration it's new political leaders record vs the more corrupt previous ones.

It does not question the actual accusations that the girls have made in light of all the available public evidence to reach an informed conclusion of their veracity. I have done that on the last few pages. Most valid points were ignored and hand waved away as speculation. Which was amusing to say the least.

[PhantomWolf]

Witness Statements

Anna's: http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,02.shtml

Sofia's: http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml

Julians's: http://rixstep.com/1/20110130,01.shtml (Unfortunately they only deal with Anna)

Witnesses to Sofia's Story:

http://rixstep.com/1/20110202,01.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20110202,03.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,03.shtml

There are other witness testimony on this site as well, though the rest deal with Anna and Julian's actions

Court Documents

I presently can't link to the agreed on facts, but a google search on "agreed facts assange scribd" will find it for you.

Extradition Court Decision: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2011/2849.html

Appeal Court Decision : http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...ge-summary.pdf

Supreme Court Decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/...-judgment.html


Read, Learn.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Witness Statements

Anna's: http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,02.shtml

Sofia's: http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml

Crikey they are so immature and emotionally insecure.

Sofia felt rejected when Julian stopped having foreplay with her. Boo hoo. She also didn't like the tone in his voice. Oh no. After having sex numerous times that night one time Julian did not wear a condom and "she let him continue". Not rape.

Anna walks into the police office to report a sexual molestation / rape before even checking the condom that she left in her house to verify what she imagined happened?

"if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it"

Did she get it later, and is there DNA and evidence of malfeasance?

Reading the others now.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Crikey they are so immature and emotionally insecure.

Totally irrelvant to the case.

Quote:

After having sex numerous times that night one time Julian did not wear a condom and "she let him continue". Not rape

Legally you are incorrect. I'd also note that you previously stated...

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

If that were the actual proved case, that would be a despicable thing to do.

I would go further than "despicable", according to the law, it is an illegal thing to do.

The law is really quite clear here. If a person is told "No sex under condition A" and then proceeds to have sex that way anyway while knowing the other person (who previously has not consented) cannot grant consent, that is non-cosentual sex. Under the law that is rape. It doesn't matter if the other person then has an opportunity to grant consent or not, the fact is that the action of rape has already taken place previous to that ability.

Consider this. A man holds a knife to a woman's throat and enters her, then throws the knife away and asks if he can continue. If the woman allows him to continue, does that mean she wasn't raped?

Now, assuming the story given is correct as given, while Assange didn't use violence or a weapon to enforce his power over Sofia, he still did so by waiting until she was unable to object and that proceeeded to do what he had been told he was not allowed to do. Regardless of her actions after that, he had already broken the law. Her actions don't nullify that.

Does that help you?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Crikey they are so immature and emotionally insecure.

Sofia felt rejected when Julian stopped having foreplay with her. Boo hoo. She also didn't like the tone in his voice. Oh no. After having sex numerous times that night one time Julian did not wear a condom and "she let him continue". Not rape.

Anna walks into the police office to report a sexual molestation / rape before even checking the condom that she left in her house to verify what she imagined happened?

"if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it"

Did she get it later, and is there DNA and evidence of malfeasance?

Reading the others now.

Absolutely disgusting.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I would go further than "despicable", according to the law, it is an illegal thing to do.

Technically, legally, I'm a criminal about five times a day. As are a very high percentage of posters on this forum. Does that make me a serially despicable person?

Quote:

The law is really quite clear here. If a person is told "No sex under condition A" and then proceeds to have sex that way anyway while knowing the other person (who previously has not consented) cannot grant consent, that is non-cosentual sex. Under the law that is rape. It doesn't matter if the other person then has an opportunity to grant consent or not, the fact is that the action of rape has already taken place previous to that ability.

Quote:

Consider this. A man holds a knife to a woman's throat and enters her, then throws the knife away and asks if he can continue. If the woman allows him to continue, does that mean she wasn't raped?

No I will not consider that. It's a ridiculous comparison to make compared to this case. Neither girl claimed to feel threatened in the slightest by him, apart from one did not like the tone of his voice at one point during their consensual sexual endeavors.

Quote:

Now, assuming the story given is correct as given, while Assange didn't use violence or a weapon to enforce his power over Sofia, he still did so by waiting until she was unable to object and that proceeeded to do what he had been told he was not allowed to do.

Well she asked if he would phone her again, which he did, then she was so enamored with him she even paid for his ticket to Stockholm. Does that sound like a girl that has just been raped?

Quote:

She could have demanded he stopped. She did not. She continued and also continued to have sex with him the next few days too. Regardless of her actions after that, he had already broken the law. Her actions don't nullify that.

It's a ridiculous law then. We have to take her word for it without any evidence. Any girl could say this about any man.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I agree. Assange is evil. How dare he leak classified information freely supplied to a non commercial company for the world population to educate themselves about what the powers that be get up to in private.

I can dismantle your above post point by point (bar one totally valid point) but I have a feeling we are just going to dig ourselves into a semantic pit, to the detriment of loosing the holistic (not reductionist) perspective behind my posts.

Do you have a major point of contention?

Or am I going to end up the typical person that posts the most information, thus gets the most flak?

You really think he gave up any secrets the governments didn't want exposed?

He's clearly working for the government as a disinfo agent.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

It does not question the actual accusations that the girls have made in light of all the available public evidence to reach an informed conclusion of their veracity.

That opportunity is available to Mr Assange in the pre-commital interview he is a fugitive from. Why are you trying to deny Mr Assange his rights to a hearing under Swedish law?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Hello Phantom Wolf. Can you -please post these basic facts of the case people keep getting wrong? Since you are complaining about people here you should have a list of these incorrect facts you can help educate us with.

If you don't know the basic facts of the case it's nobody elses' responsibility to spoon feed them to you.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Technically, legally, I'm a criminal about five times a day. As are a very high percentage of posters on this forum. Does that make me a serially despicable person?

And if the person you commited the crime against tells the police do you think the police should just say, "Too bad, everyone commits crimes on a regular basis so we don't care about this one."?

Quote:

No I will not consider that. It's a ridiculous comparison to make compared to this case. Neither girl claimed to feel threatened in the slightest by him, apart from one did not like the tone of his voice at one point during their consensual sexual endeavors.

There is no need to "feel threatened" just for the sex to be against their will, and from Sofia's statement, and what she subsequently told others on the same day and the following day, she didn't want it and felt powerless to stop it.

Quote:

Well she asked if he would phone her again, which he did, then she was so enamored with him she even paid for his ticket to Stockholm. Does that sound like a girl that has just been raped?

If you read all of her statement you'd notice that she didn't understand that she had been offended against until later when someone else told her that what she was describing was illegal. This isn't unusual at all. I'll be the first to admit that as far as sexual offending goes, this one was not at the serious end, and as has been noted by those involved in the case, it's pretty much at the border of rape, but it does tip over into the category and so needs to be treated as such. Sadly a lot of people don't understand when they are either violating another person's rights, or having their own violated. There are a numberof people on this board who think it is perfectly acceptable to have sex with a sleeping girl if you have had sex when she's awake. The law states otherwise.

Quote:

It's a ridiculous law then.

No it isn't. The law clearly prevents a person in a position of power exploiting that power over another person for sex against that person's will. In this case if what is claimed is true, then Assange had the power by being awake, and he clearly violated Sofia's will not to have unprotected sex. If that is the case, he clearly broke the law.

Quote:

We have to take her word for it without any evidence. Any girl could say this about any man.

This can be said about any rape case. Do we stop prosecuting rape because the girl could be lying?

In this case I suspect that Sofia is telling the truth. If it is a lie it is a very weak one. It would have been just as easy for her to have said...

Quote:

They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'What are you doing, are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you need to stop and put something on' and he replied 'It's too late, I'm already too far inside you'. He pushed her down and continued. She didn't feel she could tell him to stop again, but was upset by his actions.

Notice that this isn't a huge change, but it would have made an allegation far clearer. The fact that she didn't give a statement that was far clearer in what the assult was, but rather one that just tips over into the rape category indicates to me that it is true. If you are going to lie to get someone in trouble, you don't construct a lie that is perhaps going to, or might, or just gets them in trouble, you construct one that makes it certain they will. Neither girl did that.

ETA: I'd also note that she told others about the event prior to speaking to Anna, which shows that it was not something that the two of them concoted, and never was it something that she dreamed up because she was mad at him sleeping with Anna, since she didn't know prior to speaking with Anna.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

And if the person you commited the crime against tells the police do you think the police should just say, "Too bad, everyone commits crimes on a regular basis so we don't care about this one."?

They are victimless crimes. Just pointing out that the law is far from logical, up to date or consistent on occasions.

Ascribing all people branded criminals by the law as despicable people is a sweeping generalization.

Quote:

There is no need to "feel threatened" just for the sex to be against their will, and from Sofia's statement, and what she subsequently told others on the same day and the following day, she didn't want it and felt powerless to stop it.

She let him continue (no excuse, I appreciate), and had sex with him after this incident, if I remember correctly.

Quote:

If you read all of her statement you'd notice that she didn't understand that she had been offended against until later when someone else told her that what she was describing was illegal. This isn't unusual at all.

So she did not think anything was wrong at all until someone else convinced her that it technically legally was. Seems a bizarre retrospection to take.

Quote:

No it isn't. The law clearly prevents a person in a position of power exploiting that power over another person for sex against that person's will. In this case if what is claimed is true, then Assange had the power by being awake, and he clearly violated Sofia's will not to have unprotected sex. If that is the case, he clearly broke the law.

Crikey, I hope my ex girlfriends don't say anything. These things happen, on both sides of this debate, male to female or female to male. None of them complained in the slightest. I did not report them to the police, neither did they me.

Quote:

This can be said about any rape case. Do we stop prosecuting rape because the girl could be lying?

Absolutely not. you have to weigh up the severity of the crime (the amount of trauma thge girls went through, the amount of suffering evident, etc) against the severity of the accusations.

Throwing a party in Julians honor the day after copulation does not sound like a woman who has been emotionally effected by rape the night before.

Quote:

In this case I suspect that Sofia is telling the truth. If it is a lie it is a very weak one. It would have been just as easy for her to have said...

Notice that this isn't a huge change, but it would have made an allegation far clearer. The fact that she didn't give a statement that was far clearer in what the assult was, but rather one that just tips over into the rape category indicates to me that it is true. If you are going to lie to get someone in trouble, you don't construct a lie that is perhaps going to, or might, or just gets them in trouble, you construct one that makes it certain they will. Neither girl did that.

Agreed. Neither girl constructed claims definitive enough to get someone in trouble.

[BenBurch]

Exactly PhantomWolf, had this been a CIA setup, not only would the cases have been cut and dried, but he would never have been allowed to get out of Sweden.

[Zeuzzz]

^ What a bizarre out of context comment.

Do you have any evidence to back up this proclamation?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

They are victimless crimes. Just pointing out that the law is far from logical, up to date or consistent on occasions.

Ascribing all people branded criminals by the law as despicable people is a sweeping generalization.

Firstly, you were the one that called his actions, if true, despicable, so it was you branding him that, not me. I stated I'd go further and say it was illegal.

Second, in this case we aren't talking about a victimless crime, there was a victim, Sofia.

Thirdy, I have never said that "all people branded criminals by the law are despicable people ".

Quote:

She let him continue (no excuse, I appreciate)

She let him continue because she felt powerless to do otherwise, and it's irrevelevant as previously mentioned since the law had already been broken at that stage.

Quote:

and had sex with him after this incident, if I remember correctly.

You don't. They talked for a bit, she made some jokes because she wanted to make the situation feel better, then his phone rang and she took him to the train station.

Quote:

So she did not think anything was wrong at all until someone else convinced her that it technically legally was. Seems a bizarre retrospection to take.

Not really. When you don't know the law, how do you know that it was broken? I can relate two cases where I was offended against and didn't know for a long time. One was a case of Sexual Harassment and I didn't realise until I was doing Harassment training at another company five years later. I knew that the situation had made me incredibly uncomfortable, and I hated being alone with the person because they very, very touchy and made my skin crawl, but I wasn't aware that their actions were illegal. The second case was an employment issue. I learned just this year, twelve years after it happened, that in being forced to resign by the management where I was employed, that under the law I had actually been illegally dismissed. Again at the time I was aware that it felt wrong and unfair, I didn't know it was illegal.

The same way it is clear from Sofia's statement and the conversations she had with friends after that she was upset and uncomfortable with what had happened, but she was unaware of the legal nature of it until told.

Quote:

Crikey, I hope my ex girlfriends don't say anything. These things happen, on both sides of this debate, male to female or female to male. None of them complained in the slightest. I did not report them to the police, neither did they me.

This depends. Did any of your girlfriends make it extremely clear that they would not have sex with you under those conditions? See this is the difference. Assange was told multiple time "no condom, no sex." Had he used a condom, I doubt we'd be having this conversation, she would have woken up and said, "are you wearing anything," he'd have replied, "yes a condom," and that would have been it. The part that made it non-consensual is not so much that she was asleep (though this will be an issue is no prior consent has been obtained) but rather that he started having unprotected sex against her will when she could not consent, and had previously disallowed that to occur.

Quote:

Absolutely not. you have to weigh up the severity of the crime (the amount of trauma thge girls went through, the amount of suffering evident, etc) against the severity of the accusations

So if the girl doesn't appear trumatised you don't prosecute? "Sorry dear, you don't look upset enough for us to do anything about it."

Quote:

Throwing a party in Julians honor the day after copulation does not sound like a woman who has been emotionally effected by rape the night before.

You have your girl's mixed up. Let's just stick with Sofia, that is the most serious charge.

Quote:

Agreed. Neither girl constructed claims definitive enough to get someone in trouble.

Which is why I believe they told the truth. The fact is though, while neither has told a story that it is blatently obvious that offending took place, both have told stories where for those that know what they are looking at (i.e. know the law), offending did take place. If it had been their intent to get him in trouble for revenge, I believe that stories would have been a lot more detailed and obvious.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

^ What a bizarre out of context comment.

Do you have any evidence to back up this proclamation?

I think that Ben's meaning was that had it been a CIA operation the girls would have had rock solid stories that emphasized the offending in a way no-one could dispute was a sexual assault and because of that, the Swedish police would have arrested him asap and kept him locked up until trial.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

It was you writing that Wuterich has nothing to do with the Assange case in Sweden, please provide evidence

You want me to prove a negative? If you think that there is a Swedish connection, how about you provide it. There is no evidence of Sweden being involved in the Wuterich case.

Quote:

So on which evidence you assume that Assange is treated fairly by the Swedish Justice system?

On the evidence of the currently available police files, the Swedish Court's approval of the Arrest Warrent, the Swedish Appelate Court's decision to uphold the Arrest Warrent, the British Court's upholding the Extradition Order, the Britsh Appelate Court upholding the Extradition Order, and the British Supreme Court's upholding of the Extradition Order.

What evidence (no not someone else's opinion, but real evidence) do you have that the Swedish Justice system is treating him unfairly?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

You want me to prove a negative? If you think that there is a Swedish connection, how about you provide it. There is no evidence of Sweden being involved in the Wuterich case.

You made the statement, you provide evidence.
Do you have evidence?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

On the evidence of the currently available police files, the Swedish Court's approval of the Arrest Warrent, the Swedish Appelate Court's decision to uphold the Arrest Warrent, the British Court's upholding the Extradition Order, the Britsh Appelate Court upholding the Extradition Order, and the British Supreme Court's upholding of the Extradition Order.

And this would prove.. what?
What you are quoting are just legal files.
I am not asking if the procedure followed by the Swedish Court system is correct or not, I am asking about which evidence you have that Assange is treated fairly.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

You made the statement, you provide evidence.
Do you have evidence?

My evidence is the lack of any evidence or even logic that the Swedish Justice system has anything to do with the US Military Courts. If you think there is a connection, feel free to show it, otherwise it stands as default that the have nothing to do with each other.

Quote:

And this would prove.. what?
What you are quoting are just legal files.
I am not asking if the procedure followed by the Swedish Court system is correct or not, I am asking about which evidence you have that Assange is treated fairly.

They are the same thing. If the Swedish Courts have have followed their procedures for dealing with the case, then he is being treated fairly.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Wrong.

So what in your opinion can they do about it so they would no longer be "overlooking it"?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

My evidence is the lack of any evidence or even logic that the Swedish Justice system has anything to do with the US Military Courts. If you think there is a connection, feel free to show it, otherwise it stands as default that the have nothing to do with each other.

There are allegations that the Swedish Judiciary system and the Swedish Government may be pressed by the US Government to prosecute Assange.
Of course, there is no direct evidence that this is actually happening.
But you said that you are sure that there is no connection.
Please provide with evidence

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

They are the same thing. If the Swedish Courts have have followed their procedures for dealing with the case, then he is being treated fairly.

On which ground you assume that formal correct proceedings inevitably lead to cases being treated fairly?
I can disprove you with many many examples.

EDIT
The case about Wuterich was treated with formal respect of the laws

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

So what in your opinion can they do about it so they would no longer be "overlooking it"?

What about a formal protest?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

There are allegations that the Swedish Judiciary system and the Swedish Government may be pressed by the US Government to prosecute Assange.
Of course, there is no direct evidence that this is actually happening.
But you said that you are sure that there is no connection.
Please provide with evidence

What does speculation and opinion that the US is pressing Sweden to prosecute Assange got to do with, and I quote "Wuterich was chased, you might not like the result, but that has zero of anything to do with the Swedish Justice System."

Quote:

On which ground you assume that formal correct proceedings inevitably lead to cases being treated fairly?
I can disprove you with many many examples.

Really? What examples do you have where someone was treated unfairly when the legal system prosecuting them correctly followed it's procedures? By following the procedures it means that the person is dealt with exactly the same way as everyone else would be in the same position. How is that unfair to them?

Quote:

EDIT
The case about Wuterich was treated with formal respect of the laws

Are you saying that Wuterich was treated unfairly?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

What about a formal protest?

So you approve of one country's Justice System interferring in another country's one?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

So you approve of one country's Justice System interferring in another country's one?

Since when issuing a formal protest about legal issues occurring in another country is interfering?
So, the US and Europe are interfering with China, Iran, .. 365 days per year

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Firstly, you were the one that called his actions, if true, despicable, so it was you branding him that, not me. I stated I'd go further and say it was illegal.

His actions are despicable, irrelevant to their legality in a specific country. I said that from the beginning.

Whether they are illegal or the girls testimony stands up to scrutiny and evidence depends the available evidence and plausibility of the claims. I have pointed out a few reasons to doubt their plausibility before.

Quote:

You don't. They talked for a bit, she made some jokes because she wanted to make the situation feel better, then his phone rang and she took him to the train station.

And she then payed for his train. She got jealous retrospectively when she realized he was sleeping with other people and was not going to see her again.

Sophia texted her friends on the 14th of august saying "he looked at me, he looked at me!"

Not knowing that he was sleeping with another woman, Anna, at the same time. They were even sat in the same room watching the same presentation.

Quote:

Not really. When you don't know the law, how do you know that it was broken? I can relate two cases where I was offended against and didn't know for a long time. One was a case of Sexual Harassment and I didn't realise until I was doing Harassment training at another company five years later. I knew that the situation had made me incredibly uncomfortable, and I hated being alone with the person because they very, very touchy and made my skin crawl, but I wasn't aware that their actions were illegal. The second case was an employment issue. I learned just this year, twelve years after it happened, that in being forced to resign by the management where I was employed, that under the law I had actually been illegally dismissed. Again at the time I was aware that it felt wrong and unfair, I didn't know it was illegal.

Have you pressed charges now?

Quote:

The same way it is clear from Sofia's statement and the conversations she had with friends after that she was upset and uncomfortable with what had happened, but she was unaware of the legal nature of it until told.

Exactly. She seemed more upset with her friends opinions about it being rape than she had been before, when she had not even considered anything illegal had occurred.

Quote:

This depends. Did any of your girlfriends make it extremely clear that they would not have sex with you under those conditions?

They didn't really comment at all. They tended to start the trend anyway

Quote:

See this is the difference. Assange was told multiple time "no condom, no sex." Had he used a condom, I doubt we'd be having this conversation, she would have woken up and said, "are you wearing anything," he'd have replied, "yes a condom," and that would have been it. The part that made it non-consensual is not so much that she was asleep (though this will be an issue is no prior consent has been obtained) but rather that he started having unprotected sex against her will when she could not consent, and had previously disallowed that to occur.

It was terribly bad manners, and sordid. But she did not seem to care until a few days later when Julian did not ring and after her friends influenced her opinion on the matter. Here is the part of the interrogation where she gives her side of the story.

Quote:

They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he'd put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn't be bothered telling him again. She'd been nagging about condoms all night long. She's never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn't say when he'd done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards.

She told him what happens if she gets pregnant. He replied that Sweden was a good country for raising children. She told him jokingly that if she got pregnant then he'd have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he'd told her he'd slept in Anna Ardin's bed after the crayfish party. She asked if he'd had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, she was lesbian. But now she knows he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him how many times he'd had sex but he said he hadn't counted. He also said he'd had a HIV test three months earlier and he'd had sex with a girl afterwards and that girl had also taken a HIV test and wasn't infected. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone. She thinks she got the idea of taking the drama out of what had happened, he in turn didn't seem to care. When he found out how big her student loan was he said if he paid her so much money she'd have to give birth to the baby. They joked that they'd name the baby Afghanistan. He also said that he should always carry abortion pills that actually were sugar pills.

Quote:

So if the girl doesn't appear trumatised you don't prosecute? "Sorry dear, you don't look upset enough for us to do anything about it."

No. You do what any responsible policeman or judge does, you build up a personality/character profile on the person judging possible psychological damage and trauma, potential reasons for jealousy or bending of the truth. When considering unprovable small accusations such character profiles have to be made about everyone involved.

Quote:

Which is why I believe they told the truth. The fact is though, while neither has told a story that it is blatently obvious that offending took place, both have told stories where for those that know what they are looking at (i.e. know the law), offending did take place. If it had been their intent to get him in trouble for revenge, I believe that stories would have been a lot more detailed and obvious.

You have convinced me that Sophia may be telling the truth. Anna I'm really not sure about, for reasons I stated before.

I think the whole situation is a mess, leaving the embassy would be paramount to committing suicide for Assange. He would be stopped at the airport and held likely before even going to Sweden to defend himself.

His decision to stay in the embassy is totally understandable.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Since when issuing a formal protest about legal issues occurring in another country is interfering?
So, the US and Europe are interfering with China, Iran, .. 365 days per year

What is the point of issuing a formal protest if you aren't expecting it to influence their system?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

What is the point of issuing a formal protest if you aren't expecting it to influence their system?

If by “influencing” you mean “illegally interfering”, then a formal protest will not do.
If by “influencing” you mean “condemning what you believe it is wrong and try to move things in the right direction”, then a protest will help

So, why did not Sweden issue a formal protest?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Whether they are illegal or the girls testimony stands up to scrutiny and evidence depends the available evidence and plausibility of the claims. I have pointed out a few reasons to doubt their plausibility before.

Is there some place where the truth of the matter can be formally determined?

Quote:

And she then payed for his train. She got jealous retrospectively when she realized he was sleeping with other people and was not going to see her again.

However the problem for you here is that she had already told others about the encounter before she learned he was sleeping with other people and was not going to see her again. According to her she wanted him to contact her so that she could get him to take an STD test as well, not so she could see him again.

Quote:

Sophia texted her friends on the 14th of august saying "he looked at me, he looked at me!"

Not knowing that he was sleeping with another woman, Anna, at the same time. They were even sat in the same room watching the same presentation.

We already knew this. And she told friends about the assault on the day of, and the day after it, where as she didn't know that Assange had been sleeping with Anna until later. At the time of telling her friends she still believed that Anna was a lesbian, because that is what Assange told her.

Quote:

Have you pressed charges now?

No, too much time had passed since the events to do so.

Quote:

Exactly. She seemed more upset with her friends opinions about it being rape than she had been before, when she had not even considered anything illegal had occurred.

Really? Where do you get that from? Allk it says is

When she talked with her friends afterwards she understood she was the victim of a crime. She went into Danderyd hospital and went from there to the Söder hospital. There she was examined and they even took samples with a so-called 'rape kit'.

Quote:

It was terribly bad manners, and sordid. But she did not seem to care until a few days later when Julian did not ring and after her friends influenced her opinion on the matter. Here is the part of the interrogation where she gives her side of the story

.

Yes I know what she says, unlike you, I read the statement when it first came out. Remember, I linked to it for you. If you read the other witness statements I linked to you'd have seen that she actually spoke to her friends later that day. This would also be consistant to her going to the hospital and doing a rape kit whereas there would be no point in having done that a few days later.

Quote:

No. You do what any responsible policeman or judge does, you build up a personality/character profile on the person judging possible psychological damage and trauma, potential reasons for jealousy or bending of the truth. When considering unprovable small accusations such character profiles have to be made about everyone involved.

Let me answer this in a second.

Quote:

You have convinced me that Sophia may be telling the truth.

Sois it possible that any responsible policeman having listened to her story, interviewed her friends, and investigated the case would come to the same conclusion? And if so, what is their duty to do then?

Quote:

Anna I'm really not sure about, for reasons I stated before.

The major difference with Anna is there was no rape. I think that she convinced herself that her idol wouldn't really have wanted to do those sort of things too her, dispite her alarms going off like klaxons, and it wasn't until Sofia told her what had happened between her and Assange that the penny actually dropped.

Quote:

I think the whole situation is a mess

I agree, but it is entirely one of Asaange's making.

Quote:

leaving the embassy would be paramount to committing suicide for Assange. He would be stopped at the airport and held likely before even going to Sweden to defend himself.

Held by who? The British might charge him with breach of bail, but I doubt it if they were handing him over. The US if it really wanted him so desparately could have snatched him at any time during the months when he was under house arrest with a GPS tracking signal strapped to his leg. They clearly didn't.

Quote:

His decision to stay in the embassy is totally understandable.

Only in his own delusional world. His paranoia has jailed him. Had he just stayed in Sweden it'd all be over by now, the case might not have even gotten to trial, but by doing what he has, he has ended up creating a jail for himself and then imprisoning himself inside it. The bars are of his own creation.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

If by “influencing” you mean “illegally interfering”, then a formal protest will not do.
If by “influencing” you mean “condemning what you believe it is wrong and try to move things in the right direction”, then a protest will help

So, why did not Sweden issue a formal protest?

How do you determine the difference between "illegally interferring" and "condemning what you believe it is wrong and try to move things in the right direction"?

ETA: and who gets to say who is doing something wrong? Does the NZ Justice system get to protest the US's Justice system's use of the Death Sentence because we don't have it and think it is wrong? Does the Pakistani Justice System get to tell the US Justice system that it is wrong for not charging people with Blasphemy? Does the Australian Justice system get to tell the UK justice system that it is wrong when the jury finds someone not guilty?

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

How do you determine the difference between "illegally interferring" and "condemning what you believe it is wrong and try to move things in the right direction"?

In the second case you issue a formal condemnetion at Embassy level/press, etc.
This would not be illegal

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

ETA: and who gets to say who is doing something wrong? [..]

Ah, OK
If you have no sense of what is wrong and what not, then what are we talking about?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

In the second case you issue a formal condemnetion at Embassy level/press, etc.
This would not be illegal

Wouldn't it? Putting pressure on another country to change the decisions of its legal system is legel because you go to the embasy to do it?

Quote:

Ah, OK
If you have no sense of what is wrong and what not, then what are we talking about?

Who am I to tell others what is right and wrong? Who made me the sole determiner of that? What right do I have to enforce my morals onto anyone else?

In the same way, what right does any country have to empose it's belief of right and wrong onto any other country?

[brodski]

So, is it all allegations of rape which should be ignored until the USA has a perfect justice system, or just some? Is it only rape that should be ignored or are there any other crimes which can use this defence ?