Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Kaylee]

The document shows neither of the women considered it rape, until they found out about eachother. That fact disqualifies it as rape.


The women were both in their 20s, so legal age is not an issue.

For the communicable disease no evidence has been brought out

From my read of the newspaper article, neither one of them considered it rape --ever. It was the Swedish police that decided, very briefly (for less than a day), to charge Assange with rape.

I think Sweden needs a new felony on their books for the crime of refusing to take an STD test when the request is justified.

The women were justified in wanting an STD test, but apparently in Sweden its very difficult to force someone to provide one. The whole thing seems like an attempt to get the women what they needed by hardball negotiations -- not a serious rape charge.

From the article linked in the OP:

The issue of unprotected sex left a fear of disease. It is believed that they both asked him to take a test for STDs and he refused.

Woman B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy.

And it was in this febrile state that the women, who barely knew each other, walked into a police station and began to tell their stories.

[ed. bold]Woman A said afterwards that she had not wanted to press charges but had gone to support the younger woman, who wanted police advice on how to get Assange to take a medical test.

I think a lot of people who don't support his publications will still be appalled if he gets locked up for it indefinately without legal justification.

I think this whole thing is going to backfire and Assange will end up being considered a martyr by many people. And a bad date. LOL! Apparently, during much of the time he was with Woman B, he was on his computer twittering. Hint: If your date is on the computer and not with you -- it's time to leave!


ETA: The Swedish legal problems occurred back in August and Interpol didn't request request a Red Notice for his arrest until November 30th. That does make it seem more likely that his current legal problems are due more to the wikileaks than his refusal to provide the results of an STD test.

 

[9/11-investigator]

what you think, is irrelevent. all that matters is what the facts say to the jury.

Surely will result in a 'plea bargain'?
Nobody takes American 'justice' serious anymore.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090310_injustice.htm
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/081216_usa.htm

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/all_columns.htm

From the material presented in the first post it is obvious that the guy is innocent. Most female golddiggers on this planet know that nothing pays off more than accusing a celebrity of rape. Think of the Kachelman drama in Germany.

 

[Region Rat]

What has he done exactly? Exposing the hypocrisy of some representatives of the american government maybe, making them look like the liars they are. Maybe you think it's good that they say one thing in public and another in private but i don't. It's time for these people to stand up and be counted, explain themselves instead of blaming the messenger. Especially when british soldiers are being killed and some desk jockey is slagging off the troops. We british should get out of there and leave it to the super duper american soldiers. It's seems they don't even have respect for the men and women who are laying there lives down for some spurious war started by the americans and thanks to wikileaks we now know.

Re: bolding. I've got to ask, what do you think the basic qualification of being a diplomat is?

 

[Bikewer]

I admit I have ambivalent feelings about the "leaks". The rape thing appears to be entirely designed to discredit/embarrass Mr. Assange...
We are presented with what goes on in international diplomacy, warts and all. We are used to the bland public face of diplomacy, and aware that more must be going on behind the scenes.
Like cooking, some might say it's something one doesn't want to watch up close....

I think it's arguable that this information is in the public interest. It's also arguable that it remain secret, at least to some degree.
They pointed out on Diane Rehm yesterday that this material had been in the hands of various media outlets since August. The NYT has been working with the State Department regarding publication of some sections. As noted, not much of this is "secret" in the sense of nuclear bomb secrets or military attack plans.
It's essentially just candid behind-the-scenes diplomatic communication.

 

[egslim]

From my read of the newspaper article, neither one of them considered it rape --ever. It was the Swedish police that decided, very briefly (for less than a day), to charge Assange with rape.

I think Sweden needs a new felony on their books for the crime of refusing to take an STD test when the request is justified.

The women were justified in wanting an STD test, but apparently in Sweden its very difficult to force someone to provide one. The whole thing seems like an attempt to get the women what they needed by hardball negotiations -- not a serious rape charge.

Meanwhile the headlines are full with allegations that mr Assange is wanted for rape.

But I disagree that the request for an STD test is justified. If the women are worried about the possibility of having obtained an STD, they should take a test themselves. After all, even if mr Assange tests positive the women still don't know if they have it or not.

Maybe the idea is that if mr Assange tests positive for something they can make a sexual assault charge for having unprotected sex. I don't know if Swedish law requires proof mr Assange was aware of having an STD to make that charge stick.

ETA: The Swedish legal problems occurred back in August and Interpol didn't request request a Red Notice for his arrest until November 30th. That does make it seem more likely that his current legal problems are due more to the wikileaks than his refusal to provide the results of an STD test.

Interesting: "INTERPOL will only issue notices "if it is satisfied that all the conditions for processing the information have been fulfilled. For example, a notice will not be published if it violates Article 3 of the Constitution, which forbids the Organization from undertaking any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character."
This warrant appears to be poltically motivated.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the article it seems that the women weren't out to have him charged, it was the police and prosecutor that decided that there had been a voliation of the law, the women just wanted to force him to be tested.

Still hasn't changed my opinion of the guy though, he's a prick. You don't screw around on people and if you do have unprotected sex and your partner wants testing, then you do it to alay their fears however irrational they might be. The guy needs to learn to keep it in his pants.

One has to wonder how the prosecutors got the information in the first place. I wonder if they were reading the exchanges between the two women?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I posted this in the Wikileaks thread:

Julian Assange^WP

Re the Swedish charges:

On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm.[95][96] Shortly after the investigation opened, however, chief prosecutor Eva Finné overruled the prosecutor on call the night the report was filed, withdrawing the warrant to arrest Assange and saying "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." He was still being investigated for harassment, which covers reckless conduct or inappropriate physical contact.[97] The second woman was a member of the Swedish Association of Christian Social Democrats, a Christian affiliate of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, who organized a seminar and news conference in Sweden for Assange. She was acting as Assange's spokeswoman and hosting him as a guest in her home during his stay in Sweden.[98] ...

...on 1 September a senior Swedish prosecutor re-opened the investigation saying new information had come in. The women's lawyer, Claes Borgström, a Swedish politician, had earlier appealed against the decision not to proceed.[101] Assange has said that the accusation against him is a "set-up" arranged by the enemies of WikiLeaks.[102]

So right there the evidence of "rape" was lacking and was withdrawn from the charges. Then added back in by a prosecutor with political ambition of some kind.

The Sydney Morning Herald was the source of some of the Wiki entry and looks worth reading: Timing of sex case sparks claims of political influence

...it is alleged the women - members of a Christian political group that had hosted a speech by Assange ...
...Yesterday another lawyer who acted for Assange, the Melbourne barrister James Catlin, wrote in Crikey that the women ''collaborated'' and ''irrevocably tainted each other's evidence'' before going to police.

''Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact … Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange.''

One can only wonder what this is all about, two spurned lovers? Christians having sex for some ulterior Jesus motive? Women influenced by some outside source out to get Assange? There's been no evidence presented that molestation or coercion really was involved unless telling a woman you love her to get in her pants or something like that was involved. Who knows, except we do know this case is more likely politically motivated than not.


But the idea one or both of the women wanted Assange to get an STD test makes a little sense. But, do we really think this fell into the prosecutor's lap? I wonder if we will ever know.

 

[Kaylee]

But I disagree that the request for an STD test is justified. If the women are worried about the possibility of having obtained an STD, they should take a test themselves.

But it can take up to 6 months for the symptoms to appear. That's a very long time to wait! We're going to have to disagree on the justification of this one.

Maybe the idea is that if mr Assange tests positive for something they can make a sexual assault charge for having unprotected sex. I don't know if Swedish law requires proof mr Assange was aware of having an STD to make that charge stick.

Interesting: "INTERPOL will only issue notices "if it is satisfied that all the conditions for processing the information have been fulfilled. For example, a notice will not be published if it violates Article 3 of the Constitution, which forbids the Organization from undertaking any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character."
This warrant appears to be poltically motivated.

I agree.

 

[McHrozni]

The document shows neither of the women considered it rape, until they found out about eachother. That fact disqualifies it as rape.

I don't know how Swedish law qualifies rape. Probably.

But I disagree that the request for an STD test is justified. If the women are worried about the possibility of having obtained an STD, they should take a test themselves.

Em, no. Treatment of many diseases (taking HIV/AIDS, which is a prime example) can be quite successful if done quickly enough with prophylactics. It's an expensinve and grueling regimen, which can cut down infection risk by up to 80%.

The catch is that it takes 6 months to diagnose an HIV infection, but prohpylactics are only effective within the first three days after exposure - and they're most effective within the first day. I'm not sure if they caught this deadline in this case, but given his lifestyle, an HIV infection isn't exactly implausible.

There are also a number of other venerable diseases which might not manifest or be diagnosable until later, and both women and any sex partners they might have could be at needless risk.

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

But, do we really think this fell into the prosecutor's lap? I wonder if we will ever know.

I thought about that.

I don't believe it was a pre-planned setup, because then I would expect the women to go to the police as soon as possible after the event. The fact they did not, and instead continued as usual for several days, is the weakest point of their case.

I think it's a combination of two spurned lovers, at least one of whom is very vindictive, and a guy who a lot of politically powerful people would very much like to see destroyed.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

I posted this in the Wikileaks thread:

Julian Assange^WP

Re the Swedish charges:So right there the evidence of "rape" was lacking and was withdrawn from the charges. Then added back in by a prosecutor with political ambition of some kind.

The Sydney Morning Herald was the source of some of the Wiki entry and looks worth reading: Timing of sex case sparks claims of political influenceOne can only wonder what this is all about, two spurned lovers? Christians having sex for some ulterior Jesus motive? Women influenced by some outside source out to get Assange? There's been no evidence presented that molestation or coercion really was involved unless telling a woman you love her to get in her pants or something like that was involved. Who knows, except we do know this case is more likely politically motivated than not.


But the idea one or both of the women wanted Assange to get an STD test makes a little sense. But, do we really think this fell into the prosecutor's lap? I wonder if we will ever know.

You have got it all, to the degree it was reported in Sweden correct. It is very likely, though, that the women actually went to the police to try to force a test. That is the level of naïvite we are dealing with. The first decision of a warrant was taken by an on call prosecutor in the middle of the night and was voided by the regular prosecutor in the morning.

Assange offered to be heard voluntarily and increased his stay in Sweden by 40 days to be available for questioning, but the police decided they didn't want to hear him.

The second warrant was issued after Assange had left the country, something that was okd by the police and as you have guessed, the prosecutor who issued it is indeed politically ambitious. Prosecutors often make their careers on single cases in Sweden.*

There is of course no knowing, but my guess is that someone somewhere decided that an interpol warrant would make more of a splash internationally than a voluntary hearing without press-presence.


* See Krister van der Kwast who made his career on getting mentally ill fantacist Thomas Quick to confess to almost all high profile unsolved murders and missing persons that occurred in Sweden during a 20 year period. Van der Kwast, with the help of a seriously deluded psychotherapist convinced himself as well as Quick and the Swedish legal system that Quick suffered from a Hollywood version of Split Personality Disorder that caused him to go out on murderous rampages under the persona of "Ellington" . The highest profile serial killer case in the history of Sweden, it made Van der Kwast and left Thomas Quick with a life sentence. Until an investigation showed that Quick had been fed information about crime scenes before he was taken to them for re-enacting the crimes, and that allowed him to know things that ought only be known by the police and the killer.

 

[egslim]

My bad, I'm not the most well-informed about STDs.

The catch is that it takes 6 months to diagnose an HIV infection, but prohpylactics are only effective within the first three days after exposure - and they're most effective within the first day. I'm not sure if they caught this deadline in this case, but given his lifestyle, an HIV infection isn't exactly implausible.

I tried to check the timeline from the information in the article.

For the first woman the three day deadline had definately already expired. The condom split friday evening. I don't know when they visited the police, but it must have been after tuesday morning.

The other woman had consensual sex without a condom.

 

[McHrozni]

For the first woman the three day deadline had definately already expired. The condom split friday evening. I don't know when they visited the police, but it must have been after tuesday morning.

Okay. Treatment for other diseases can be more effective if the exposure is discovered very early.

The other woman had consensual sex without a condom.

But was unaware of his lifestyle. I would expect he swapped many sexual partners worldwide in the past months or years, and he is much more likely to be infected by an STD than most people. A request to determine if he is a threat to his sexual partners is quite reasonable.

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

But was unaware of his lifestyle.

I find that a weak argument. She knew he has a nomadic lifestyle, that he was open to unsafe sex, and that he and her had sex only a few days after they first met.

Based on that information it would be very naive of her not to assume he had a promiscuous lifestyle.

But far more important, this whole affair dates from august. It's now three months later, and the case has suddenly been re-opened. What good does it do the women to have him tested now?

 

[McHrozni]

I find that a weak argument. She knew he has a nomadic lifestyle, that he was open to unsafe sex, and that he and her had sex only a few days after they first met.

Based on that information it would be very naive of her not to assume he had a promiscuous lifestyle.

I don't know what she knew and didn't know about him. I find it entirely plausible that she was rather ill-informed about just how open to unsafe sex he is.

But far more important, this whole affair dates from august. It's now three months later, and the case has suddenly been re-opened. What good does it do the women to have him tested now?

They know wheather or not it's possible they've been infected - if nothing else for the sake of any other sexual partners they might have.

McHrozni

 

[quixotecoyote]

You know, I think it cute how releasing confidental information is cheered when it's not yours

Sent from my Droid

My government, my information.

 

[Varanid]

If I didn't know better, I would think that some of you are jealous of the action he is getting.

I don't see rape. I see vengeful, pissed off governments. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is an insult to true victims of rape/abuse.

Further, I don't even see him as a "prick". What? He hooked up with two girls in as many days? GASP! The Horror. I guess I am a prick many times over...

Condoms break - it happens. I don't even know what to think about a lady requesting a condom to be used and then not noticing that he hadn't put one on? How does that work? Usually, putting a condom on is not a ninja-like activity. It is pretty easy to notice if someone has put one on or not....

Besides, if you are going to have sex w/ someone sans raincoat, then you investigate their STD status before you have sex....not after. Is this really hard to grasp?

I will call Mr. Assange an idiot for not wanting to wear condoms on his own accord. That is just stupid....

Disclaimer: Maybe I missed something, I haven't read every link posted.

 

[qayak]

I don't know what she knew and didn't know about him. I find it entirely plausible that she was rather ill-informed about just how open to unsafe sex he is.

That's a very weak argument. It shouldn't make a difference. If you aren't in a monogamous relationship, you should protect yourself. It used to be that health care workers wanted to know which patients had AIDS so they could protect themselves but that is poor logic. The best thing to do is assume everybody has it and use the same protection ALL THE TIME.

They know wheather or not it's possible they've been infected - if nothing else for the sake of any other sexual partners they might have.

Has anyone asked him if he has been tested or if he is willing to be tested? Why does it require a rape charge to protect women who didn't take responsibility for themselves? This whole thing is an insult to women who would never play the swooning, "poor helpless me" card. I guess, in Sweden, women are seen as being weak and in need of manly protection.

ETA: And why is he responsible for their future sexual partners? All they need to do is use proper protection and they will be safe regardless. Knowing doesn't do anything except stigmatize people. Assume every gun is loaded sexual partner has an STD.

 

[qayak]

I find that a weak argument. She knew he has a nomadic lifestyle, that he was open to unsafe sex, and that he and her had sex only a few days after they first met.

Based on that information it would be very naive of her not to assume he had a promiscuous lifestyle.

Yeah, but then again, based on that she would have to admit that she was promiscuous. Can't have that, can we?

 

[tyr_13]

If I didn't know better, I would think that some of you are jealous of the action he is getting.

I don't see rape. I see vengeful, pissed off governments. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is an insult to true victims of rape/abuse.

Further, I don't even see him as a "prick". What? He hooked up with two girls in as many days? GASP! The Horror. I guess I am a prick many times over...

Condoms break - it happens. I don't even know what to think about a lady requesting a condom to be used and then not noticing that he hadn't put one on? How does that work? Usually, putting a condom on is not a ninja-like activity. It is pretty easy to notice if someone has put one on or not....

Besides, if you are going to have sex w/ someone sans raincoat, then you investigate their STD status before you have sex....not after. Is this really hard to grasp?

I will call Mr. Assange an idiot for not wanting to wear condoms on his own accord. That is just stupid....

Disclaimer: Maybe I missed something, I haven't read every link posted.

I think you've missed everything because I don't think anyone here is saying it was rape based on the information we have. No one appears jealous of his 'action'.

Unless you think calling him a prick must be based of jealousy of his actions, and not because his actions make him obviously a bastard.