Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[theprestige]

Oh.

Anyway, to answer your other question, I despise Assange because the Internet is Andy Warhol meets George Orwell: Everybody is hated for 15 minutes.

 

[eirik]

Why do you think a sensationalist, right-wing tabloid would be more reliable that a serious "leftist blog"?

Swedish minor rape and molestation are not synonymous with Swedish major rape, rape as it is usually understood, as you presumably know. You are being dishonest conflating them. In both cases with Assange, IIRC, consensual sex reportedly followed and preceded the alleged offenses.

The report in Aftonbladet that the Expressen references is very confused and short on detail. The statements it claims the women made contradict the statements the women had already made when they went to the police to enquire about forcing Assange to have an STD test. The police report was leaked after Aftonbladet article was published, so the information in it would have been unknown to the writer of the Expressen article, Marit Sundberg.

Lol It was your "serious" leftie blog that cited the Expressen-article as support for their claim that the women were not claiming that they were raped. It was good enough when they thought it supported Assange's lies?

I guess they don't read Swedish either, or like you they don' care because lying saves time.

Btw, Expressen is a centrum/right/liberal major paper in Sweden, and has printed several stories that has supported Assange before and now. They are becoming more critical, as the rest of the world, now that the facts has made the case more clear than it was initially.

And the references is NOT very confused and short on detail, it is a short interview, siting one of the victims statements, stating shortly that they were raped. As you have denied.

About the minor/major-rape, I haven't mentioned that all, I was busy with you lying about the women saying they were not raped at all. Goal posts. Don't move them.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Sorry, I seem to be missing something and freely admit that I can't be bothered to read through 51 pages to try and find it.

Would someone in the know kindly tell me what has changed from what I understood was the position ie that the claims of rape came from two women, each of whom had only raised the complaint when they compared notes and realised that Assange had slept with both of them and that one at least had bought (made?) him breakfast and bought him a train (plane?) ticket following their sexual encounter that she now claims was a rape?

I ask because the tone of the last few pages (I did read at least that much!) seems to be predominantly anti-Assange whereas off this board the general consensus of my friends and colleagues is that these are screamingly obvious trumped up charges that are making both the UK and Sweden look like idiots / American lapdogs.

Happy to be told 'Bugger off and read the whole thread etc' as that would be quite understandable but I only have a mild curiosity that I may be missing something and therefore have come to a wrong preliminary conclusion, so was hoping someone would be kind enough to fill the gaps with a quick summary eg 'Yeah, turns out there's evidence that he actually forced himself on one / both the women rather than just refusing an STD test that they've demanded 'cos they only now realise that someone willing to fall straight into bed with them might also be willing to do it with other people'.

As I say, happy to be educated or abused out of the thread...

 

[Here_to_learn]

Sorry, I seem to be missing something and freely admit that I can't be bothered to read through 51 pages to try and find it.

please don't read the full thread - I would be afraid that the sanity would be hurt for anyone trying that!

Would someone in the know kindly tell me what has changed from what I understood was the position ie that the claims of rape came from two women, each of whom had only raised the complaint when they compared notes and realised that Assange had slept with both of them and that one at least had bought (made?) him breakfast and bought him a train (plane?) ticket following their sexual encounter that she now claims was a rape?

Basically, the (short) story is like this:

The two women went to the police, apparently predominately/only to try to get them to force JA to submit to a STD test. While at the police, they described what had happened between JA and each of them.

Based on their descriptions, the duty prosecutor decided that this was grounds to start an investigation, since the activities alleged by the women could be criminal according to Swedish law.

The case was later assigned to a regular prosecutor, that decided that the evidence was not enough, so the investigation was stopped.

The two women had their legal counsel appeal this, and the new prosecutor assigned to this decided to restart the investigation, and that later led to her asking the courts for permission to arrest JA.

So basically, the situation is that the prosecutor together with two Swedish courts have decided that there's enough evidence to arrest JA.

A pretty good source to read is the Agreed facts from the UK Supreme Court.
It was signed by the legal counsel for both sides, so the content should not lead to dispute.

 

[barium]

I ask because the tone of the last few pages (I did read at least that much!) seems to be predominantly anti-Assange whereas off this board the general consensus of my friends and colleagues is that these are screamingly obvious trumped up charges that are making both the UK and Sweden look like idiots / American lapdogs.

Which is hardly surprising since Assange have several legal and PR people working on spreading his side of the story in the international media. The situation in Swedish media is a bit different since there's a lot of information avaliable, and the womens counsel have been active in writing rebuttals to the assange sides claims.

 

[eirik]

Ethan Thane Athen, read this timeline from BBC, but while you read it, try substituting the name Julian Assange with Akin, or some other right wing nut, and let us know what you think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

 

[eirik]

Which is hardly surprising since Assange have several legal and PR people working on spreading his side of the story in the international media. The situation in Swedish media is a bit different since there's a lot of information avaliable, and the womens counsel have been active in writing rebuttals to the assange sides claims.

True. This is from Aftonbladet (translated by google and myself as best I could). FYI, Aftonbladet is a major Swedish tabloid, and for the conspiracy minded, is described as independeny social democratic e.g. "left leaning". Her goes:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/oisincantwell/article15275385.ab

Eight myths about Assange
"Truths" about Assange and Swedish law are many: it is a hopeless soup cooked on legitimate criticism, exaggerations and pure falsehoods.

Let us call the myths surrounding a really ordinary court case that threatens to lead to an international crisis.

It should first and last be emphasized that the Swedish legal system could - nay, should! – have conducted better in this sad story.

The investigation went wrong back then a prosecutor confirmed that Assange was arrested in absentia. It is, if nothing else, extremely stupid to inform a foreign national of an impending arrest and thus give him an opportunity to get on the next plane out of the country.

Likewise, that the police and prosecutors did not see it fit to interrogate the suspect in the weeks he patiently stayed in Stockholm is not simple to understand.

But the rage against the Swedish justice, which admittedly has flaws, is not to any greater extent then the above nonsense.

Assange and the people around him have distorted various circumstances beyond the absurd, something applauded by a messy fanclub consisting of anti-feminists, DOGMATISM left and the conspiracy theorists who are not currently busy with the Palme-assasination or an allergy to electricity.

Here follows the most common stupidities.

Myth 1. Suspicion of sex crimes is really about to silence WikiLeaks, because the organization has grown too strong.

In reality, it's humiliating to even have to argue against this bizarre assertion. People who are reported of an offense must tolerate that the police is investigating the matter. Swedish police are trying to destroy WikiLeaks as little as U.S. colleagues' motives for investigating Dominique Strauss-Kahn was to close the International Monetary Fund.

Myth 2. Sweden will disclose Assange to the U.S..

No such request has been sent to Washington to Stockholm. And a handover is not possible without London's approval.

Myth 3. Assange will be executed.

It is absurd to imagine that the U.S. would want to incur such an international anger, by putting him in the electric chair. And Sweden, in any event, don’t extradite people who face the death penalty.

Myth 4. Sweden has politically controlled, corrupt courts.

When the respected corruption monitor Transparency International evaluated the courts comparably, Sweden came in third place out of 142 countries. (Ecuador, by Wikileaks designated as the new free speech paradise, came to rest on the spot 130).

Myth 5. Prime Minister Reinfeldt has meddled with the process.

The truth is that the Prime Minister answered up to a caricature of the Swedish judicial system spread abroad, and pointed out that Sweden has an independent judiciary that is not controlled by politicians.

Myth 6. In Sweden a man will be sentenced to rape if the condom burst.

Sorry, that's not right. However, a person who has sex with a sleeping or unconscious person will be convicted, as in many other countries. Swedish criminal law does not differ from most other countries in this regard.

Myth 7. Prosecutor Marianne Ny reopened the investigation after pressure. (Who these pressures originated from seems to vary with the daily mood of the critics. The desire to destroy Assange is appearantly largely form the CIA, the Pentagon or Rosenbad.)

Wrong. It happens occasionally that a closure decision is reviewed and that a new prosecutor makes a different assessment.

Myth 8. Assange has been tricked into a sex trap.

It would undoubtedly be a refined approach if American agents managed to persuade two Swedish women to go to bed with Assange, but there should be more evidence to suggest that Osama bin Laden is alive than that being the case.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Many thanks to all those who responded - some useful links and information there (can't follow all of them from where I am at the moment but will check them later).

Followed the BBC timeline but wasn't sure why substituting a 'right wing' person instead of Assange would affect my view... perhaps I'm missing some nuance (to be clear, I'm no particular supporter of Assange or wikileaks... though neither do I think it / he is the great evil some others do...most of the stuff leaked didn't even seem that surprising to me).

The timeline itself didn't add much for me to understand the vitriol (perhaps that's a bit too strong a word) against him other than the bit I hadn't heard before that both women had mentioned to a reporter they were 'unhappy' with some aspects of their sexual encounter which adds some weight to their claims though hardly seems as strong a reaction to an alleged rape as I'd expect. It also seems to confirm that they originally petitioned just to get an STD test done rather than claiming that he'd raped them but that a later prosecutor decided their description of what happened constituted rape under Swedish law - have I got that bit right?

Was the stuff about Woman A sorting him out breakfast and travel after the event, something put out by his supporters then or is that established fact?

If he'd taken an STD test as requested, even after returning to Britain and sending the results onto them, or even did so now, would that have been the end of it or does the fact that a prosecutor has picked it up mean the rape charge must be pursued? In Britain (I think - IANAL) if the alleged victim drops the charge, it's usually not pursued...

Again, thanks to all for taking the time and apologies if I'm missing something obvious...

 

[Here_to_learn]

It also seems to confirm that they originally petitioned just to get an STD test done rather than claiming that he'd raped them but that a later prosecutor decided their description of what happened constituted rape under Swedish law - have I got that bit right?

Yes, or rather, there were multiple prosecutors involved, but the decision was based on the description from the women.

Was the stuff about Woman A sorting him out breakfast and travel after the event, something put out by his supporters then or is that established fact?

That's probably correct, I can't remember the exact details right now, and don't have the link to the leaked protocols from the interviews available, but google could probably help you find the protocol.

If he'd taken an STD test as requested, even after returning to Britain and sending the results onto them, or even did so now, would that have been the end of it or does the fact that a prosecutor has picked it up mean the rape charge must be pursued? In Britain (I think - IANAL) if the alleged victim drops the charge, it's usually not pursued...

No, that should not affect it at all. Swedish prosecutors has an absolute duty to prosecute:

In the case of most crimes, the prosecutor has what is known as an absolute duty to prosecute. This means that the prosecutor is obliged to initiate a prosecution if he or she considers there to be sufficient evidence to prove that a crime has been committed and that a certain person has committed it.

This in turn means that not even the victim of the offence can decide what is to happen in connection with the investigations. In other words, there is nothing on the lines of “withdrawing the charges”. The prosecutor must make sure that the crime is investigated, irrespective of the feelings or wishes of those involved.

The reason for this is that society has an interest in ensuring that the perpetrators of the crime are also tried for it. Exceptions are made for certain offences where it may be felt that the interests of the general public in instigating legal proceedings are not strong enough. Examples of such offences are defamation, breach of domiciliary peace and crimes of unlawful appropriation, or stealing, within the family (i.e. theft etc.).

 

[theprestige]

Ethan Thane Allen, I agree, don't read the entire thread. Life's too short.

However, I am hopeful that you can contribute something to the thread. Specifically, I hope you can answer a couple questions I have for you.

You wrote, "...the general consensus of my friends and colleagues is that these are screamingly obvious trumped up charges that are making both the UK and Sweden look like idiots / American lapdogs."

Is there a particular piece of evidence that made it obvious to your friends and colleagues that the charges were trumped up?

Also, when your friends and colleagues talk about "American lapdogs", are they referring to any specific evidence of American involvement?

 

[eirik]

Many thanks to all those who responded - some useful links and information there (can't follow all of them from where I am at the moment but will check them later).

Followed the BBC timeline but wasn't sure why substituting a 'right wing' person instead of Assange would affect my view... perhaps I'm missing some nuance (to be clear, I'm no particular supporter of Assange or wikileaks... though neither do I think it / he is the great evil some others do...most of the stuff leaked didn't even seem that surprising to me).

That's all right. I was just suggesting a test for yourself to try to exlude possible bias, in which this thread is dripping of.

You have to admit, not wanting a court ordered police investigation in a rape case is a somewhat odd opinion.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Was the stuff about Woman A sorting him out breakfast and travel after the event, something put out by his supporters then or is that established fact?

Established fact from several sources, people who have been with them and not least A's messages she sent. From those we also know that A was aware of W having sex with Assange as it happened, contrary to what the people here claim. You might want to watch this, or read the transcript available at the link in the WSWS quote:

Here's a memory refresher (program can be watched online, see link in quote):

Australian TV program exposes Assange frame-up
By Mike Head, 28 July 2012

“Four Corners”, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs program, this week broadcast what amounted to an exposé of the frame-up of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange on allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. Assange remains inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, seeking political asylum from the threat of being removed to Sweden, which would in turn facilitate extradition to the US.

The program provided a valuable service by simply piecing together what happened in the three crucial weeks after Assange arrived in Sweden in mid-August 2010. Assange was there to address a conference and investigate the possibility of hosting WikiLeaks’ operations in a secure computer facility.

By tracing the chronology, the program also clarified the connection between the Swedish witchhunt and the Grand Jury operation underway in the United States to charge Assange with espionage for WikiLeaks’ exposures of US war crimes (see: “Sex, Lies and Julian Assange”).

The program provided substantial evidence that the allegations against him were false and politically motivated. The unproven accusations were used to blacken his name in Sweden and around the world, and counter the widespread public support that he and WikiLeaks had won for courageously exposing the crimes and machinations of the US and other powers.

[detailed summary of program/chronology follows]

I see it's also on youtube including extended interviews with Assange, his swedish lawyer, the lawyer of the women and Icelandic WikiLeaks associate Birgitta Jonsdottir. Playlist:

[had to go back 17 pages to find my posts from little more than three weeks ago ... the hatred runs deep and keeps people busy]

edit: oh, I see the youtube video was deleted. Journeyman Pictures, isn't that Assange's company? Strange. Still up on other yt channels, I see.

 

[eirik]

So, because of a tv-program you saw, the police shouldn't investigate? Meh. Count me not convinced.

 

[Childlike Empress]

RT interview with Rafael Correa from today:

 

[jimfish]

Not to further spurn the thread off-topic from Assange, but the Karpinsky thing is interesting. Even though she denies an arrest, apparently she concedes that there was a "misunderstanding"; the Fox article has her give the events that "she removed a bottle of facial cream from her purse, then returned it while rummaging for her cell phone. A security guard believed the bottle belonged to the shop, but store personnel later concluded it was her property and had been "clearly partially used."

So there's some basis of an accusation of shoplifting long before Abu Ghraib's exposure, so it's not a case of being 100% fabricated to discredit her, but whether she was actually formally charged, as the Army claims, or the whole thing was just a "misunderstanding", as she claims, isn't clear.

According to a CBS article, the incident took place in October 2002, in which Karpinsky was accused of stealing a $22 bottle of perfume, not a "bottle of facial cream", from the MacDill Air Force Base's department store in Florida. According to an Army spokeswoman, Karpinsky didn't report the offense on a security questionnaire, which would seemingly explain why they would "pull this flaky allegation out and use it to demote [her]" over two years after the fact - they might not have known about it before she was put under the spotlight after Ghraib.

An interesting little case.


Edit: The Saint Petersburg Times got hold of a copy of the police report. Karpinsky's version of events is as above; bottle in her bag, cellphone rings, she pulls it out, and so on. The police report on the other hand, has a different version of events:

The ... store detective ... said that around 7:23 p.m. Oct. 3, 2002, he saw Karpinski remove a "makeup item" from a shelf and continue shopping, [and] then entered the dressing room at approx 7:29 p.m with the item still in hand. The subject exit[ed] the dressing room at approx 7:35 p.m., [and] at that time the item was no longer in site." ... Karpinski paid for another item and left the exchange. She was detained and "invited" to the security office, where the detective asked her about the missing makeup and "she advised it was hers" ...removed it [from] her purse and placed it on the desk ... The item was Intuition Estee Lauder (Fragrance Silk Parfum Soie Sensuel) valued at $22."

Security from MacDill then showed up, reviewed the surveillance tapes, had Karpinski searched and given a letter revoking her shopping privileges.

After being read her rights, "Karpinski requested legal counsel and refused to make a written or verbal statement. Karpinski was released on her own recognizance."

 

[Childlike Empress]

RT interview with Rafael Correa from today:

Gotta love that guy.

 

[JihadJane]

'Assange in Sweden: The Police Protocol (Translated)'

In case this hasn't been posted already, here is a translation of the leaked police report, with testimonies from Sofia Wilén, Anna Ardin and Julian Assange and reports from interviews with nine witnesses.

The verbatim interview with Johann Wahlström, Witness E, Assange's minder on his fateful trip to Sweden, is the most revelatory, with vivid portraits of Wilén, Ardin and Assange and the general atmosphere around Assange. As some have noted elsewhere, Ardin's behavior does seem a bit strange!

If you want to get a proper grasp on what was in the leaked police reports this is, obviously, essential reading; fascinating stuff and well worth the effort!

Lol It was your "serious" leftie blog that cited the Expressen-article as support for their claim that the women were not claiming that they were raped. It was good enough when they thought it supported Assange's lies?

I guess they don't read Swedish either, or like you they don' care because lying saves time.

Btw, Expressen is a centrum/right/liberal major paper in Sweden, and has printed several stories that has supported Assange before and now. They are becoming more critical, as the rest of the world, now that the facts has made the case more clear than it was initially.

And the references is NOT very confused and short on detail, it is a short interview, siting one of the victims statements, stating shortly that they were raped. As you have denied.

Read the police report, linked above, for a more accurate account.

About the minor/major-rape, I haven't mentioned that all, I was busy with you lying about the women saying they were not raped at all. Goal posts. Don't move them.

I wasn't lying.

Hopefully, our exchanges have left us both wiser and better informed.


(I'm a bit confused as to what centrum/right/liberal is!)

Gotta love that guy.

I'm feeling it.

 

[a_unique_person]

You will note, of course, that none of this concerns an extradition to Sweden, nor do the "Australian Diplomats" say anything about an extradition to the US being facilitaded by a prior extradition to Sweden. Thus, this article does not claim Assange is justified in refusing to hand himself over to Swedish justice.

Or you might not note that, considering you have yet to admit how utterly wrong you have been earlier.

I was responding to the claim that the US is not interested pursuing Assange, that he just an irritation and Manning is the only person they are pursuing in relation to Wikileaks.

 

[a_unique_person]

But that is not the demand.

They mean to ARREST him.

Then INTERROGATE him.

Totally different from an interview.

Also there are court decisions that make interview like that done not on swedish soil a problem that would probably result in an acquittal. Assange knows that.

He also knows that he raped and possibly infected those two women.

I found this timeline.

Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available for questioning.

Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange return to Sweden.

The Swedish Embassy counts as Swedish soil, legally. He was to be 'detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion or rape'. That is suspicion, not charging him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

 

[Wudang]

"
Legal myths about the Assange extradition

Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”

This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested."


http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition