Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Here_to_learn]

Actually the more I look into it, the less I'm sure of even that. It looks to me like it was originally considered not worthy of a rape prosecution as Eva Finné closed it saying “But the content of the interrogation does not support any claim that a crime has been committed”

It was then appealed, and the appeal was upheld. So one prosecutor said it was not rape, two said it was, as did the courts.

but it was then picked up by an activist lawyer named Claes Borgström

No, it was not picked up - the two women contacted his law firm and asked for representation.

Activist - well - that was his job from 2000 to 2007, with responsibility to

increase awareness of the four laws through information and advocacy, and to promote equality in workplaces, colleges, schools, employment training, training institutions, as well as several other areas of society.

from the fringes of one of their political parties who made a fuss

Fringes? He is a member of the Social Democratic party, and has been their spokesperson on gender equality. And yes, it was a group within that party that set up the conference that JA was speaking on.

When you say "made a fuss" - what are you referring to then? That he acted according to the law and on behalf of his two clients and appealed the case?

and a prosecutor with a reputation for bias in these cases who restarted the whole mess.

Yes. According to the way the Swedish prosecution authority is setup, all appeals on sexual related cases should be routed to her, it's documented on the Prosecution authority home page, as well as in this thread.

It appears there's a policewoman named Irmeli Krans who may be connected to Anna and the instigator of this, meaning rape charges never should have been even filed. She was apparently removed from the case and might have embellished something, and she too has activist connections apparently with Claes Borgström but I couldn't find corroboration for that outside blogs and such.

So you have no facts, and still you post it?

You could have read the thread and found out that you were wrong. There is even a link to a PM written by the police that received the two women, heard their complaint and contacted the first prosecutor. Maybe you should look for better sources.

It looks like this is internal Swedish politics and it's activists like this which have lead to Sweden becoming the laughingstock of the free world in regards to rape law and false accusations.

So now that I have shown that several of your statements that you base this on is wrong - will you change your mind?

 

[nathan]

"Sweden's rape rate under the spotlight" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372 discusses how different countries record complaints differently (Australia is the kidnap capital of the world, for instance).

 

[JihadJane]

It's safe to say that the people responsible for that tweet are mentally insane. Driven mad by a cult memetic virus, I'd reckon. Where the only cure is their own medicine they most certainly will not take...

Mad.

 

[Jaxe]

I'd say it's worse than you thought. Not only is it very easy to file a rape charge in Sweden, they lead Europe by a wide margin in reported rapes double that of the nearest countries and of all these states listed are second only to Botswana. They also have a per capita rape conviction rate three-four times the European average. So not only do they have an unholy number of reports, they also have an incredible number of convictions. What seems to distress some people is all the ones that don't get prosecuted make for a low prosecution rate, and I suspect they are the sort who wouldn't dare consider that might be because a lot of those are bogus accusations like this one.

Being as the five years previous to this event saw the number of reported rapes increase by 50%, either males in Sweden have been acting like Europe hasn't seen since the Red Army conquered eastern Germany, or it has become quite trendy in Sweden to accuse men of rape on specious grounds as false accusations are seldom prosecuted. I find the former explanation unlikely and the latter fitting quite nicely with Anna's 'legal revenge' blog.



Despite the dramatic retelling, that was consensual sex by her own admission and with a condom. Her own account also notes that she checked more than once that a condom was installed and found that it was. Her assumption that the pool could only have materialized because he deliberately broke the condom for whatever reason is ludicrous.

Anything she, or Sofia below, says about their state of mind, or their opinion of what he was thinking is meaningless as he can't read their minds and well after the fact when they're pissed about him for other reasons.




Which occurred in the context of him being invited to stay with her, having sex with her, and sleeping in her bed. She rebuffed the approach and like all others when she wasn't interested, he demurred. That's not what one would expect of a rapist.



However the context of this one is a marathon sex session where he first disappointed her and fell asleep, then they twice awoke to having sex, regardless of who initiated the encounters (as she doesn't say) it establishes that wasn't beyond the bounds of their sexual relationship, because she then calls in sick to work to continue having sex with him and goes out to get him breakfast. They have sex again and then she awakes to find him starting again and inquires as to the condom and he tells her the truth and she says 'you better not have HIV' and he replies 'of course not,' and she does not object and afterward she even laughs and jokes about having a baby after finding he'd been recently tested. This is her own story.

That's not rape.

As a matter of fact unlike Anna, there's no absolute insistence of a condom with this one either, merely a preference for them and nagging, which he complied with. When he wanted not to use one she didn't object, and it was an issue of mirth until she got to talking to others, finding things out about Assange she didn't like from the one who'd blogged about legal revenge tactics, of which one in Sweden involves condom use...



Nothing like that happened here though, and there's also an expectation of consent, which happens when two people are willingly in bed naked together. If the slavering brute tries something mild and not out of the ordinary (for a sexual relationship) but something the other doesn't like, then she says something like 'no, don't do that,' and at that point if he fails to comply then the question of withdrawn consent arises. Otherwise we're going to need contracts and pre-choreographed sex!



That's where the word 'No' comes in handy. Her regaling of her state of mind much later is pretty much irrelevant and after indications from her own story she wasn't very distressed about it until she found out he was sleeping with another woman who just happened to know legal revenge strategies.




Uh, huh, uh huh.

Whether or not it's even illegal in Sweden has yet to be established, but what she may have found out is she can get the brute punished by at least being arrested, humiliated and thrown in jail, and there was little chance of consequences for her.





Actually the more I look into it, the less I'm sure of even that. It looks to me like it was originally considered not worthy of a rape prosecution as Eva Finné closed it saying “But the content of the interrogation does not support any claim that a crime has been committed” but it was then picked up by an activist lawyer named Claes Borgström from the fringes of one of their political parties who made a fuss and a prosecutor with a reputation for bias in these cases who restarted the whole mess. It appears there's a policewoman named Irmeli Krans who may be connected to Anna and the instigator of this, meaning rape charges never should have been even filed. She was apparently removed from the case and might have embellished something, and she too has activist connections apparently with Claes Borgström but I couldn't find corroboration for that outside blogs and such.

It doesn't actually matter, as the charge is what it is, and in my view that's a mockery of rape and an insult to real victims, however it does explain a great deal about how this got as far as it has. It looks like this is internal Swedish politics and it's activists like this which have lead to Sweden becoming the laughingstock of the free world in regards to rape law and false accusations.

However it works out nicely for everyone else pissed off at Julian Assange, he cowers in corner knowing full well even if he's mailed to Ecuador in a box ('diplomatic pouch'--worse than steerage!) there may very well be those who'd like nothing better than to drag him back to Sweden by his short-n-curlies for his gelding.

That's a pretty accurate summary, i agree... I mean i really dislike the man, he gives me the creeps, but this whole thing has turned into a witch-hunt.

 

[uke2se]

That's a pretty accurate summary, i agree... I mean i really dislike the man, he gives me the creeps, but this whole thing has turned into a witch-hunt.

How has it turned into a witch-hunt?

Let's imagine that this was someone else than Assange.

The person allegedly rapes two women, then flees the country. What do you think Swedish authorities should do about it?

 

[Jaxe]

How has it turned into a witch-hunt?

Let's imagine that this was someone else than Assange.

The person allegedly rapes two women, then flees the country. What do you think Swedish authorities should do about it?

I am not referring to the Swedish authorities, they are compelled to pursue this because of the law. One may have opinions on how the law is written (not to mention abused), but that's irrelevant here.

By witch hunt i refer to posters like Ben church, Tyr_13 et al who will take any angle, ignore anything that doesn't fit with the way they 'want' it to be. Just to call Assange a rapist. Sort of the opposite of the apologists...

That's why i like Kaosium's summary, it's just the state of things, it's the way i would explain the situation if i were as handy with words as him. No conspiracy necessary

 

[Kaosium]

Funny that you quoted part of the reason that it is believed that Sweden has a high complaint level, and not the rest. Funny that you also forgot to add the part of the quote that stated that Sweden's rape rate isn't different to other countries.

in Sweden a lot of effort is made to register all cases that can be suspected to be rape. As this is done at a very early stage of the process, cases are included that later turn out to be some other sex crime, or even no crime at all. In addition to this, all individual acts are registered — not just the latest occasion or the main crime. In many other countries cases like these are filtered out and do not show up in the statistics.

No, it's not 'funny' at all, it's another issue. What this case (and the number of unprosecuted claims in both Sweden and Britain) actually suggests is that the idea that there are a lot of unreported rapes is nothing but a myth. They encourage everything to be reported, and what they find out is most are not rape. It does not surprise me that there's those who'd like to fight that revelation tooth and nail. I've heard it myself dozens if not hundreds of times, but if this is the caliber of the majority of those 'unreported rapes' that suggests those stats that are compiled through 'victim studies' are probably of a dubious nature: taking isolated incidents out of their proper context. There are certainly incontestable rapes that go unreported, highlighting those as case studies but then including the pretense that those statistics are generated (mostly) on the basis of those and not dubious claims like this (and the others not prosecuted) is likely to be deceiving.

I have no idea why you linked to Nigel Hawkes article to try and prove that Sweden had a high conviction rate of three to four times the European Average as he never states that in the article, all he says is that the UK's is lower than Sweden's.

Middle of the fourth paragraph:

Sweden convicts three to four times as many men per head of population as the European average, but still has almost as low a conviction rate as we do when measured as a proportion of rapes reported to the police.

It is well known that rape is notoriously hard to prosecute because 90% of the time it is merely a "He says, She says" case with very little physical evidence. Just because the police fail to prosecute or even when a defendant is found Not Guilty doesn't mean no crime was committed and that the complaint was bogus, it means there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Now that's not saying that all complaints are true either, just that a complaint can be true, but for reasons of evidence it may never get a conviction.

As to this particular case, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I firmly believe that starting sexual intercourse with a sleeping person you are not in a long term relationship with and have no reason to believe that the person would consent if awake, and every reason to know that they would not, is a criminal action that most legal states call rape. You clearly don't. I guess at that point we are at an impasse. It would appear from this case and others that the laws agrees with me however.

I doubt that. If the sleeping part in this case was actually a factor, how come he wasn't charged with three counts of it? After all her story implies that was the third time they'd woken up to sex, after the first two she went out and got him breakfast and climbed back into bed with him for more sex. No, in this case they both got into bed with an expectation of sex, this is not a case where a sleeping person is surprised by sex, this is one where that's what they were in bed for. Only by removing the context do you end up with anything else.

This is what we call a false dichotomy.

What's your explanation for a fifty percent increase in reported rapes in five years? Either the number of actual rapes has gone up or there's been more false reports, I think the latter more likely.

No one is claiming that the sex in the case of AA wasn't consensual sex, in fact as you point out she herself says it was. This is why the accusations in the case of AA are not Rape, they are 1. Unlawful coercion, and 2. Sexual molestation. Neither of these require that the sex was non-consensual, so you are throwing in red herrings there. The accusations relate to his alleged holding her down and preventing her from moving while she struggled against him, and the alleged deliberate breaking of the condom.

Yeah, that's silly. It amounts to him being on top of her during sex that even at the end she agreed was consensual, and she also has to admit that she wasn't denied her condom.

Yes he demurred by allegedly stripping off and rubbing himself against her, an action that left her upset and made her left the property and request him to be gone, something he failed to do for another three days. I'm not sure what world you live in, but the idea that after having had sex with someone once, you are entitled to behave like that towards them is more than creepy to me. By the way, sharing a house and even a bed is NOT a open invitation to having sex, even if the person has had sex with you previously. In fact even being in a sexual relationship with another person is not an open invitation to having sex whenever you want it as most countries have conceded by the introduction of spousal rape laws.

Did you notice she never related that she'd said 'no?' Having sex with someone and continuing to sleep in the same bed might lead to further attempts without the 'no' word ever being uttered.

If you consider two perhaps three times to be a "marathon sex session".

Three to four, not counting the extended foreplay session where he was unable and she was hurt because of it.

Blatantly incorrect. on the previous occasions she stated that they awoke and had sex, not that they were awoken by having sex.

If she wasn't sure it seemed the most likely explanation is she was woken or half-asleep:

She must have fallen asleep for later she woke up and they had sex.
[...]
They fell asleep and when they woke up they could have had sex again, she's not really sure.

Again incorrect in details. She called in sick after Assange had left. Going and getting breakfast (which according to her he ordered her to do and wasn't happy about) is not an open invitation to sex.

What they did immediately after she returned was have more sex!

He wanted her to go out and buy more breakfast. She didn't want to leave him alone in the flat, she didn't know him well enough, but she did it anyway. When she left the flat he lay naked in her bed and was working with his phones. Before she left she said 'be good'. He replied 'don't worry, I'm always bad'. When she returned she served him oatmeal, milk, and juice. She'd already eaten before he woke up and spoken with a friend on the phone.

The Assault

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.

I figured when the breakfast was gotten was when the call to work was made, being as they'd have two more sessions of sex and sleep as well, however reading it again it implies the call was made after the trip to the train station which is certainly possible as well, it just suggests she works late or her work doesn't care if she calls in much later than she was supposed to be there, both of which are plausible.

I highlighted the important part for you. Whether you like it or not, previously having has sex does not give you cart blanche to keep having sex whenever you like, even if that sex was earlier in the day. Secondly, starting to have sex with someone who is asleep is a potentially a criminal offence because they are not in a condition to give their consent to such an action. The issue for if it is or isn't for me is would the person have given consent to the action had they been awake? In this case the answer is quite clear. Since she had demanded the use of condoms previously, in fact in her own words "She'd been nagging about condoms all night long," she would not have consented to having unprotected sex with Assange had she been awake when the act had commenced.

In the context of having sex that many times having gone asleep and waking and going asleep again that trying to call rape without a 'no' ever being uttered is ludicrous. She consented to having sex repeatedly and stayed in bed with him and even returned to the same bed, trying to divorce that sessions from the others may be necessary to make a rape case, however that suggests the rape case is damned specious.

To me the actions taken afterward are irrelevant to whether consent was given for two reasons. 1) I find it very hard to accept the post dating of consent. Consent needs to be given before the action, not after. If consent is not gained before an action, then by definition that action is non-consensual. And no, consent can't just be assumed by previous actions. 2) In many cases, and it appears this is one, once the action has been started, the infringed party merely accepts that action based on the fact it is already being done. This is not consent but rather resignation to the action after the fact.

That's why the word 'no' is necessary, as requiring a 'yes' for each action after the agreement to sex just isn't going to happen.

This boils down to the whole "Victims must act in the specific way I demand or they can't be victims" mentality. I fail to agree with you here. People act in entirely different ways to things, and most of the time that won't be the way you demand that they do. Also, to the whole "no absolute insistence of a condom" the only time she failed to insist on one was when he started when she was sleep. Assange was fully aware that on the previous occasions she had indeed insisted on his using them and so had absolutely no excuse for claiming not to have known it in the final case. The allowing it to continue was not an acceptance of not having one, but rather a resignation to what was being done to her because it was too late to change it.

She has to let him know if it's that big a deal, otherwise she can't claim rape on what she was thinking but didn't bother to say. Just about all people who have had sex have at some time resigned themselves to doing something that they didn't especially want to, that doesn't mean the other party committed rape--most notably if the action taken wasn't especially unusual. Having sex like the vast majority of humans in history have had it isn't notably untoward, and there were no consequences for not using a condom in this instance.

"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."

This is a classic response to a feeling of powerlessness and resignation to allow a form of abuse to continue. It doesn't make a person any less a victim. When a spouse is being beaten, they don't stop being a victim because they give up and just accept the beatings without complaint.

'Abuse?' She was having sex like she'd had numerous times already! The difference was the millimeter of latex. If it was that big a deal she needed to speak up, her regaling a 'feeling of powerlessness' after speaking to those who know 'legal revenge strategies' and being elicited by someone familiar with the terminology doesn't make it so, and in any case one cannot expect Assange to read her mind.

Wow. Sorry but being in bed naked with someone in no way shape or form implies consent to having sex.

Not quite what I meant. It was more along the lines of being naked in bed after consenting to sex. Each and every action taken after that does not require a 'yes' but a 'no' can withdraw consent--that's what I was getting at.

We're not talking about trying "something mild and not out of the ordinary (for the relationship they had)" we are talking about a man starting sexual intercourse in a manner that he knew, after being told repeatedly, was unacceptable at a point in time that he also knew the woman would be unable to object to his doing so. No contracts and choreography needed, just some descent human manners and being able to do what the woman wanted after being told multiple times, rather than forcing his own will onto her.

She doesn't give the impression it was 'unacceptable' but that she kept reminding him and making them convenient. Anna was the one who's story was of an absolute insistence, Sofia's not so much.

Again untrue to her statement. It states that she learned that "she understood she was the victim of a crime" after talking with her friends later. It doesn't state, and there is no evidence that this discussion happened after she had spoken with AA and found out he'd slept with her. If anything she was likely under the impression given to her by Assange that AA was only into girls at the time she spoke to her friends.

Not quite, go to Anna's story:

She received an email message from Sofia Friday 20 August where she wonders if she can reach Assange as she had something important to tell him. Anna understood immediately what it was about and contacted Sofia who then told her what had happened to her, that she and Assange had had sex and that he didn't want to use a condom etc. Sofia wanted to follow this up with the police and Anna decided to follow along, foremost as support.

Anna says she already heard from several sources that Assange 'chases all women who cross his path'. Considering Assange's reputation Anna felt it very important that they used a condom the time they had sex, that is the day before the seminar.

This whole debacle started when she first communicated with Anna which alerted her to the fact that Assange was sleeping with Anna who wasn't just into girls like Assange had said ('The lying Beast!') and under the assumption the rest is true she and her probably spoke to their other friends at this point and compared notes and gossip about his reputation.

Yes amazing isn't it, some people may not know that they have been offended against until it's explained to them by someone else that actually knows the law. Funny thing, I didn't know I had been illegally dismissed from a job back in 1998 when I was forced to resign, until I had it explained to me a couple of months ago. I was in the dark about being the victim of an employment crime for 14 years! I was also involved in a case of sexual harassment (as a victim) where I didn't recognise what it was for well two years until I attended a seminar on sexual harassment in the workplace and went, OMG that was me. All I knew what that the person in question made me highly uncomfortable in her actions towards me. By that stage I had already left the company, and so has she. The fact of the matter is that in the clear light of day, and with a number of years to reflect on what occurred, you still seem to be unwilling to accept that it might have been a crime, so to point the finger and say she should have known immediately and responded to it as such, or it wasn't one, certainly is a double standard.

I don't think a crime was committed based on her own testimony, neither did the original prosecutor. In fact I don't think it reasonable to assume such an action should be--except possibly by the barest technicality in a country with absurd laws.

Or she might have found out that commencing sexual intercourse when a person in unable to consent and doing so in a manner they would not have consented to is called non-consensual sex, or if you want a non technical term for it, rape.

However if the likely result of such a report is that the accused will be automatically arrested and thrown in jail and no blame is likely to attach to the accuser, and there's proof one of them knows this and it's become quite trendy culturally to make such complaints, then I think the nature of that conversation was probably not as much her being informed a crime had been committed against her.

I'm not going to bother responding to the last part of the post as it really is just more mudslinging that has been repeatedly dealt with in this thread.

Mudslinging? No, politics, but the two are often related. In this case it seems the most likely explanation for why this was resurrected and pursued, and I don't think it has been properly 'dealt with' in which case it should be acknowledged.

ETA: Actually I will add one more thing. If these two were really out to get Assange, I suspect that they would have done a far better job. Instead of saying that he held her down AA could have come up with a far better attempted rape story I am sure by just embellishing the statement she gave a little more. Adding in how she told him she wanted him to use a condom and he refused and tried to push her legs apart anyway saying he wasn't going to use one, and that it was only after she got out from under him and he convinced her he was sorry and would use one that they had sex. For SW she could have stated that on waking and finding he wasn't using one she told him to get off and he refused and held her down to finish. These stories would have been very easy to concoct and use, not that far from what they did tell so as to be seen as suspicious, but would have been far, far stronger as accusations. The fact they didn't make them stronger is to me one of the major signals that the tales are true.

I agree here actually, I think this is merely a case of Sweden's curious current culture in this regard, which explains the original complaints, and then it getting picked up by those who fanatically support that and wanted to make an issue of it. There's other indications the two original complainants aren't the ones who pushed it to this extreme: it may be true that all they wanted was to humiliate him like they felt after they found out he'd been sleeping with both, the mechanism being the arrest and HIV test. It just so happened after that it got caught up in Sweden's state of sexual politics which also happen to be trendy in the UK.

 

[uke2se]

I am not referring to the Swedish authorities, they are compelled to pursue this because of the law. One may have opinions on how the law is written (not to mention abused), but that's irrelevant here.

By witch hunt i refer to posters like Ben church, Tyr_13 et al who will take any angle, ignore anything that doesn't fit with the way they 'want' it to be. Just to call Assange a rapist. Sort of the opposite of the apologists...

That's why i like Kaosium's summary, it's just the state of things, it's the way i would explain the situation if i were as handy with words as him. No conspiracy necessary

I think it would be wrong to call Assange a rapist. I would call him an alleged rapist and a fugitive from justice. That's exactly what he provably is. What is needed is for him to give himself up. It is his own doing that this thing has been blown out of proportions.

 

[uke2se]

I agree here actually, I think this is merely a case of Sweden's curious current culture in this regard, which explains the original complaints, and then it getting picked up by those who fanatically support that and wanted to make an issue of it. There's other indications the two original complainants aren't the ones who pushed it to this extreme: it may be true that all they wanted was to humiliate him like they felt after they found out he'd been sleeping with both, the mechanism being the arrest and HIV test. It just so happened after that it got caught up in Sweden's state of sexual politics which also happen to be trendy in the UK.

What is strange is that you are wrong here. It's not those who "fanatically" support harsher treatment against rapists and lessened burnden for what is called rape that are taking Assange to task here. It's those who supports a strong judicial system and who believes noone is above the law that do.

The complaintants are indeed not the ones who pushed this to this extreme. That was Assange himself. The Swedish judiciary system, including the women's lawyer (who only acted on behalf of the two women), the prosecutor (who only acted according to her lawful mandate), the many judges (who all ruled that what was described constituted rape under Swedish and UK law), have all done exactly what they should be doing according to the procedures of a state governed by law.

By the way, I don't particularly enjoy how you make light of the serious charges these women have leveled against Assange.

 

[Kaosium]

It was then appealed, and the appeal was upheld. So one prosecutor said it was not rape, two said it was, as did the courts.

If that prosecutor represented the facts of the case to that court as dishonestly as her EAW, then it is no surprise that they agreed with her. Otherwise I'd be most interested in just what exactly the courts said regarding this case. I've read the British extradition one, and found it curious. It reads just like a court decision in a miscarriage of justice, in fact it reads like an Italian judge having to write a Motivations Report on a guilty verdict in which the accused was innocent: tortured attempts to twist the facts out of context to support a verdict already determined.

However if I understand it that's just the judgement for the extradition, not a court that could determine guilt and impose a sentence. Thus perhaps it's just a washing of hands, as this isn't really their problem.

No, it was not picked up - the two women contacted his law firm and asked for representation.

At which time he picked it up! Now, has it ever been determined just why those two women went to that lawyer? Was he perhaps recommended by someone, or was it just coincidence?

Activist - well - that was his job from 2000 to 2007, with responsibility to



Fringes? He is a member of the Social Democratic party, and has been their spokesperson on gender equality. And yes, it was a group within that party that set up the conference that JA was speaking on.

Which is an excellent explanation for why your 'rape' statistics have become the jest of the civilized world. If he's not on the fringes of the SD with the positions he's taken then you've even greater problems.

When you say "made a fuss" - what are you referring to then? That he acted according to the law and on behalf of his two clients and appealed the case?

Yes. According to the way the Swedish prosecution authority is setup, all appeals on sexual related cases should be routed to her, it's documented on the Prosecution authority home page, as well as in this thread.

That explains a lot! Perhaps someone else should have that position?

So you have no facts, and still you post it?

What are the facts in regards to Irmeli Krans' involvement in this case?

You could have read the thread and found out that you were wrong. There is even a link to a PM written by the police that received the two women, heard their complaint and contacted the first prosecutor. Maybe you should look for better sources.

I cannot read Swedish and don't know how to copy that into a translator. Your description merely says that 'the police' (would that include Irmeli Krans in this instance?) contacted the original prosecutor, which would be the one who dismissed it. I don't understand what else you expect me to take from your admonishment.

So now that I have shown that several of your statements that you base this on is wrong - will you change your mind?

About what?

At any rate I appreciate the additional information your post provided.

 

[Kaosium]

What is strange is that you are wrong here. It's not those who "fanatically" support harsher treatment against rapists and lessened burnden for what is called rape that are taking Assange to task here. It's those who supports a strong judicial system and who believes noone is above the law that do.

I think the ones acting 'above the law' are the plethora of ones making bogus allegations and Ny who may bear some responsibility for that. She is the one who ought to be prosecuted if you want a more effective justice system and people not being above the law.

The complaintants are indeed not the ones who pushed this to this extreme. That was Assange himself. The Swedish judiciary system, including the women's lawyer (who only acted on behalf of the two women), the prosecutor (who only acted according to her lawful mandate), the many judges (who all ruled that what was described constituted rape under Swedish and UK law), have all done exactly what they should be doing according to the procedures of a state governed by law.

This never should have gotten past the first prosecutor who dismissed the charges. Everything from that point on stinks like a sewer and is probably what caused Assange to think someone else might have been behind it.

However I agree that it does appear to me the impetus behind it going this far is not necessarily the two women.

By the way, I don't particularly enjoy how you make light of the serious charges these women have leveled against Assange.

They are a mockery of real rape victims. Rape cannot be a charge leveled after the fact regarding consensual sex because there's some technicality that can be stretched by frenetic prosecutors and others with a political agenda to hurt innocent people, which in this regard is what Julian Assange is.

 

[uke2se]

If that prosecutor represented the facts of the case to that court as dishonestly as her EAW, then it is no surprise that they agreed with her. Otherwise I'd be most interested in just what exactly the courts said regarding this case. I've read the British extradition one, and found it curious. It reads just like a court decision in a miscarriage of justice, in fact it reads like an Italian judge having to write a Motivations Report on a guilty verdict in which the accused was innocent: tortured attempts to twist the facts out of context to support a verdict already determined.

You are actually expecting us to believe that you not only are in possession of the full facts of the case - more so than the courts, in fact - but you are also better at judging from these facts than trained lawyers and three separate courts?

However if I understand it that's just the judgement for the extradition, not a court that could determine guilt and impose a sentence. Thus perhaps it's just a washing of hands, as this isn't really their problem.

It could also be the case that these people who you apparently believe are your lessers, actually know more than you.

At which time he picked it up! Now, has it ever been determined just why those two women went to that lawyer? Was he perhaps recommended by someone, or was it just coincidence?

There's a thread about this in the conspiracy forum. You are welcome to make wild assertions there.

Which is an excellent explanation for why your 'rape' statistics have become the jest of the civilized world. If he's not on the fringes of the SD with the positions he's taken then you've even greater problems.

Jest of the civilized world? It wasn't until a bunch of nobodies started thinking they were better than trained legal professionals just because their little favorite alleged rapist was accused.

That explains a lot! Perhaps someone else should have that position?

Why?

What are the facts in regards to Irmeli Krans' involvement in this case?

Why?

I cannot read Swedish and don't know how to copy that into a translator. Your description merely says that 'the police' (would that include Irmeli Krans in this instance?) contacted the original prosecutor, which would be the one who dismissed it. I don't understand what else you expect me to take from your admonishment.

What you should take from it is that you don't know jack about this case and should stop trying to pretend that you do.

About what?

:facepalm:

 

[uke2se]

I think the ones acting 'above the law' are the plethora of ones making bogus allegations and Ny who may bear some responsibility for that.

I didn't realize you were actually a witness in this case as well as having full control over all the evidence.

She is the one who ought to be prosecuted if you want a more effective justice system and people not being above the law.

Why, of course. Next time someone rapes a woman in Sweden we'll just prosecute the prosecutor. That'll solve everything!

This never should have gotten past the first prosecutor who dismissed the charges.

Unfortunately for you, we live in a society governed by laws and not a dictatorship run by you.

Everything from that point on stinks like a sewer

Only your arguments stink.

and is probably what caused Assange to think someone else might have been behind it.

No, that was his paranoia.

However I agree that it does appear to me the impetus behind it going this far is not necessarily the two women.

Nope. It's all Assange.

They are a mockery of real rape victims. Rape cannot be a charge leveled after the fact regarding consensual sex because there's some technicality that can be stretched by frenetic prosecutors and others with a political agenda to hurt innocent people, which in this regard is what Julian Assange is.

I'll just leave this paragraph as a testament to how ******** vile the arguments of the Assange sycophants actually are.

 

[Kaosium]

You are actually expecting us to believe that you not only are in possession of the full facts of the case - more so than the courts, in fact - but you are also better at judging from these facts than trained lawyers and three separate courts?

Yep! What one looks at is the evidence (that would their statements) which in this case is either strongly suggestive of a false accusation or an indictment of Swedish law on the subject. There may be those (and possibly PW is amongst them) who want this to become some sort of universal law, I strongly disagree with them as in my view it would cause grievous miscarriages of justice and make a mockery of actual rape victims. However I have a great deal of respect for Phantom Wolf, thus will agree to disagree with him on this specific subject.

It could also be the case that these people who you apparently believe are your lessers, actually know more than you.

Would this and the other post be an example of 'outrage?' Emote away, it means nothing to me at this juncture, just an indication someone isn't thinking straight.

 

[uke2se]

Yep!

What one looks at is the evidence (that would their statements) which in this case is either strongly suggestive of a false accusation or an indictment of Swedish law on the subject.

I disagree, and as I'm as much an authority on this case as you are, your assertion is simply an opinion amongst many.

There may be those (and possibly PW is amongst them) who want this to become some sort of universal law,

Nope, just Swedish (and UK) law, which as it happens, is exactly what it is.

I strongly disagree with them as in my view it would cause grievous miscarriages of justice and make a mockery of actual rape victims.

The only one making a mockery of actual rape victims here is you.

Would this and the other post be an example of 'outrage?' Emote away, it means nothing to me at this juncture, just an indication someone isn't thinking straight.

Yes. That someone just happens to be you.

 

[Kaosium]

The only one making a mockery of actual rape victims here is you.

No, I'd say it's the ones who are either leading, or trying to lead, the civilized world in the number of bogus rape reports. That actually has a deleterious effect not only on the people wrongly accused, but on the ones who were actually victims of rape. Given time it makes a rape accusation into a mundane thing and cannot help but water down the term until someone being violently (or with the threat of such) taken against their will becomes conflated with crap like condomless sex which was not objected to until later in the week when they found out he was sleeping with someone else.

 

[uke2se]

No, I'd say it's the ones who are either leading, or trying to lead, the civilized world in the number of bogus rape reports.

Nobody is making bogus rape reports in this case. You just made that up.

That actually has a deleterious effect not only on the people wrongly accused, but on the ones who were actually victims of rape.

These women are actually victims of rape according to Swedish, UK and as the courts said, most of European law.

Given time it makes a rape accusation into a mundane thing and cannot help but water down the term until someone being violently (or with the threat of such) taken against their will becomes conflated with crap like condomless sex which was not objected to until later in the week when they found out he was sleeping with someone else.

You can hold that opinion if you want. Doesn't have any bearing on this case. You are simply wrong. The law demonstrates that.

 

[Kaosium]

You can hold that opinion if you want. Doesn't have any bearing on this case. You are simply wrong. The law demonstrates that.

Then 'the law is an ass' and it needs to be changed back. Rape should be considered a serious offense in my view, and including this sort of nonsense isn't serious, it's laughable.

Until then Sweden ought to give each person unfortunate enough to visit there a (encyclopedia sized!) listing of what can be considered rape there that wouldn't be in countries more respecting of the human rights of all. They should have to take a test and pass it for their own safety.

The victims of cases like this are the ones who have their reputations destroyed, possibly their lives ruined, and who have to do years in prison for esoteric offenses humane countries wouldn't impose.

 

[uke2se]

Then 'the law is an ass' and it needs to be changed back. Rape should be considered a serious offense in my view, and including this sort of nonsense isn't serious, it's laughable.

Until then Sweden ought to give each person unfortunate enough to visit there a (encyclopedia sized!) listing of what can be considered rape there that wouldn't be in countries more respecting of the human rights of all. They should have to take a test and pass it for their own safety.

The victims of cases like this are the ones who have their reputations destroyed, possibly their lives ruined, and who have to do years in prison for esoteric offenses humane countries wouldn't impose.

You can start a campaign to have rape laws altered in Europe (not just Sweden, as the courts have shown) if you want. Doesn't have any bearing on this case, or the fact that if it is shown that Assange did what he is accused of doing, the two women are real rape victims, and Assange is a real rapist, according to the legal definition of the word.

As for your opinion of what human rights are, I am simply appalled that you think forcibly holding down a woman when she wants you to wear a condom during sex, or penetrating an unconscious woman should be considered human rights.

 

[Kaosium]

You can start a campaign to have rape laws altered in Europe (not just Sweden, as the courts have shown) if you want. Doesn't have any bearing on this case, or the fact that if it is shown that Assange did what he is accused of doing, the two women are real rape victims, and Assange is a real rapist, according to the legal definition of the word.

I suspect the only thing I (or anyone else) can do is make Sweden fodder for satire considering that 'rape' and those two 'victims' of a rape. Maybe I can make jokes about Swedish moose being more desirable than Swedish women these days as at least the moose won't cry rape for some bogus reason!

As for your opinion of what human rights are, I am simply appalled that you think forcibly holding down a woman when she wants you to wear a condom during sex, or penetrating an unconscious woman should be considered human rights.

Heh, I found Anna's description of that another reason to wonder about her story. In an episode of consensual sex with a condom by her own admission she claims that his being on top of her (didja know there are sexual positions like that? It's in the Kama Sutra and everything!) and grabbing her was an attempt to..what was it again? Not put on the condom he put on? Perhaps Anna's imagination ran wild in trying to 'support' the others story?

Sofia was not unconscious, again by her own admission, and that should be obvious due to her immediate response, which would quickly include assenting to both the sex, and allowing him to do so without a condom.

And again, none of this was in issue until they found out he was sleeping with the other, and filed charges in the country with the most violations of innocent people's rights in regards to rape accusations.