Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now, address the rest of what I posted, please?

You falsely portrayed my position. The rest has been addressed ad nauseum.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, let's see:

....You are accusing women of lying about a sexual assault.

No, I said it should be considered a possible conclusion.

....I think that is a VERY rare occurrence. What is NOT rare is women being sexually assaulted and then doing nothing at all about it because of shame or conflicted emotions or peer pressure.

What relevance does this have to saying it should be considered a possible conclusion?

....Nothing we have seen to date constitutes "evidence" - what we have are several almost mutually-exclusive retellings of the same story, and it will only become evidence when Assange is dragged in chains back to Sweden to the appointment he promised to attend two years and millions of pounds ago.

Do you think he'll answer differently than he publicly already has?

Do you discount the evidence that no report was made to police until the women found out about each other? And do you discount the evidence that their initial goal was for JA to get an HIV test, not to complain JA had molested them?

 

[BenBurch]

I discount all of the evidence that has not been heard by a magistrate or a court.

 

[WildCat]

I discount all of the evidence that has not been heard by a magistrate or a court.

Yeah, it's funny how stories change under oath.

 

[BenBurch]

Yeah, it's funny how stories change under oath.

It's also funny how people who have skin in the game will shamelessly distort the picture of the evidence that is supposed to exist and somehow when the real evidence is presented will claim it is false because it does not match their distortions.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes, I was serious. I'm looking at the whole picture here and I find it hard to reconcile the consensual nature here becoming non-consensual only after the two women found out JA was having sex with both of them.

Incorrect, it was deemed as non-consensual when they told a police officer what had happened and she recognised it as such. If various reports are to be believed, the women invloved didn't recogonse it as non-consensual until at less after talking with their own lawyer, if not even then.

But I don't see either of those two scenarios here. I see two women who willingly had sex with this guy then were angry and wanted him to get an HIV test. He ignored the request, probably pissing the girls off even more.

So they concocted a story that barely meets criminal activity, then go to the police to discuss something other than the criminal aspect they invented, and hope like heck that the policewoman they speak to will pick it up as will the prosecutor. Come on, do you really believe that? If they were going to invent something, don't you think they'd at least do a decent job of making it darn obvious and come right out with it as a claim to the police rather than playing some crazy sort of guessing game?

And victim 2's story is equally problematic. Not waking up is barely credible. Add to that the blog about how to get even and the fact she was not upset until finding out about JA having multiple partners and the credibility of scenario 2 dissipates as well.

You are getting your victims mixed up, it was number 1 that had the article on how to get even, not number 2.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I discount all of the evidence that has not been heard by a magistrate or a court.

The women have testified in court, under oath?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Incorrect, it was deemed as non-consensual when they told a police officer what had happened and she recognised it as such. If various reports are to be believed, the women invloved didn't recogonse it as non-consensual until at less after talking with their own lawyer, if not even then.

So they concocted a story that barely meets criminal activity, then go to the police to discuss something other than the criminal aspect they invented, and hope like heck that the policewoman they speak to will pick it up as will the prosecutor. Come on, do you really believe that? If they were going to invent something, don't you think they'd at least do a decent job of making it darn obvious and come right out with it as a claim to the police rather than playing some crazy sort of guessing game?...

Did either of the women make a police report or seek legal advice BEFORE they found out about each other? If not, then what I said was correct.

"Didn't recognize it was non-consensual"? Were they children or mentally challenged?

They wanted JA to get an HIV test and he brushed them off. He's a creep, not a criminal. The evidence is the sex was consensual.

 

[BenBurch]

I find it astounding that you don't have more insight into the thought processes of somebody who has been sexually abused by somebody they expected to trust.

 

[nathan]

"Didn't recognize it was non-consensual"? Were they children or mentally challenged?

sigh, I didn't want to get into this. If I may digress a bit and talk about bullying. Victims of bullying often don't realize they are being bullied until much later.

A few years ago there was some reality celebrity cooking program on UK TV (a hell's kitchen for 'names' hosted by marco pierre white. One of the participants was Jim Davidson and one was an openly gay man. JD bullied the gay man, in front of the cameras, in front of the other cast. *NO ONE* called him on it at the time. The abusee eventually argued back, but never called it bullying (I think he used words like 'obnoxious' and 'rude', even though he had been reduced to tears). In the to-tv private chats these things have, no one called it bullying. But bullying it was.

Similarly, victims of cons don't realize they are being conned at the time. And may deny it for a very long time. Those that do realize, don't get conned, (but may get robbed).

I don't see why victims of non-consensual sex are in a special position to always recognize it for what it is.

 

[Mycroft]

Incorrect, it was deemed as non-consensual when they told a police officer what had happened and she recognised it as such. If various reports are to be believed, the women invloved didn't recogonse it as non-consensual until at less after talking with their own lawyer, if not even then.

Which is common with rape. Rape is traumatic, victims often take a long time to come to terms with it and have to go through the stages of grief.

 

[nathan]

I think Assange will eventually do something stupid and the police will be obliged to martyr him.

I like your optimism that this has not already happened!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I find it astounding that you don't have more insight into the thought processes of somebody who has been sexually abused by somebody they expected to trust.

I find it astounding that you assume women are always the victims and men are always guilty of what any woman accuses them of.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Did either of the women make a police report or seek legal advice BEFORE they found out about each other? If not, then what I said was correct.

No it's not correct. You stated that they changed the consensual sex to non-consensual after meeting each other. This is incorrect, the police determined that the sex was non-consensual based on what the women told them happened.

"Didn't recognize it was non-consensual"? Were they children or mentally challenged?

As others have noted, many people who are victims of crime fail to understand or realise that they have been the victims of a crime, especially in the area of Date Rapes where it is done by bullying and coersion rather than force and violence. Oh that's right, I forgot, if it isn't violent it isn't rape according to you, is it.

They wanted JA to get an HIV test and he brushed them off. He's a creep, not a criminal. The evidence is the sex was consensual.

The police, at least two prosecutors, and the Swedish courts all seem to disagree with your assessment on that, and I'd suggest they know the facts of the case far better than you do.

 

[BenBurch]

I find it astounding that you assume women are always the victims and men are always guilty of what any woman accuses them of.

No I assume that EVERY allegation of this type deserves 100% of all law enforcement and judicial action possible. That will decide if there is a victim, and that will decide if there is a criminal.

ETA: You are not of the strange position that a woman cannot sexually assault a man, are you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

sigh, I didn't want to get into this. If I may digress a bit and talk about bullying. Victims of bullying often don't realize they are being bullied until much later.

Sigh... Why is it that because I currently conclude, based on the evidence we have here, with these women, with their specific claims, in this specific circumstance they had consensual sex and when they found out about each other became upset with JA. I think the most likely scenario is upon becoming upset they confronted JA asking him to get an HIV test and he apparently brushed them off, annoying them even more so they went to the police thinking they could force JA to get the test.

I see no evidence this is a case of date rape or anything close.

I see no evidence they were bullied. I see no evidence they are victims.

I do see evidence people in the thread are non-critically applying stereotypes to the situation and to my position.

 

[BenBurch]

....

I see no evidence

...

And that is fine because you are not the one who needs to be satisfied with the evidence. You don't matter. (And I don't, either.) What matters is what Sweden's legal system is satisfied with. Nothing else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No I assume that EVERY allegation of this type deserves 100% of all law enforcement and judicial action possible. That will decide if there is a victim, and that will decide if there is a criminal.

Round and round the mulberry bush
you claim you only want process
But you dismiss the option
JA merely asked caution
to be in the UK when accessed.

 

[Here_to_learn]

JA merely asked caution
to be in the UK when accessed.

And UK High Court found that this argument did not hold water, and that he should should go to Sweden.

You can of course continue to argue that you think this is wrong, but (again) you have to say why you think you know better than the UK high court and the Swedish courts what the law says.

 

[nathan]

Sigh... Why is it that because I currently conclude, based on the evidence we have here, with these women, with their specific claims, in this specific circumstance they had consensual sex and when they found out about each other became upset with JA.

I'm not sure what your question is here -- I'm having a very hard time parsing your sentence. I'm well aware you think the women colluded with each other and then made complaint(s).

What I was responding to was your refutation of the claim that they didn't realize they had non-consensual sex at the time they were having that sex:

"Didn't recognize it was non-consensual"? Were they children or mentally challenged?

Are you still of the opinion that only mentally challenged or children can be unaware they have had non-consensual sex?