Julian Assange Rape Accusation Thread

[karmakramer]

Wow, could the government make this any less obvious?

 

[zazen]

and zazen - quote in full makes it seems different:

"Stephens has repeatedly complained that Assange has not been allowed to see the full allegations against him, but it is understood his Swedish defence team have copies of all the documents seen by the Guardian. He maintains that other potentially exculpatory evidence has not been made available to his team and may not have been seen by the Guardian."

 

Documents does not equal evidence, and if not all documents have been seen by the Guardian, then not all documents have been seen by his defense team.

 

OK, that makes a bit more sense.

 

No wait. Stephens says Assange has not been allowed to see the full allegations, thats different to not seeing the full evidence. But in that document the allegations are there. Or are they?

[chenGOD]

and zazen - quote in full makes it seems different:

"Stephens has repeatedly complained that Assange has not been allowed to see the full allegations against him, but it is understood his Swedish defence team have copies of all the documents seen by the Guardian. He maintains that other potentially exculpatory evidence has not been made available to his team and may not have been seen by the Guardian."

 

Documents does not equal evidence, and if not all documents have been seen by the Guardian, then not all documents have been seen by his defense team.

 

OK, that makes a bit more sense.

 

No wait. Stephens says Assange has not been allowed to see the full allegations, thats different to not seeing the full evidence. But in that document the allegations are there. Or are they?

 

You originally said that: "That makes his claim that no evidence has been presented look very dodgy."

 

Documents with allegations have been provided. Allegations do not equal evidence. Stephens maintains that not all of the allegations have been presented, and (i imagine his reasoning to be) as such it is difficult to create a defense case. As a secondary point, Stephens maintains that there is actual evidence (not only allegations) which is being withheld that would clear Assange.

 

So no actual evidence has been provided that shows rape, only allegations.

[lumpenprol]

I'm not sure about these allegations one way or another - I think it's highly possible Assange is a bit of a pig - but there's some funny stuff in there:

 

Ms. A told the police that Mr. Assange pinned her arms and legs to stop her from reaching for a condom. Eventually one was used — but, she told her police interviewer, he appeared to have “done something” with it, resulting in its tearing.

Like, what? Did something with it? Someone needs to teach me this ninja technique...

 

In the report, she described waking up to find him having sex with her again, without a condom. Later that morning, Ms. W told the police, Mr. Assange “ordered her to get some water and orange juice for him.” She said “she didn’t like being ordered around in her own home but got it anyway.”

Lol, sounds like Julian...

 

From Enkoping, Mr. Assange returned to Ms. A’s apartment, despite what she describes as a deteriorating relationship in the light of their previous sexual encounter. Then, the following day, according to the statements the prosecution has made in the British courts, Mr. Assange tried to initiate sex by rubbing himself against her. The Guardian suggests that he was naked from the waist down. This, lawyers for the Swedish government have said in court, is the grounds for one of the allegations of “sexual molestation.”

Jesus, in Sweden I guess you're not allowed to come on to someone without it being molestation? Grow up, little girls...

 

After reading through that it sounds less like a plot against Assange, and more like two women pissed that he used them for sex. Hell hath no fury like the woman scorned etc.

[chenGOD]

I dunno if rubbing your naked genitals against someone is really just "coming on to them" though lol

 

 

and yeah the rap news is fucking awesome.

[lumpenprol]

I dunno if rubbing your naked genitals against someone is really just "coming on to them" though lol

 

But how many times has that happened to you? They spent the night together. I always sleep naked or half-naked. So he wakes up with morning wood, there's a hot chick sleeping by his side, and he rubs up against her to try to get some action.

 

I'd write some more but I have to go molest some food with my lips before leaving for work...

[chenGOD]

lol fair enough, i just had the image from the guardian article that it wasn't while they were lying next to each other

 

She told police that Assange had continued to make sexual advances to her every day after they slept together and on Wednesday 18 August had approached her, naked from the waist down, and rubbed himself against her.

 

That makes it seem more like, she was having coffee and he walked up naked and started rubbing his junk on her...

[lumpenprol]

yeah I don't know, I'm inferring too. But it is clear she let him sleep over, so what did she expect?

 

I didn't even know you could apply molestation to women over the age of consent...wtf? Seems absurd to me. A grown women should know how to handle a little "molestation." It's like a guy suing another guy for "making drunken threats in a bar." Sure it's unpleasant, but as adults there are certain things you need to learn how to handle on your own without running to the police...

 

Don't get me wrong, if this was a clear cut case of rape I'd support him facing the music. I'm just strongly against litigiousness creeping into every aspect of our society, like the person who sued McDonalds after she spilled hot coffee on herself...

[Guest disparaissant]

consent is consent, if she didn't give it, he's in the wrong. end of.

the only question is "if." let's not make excuses for shitty fucking behaviour before we even know if what is being claimed is true.

 

 

tangential: also that mcdonald's coffee case was pretty clear cut, mcdonald's had been warned about their coffee being entirely too hot on numerous occasions (iirc it was just slightly below boiling point) and the lady ended up with third degree burns on her junk.

[kcinsu]

You are the first person I've ever heard, defend that mcdonalds lawsuit...

[Guest disparaissant]

You are the first person I've ever heard, defend that mcdonalds lawsuit...

i had a friend in law school who bitched about it incessantly because it actually wasn't frivolous at all, but it's like the poster case for frivolity in civil suits.

 

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

 

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

 

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

 

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

 

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

 

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

 

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

 

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

[lumpenprol]

consent is consent, if she didn't give it, he's in the wrong. end of.

 

I agree, let's force explicit consent into all interactions between men and women. "May I unhook your bra?" "Yes, you have my consent." "Can I stick my hand in your panties?" "Yes, you have my consent." "Can I rub your pussy?" "Ok, but please sign this form here and here."

 

Of course that's impractical so there will always be a wide gray zone where it comes down to "he said she said."

 

Having said that, the part where he is alleged to have had unprotected sex with the girl while sleeping, after she explicitly made it clear she didn't want unprotected sex, is disturbing if true. I think that should be a sue-able offense.

[Guest disparaissant]

consent is consent, if she didn't give it, he's in the wrong. end of.

 

I agree, let's force explicit consent into all interactions between men and women. "May I unhook your bra?" "Yes, you have my consent." "Can I stick my hand in your panties?" "Yes, you have my consent." "Can I rub your pussy?" "Ok, but please sign this form here and here."

 

Of course that's impractical so there will always be a wide gray zone where it comes down to "he said she said."

 

Having said that, the part where he is alleged to have had unprotected sex with the girl while sleeping, after she explicitly made it clear she didn't want unprotected sex, is disturbing if true. I think that should be a sue-able offense.

i was referring to that last bit specifically, and it's a criminal offense in most countries with laws. that is rape.

 

as for your explicit consent thing, you didn't need to blow what i was saying out of proportion. i agree that that's ridiculous. but if someone says stop, you stop. if someone says don't, you don't. it's really not too complicated.

 

 

but! it's an ongoing investigation, we don't have the full story, and this kind of discussion and debate is pretty much exactly why sweden chose this moment to press charges - we're being distracted from the actual story, the one about secret cables and all that. so i really would rather not continue this line of conversation.

[cichlisuite]

Well even if you go for 'one-time-use' there is still plenty of relationship to be considered; and something tells me he is the kind of guy who would go james-bond-arrogant and all ego-centric on them. One night - get to know - seduce - have sex - sleep over - have morning sex (optional) - get out - never call again. Which pissed the women off.

 

Maybe later they both found out the've slept with the same guy under the same circumstances, and instead of 'jealous-catyness' between them, the might have formed an 'alliance' to bring him down.

 

 

plus - an extra million dollars for additional motivation

 

 

Delicate matter indeed. Hard to prove for both sides, but women have the advantage here. And almost a sure-shot for the prosecutors.

 

The adventurous one-night stands got quickly out of hand for him, which also makes him a little irresponsible, judging by his intellectual character...

[chenGOD]

Since the issues are actually separate let's have the rape issue in here. I've brought over several posts from the other thread, hopefully that's not too confusing.

[lumpenprol]

yup, that's my read too

[kcinsu]

Good. It's obvious how well this is distracting people from the contents of the documents... Even us watmmers who are mostly all for wikileaks are spending more time talking about rape, than any of the documents. A shame...

[chenGOD]

So let's try and keep it in here, cause moving posts en masse is a pain in the ass(ange)

[lumpenprol]

let's be honest, people weren't really discussing the leaked info anyway...there was more talk about what would happen to assange and the future of net neutrality, and watching videos...

[kaini]

this is a nice piece

 

Do accusations of conspiracy against Julian Assange stand up? Part 1

 

by Sunny Hundal

December 22, 2010 at 11:00 am

 

Acres of trees have been sacrificed to discuss the case regarding Julian Assange and the allegations made by two women.

 

It has attracted accusations of being politically motivated and being littered with administration errors that point to a conspiracy against the WikiLeaks founder.

 

Do the accusations stand up? Since the media isn’t doing their job, we’ve decided to take a stab.

 

We don’t want to get into the merits of the allegations; we look at some of the main accusations made about the due process itself.

 

But we also want to ‘crowd-source’ some of the claims made. Some have been answered but many others require further investigation. If you can help, post your response below or contact us.

 

Credit: The responses have mostly been written by Benjamin Gray and Carl Gardner. The idea came fromDr Ben Goldacre and myself.

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

ACCUSATIONS REGARDING SWEDEN

 

1. Julian Assange himself said Swedish prosecutors were withholding evidence, suggesting he had been “set up.” (ABC News, Australia). Are they?

 

Julian Assange is currently wanted for questioning by police. It is common for authorities not to disclose any more evidence than they absolutely have to. In most cases they don’t reveal detailed evidence to the defence until after charge, according to legal rules on disclosure. This is because if a suspect is given all the information in advance of questioning, it gives him time to concoct a defence. If the suspect has a genuine defence, he or she shouldn’t need to see the evidence against them.

 

On a Newsnight interview Assange said “no evidence whatsoever needed to be produced”. This is true. He then says, “nothing has been provided to me at all… in English.”

 

According to Nick Davies in the Guardian (17th Dec), Assange’s Swedish legal team had seen the full allegations against him, though his lawyer maintains that other potentially exculpatory evidence has not been made available to his team.

 

2. Doesn’t the initial decision not to prosecute indicate conspiracy?

 

No. Rape is a specialist offence and the decision not to prosecute was taken by lawyers who have no special expertise in sexual offences. The case was re-opened by lawyers who do.

 

Lawyers legitimately disagree about the interpretation and application of the law a daily basis. It’s the very reason they exist. Prosecutors get things wrong. Indeed, this was a popular suggestion in the Ian Tomlinson case. It is entirely possible for prosecutors to decline to press charges despite there actually being a case. This not a rare occurrence.

 

3. Hasn’t Assange offered to cooperate with Swedish authorities?

 

While in the UK Mr Assange has agreed to be questioned. But it seems that this is conditional on seeing the the evidence in advance. That, for the reason just given above, is not something Sweden is prepared to accept. Assange told the BBC yesterday: “I was there for some five weeks after these initial allegations were made.”

 

His legal team say he stayed in Sweden for more than 40 days to answer the allegations, received permission from the Swedish prosecutor to leave the country and had made numerous attempts to cooperate with investigators since. “All of those have been refused,” one told ABC Television.

 

4. Why did the Swedish authorities issue an international arrest warrant?

 

According to the Guardian (Nick Davies, Guardian, 17th Dec), it followed a decision by Assange to leave Sweden in late September and not return for a scheduled meeting when he was due to be interviewed by the prosecutor.

 

Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October.

 

Mr Justice Ouseley, who rejected the appeal against Assange’s bail, said earlier: “There is a debate, which may yet be had elsewhere, over whether the warrant is a warrant for questioning or a warrant for trial.” He was proceeding, he said, on the basis that it was an extradition warrant for trial. (Esther Addley, Guardian, 17th Dec)

 

5. His lawyer said it was a “CIA honeytrap”.

 

Mr Assange told the BBC yesterday that he was “misquoted”. He added: “I have never said that this is a honey-trap.”

 

ACCUSATIONS REGARDING THE UK

 

6. Why was bail denied at first?

 

The court was always likely to consider Julian Assange a flight risk. He is a foreign national, who tried to keep his address secret and no strong ties to the UK. He openly stated he was considering claiming asylum in Switzerland. The apparent conditions that were initially offered were insufficient to allay the court’s concerns.

 

7. Who appealed the Bail decision?

 

The CPS, independent of the Swedish Prosecuting Authority.

 

8. Are these holding charges?

 

The idea here is that the charges are being used to get Julian Assange into Sweden, where it will be easier to extradite him to the United States. This seems unlikely. As a matter of law, the UK has a much lower test for extradition than Sweden (“reasonable suspicion” rather than a “prima facie case”).

 

There is more detail here. Although it is possible that he could be extradited to Sweden to take advantage of a regime for extraditing him for trial only, this is a convoluted process and doesn’t appear to offer any real advantage to US authorities.

 

OTHER ACCUSATIONS

 

9. Doesn’t one complainant have CIA links?

 

There’s no credible evidence to support this contention. At its highest the suggestion is that she wrote an article sympathetic to US foreign policy. That doesn’t make anyone a CIA operative.

* * * * * * * * * * *

In a follow-up post I’m going to publish the main unresolved accusations made by Julian Assange himself, or his lawyer.

 

As I’ve said above, our focus here is not only the allegations themselves and whether they stand up. Our focus is only on clarifying the issues around due process in the UK and in Sweden.

 

Lastly, I don’t speak for the other writers but I am personally fully supportive of WikiLeaks and have donated money to the organisation itself.

 

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/22/do-accusations-of-conspiracy-against-julian-assange-stand-up-part-1/

[Guest Dirty Protest]

I find the whole cable thing a bit like a pretentious OK or Hello magazine. But the level of oppression being directed towards Wikileaks and Assange is deeply troubling. The way in which governments and organisations which lead government can fuck with them so openly and shamelessly adds to my increasing frustration of living in this free world im told I occupy. Just got to work out what I can do now.

[chaosmachine]

[youtubehd]U6mcSXge4Qo[/youtubehd]

[Guest Billov]

I would seriously declare shenanigans

[kaini]

I would seriously declare shenanigans

 

you lost your right to call shens with the patriot act.

[kaini]

draft of assange's argument against extradition (.pdf)

http://bit.ly/fbqHxC

 

controversially he names both accusers, previously anonymous (provided you don't know how to use the internet hurr durr)