Support NeoGAF

[Mael]

Dude they're agreeing with Swedish prosecution which argued this in the first place. Is there a reason to this post?

It's still the decision of the UK courts, they say that Assange is wanted for prosecution.
We only had 3 parties say anything on the matter.
Assange party :
no prosecution whatsoever
Sweden prosecutors:
prosecution
UK courts:
prosecution

You can claim whatever the hell you want but clearly the only people claiming he's not prosecuted at this point are in Assange's party.

 

[jorma]

Isn't the situation more like the whole prosecution is on a state that doesn't exists in the UK legal language and the closest it is IS prosecution?

Sort of, but the closest isn't prosecution. The state of the case is exactly in the middle of prosecution and release. We have no way of officially knowing just how strong the case is. But if they already had the evidence they need, they could charge him right now if they felt like it. No rules against that.

But considering all the leaks we do in reality know that this is pretty much the weakest rape case ever. None of the alleged victims claims they have been raped to begin with. That alone makes it pretty weaksauce.

So Sweden judiciary system is crap but the rest of the world is not?
Heck from your post it seems like if it was even spelled as such you wouldn't take that as proof.

It's pretty crap though. We're constantly being harassed by amnesty due to our shitty pre trial custody standards.

 

[KHarvey16]

Dude they're agreeing with Swedish prosecution which argued all this in the first place. Is there a purpose to this post or is it purely an effort to make me look bad?

This is unbelievable. If you're worried about anyone else making you look stupid, you can stop because you're doing a fine job all on your own. You've demonstrated an inability to process simple reasoning, facts contrary to your initial position and now you've shown us all how little you understand legal proceedings in even the most general terms. Yes, these judgeS disagreed with the arguments made by the defense. They explain why in the decision YOU STILL HAVE NOT EVEN LOOKED AT.

You don't give a shit about what's actually true here. Grow up.

 

[nib95]

So is that actually a fact? None of the victims claim to have been raped? So then how is it a rape case?

 

[Flatline]

You can claim whatever the hell you want but clearly the only people claiming he's not prosecuted at this point are in Assange's party.

The point of this thread is that we don't trust UK and Swedish courts so their opinions don't really matter to us, just facts. The facts are that there are no official charges against Assange and that so far he's being accused about a broken condom not rape.

Btw if the Swedish wanted to question him so much before prosecuting him they could have done that in UK and then file official charges to make their case stronger. They didn't do that either. The case is a sham.

 

[jorma]

So is that actually a fact? Nine of the victims claim to have been raped? So then how is it a rape case?

The girls laywer put it like this to the print news: "how would she know, she's not a lawyer" in response to one of the girls telling a journalist that she was never raped.

 

[Mael]

Sort of, but the closest isn't prosecution. The state of the case is exactly in the middle of prosecution and release. We have no way of officially knowing just how strong the case is. But if they already had the evidence they need, they could charge him right now if they felt like it. No rules against that.

Unless I'm mistaken there's only a step left till prosecution take place and that's why they want him.
Again I can be wrong.

But considering all the leaks we do in reality know that this is pretty much the weakest rape case ever. None of the alleged victims claims they have been raped to begin with. That alone makes it pretty weaksauce.

I'm not judging anything on the validity of any case, I'm clearly no judge and with all the trials that I followed in my country I prefer to not comment on it unless absolutely necessary.

It's pretty crap though. We're constantly being harassed by amnesty due to our shitty pre trial custody standards.

That's nothing though, we're getting harrassed due to out post trial custody conditions and the states of our prisons.
Seriously if you're having any judiciary problem best cross Sweden justice system than France's (and both are still better than Japan's last I heard).

The point of this thread is that we don't trust UK and Swedish courts so their opinions don't really matter to us, just facts. The facts are that there are no official charges against Assange and that so far he's being accused about a broken condom not rape.

Btw if the Swedish wanted to question him so much before prosecuting him they could have done that in UK and then file official charges to make their case stronger. They didn't do that either. The case is a sham.

That's exactly what I said, even if they said that they charged him you wouldn't take it as proof.
In short, as long as they don't go your way you're willing to dismiss the facts.
It IS like the Armstrong trial!
"He was never caught"

 

[KHarvey16]

The point of this thread is that we don't trust UK and Swedish courts so their opinions don't really matter to us, just facts. The facts are that there are no official charges against Assange and that so far he's being accused about a broken condom not rape.

Btw if the Swedish wanted to question him so much before prosecuting him they could have done that in UK and then file official charges to make their case stronger. They didn't do that either. The case is a sham.

You still don't have any idea what you're talking about. None. You can rectify that so easily but you refuse to even bother reading about what the fuck is going on. You're being a child.

 

[Flatline]

The girls laywer put it like this to the print news: "how would she know, she's not a lawyer" in response to one of the girls telling a journalist that she was never raped.

Wow, I missed that one. So not only she doesn't say it's rape but she actively denies it's rape? Wow.

 

[KHarvey16]

So is that actually a fact? None of the victims claim to have been raped? So then how is it a rape case?

Their allegations qualify as rape, among other offenses. This was another facet evaluated during the hearings. The allegations must be illegal both in the country issuing the warrant and in the country being asked to extradite someone based on that warrant. He is accused of rape and is wanted for prosecution on this charge, among others regarding these two women.

 

[Flatline]

You still don't have any idea what you're talking about. None. You can rectify that so easily but you refuse to even bother reading about what the fuck is going on. You're being a child.

I'm dealing with facts you're dealing with legal mambo jambo that try to muddy the waters of a ridiculously suspicious case where even the alleged rape victim denies it's rape.

I'm talking about the fact that there are no official rape charges and that the rape accusations aren't rape accusations but broken condom accusations. These are the facts, the rest is opinion that can be easily be manipulated by outside forces like let's randomly say, USA.

 

[Mael]

Wow, I missed that one. So not only she doesn't say it's rape but she actively denies it's rape? Wow.

Stockholm IS in Sweden after all.

And now a court decision is legal mumbo jumbo? If only terrorists knew they could use this defense...
"I wasn't convicted of mass murder, it's just that legal mumbo jumbo they pinned on me!"

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm dealing with facts you're dealing with legal mambo jambo that try to muddy the waters of a ridiculously suspicious case where even the alleged rape victim denies it's rape.

I'm talking about the fact that there are no official rape charges and that the rape accusations aren't rape accusations but broken condom accusations. These are facts the rest is opinion that can be easily be manilulated by outside forces like let's say, USA.

Legal mambo jambo? Are you fucking 8 years old? He is wanted for prosecution! All of that "legal mambo jambo" you're desperately attempting to justify your ignorance of explains exactly why this is a fact.

Broken condom accusations? Holy shit. You literally have no idea what any of this is about. None.

 

[Flatline]

Stockholm IS in Sweden after all.

And now a court decision is legal mumbo jumbo? If only terrorists knew they could use this defense...

When they're trying to redefine the meaning of the word "accused" by saying it's almost the same a actually being accused of something then yes, it's legal mambo jambo. For the tenth time, the fact is that he's not actually being prosecuted about anything.

 

[KHarvey16]

When they're trying to redefine the meaning of the word "accused" by saying it's almost the same a actually being accused of something then yes, it's legal mambo jambo. For the tenth time the fact is that he's not actually being accused of anything.

But he is! What is wrong with you?

 

[Mael]

When they're trying to redefine the meaning of the word "accused" by saying it's almost the same a actually being accused of something then yes, it's legal mambo jambo. For the tenth time the fact is that he's not actually being prosecuted about anything.

Different countries have different justice systems due to cultural and historical differences.
Although with the formation of the EU equivalences exists between the different systems.
Think of it like the education system in Europe with the CES points.
The UK courts all ruled differently from your claim, if you ask me unless you prove your competence in the field I'll trust them over you.

 

[Flatline]

But he is! What is wrong with you?

What are the official charges then?

Different countries have different justice systems due to cultural and historical differences.
Although with the formation of the EU equivalences exists between the different systems.
Think of it like the education system in Europe with the CES points.
The UK courts all ruled differently from what your claim, if you ask me unless you prove your competence in the field I'll trust them over you.

So you agree with me that's it's a matter of opinion which as I already said I don't trust. So can we talk about the facts instead?

 

[KHarvey16]

What are the official charges then?

He is accused of and is wanted for prosecution on 4 counts including sexual molestation, unlawful coercion and rape. Again, all of this explained in detail in the material you refuse to even look at.

 

[nib95]

Their allegations qualify as rape, among other offenses. This was another facet evaluated during the hearings. The allegations must be illegal both in the country issuing the warrant and in the country being asked to extradite someone based on that warrant. He is accused of rape and is wanted for prosecution on this charge, among others regarding these two women.

This didn't really answer my question at all. Feels like a politicians answer. Forget the courts and lawyers for a second, did the girls claim Assange raped them or did they not?

 

[KHarvey16]

This didn't really answer my question at all. Feels like a politicians answer. Did the girls claim Assange raped them or did they not?

Some of the claims they made amount to rape, yes. Both in Sweden and the UK. Meaning if a woman went to the police in the UK and accused a man of doing to them what Assange is accused of doing, he would be charged with rape assuming the evidence was consistent with the allegation.

 

[Mael]

So you agree with me that's it's a matter of opinion which as I already said I don't trust. So can we talk about the facts instead?

Where the hell did you see that I agreed with you on that?
It's pretty much a fact as hard as steel that Assange is wanted for prosecution.
The UK court said as much, unless I'm mistaken it has gone to pretty much all the courts it could in the UK and they all ruled the same thing.
At this point it's a fact that UK law system consider Assange wanted for prosecution.
Zero evidence have been given on any failings of the UK courts.
None, zilche, nada.
There is absolutely no reason to doubt them on this issue.
Chances are anywhere in the whole European Union the answer from the courts wouldn't have been any different.
What makes you so sure that there is any failings on the UK courts' parts?

 

[nib95]

Some of the claims they made amount to rape, yes. Both in Sweden and the UK. Meaning if a woman went to the police in the UK and accused a man of doing to them what Assange is accused of doing, he would be charged with rape assuming the evidence was consistent with the allegation.

So what is he actually accused of doing? Having sex with them without their consent or by force?

 

[KHarvey16]

So what is he actually accused of doing? Having sex with them without their consent or by force?

Essentially both. Again, more detail than I can transcribe using my phone is given in the decisions reached by the UK courts. They go over all of it. I linked to them on the last page I believe.

 

[Flatline]

He is accused of and is wanted for prosecution on 4 counts including sexual molestation, unlawful coercion and rape. Again, all of this explained in detail in the material you refuse to even look at.

So there isn't actual prosecution against him for rape, just prosecution about an alleged prosecution that does NOT exist. As per usual you're playing with words. So the fact is that there aren't official rape charges against him.

 

[Mael]

So there isn't actual prosecution against him for rape, just prosecution about an alleged prosecution that does NOT exist. As per usual you're playing with words. So the fact is that there aren't official rape charges against him.

How did you get that from what he wrote?

 

[KHarvey16]

So there isn't actual prosecution against him for rape, just prosecution about an alleged prosecution that does NOT exist. As per usual you're playing with words. So the fact is that there aren't official rape charges against him.

Prosecution about an alleged prosecution? What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Huge interest in the subject but I don't think many aware of the specifics of the allegations and why they are raising suspicions and doubts. The following is presented as an agreed statements of facts and issues by both sides, according to ABC Four Corners "Sex, Lies and Julian Assange" documentary.

• On August 11th 2011, Assange arrived to attend a conference organised by the Swedish Brotherhood. He was offered Anna Ardin’s apartment whilst she was away, but Ardin returned a day early on the 13th and invited Assange to stay over the night where they would have sex. She would later tell police Assange had violently pinned her down and ignored her requests to use a condom. Assange denies this.
  
  
• On August 14th, the following day, Assange addresses the conference with Ardin at his side. Later that afternoon, Arden organises a crayfish party [barbecue] and posts a Twitter message writing: "Julian wants to go to a crayfish party. Does anyone have a couple of seats tonight or tomorrow?”
  
  
• The crayfish party was held that night and went on till the early hours of the morning. Ardin posts a twitter message: “Hanging out with the coolest and smartest people in the world at 2am. Its amazing”.
  
  
• A guest at the party would later tell police the event was a “very hearty evening”. When he offered to host Assange for the night in his apartment, Ardin replied: “He can stay with me”.
  
  
• The next day, Assange attends a dinner party organised by Pirate Party founder, Rick Falkvinge. Anna Ardin had arrived with Assange, and according to Falkvinge, the mood at the dinner was “professional”. Here is a photograph of that evening. Anna Ardin is on the left. Assange would yet again spend the night with her.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• The following day, August 16th, Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen at her apartment. According to police reports, Ardin was aware that he had slept with Sofia. A witness tells police that he had contacted Anna Ardin looking for Assange, to which she texted back: “He’s not here. He plans to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening”. That same day, the witness asked Ardin: “Is it cool he’s living there? Do you want me to fix something else?”. She replied back: “He has a problem with his hygiene, but its okay, he lives with me. It’s no problem”. {Note: The tweets would later be deleted}
  
  
• Three days later, Sofia, accompanied by Ardin, went to the police to seek advice on whether Assange could be forced to take an STD test. Ardin had gone along primarily to support Sofia but at some point during the questioning, the police had announced that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. [Note: it wasn’t the police themselves who pressed for this but a duty prosecutor who was contacted by the police]. Sofia became so distract by the idea that she refused to give any more testimony, and refused to sign what had already been taken down. Assange was “arrested in his absence”. Assange wasn’t questioned by the police.
  
  
• Within hours, not only was this development leaked to the tabloids, but in addition to that were the statements made by the two women. It became international news.
  
  
• Less than 24 hours, a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations leaving only the lesser allegation of molestation. This was appealed by the women's attorney, after which the investigation began again. He is now accused of four offenses: two counts of sexual molestation, deliberate molestation and rape.
  
  
• On the 30th of August, Assange of his own accord went to the police and expressed his fears of anything he said in questioning would end up in the tabloids. The interviewing officer responded: “I’m not going to leak anything”. The interview was then leaked.

 

[nib95]

So there isn't actual prosecution against him for rape, just prosecution about an alleged prosecution that does NOT exist. As per usual you're playing with words. So the fact is that there aren't official rape charges against him.

Can anyone Confirm the above is true. Bit wary of KHarveys posts on the matter as they seem very vague and he can't seem to summarise the situation concisely. If Assange is right, it would make sense that the courts would go to lengths to paint it in the way that fits the agenda, but ultimately my question is, did these girls accuse him of rape or not? And by rape, I mean forced, non consensual sex.

Did the UK courts find he raped the girls or just that based on Swedens laws or rules there could be a case for rape? Is forced non consensual sex what is being proposed as rape by the Swedish courts?

 

[Flatline]

How did you get that from what he wrote?

Yes, that's what I got. The UK courts basically made up charges that do not exist by saying it's almost the same as actual charges even though these charges do not exist in Sweden. It's that simple.

 

[KHarvey16]

Can anyone Confirm the above is true. Bit wary of KHarveys posts on the matter as they seem very vague and he can't seem to summarise the situation concisely. If Assange is right, it would make sense that the courts would go to lengths to paint it in the way that fits the agenda, but ultimately my question is, did these girls accuse him of rape or not?

Did the UK courts find he raped the girls or just that based on Swedens laws or rules there could be a case for rape?

Why is it that none if you will click on the links to the court decisions? You don't have to take anything I've said at face value.

 

[Mael]

The UK courts basically made up charges

Prove that.

 

[Flatline]

Can anyone Confirm the above is true. Bit wary of KHarveys posts on the matter as they seem very vague and he can't seem to summarise the situation concisely. If Assange is right, it would make sense that the courts would go to lengths to paint it in the way that fits the agenda, but ultimately my question is, did these girls accuse him of rape or not?

Did the UK courts find he raped the girls or just that based on Swedens laws or rules there could be a case for rape?

jorma is Swedish iirc and he confirms that there aren't official rape charges against Assange in Sweden. So do most articles I've read.

 

[KHarvey16]

Yes, that's what I got. The UK courts basically made up charges that do not exist by saying it's almost the same as actual charges even though these charges do not exist in Sweden. It's that simple.

This is amazing to watch. I've never seen anything quite like this, Flatline.

 

[Flatline]

Prove that.

Gladly:

9. As a matter of fact, looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an "accused" person and is wanted for prosecution.

 

[KHarvey16]

It just keeps getting better. Lol.

 

[Mael]

Gladly:

9. As a matter of fact, looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an "accused" person and is wanted for prosecution.

That doesn't mean AT ALL that the UK court invented anything, it means that under Uk law he's considered an "accused" person and is wanted for prosecution.

Do you consider every prosecution to be courts inventing charges too?

 

[syllogism]

It just keeps getting better. Lol.

I wouldn't bother

 

[Flatline]

That doesn't mean AT ALL that the UK court invented anything, it means that under Uk law he's considered an "accused" person and is wanted for prosecution.

Do you consider every prosecution to be courts inventing charges too?

Yes it does, they basically invented charges that do NOT exist. Can you understand that? They do NOT exist in Sweden, he is not officially being accused of rape. It's that simple.

 

[nib95]

Huge interest in the subject but I don't think many aware of the specifics of the allegations and why they are raising suspicions and doubts. The following is presented as an agreed statements of facts and issues by both sides, according to ABC Four Corners "Sex, Lies and Julian Assange" documentary.

• On August 11th 2011, Assange arrived to attend a conference organised by the Swedish Brotherhood. He was offered Anna Ardin’s apartment whilst she was away, but Ardin returned a day early on the 13th and invited Assange to stay over the night where they would have sex. She would later tell police Assange had violently pinned her down and ignored her requests to use a condom. Assange denies this.
  
  
• On August 14th, the following day, Assange addresses the conference with Ardin at his side. Later that afternoon, Arden organises a crayfish party [barbecue] and posts a Twitter message writing: "Julian wants to go to a crayfish party. Does anyone have a couple of seats tonight or tomorrow?”
  
  
• The crayfish party was held that night and went on till the early hours of the morning. Ardin posts a twitter message: “Hanging out with the coolest and smartest people in the world at 2am. Its amazing”.
  
  
• A guest at the party would later tell police the event was a “very hearty evening”. When he offered to host Assange for the night in his apartment, Ardin replied: “He can stay with me”.
  
  
• The next day, Assange attends a dinner party organised by Pirate Party founder, Rick Falkvinge. Anna Ardin had arrived with Assange, and according to Falkvinge, the mood at the dinner was “professional”. Here is a photograph of that evening. Anna Ardin is on the left. Assange would yet again spend the night with her.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• The following day, August 16th, Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen at her apartment. According to police reports, Ardin was aware that he had slept with Sofia. A witness tells police that he had contacted Anna Ardin looking for Assange, to which she texted back: “He’s not here. He plans to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening”. That same day, the witness asked Ardin: “Is it cool he’s living there? Do you want me to fix something else?”. She replied back: “He has a problem with his hygiene, but its okay, he lives with me. It’s no problem”. {Note: The tweets would later be deleted}
  
  
• Three days later, Sofia, accompanied by Ardin, went to the police to seek advice on whether Assange could be forced to take an STD test. Ardin had gone along primarily to support Sofia but at some point during the questioning, the police had announced that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. [Note: it wasn’t the police themselves who pressed for this but a duty prosecutor who was contacted by the police]. Sofia became so distract by the idea that she refused to give any more testimony, and refused to sign what had already been taken down. Assange was “arrested in his absence”. Assange wasn’t questioned by the police.
  
  
• Within hours, not only was this development leaked to the tabloids, but in addition to that were the statements made by the two women. It became international news.
  
  
• Less than 24 hours, a more senior prosecutor dismissed the rape allegations leaving only the lesser allegation of molestation. This was appealed by the women's attorney, after which the investigation began again. He is now accused of four offenses: two counts of sexual molestation, deliberate molestation and rape.
  
  
• On the 30th of August, Assange of his own accord went to the police and expressed his fears of anything he said in questioning would end up in the tabloids. The interviewing officer responded: “I’m not going to leak anything”. The interview was then leaked.

Thanks for this. I'm sorry, but I'm with Assange on this. Sounds like a farce if ever I saw one.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

To my understanding, and feel free to correct me here, is that the alleged "rape" is not in the sense of non-consensual sex; he did not enforce himself upon her. Rather, his alleged failure to use a condom, and sexual relations with another woman, is being interpreted as a type of "rape"

 

[KHarvey16]

Thanks for this. I'm sorry, but I'm with Assange on this. Sounds like a farce if ever I saw one.

Please read the court decisions. On top of offering interpretations in a legal context they offer a far more neutral and more expansive summary of events.

 

[Mael]

Yes it does, they basically invented charges that do NOT exist. Can you understand that? They do NOT exist in Sweden, he is not officially being accused of rape. It's that simple.

That's not what the Sweden and UK courts are saying.
Jason Raize '75 - '04 seems to have a better understanding of the case.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Please read the court decisions. On top of offering interpretations in a legal context they offer a far more neutral and more expansive summary of events.

Edit, found it on the previous page.

 

[KHarvey16]

To my understanding, and feel free to correct me here, is that the alleged "rape" is not in the sense of non-consensual sex; he did not enforce himself upon her. Rather, his alleged failure to use a condom, and sexual relations with another woman, is being interpreted as a type of "rape"

You don't have to rely on your understanding. Get the information from a primary source before you put rape in quotes like that.

 

[nib95]

To my understanding, and feel free to correct me here, is that the alleged "rape" is not in the sense of non-consensual sex; he did not enforce himself upon her. Rather, his alleged failure to use a condom, and sexual relations with another woman, is being interpreted as a type of "rape"

Which is absolutely ridiculous and further diminishes these charges against him.

Not using a condom being a form of rape is one of the most absurd things I've heard. If she tells him she doesn't want sex full stop, condom or not, and he forces it without her consent, that's rape. But if she says she doesn't want him not to use a condom, then she has sex with him without a condom anyway (consensually) that isn't rape, that's just someone who managed to persuade a lady to have less safe, but better sex.

Hell if that's rape, I'm guilty of rape too apparently.

 

[nib95]

Please read the court decisions. On top of offering interpretations in a legal context they offer a far more neutral and more expansive summary of events.

The idea that courts or legal systems are always neutral or fair in interpretations is silly. You should know better. This is a country where legal enquiries in to Iraq were disingenuous, and who most recently is abstaining from Palestines UN bid. Case in point, what the US wants, the US usually gets. Provided there really is pressure from the US to get a hold of or punish Assange, which is a sensible assumption.

I'd rather hear the facts laid out objectively from the relevant involved parties or sources and make my own informed opinion as oppose to getting it from the courts or representatives who could very well have their own agendas. I'm a bit cynical like that, more so in recent years as evidence continues to mount that the UK really is one of the US's biggest lackeys.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in
Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting
her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s
arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body
weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2.Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in
Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner
designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her
knowledge.

3.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that
date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested
the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying
next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping,
Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting
that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

I'm confused by some of this. The first accusation specifically reads like he enforced himself upon her, yet it is referred to as "unlawful coercion". What does this mean?

The second accusation, I would agree, would also constitute as a type of rape.

The third one however doesn't make sense to me. These two were having sexual relations, and it seems like he tried to initiate sex, to her displeasure. The question is did he remove his penis when she told him to? In the other examples, AA presents an argument that Assange acted against her wishes -- wishes he was aware of.

 

[sangreal]

Which is absolutely ridiculous and further diminishes these charges against him.

Not using a condom being a form of rape is one of the most absurd things I've heard. If she tells him she doesn't want sex full stop, condom or not, and he forces it without her consent, that's rape. But if she says she doesn't want him not to use a condom, then she has sex with him without a condom anyway (consensually) that isn't rape, that's just someone who managed to persuade a lady to have less safe, but better sex.

Hell if that's rape, I'm guilty of rape too apparently.

Well, that isn't what he is accused of anyway. She demanded a condom so he refused to have sex with her and then she woke up to him fucking her without one.

The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

Among other things

On Wednesday 18 August, according to police records, Miss A told Harold and a friend that Assange would not leave her flat and was sleeping in her bed, although she was not having sex with him and he spent most of the night sitting with his computer. Harold told police he had asked Assange why he was refusing to leave the flat and that Assange had said he was very surprised, because Miss A had not asked him to leave. Miss A says she spent Wednesday night on a mattress and then moved to a friend's flat so she did not have to be near him. 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.

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

I'm confused by some of this. The first accusation specifically reads like he enforced himself upon her, yet it is referred to as "unlawful coercion". What does this mean?

after being stripped and pinned down she eventually consented. Then she claims he deliberately ripped the condom which is probably impossible to prove but hardly the only thing he is accused of (and he clearly has a pattern of forcing unprotected sex on women)

 

[Mael]

The idea that courts or legal systems are always neutral or fair in interpretations is silly. You should know better. This is a country where legal enquiries in to Iraq were disingenuous, and who most recently is abstaining from Palestines UN bid. Case in point, what the US wants, the US usually gets. Provided there really is pressure from the US to get a hold of or punish Assange, which is a sensible assumption.

But there isn't, that much is pretty clear now.
If they wanted him they would have got him by now.
Seriously why is the process of getting a copyright breacher so much more speedy than to get someone who leak classified information?
And consider also how much more heavy the charges from the US would be, the case that the US is behind all this is even more baseless than the Assange case.
That is pretty much crystal clear.

I'm confused by some of this. The first accusation specifically reads like he enforced himself upon her, yet it is referred to as "unlawful coercion". What does this mean?

unlawful coercion == he enforced himself upon her

 

[Flatline]

That's not what the Sweden and UK courts are saying.
Jason Raize '75 - '04 seems to have a better understanding of the case.

Actually Jason Raize was wrong on the wording of that post. Assange was not accused of rape and molestation rather than it was decided by the Swedish courts to detain Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape and molestation. Huge difference.