HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Condom used as evidence i...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:06 AM

Condom used as evidence in Assange sex case 'does not contain his DNA'

Source: Mail

Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have revealed that a key piece of evidence does not contain his DNA.

A torn condom given to Swedish police by one of the alleged victims was examined by staff at two forensic laboratories but they could not find any conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it.

The same forensic teams found DNA thought to belong to the WikiLeaks boss on another condom, which was submitted by the second alleged victim.

The revelation is contained in a 100-page police report that was written after witnesses were interviewed and forensic evidence had been examined.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html

341 replies, 60894 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 341 replies Author Time Post
Reply Condom used as evidence in Assange sex case 'does not contain his DNA' (Original post)
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 OP
xchrom Sep 2012 #1
hobbit709 Sep 2012 #2
grantcart Sep 2012 #3
Occulus Sep 2012 #48
frylock Sep 2012 #100
laundry_queen Sep 2012 #272
Cleita Sep 2012 #127
Zorra Sep 2012 #284
msanthrope Sep 2012 #54
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #174
msanthrope Sep 2012 #260
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #298
msanthrope Sep 2012 #320
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #321
reorg Sep 2012 #326
pnwmom Sep 2012 #132
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #177
pnwmom Sep 2012 #215
reorg Sep 2012 #223
pnwmom Sep 2012 #227
reorg Sep 2012 #233
pnwmom Sep 2012 #236
reorg Sep 2012 #244
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #224
rhett o rick Sep 2012 #228
joshcryer Sep 2012 #254
joshcryer Sep 2012 #252
Zorra Sep 2012 #286
pnwmom Sep 2012 #290
Zorra Sep 2012 #295
polly7 Sep 2012 #300
pnwmom Sep 2012 #301
cantbeserious Sep 2012 #4
originalpckelly Sep 2012 #5
tama Sep 2012 #11
1monster Sep 2012 #69
zeemike Sep 2012 #74
greiner3 Sep 2012 #18
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #22
msanthrope Sep 2012 #61
1monster Sep 2012 #71
randome Sep 2012 #77
The Doctor. Sep 2012 #161
randome Sep 2012 #168
The Doctor. Sep 2012 #178
randome Sep 2012 #180
The Doctor. Sep 2012 #196
randome Sep 2012 #202
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #203
randome Sep 2012 #204
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #206
randome Sep 2012 #210
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #211
randome Sep 2012 #213
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #214
randome Sep 2012 #216
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #222
The Doctor. Sep 2012 #340
robinlynne Sep 2012 #179
msanthrope Sep 2012 #83
1monster Sep 2012 #93
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #111
msanthrope Sep 2012 #145
hack89 Sep 2012 #205
1monster Sep 2012 #99
msanthrope Sep 2012 #136
reorg Sep 2012 #159
msanthrope Sep 2012 #163
reorg Sep 2012 #172
robinlynne Sep 2012 #181
malokvale77 Sep 2012 #84
Luminous Animal Sep 2012 #335
Proletariatprincess Sep 2012 #6
tama Sep 2012 #7
robinlynne Sep 2012 #182
sendero Sep 2012 #8
HereSince1628 Sep 2012 #15
robinlynne Sep 2012 #183
HereSince1628 Sep 2012 #232
magical thyme Sep 2012 #33
msanthrope Sep 2012 #58
1monster Sep 2012 #103
msanthrope Sep 2012 #125
reorg Sep 2012 #162
msanthrope Sep 2012 #165
reorg Sep 2012 #173
TorchTheWitch Sep 2012 #288
baldguy Sep 2012 #9
Ikonoklast Sep 2012 #53
JackRiddler Sep 2012 #68
Ikonoklast Sep 2012 #72
high density Sep 2012 #78
HooptieWagon Sep 2012 #80
JackRiddler Sep 2012 #176
robinlynne Sep 2012 #184
greiner3 Sep 2012 #220
KoKo Sep 2012 #10
wilsonbooks Sep 2012 #30
1monster Sep 2012 #73
aquart Sep 2012 #102
malokvale77 Sep 2012 #87
robinlynne Sep 2012 #186
Heather MC Sep 2012 #12
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #13
MannyGoldstein Sep 2012 #19
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #32
msanthrope Sep 2012 #59
Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #21
Pholus Sep 2012 #26
truth2power Sep 2012 #34
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #31
Alexander Sep 2012 #70
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #107
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #312
druidity33 Sep 2012 #35
GetRidOfThem Sep 2012 #36
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #43
frylock Sep 2012 #101
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #109
frylock Sep 2012 #297
1monster Sep 2012 #110
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #113
1monster Sep 2012 #119
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #135
frylock Sep 2012 #299
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #304
Diclotican Sep 2012 #14
mainer Sep 2012 #16
Festivito Sep 2012 #25
msanthrope Sep 2012 #64
1monster Sep 2012 #79
msanthrope Sep 2012 #88
1monster Sep 2012 #94
1monster Sep 2012 #115
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #121
1monster Sep 2012 #123
msanthrope Sep 2012 #147
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #170
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #283
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #294
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #303
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #306
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #308
robinlynne Sep 2012 #189
msanthrope Sep 2012 #124
1monster Sep 2012 #133
msanthrope Sep 2012 #139
reorg Sep 2012 #160
msanthrope Sep 2012 #164
reorg Sep 2012 #169
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #96
msanthrope Sep 2012 #128
robinlynne Sep 2012 #187
Live and Learn Sep 2012 #158
robinlynne Sep 2012 #190
jerseyjack Sep 2012 #17
Demeter Sep 2012 #20
TBF Sep 2012 #28
bupkus Sep 2012 #23
George II Sep 2012 #38
bupkus Sep 2012 #40
treestar Sep 2012 #66
bupkus Sep 2012 #108
treestar Sep 2012 #112
bupkus Sep 2012 #114
George II Sep 2012 #292
bupkus Sep 2012 #319
George II Sep 2012 #323
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #305
bupkus Sep 2012 #318
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #316
randome Sep 2012 #41
bupkus Sep 2012 #116
bupkus Sep 2012 #122
George II Sep 2012 #269
bupkus Sep 2012 #289
George II Sep 2012 #291
bupkus Sep 2012 #302
George II Sep 2012 #314
bupkus Sep 2012 #317
George II Sep 2012 #324
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #325
George II Sep 2012 #327
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #328
George II Sep 2012 #333
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #337
bupkus Sep 2012 #329
George II Sep 2012 #330
bupkus Sep 2012 #332
George II Sep 2012 #334
robinlynne Sep 2012 #191
George II Sep 2012 #271
KansDem Sep 2012 #24
George II Sep 2012 #42
KansDem Sep 2012 #45
George II Sep 2012 #55
KansDem Sep 2012 #166
treestar Sep 2012 #219
frylock Sep 2012 #104
FiveGoodMen Sep 2012 #322
TBF Sep 2012 #27
2on2u Sep 2012 #29
George II Sep 2012 #37
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #52
George II Sep 2012 #56
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #76
George II Sep 2012 #97
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #118
George II Sep 2012 #293
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #296
George II Sep 2012 #315
randome Sep 2012 #57
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #91
randome Sep 2012 #92
Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #39
truth2power Sep 2012 #47
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #49
Occulus Sep 2012 #50
treestar Sep 2012 #65
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #138
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #285
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #307
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #310
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #311
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #313
frylock Sep 2012 #106
bupkus Sep 2012 #117
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #141
bupkus Sep 2012 #142
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #148
bupkus Sep 2012 #149
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #151
robinlynne Sep 2012 #194
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #197
robinlynne Sep 2012 #245
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #250
robinlynne Sep 2012 #251
robinlynne Sep 2012 #193
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #195
robinlynne Sep 2012 #243
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #275
robinlynne Sep 2012 #279
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #309
robinlynne Sep 2012 #192
treestar Sep 2012 #67
robinlynne Sep 2012 #198
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #207
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #208
robinlynne Sep 2012 #237
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #246
robinlynne Sep 2012 #248
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #273
robinlynne Sep 2012 #280
robinlynne Sep 2012 #249
joshcryer Sep 2012 #255
Robb Sep 2012 #265
robinlynne Sep 2012 #266
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #274
treestar Sep 2012 #217
robinlynne Sep 2012 #247
reorg Sep 2012 #225
robinlynne Sep 2012 #238
bananas Sep 2012 #44
truth2power Sep 2012 #46
msanthrope Sep 2012 #51
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #60
msanthrope Sep 2012 #62
treestar Sep 2012 #63
msanthrope Sep 2012 #75
treestar Sep 2012 #82
msanthrope Sep 2012 #90
1monster Sep 2012 #85
msanthrope Sep 2012 #89
1monster Sep 2012 #95
msanthrope Sep 2012 #129
1monster Sep 2012 #131
tama Sep 2012 #134
Comrade Grumpy Sep 2012 #98
msanthrope Sep 2012 #126
Kalidurga Sep 2012 #81
bupkus Sep 2012 #120
Kalidurga Sep 2012 #156
robinlynne Sep 2012 #200
bupkus Sep 2012 #229
randome Sep 2012 #86
tama Sep 2012 #137
randome Sep 2012 #154
msanthrope Sep 2012 #140
randome Sep 2012 #153
girl gone mad Sep 2012 #201
robinlynne Sep 2012 #239
msanthrope Sep 2012 #264
slackmaster Sep 2012 #105
pnwmom Sep 2012 #130
msanthrope Sep 2012 #144
pnwmom Sep 2012 #146
msanthrope Sep 2012 #157
girl gone mad Sep 2012 #150
pnwmom Sep 2012 #226
cstanleytech Sep 2012 #143
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #152
reorg Sep 2012 #167
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #171
jberryhill Sep 2012 #155
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #175
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #185
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #199
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #234
AntiFascist Sep 2012 #257
robinlynne Sep 2012 #240
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #331
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #336
ronnie624 Sep 2012 #338
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #339
fascisthunter Sep 2012 #188
grantcart Sep 2012 #209
DeSwiss Sep 2012 #212
NoodleyAppendage Sep 2012 #218
struggle4progress Sep 2012 #221
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #230
NoodleyAppendage Sep 2012 #231
reorg Sep 2012 #235
robinlynne Sep 2012 #242
Dems to Win Sep 2012 #263
reorg Sep 2012 #341
robinlynne Sep 2012 #241
riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #253
joshcryer Sep 2012 #256
riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #259
joshcryer Sep 2012 #261
riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #262
joshcryer Sep 2012 #267
riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #268
joshcryer Sep 2012 #277
reorg Sep 2012 #276
joshcryer Sep 2012 #278
reorg Sep 2012 #281
joshcryer Sep 2012 #282
reorg Sep 2012 #270
rachel1 Sep 2012 #258
freshwest Sep 2012 #287

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:13 AM

1. du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:28 AM

2. That is going to upset some people around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:31 AM

3. Some people will struggle with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:20 AM

48. Yes, even though this evidence represents progress in the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #48)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:44 PM

100. 4 shame!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #100)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:26 PM

272. omg, lol! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:46 PM

127. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:12 AM

284. Woohoo! A 3 post tandem Duzy!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:51 AM

54. Not at all. I actually think this signals Julian knows he's back

in Sweden sooner, rather than later.

And of course there's no "conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html#ixzz26e1MpaBZ

He hasn't submitted a DNA sample to Sweden. He fled the country the day before he was going to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #54)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:30 PM

174. How can they rule out his DNA on a condom and "think" it's on another if they dont have his

DNA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #174)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:33 PM

260. They can't. Which is why what the lawyer is saying sounds like bullshit.

What I took away from the article was this---

You have one condom with a DNA sample that has yielded a scientifically valid result. This is the second victim.

You have a second condom with an inconclusive amount of genetic material--it can't rule anyone in conclusively as it stood two years ago. BUT the mito DNA in that genetic material might be useable.

Assange fled before giving his DNA sample in Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #260)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 11:56 AM

298. Sounds like a witchhunt. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #298)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 02:25 PM

320. No--it sounds like simple logic--you can't conclusively match anyone before you

have a DNA sample.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #320)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 03:10 PM

321. I am trying to agree with you. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #321)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 06:57 PM

326. I think that is almost impossible

The previous poster does not accept the authenticity of the 100-page police report (with the police interviews and the results of the forensic analysis) because she believes the document to be unverifiable. But when a tabloid is reporting on it, misrepresenting some facts and confusing others, she uses it as a launching pad to spread her own unverifiable theories ...

What I took away from the article was this---

You have one condom with a DNA sample that has yielded a scientifically valid result. This is the second victim.

You have a second condom with an inconclusive amount of genetic material--it can't rule anyone in conclusively as it stood two years ago. BUT the mito DNA in that genetic material might be useable.


Aside from the fact that the poster must have taken away "mito DNA" from somewhere else because it is not mentioned in the article, she interprets the statement that "no DNA (belonging to Assange) was found" as saying "an inconclusive amount of genetic material" was indeed found and might even be usable ...

Headline: Condom used as evidence in Assange sex case 'does not contain his DNA'
First sentence: Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have revealed that a key piece of evidence does not contain his DNA.
Second sentence: A torn condom given to Swedish police by one of the alleged victims was examined by staff at two forensic laboratories but they could not find any conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it.

The fact of the matter is that on one condom no DNA at all was found, thereby positively ruling out Assange. Which should raise the question why it was taken into evidence in the first place. As proof that it was not used? The DNA on the other condom did contain DNA "from a man", but we don't know if Assange can be conclusively linked to it, because rumor has it (which the poster was referring to) that the DNA found is only mitochondrial DNA which apparently is not specific enough to identify an individual.

And finally, all this talk about DNA is totally moot and inconsequential because Assange never denied having sexual relations with these women and thus having left his DNA in some form or other at their abodes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:56 PM

132. The subheadline will upset some people, too.

"But its thought another condom, submitted by the second alleged victim, does"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #132)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:36 PM

177. Who "thinks" this? Either it's been tested or not. And the condom that

someone thinks has his DNA was one that was supposed to have been used when he raped the lady in her sleep. So apparently he was aware enough to use the condom but then left it at the scene?

You recognize he is innocent until proven guilty. And as I understand it, there have not been any charges filed.
I would like him to clear up the rape allegations but recognize that there is no certainty that he wont get thrown in prison by the USofA just like Manning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #177)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:18 PM

215. Under the Swedish justice system's procedures, they cannot charge him

until they have him in custody. That's why they need to extradite him before they charge him. (Charging in Sweden comes near the end of an investigation, not near the beginning.)

If the US was so anxious to throw him into prison, they could have easily extradited him from the UK. If he goes to Sweden now, the US would have to get both the UK and Swedento approve a further extradition.

What is unlikely about the idea that he left the condom at the scene? One of the problems with date rape situations is that the rapist often isn't aware that he's crossed the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #215)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:50 PM

223. often repeated, never supported

Here is THE SWEDISH CODE OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE in English translation: http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf

Please point out where it says that "they cannot charge him until they have him in custody".

See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101641910#post27

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #223)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:09 PM

227. Except in the appeals documents of the British court.

He isn't wanted for initial questioning in Sweden. They are ready to prosecute him -- unless the interrogation once they have him in custody causes them to drop the case -- and they need to have him in custody for that.

http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?%20utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co

Assange did argue in the Magistrates Court that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning rather than prosecuting him. In response to that argument, the Prosecutor, Marianne Ny, provided a statement dated 11 February 2011 explaining the Swedish procedure. (The High Court quotes from this statement at para.142 of its judgment.) She concluded as follows:
"Subject to any matters said by him which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
The Senior District Judge found against Assange on this point and Assange did not pursue it in the High Court. At para.131 of the High Court judgment: "It was accepted in oral submissions made on behalf of Mr Assange that the surrender of Mr Assange was sought for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (satisfying 2(3)(b)), as the Senior District Judge had held. That concession was made because it was accepted that the words 'for the purposes of being prosecuted' were broad enough to encompass a prosecution that would commence in the future." Rather, it was argued that as an additional safeguard the proceedings must already have commenced. As already indicated, Assange lost on that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #227)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:52 PM

233. please try to understand before you comment

You said in post # 215

"Under the Swedish justice system's procedures, they cannot charge him until they have him in custody."

I provided you with a link to the English translation of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedures. You can check for yourself. It is easy to read and quite concise. Nowhere does it say that they cannot charge him until they have him in custody.

Your quote from the extradition case has nothing to do with this whatsoever. It only shows that Ms Ny affirms that Assange is not yet indicted. She states that he currently thinks he should be indicted, but perhaps not, in case "matters said by him (...) undermine ... (her) present view".

She has not yet "filed for a summons" with the court, which would be the end of the preliminary investigation (the current stage) and start the prosecution phase:

II. PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
Chapter 45
INSTITUTION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION
Section 1
A prosecutor who wants to institute a prosecution shall file with the
court a written application for a summons against the person to be
charged; however, to the extent found appropriate, the court may
authorize the prosecutor to issue a summons.

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #233)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:57 PM

236. I do understand. The legal term "charged" in Sweden doesn't mean

the same thing it does in English. And even a translated version of the Swedish justice code won't make that clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #236)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:19 PM

244. No, you don't

The process is different. In common law systems, charges are brought earlier in the process, apparently.

Which does not change the fact that no charges have been brought yet, the prosecutor is still conducting a preliminary investigation.

And, that's where we started and where you were wrong in post #215:

"Under the Swedish justice system's procedures, they cannot charge him until they have him in custody."

Not true, the defendant does not have to be in custody for a prosecutor to file for a summons-which would start the prosecution phase in Sweden-as set forth here:

II. PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
Chapter 45
INSTITUTION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION
Section 1
A prosecutor who wants to institute a prosecution shall file with the
court a written application for a summons against the person to be
charged; however, to the extent found appropriate, the court may
authorize the prosecutor to issue a summons.

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf


Likewise, the accused does not have to be in custody for the prosecutor to conduct an interview. The prosecutor has the power to arrest him, but it is not a necessary step for the interview to be conducted. The prosecutor would not break the law or be in breach of procedure if they didn't arrest Assange, they don't need to do that before an interview nor do they need to do it after an interview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #215)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:53 PM

224. The US is not "anxious" to throw him into prison...

they are slowly building a case against him and, if and when the time is right, they would then call for his extradition, probably after the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #224)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:18 PM

228. I bet they are very "anxious" to get him in prison but you are probably right about

after the election. Slowly building a case is even better if the accused is already in prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #177)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:51 PM

254. The rape allegation is because the terms of consent required a condom.

Insertion without a condom violated the terms of consent.

The condom that apparently has DNA was from an earlier encounter where the condom was used (and the terms of consent were upheld).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #132)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:36 PM

252. The Daily Mail. Can't write a proper fucking headline if its life depended on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #132)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:48 AM

286. Desperate much? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #286)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 08:19 AM

290. In denial, much?

The hero's fatally flawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #290)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 10:01 AM

295. Oh, please. He pissed in your beloved Miltary Industrial Complex's soup,

and you want to see him in prison because of this. This agenda is obvious, and honestly, mainly prevalent only among the consistent supporters of the MIC on DU.

If Joe Biden were accused of something like this, with these unprovable allegations against him, you'd be out raising an army to defend him.

And I'd be right there with you. Injustice is injustice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #295)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:10 PM

300. +1000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #295)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:18 PM

301. Oh, please. He's a certifiable narcissist and he attracts hero-worshippers like flies.

There's plenty of evidence of his disorder even if you don't believe those women's allegations. His lawyer's ludicrous statement connecting the Libya attacks to his hiding out in the embassy in Libya was typical. Assange's convinced the world revolves around him and anything he does is justified because HE did it.

Any good thing Assange has accomplished was in service to the notoriety his narcissism demands. But that same personality disorder has made him willing to sacrifice innocent people. That's why I find him personally repulsive.

OTOH, finding him personally repulsive doesn't mean I want to see him in prison (unless it turns out he is guilty of rape). I don't think he's at risk of being extradited here, at least under a Democratic administration, because (according to Charles Rangel and others) there are no laws that would support such a prosecution, despite what some Republicans might say -- which is why we didn't extradite him from the UK in all the months he was there. So all his squealing about being sent to Sweden is just an effort to avoid prosecution for the rape allegations, not to avoid prosecution here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:50 AM

4. The Assange Charges Always Seemed Manufactured To Me

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:52 AM

5. I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy?

The other victim still has a case.

The one victim has one too, but has one less piece of evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to originalpckelly (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:06 AM

11. What case?

 

There is evidence of nothing but consensual sex. Later regrets are immaterial for establishing criminal intent during the event, when according to all the hearsay testimonies Assange had no reason to assume that there was no consent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:25 AM

69. Oh, I don't know. They could always use the Romney tactic: "He raped me retroactively."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:34 AM

74. You must understand.

That to some the accusation itself is proof of guilt...and that is a useful tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to originalpckelly (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:18 AM

18. Ahhhh;

One of the OP's nay sayers checks in; right on schedule!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to originalpckelly (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:32 AM

22. But was the other condom also broken? The quote from the article does not state that.

Besides, when might the condom have been broken. Difficult to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to originalpckelly (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:08 AM

61. Actually, still looking like he shot both...

A torn condom given to Swedish police by one of the alleged victims was examined by staff at two forensic laboratories but they could not find any conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html#ixzz26e2VRaCl


Of course there's no conclusive evidence--Assange fled Sweden the day before he was scheduled to give an interview and a DNA test. So there's no piece of evidence that can be conclusively linked to him, without a sample.

They didn't say "found NO DNA evidence."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #61)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:29 AM

71. Got to call you on that one (as you and other have been called on repeatedly): Assange was permitted

to leave. The case was dropped or closed, then reopened AFTER he left Sweeden. He stayed in Sweeden until he was told he was in the cleard.

Your arguements would hold more water if you didn't repeat fake facts or falsehood, to put it more politely than succinctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #71)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:40 AM

77. He was permitted to leave and yet Sweden wants to extradite him to the U.S.

I don't see how you can have this both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #77)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:13 PM

161. It takes a modicum of imagination.

 


I can sum it up thusly: "They changed their minds."

Likely after a communique from the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #161)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:45 PM

168. Just as Assange is changing his mind now?

He admits he had sex with the women. So the absence of his DNA means...he did NOT have sex with them? I don't see that the OP is all that relevant to anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #168)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:48 PM

178. How is he 'changing his mind'?

 


He's never claimed not to have had sex with them.

Are you one of the people that actually thinks this whole thing is about rape charges?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #178)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:52 PM

180. I don't know what the absence of his DNA proves.

And yes, you know I'm 'one of those' who think Assange's actions and words prove him to be unreliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #180)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:20 PM

196. Wow.... I would think after the enormous amount of evidence that

 

this has to do with the US getting their hands on Assange, there wouldn't be any half-intelligent people still believing this bullshit about rape.

So what 'words and actions' have proven him 'unreliable'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #196)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:34 PM

202. He has super-secret BOA documents.

That were 'conveniently' stolen. I mean, how is that any different from alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy involving the U.S., the U.K., Sweden, Australia, Interpol, etc?

He does act like a narcissist. He can't go to Sweden because the U.S. might 'get' him, although the document dump he and Manning did made practically no difference in the world.

The allegations of some that embarrassing some mid-level diplomats is tantamount to signing one's death warrant.

His characterization of informants as expendable.

His characterization of Sweden as 'the Saudi Arabia of feminism'.

His leaving Sweden when he was scheduled for a DNA test.

All classic signs of a narcissist and someone who has something to hide.

On edit: when I say 'classic', I mean IMO. I am no expert on psychology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #202)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:40 PM

203. The document dump is very serious...

serious enough for the US to be actively investigating if he might have conspired with and directed Bradley Manning in getting at the documents. FOIA documents show that Australia is cooperating with the US in this investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #203)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:45 PM

204. Well, yeah, soliders who break their oaths of service should be investigated.

And if Assange's own country is investigating -and does not want to intervene in his 'problem' with Sweden- that sounds to me like they, just like Interpol, the U.K. appeals courts, etc., believe that the Swedish matter should proceed on its own merits.

And part of the U.S. investigation will no doubt focus on Manning's psychological and emotional problems, and how such an unbalanced individual was allowed to have access to classified material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #204)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:53 PM

206. Australian diplomats are passing intelligence to US investigators....

they are actively working toward building a case against Assange. Why put in so much effort if there is no hope of ever getting Assange extradited to the US??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #206)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:58 PM

210. There is no evidence -none- that extradition is on the table.

Who says the investigation has anything to do with extraditing him? Other than Assange and his supporters.

Assange conspired with Manning to do a document dump of classified information. It makes sense that officials would want to know how this was allowed to happen. Backtrack and find the steps that led to a serious breach of national security?

I don't see why they would NOT want to investigate.

But investigating HOW it happened does not mean extradition is likely. By Assange's point of view, he can commit any crime in the world now and claim he cannot be tried because he 'might' be extradited to the U.S.

With all the attention -and time and effort- that has followed him around, there is no way in hell he could be extradited now without massive world-wide protests. It isn't going to happen, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #210)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:05 PM

211. According to a recent report by Reuters....


the Obama Administration is divided on the wisdom of prosecuting Assange. That should tell you quite a bit about the current state of the case. The only way Assange could be tried is if he were extradited or if he willingly came to the US. I don't understand how prosecution could proceed any other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #211)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:09 PM

213. Well, 'divided' sort of implies there is no world-wide conspiracy to 'get' him then.

Because if there were, then there would be no division. He needs to face the music in Sweden and be done with it. He has done everything he can to turn a relatively minor incident -note, I said 'relatively'- into a world-wide kerfuffle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #213)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:16 PM

214. When nations work together on national security matters...

how does that make it a "conspiracy"? Biden, Feinstein and Clinton have all made statements that Assange should be prosecuted (for the cable release, not the broken condoms!) Does that mean they are all part of this conspiracy? There was outrage that Assange had defied the State Department request and gone ahead with publication of the secret cables. That's what the US investigation is all about. Your attempts to drive this back to a case about broken condoms seems....rather flaccid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #214)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:24 PM

216. The only thing this is about is the legal matter in Sweden. Nothing else.

That's where it will end, too. Assange will either be arrested or acquitted. Either way, the world-wide conspiracy -or 'honey trap'- that many on this thread have alleged, will be proven to be incorrect.

I don't have any dog in this race, by the way. If Assange somehow 'proves' there is a conspiracy to get him, it's no skin off my nose.

But all I see right now is a man who treats women poorly and does not want to face the music for his careless dalliances in Sweden.

And if you are not one to believe in the grand conspiracy, good for you. But that doesn't mean Assange should be allowed to get away with stealing U.S. intelligence documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #216)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:42 PM

222. In this sub-thread...

I'm not alleging any sort of underhanded intelligence conspiracy to get Assange (although I wouldn't be surprised if Karl Rove might behind part of it).

All I'm trying to point out is that there is a very real investigation by the US against Assange, aided by the cooperation of Australian authorities. There have been calls for his prosecution, including by no less than the VP. The only way to prosecute the case in US court is to have him extradited. The only thing standing in the way of extradition, when the US is ready to make such a request, is that the US guaranty not to sentence him with the death penalty. That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #222)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:30 PM

340. IOW:

 


"Overwhelming evidence that the rape charges are bullshit."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #168)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:51 PM

179. of course you don't. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #71)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:52 AM

83. Not true--his own lawyer testified to the fact that Mr. Assange left the country the

day before his scheduled interview and DNA test--this was a finding of fact, detailed by the Belmarsh court---(read pages 5, 6, and 7) the testimony of Mr. Hurtig. The Belmarsh magistrate demolished him.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #83)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:27 PM

93. Perhaps you could narrow done the info you are referring to by page number?

It's really cute to offer a link that is 28 pages long. I glanced through it and saw no reference, and my time online is limited.

In the meantime, there are dozens of references on Assange leaving Sweden with permission. I have quoted the relevant passages on two of them here.

Perhaps you could do the same for one reference?

h2) Julian Assange did not flee Sweden to avoid questioning. He was given permission to leave the country on the 15th September 2010, after remaining 5 weeks in Sweden for the purpose of answering the allegations made against him.

http://notesonwikileaks.tumblr.com/post/15251907983/assange-extradition-fact-sheet



In todays' DN Carlgren and Bergman writes that Marianne Ny, in writing, gave Assange permission to leave Sweden. I have translated parts of todays' column in DN.

"...in a letter dated September 14 2010, Julian Assanges lawyer at that time, Björn Hurtig, asked Marianne Ny if there were any obstructions for Julian Assange to travel abroad, as Julian had some acute businesses he needed to attend there. In a note to the Svea Court of Appeal, Marianne Ny writes the following: "in the reply to lawyer Hurtig, if there were any legal obstructions for Julian Assange to leave Sweden I answered that there were no such obstructions."
She has thereafter changed her mind several times and pushed Hurtig to arrange for interrogations in Sweden.
Julian Assange, as a matter of fact, left Sweden in good faith that he was doing the right thing."


http://www.skandinaviflorida.com/web/sif.nsf/d6plinks/JEIE-8XFQA4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #93)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:01 PM

111. Here's a quote from the magistrate's findings:



... In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days <after 15th September> I telephoned <Ms Ny> a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight ...

Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong ...

In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldn’t have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.

The witness had to leave to catch a flight. Miss Montgomery said that there were further challenges she could make to his evidence, but thought it unnecessary in the circumstances. That was accepted by the court after no point was taken by Mr Robertson. The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave ...


City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #93)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:41 PM

145. Kindly read my post again. More than a 'glance' this time. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #71)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:47 PM

205. The case was reopened 3 weeks before he left Sweden

the prosecutor notified his lawyer on Sept 22 that Assange was going to be interviewed on the 28th. Assange left Sweden on the 27th.

All of.this from sworn testimony from Assange's lawyer in a British court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #61)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:43 PM

99. Well, pretty much so. The only DNA evidence found was a tiny spot of mitochondrial DNA

Since the 100-page Swedish police protocol file leaked onto the internet in February 2011, it has been widely known that the SKL (Sweden's national forensic laboratory) failed to find any chromosomal DNA -- either male or female -- on the torn, used condom that Complainant AA gave to police 12 days after the event as evidence of her allegations. For anyone who doubts this fact, it's on page 77 of the police protocol (FUP), attached below .

Now, at that point -- 25 October, 2010 -- one would hope that a competent and impartial investigations team would turn toward investigating how this forensic finding came about. Sweden takes very seriously the issue of making false claims or presenting false evidence in sex crime cases, which is punishable with a 2-year prison sentence. In this particular case, however, the lead investigation officer, Mats Gehlin, simply asked the SKL to run the test again (page 81 of the FUP). In fairness, the first result does mention a tiny speck that might be "something," which a second test later found to be a very small sample of mitochondrial DNA.

This is significant for two reasons: first, mitochondrial DNA is not uniquely identifying in the same way as chromosomal DNA; and, more importantly, a sample which contains mitochondrial DNA but no chromosomal DNA can only come from hair and nails. And, of course, a used condom should be awash with chromosomal DNA from both participants -- but this one has none.

http://wlcentral.org/node/2325

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #99)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:10 PM

136. That statement by wikileaks regarding mitochondrial DNA is incorrect.

Mitochondrial DNA is not just present in hair and fingernails. Whoever wrote that never took an actual science class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #136)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:12 PM

159. That statement is not by Wikileaks and you apparently didn't read it

The quote doesn't say that mitochondrial DNA is "just present in hair and fingernails".


The entire DNA business is moot, anyway, since Assange never denied having sex with these persons. But, of course, it is far more interesting to have another sex thread instead of having to deny that Assange is persecuted for political reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #159)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:30 PM

163. Oh, Jeebus..Assange groupies? That explains it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #163)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:56 PM

172. not really

The information provided by independent supporters of Wikileaks at WL Central is informed by discussions in Sweden's popular Flashback forum, in particular the following post (which I'm sure you won't bother to read, but feel free to refute it anyway, or just take a glance at the "simplified summary" below):

A little bit about mitochondrial DNA.

Quote:
As mentioned above, DNA is extracted from the cell nucleus of the cell. Outside the cell there are organs called mitochondria whose task is to regulate the energy supply to the cell. These mitochondria have something called mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA). mtDNA is build the same way as chromosonal DNA in form and combination between the base pairs but has a lesser variation between individuals and the 'rope ladders' are significantly shorter. This means that the number of base pairs in the DNA strand are significantly fewer. mtDNA can be extracted from cells that lack chromosonal DNA such as hair strands and nails (Kupper & Olsson, 2009).
Quote:
When there's not a sufficient quantity of chromosonal DNA for a standard analysis or an LCN-analysis used with findings such as fallen hair strands, buried bones, teeth or faeces, analyses of mtDNA are used. Each mitochondrion has a small amount of DNA called mitochondrial DNA. Each cell has many mitochondria which makes it possible to perform the analysis on small traces of poor quality.
Here's a link to the PDF:

http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:291776/FULLTEXT01

SKL on the topic of mitochondrial DNA:

Quote:
Because mtDNA is inherited by the child from the mother and from the daughters to their children etc, mtDNA is not unique and cannot be decisive in an identification. The value as evidence is therefore lower than with a match from standard DNA tests.

mtDNA is a special analysis to be used when the ordinary DNA analysis isn't enough, a final straw to clutch onto to try to solve the case. The cases where mtDNA is applicable are serious crimes such as murder or as a complement to STR analyses used to identify corpses or body parts.

http://www.skl.polisen.se/sv/For-rattsvasendet/Om-DNA-analyser/Spar-fran-brottsplats/Mitokondriellt-DNA-mtDNA-/

A simplified summary:

Almost all cells in your body have both chromosonal DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Nails and hair have only mitochondrial DNA.

Mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, which means it's identical for siblings and the mother (which lowers the value as evidence of mitochondrial DNA, which isn't so interesting in this particular case). It's however completely possible to distinguish the mitochondrial DNA found on the condom, if it comes from JA or Ardin (as everyone knows, they don't have the same mother). That either of their mothers or siblings would be involved in the handling of the condom is not likely.

A purely hypothetical alternative is that the mitochondrial DNA that was found comes from cells from skin, secretion, sperm, or the like where the chromosonal DNA was destroyed, but that's an extremely artificial and almost impossible scenario.


http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #99)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:55 PM

181. interesting facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to originalpckelly (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:54 AM

84. Victim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to originalpckelly (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 10:54 AM

335. The other "victim" refused to sign the interrogation report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:54 AM

6. What does this mean?

I do not know if this is good news or bad news for Assange. I have always believed the charges were trumped up, but a used condom with no DNA? And even if it had his DNA, what does that prove?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proletariatprincess (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:00 AM

7. It means

 

that AA tried to manufacture evidence. That she is a lying and attempting fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:56 PM

182. That is certainly what it looks like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proletariatprincess (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:02 AM

8. Everyone will decide what it means..

... but to me it means THIS WAS ALL TRUMPED UP BULLSHIT, AS MOST OF US STRONGLY SUSPECTED FROM THE START, and now our opinion is confirmed.

If you are going to present a condom to the police as support for your story, it needs to have SOMETHING to indicate that your story is true. No DNA, no support for your story, in fact, it pretty much destroys your story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:16 AM

15. Could there be unnamed evidence on it that links it to Assange...say fingerprints?

Let me start by saying I'm all for evidence exonerating Assange.

If used condom means a man ejaculated into a condom I'd expect his DNA to be found in it, and maybe pubic hair. The lack of such would make it very hard to link the object to sex with Assange.

But if used merely means taken out of it's individual packaging maybe there would be no DNA deposited. In the various accounts that have been told there is also an allegation/story that he tore a condom and said he would wear -that- during sex.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:58 PM

183. They have had the condom for a year now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #183)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:51 PM

232. Yes but the link is about a defense report, might they only point to evidence that helps their case

and not refer to other evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proletariatprincess (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:38 AM

33. "victim" was claiming he deliberately tore the condom

and provided a torn condom as evidence.

What this means is that there was no torn condom associated with Assange, so her claim that he deliberately tore said condom is invented and that she manufactured the evidence against him.

There was only one claim of a torn condom. The other condom that contains his dna proves that he wore a condom, as requested during the consensual sex.

The plot isn't thickening so much as revealed as a frame up by 2 women with buyer's remorse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proletariatprincess (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:02 AM

58. Well--not no DNA--

A torn condom given to Swedish police by one of the alleged victims was examined by staff at two forensic laboratories but they could not find any conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html#ixzz26e2VRaCl


Thing is, that can mean a few things. One, Assange hasn't given a DNA sample, so ANY DNA found on the condom cannot be conclusively said to be his. Two, you may have DNA on the condom, but at such a low level due to degredation, that testing is either impossible, or improbable unless a purported suspect can give a sample that a mitichondrial match can be run against.

Once you have a defense attorney spilling like this, it means two things...

1) They have a guilty as all-get-out-client that needs to convince the public that a miscarriage of justice is happening, or

2) you have an innocent client, and not enough definitive evidence to clear him, so you muddy the waters.

Thing is, your innocent clients usually want to clear their names as quick as possible. Julian doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #58)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:52 PM

103. Try again. No chromosomal DNA at all. Only a speck of mitochrdrial DNA which comes only

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #103)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:44 PM

125. I'm sorry--but that's from wikileaks, which is hardly neutral. Do you have any actual court

evidence to back your claim?

FYI--wikileak's claim about mitochondrial DNA was written by someone who has never taken a science class in college. I am going to suggest that you might want to look up where mitochondria are in your body.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #125)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:23 PM

162. No it's not from Wikileaks and you still misrepresent it

mitochondrial DNA is not uniquely identifying in the same way as chromosomal DNA; and, more importantly, a sample which contains mitochondrial DNA but no chromosomal DNA can only come from hair and nails. And, of course, a used condom should be awash with chromosomal DNA from both participants


http://wlcentral.org/node/2325

WL Central:

About Us
This site was started by a group of WikiLeaks supporters who got to know each other in recent months. Our aims are simple:

(a) To provide a one-stop resource for WikiLeaks-related information, current and historical.
(b) To build a community site for WikiLeaks supporters.
(c) To counteract the many rumours and plain false information disseminated about WikiLeaks.
We come from different countries and backgrounds, and our personalities are just as colourful. But we share the same ideals of truth and justice, the same respect for WikiLeaks and similar organizations, the same belief in individual responsibility and action. And last but not least, we are here because we believe in doing the right thing.

We are not affiliated with WikiLeaks. We also don't work for any government agency. We are not paid by anyone for our work on this site. We are just kindred spirits volunteering our time for a cause we think is worthwhile.

Please find below some of our editors' statements, and feel free to add yours!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #162)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:32 PM

165. It's from Assange groupies? That's somehow better? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #165)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:57 PM

173. see #172

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proletariatprincess (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:02 AM

288. Doesn't mean anything really

Assange had already admitted to having sex with the women on the days in question. There being none of his DNA in either of the condoms really only could possibly mean that he either didn't wear them or took them off before ejaculating. If anything at all it only marginally helps both women in that it could possibly be used as evidence that he didn't want to use condoms. However, I'm not even really seeing that as evidence in their favor or whether or not it could be used as evidence of anything as it certainly could be argued that they could be condoms that he never came into any contact with at all. But seeing as Assange already admitted to having sex with the women on the dates in question, I'm really not seeing how it's evidence of anything either for or against him or for or against the women. There is no need for any DNA evidence of his because there is no argument as to whether or not he had sex with the women - he already admitted that he had sex with them on the dates in question. The argument is solely on the nature of the sex and whether or not it amounted to consensual sex or rape/sexual assault, therefore, his DNA (or lack thereof) on condoms just isn't relevant to the case.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:03 AM

9. Wearing a condom without leaving any DNA - that's a neat trick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #9)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:43 AM

53. Not really, if the condom is removed before ejaculation.

No DNA to test, unless a stray skin cell can be found.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #53)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:19 AM

68. That is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #68)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:32 AM

72. Really.

Why? Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Put on a condom, then remove it. What evidence is left that you ever used it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #72)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:41 AM

78. Pre-ejaculate

Men don't need the big o to emit precious bodily fluids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #72)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:43 AM

80. Pubic hair, skin cells, urine traces, sweat,

all come to mind as alternative DNA sources. It seems none were present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #72)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:35 PM

176. But it is so.

Plastic tight over a hard-on is going to pick up DNA, even without ejaculation, including pre-ejaculate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #72)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:01 PM

184. What would an unused condom represent? nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #53)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:33 PM

220. Uhhhh;

The female's DNA from vaginal fluids? There would always be some DNA from the male from hair follicles and/or preseminal fluid and more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:03 AM

10. ewwwwww..........

Two women keep condoms so they can bring them to the police over the same man?

And what was the time lapse? How were the condoms stored. How does anyone even know if these condoms had anything to do with Assange, if they could have been tampered with by either of the women during transit to the police.

I am a supporter of Assange and this new revelation makes me more convinced that there's something not quite accurate about the details in these two women's complaints.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:21 AM

30. Exactly. Something is rotten in Denmark.

Both women saved the condoms from consensual sex? What are the odds of that unless they were put up to it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wilsonbooks (Reply #30)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:34 AM

73. No, no, no. Sweden, not Denmark. Something is rotten in Sweden!

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wilsonbooks (Reply #30)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:50 PM

102. I wouldn't buy it on Intrade.

The day I heard about Monica's dress was the day I exonerated Bill Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:02 PM

87. Kind of reminds me of the semen stained dress.

Who hangs that back in the closet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:02 PM

186. for 12 days..... There is only one woman I know of who kept a blue dress.

That one had semen. This one is a fake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:06 AM

12. how did these women end up with the use condom in both rapes?



A little odd both victims managed to get away with that particular piece of evidence.

FYI: I am 100% neural i'm not sure of his guilt or innocence. this is just the question, that pop in my head when I read the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:07 AM

13. This is, of course, a comment from Assange's lawyers, and we should not expect

the Swedish authorities to confirm or refute it

Certainly if Assange and his lawyers believe there is no good case in Sweden, then Assange should return to Sweden and clear everything up as quickly as possible: the fact that he has jumped bail to avoid returning to Sweden does rather suggest he's concerned the accusations there might stick

Again, I'll say it is entirely inappropriate to attempt to try such a case in the media or on a public bulletin board

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:21 AM

19. Unless, as Assange contends, this is a set up

to extralegally extradite him to the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:37 AM

32. No: regardless of any of your theorizing, it's merely a claim from Assange's lawyers, and

we should not expect the Swedish authorities to confirm or refute it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:04 AM

59. Not only that, but of course no conclusive matching can happen until Assange gives a DNA

sample...and he fled Sweden the day before he was scheduled to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:32 AM

21. " it is entirely inappropriate to attempt to try such a case in on a public bulletin board"

but that's what you have been doing non stop for weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:10 AM

26. "Someone" has a pager with a keyword search as near as I can tell....

I am literally amazed at the response time. On every single mention of this topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pholus (Reply #26)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:39 AM

34. There is a name for that program. I can't remember. Sorry....

Used to be the case for another subject, which shall remain nameless, often discussed on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #21)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:27 AM

31. I have never taken any stand on Assange's guilt or innocence with regard to the Swedish accusations

As his challenge in the Swedish courts of the Swedish arrest order failed, and as his year-and-a-half fight in the UK courts against extradition to Sweden to face the accusations also failed, I take the view he can properly be sent to Sweden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #31)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:28 AM

70. Yes you have. You've been trying to convince everyone of his guilt on every thread.

You're deliberately saying things that you know are false.

There's a word for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alexander (Reply #70)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:55 PM

107. Provide a link showing I said he was guilty of the Swedish accusations. Or apologize.

You won't find the link, because I never said any such thing. So I'll await your apology

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alexander (Reply #70)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:04 PM

312. You couldn't find the requested link, could you? That's cuz it doesn't exist.

Maybe in the future you should avoid putting words in other people's mouths

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:39 AM

35. A comment taken from the Police report. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:41 AM

36. You are assuming that prosecutors don't break rules and turn wreckless for their own success...

... just to win.

My wife is very skeptical of prosecutors' overall truthfulness and transparency. She would know, having been a federal one herself....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GetRidOfThem (Reply #36)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:54 AM

43. I'm not assuming anything about the prosecutors: if they have a weak case and overreach,

then Assange should prevail, since (after all) he has dozens of lawyers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:49 PM

101. you just pegged my irony meter!

Again, I'll say it is entirely inappropriate to attempt to try such a case in the media or on a public bulletin board

okay then!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #101)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:59 PM

109. I've always taken the PoV that the Swedish allegations should be handled by the Swedish system

in Sweden. I've never taken a stand one way or the other on whether Assange was guilty or innocent of the Swedish allegations. I have taken the PoV that it is grossly inappropriate to engage in a public smear campaign against the women

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #109)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 11:56 AM

297. you have a POV that is obvious to anyone paying attention

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:00 PM

110. No, this comes from SKL, Sweden's national forensic laboratory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #110)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:12 PM

113. "Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have revealed ... " etc etc. "The report, which has

been seen by Mr Assange’s lawyers ..." etc etc. These quotes from the OP clearly indicate that everything discussed in the OP is simply alleged by Assange's lawyers

And, of course, after the Wikileaks confessed to the Keller hoax, nobody in their right mind should be overly eager to believe any web documents touching on the Assange case

WikiLeaks claims responsibility for fake Bill Keller column, citing donation ban
Hoax including fake tweets and a counterfeit Times website dismissed as 'childish prank' by former editor Bill Keller

Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 July 2012 14.18 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/29/bill-keller-fake-column-wikileaks


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #113)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:21 PM

119. Not on the links I provided... The links I provided included the Swedish lab reports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #119)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:09 PM

135. Not buying it -- cuz Wikileaks has a history of forgery. He can go clear it up in Sweden

WikiLeaks claims responsibility for fake Bill Keller column, citing donation ban
Hoax including fake tweets and a counterfeit Times website dismissed as 'childish prank' by former editor Bill Keller

Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 July 2012 14.18 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/29/bill-keller-fake-column-wikileaks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #135)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:04 PM

299. you continue to betray your bias

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #299)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:35 PM

304. WikiLeaks claims responsibility for fake Bill Keller column ...

Hoax including fake tweets and a counterfeit Times website dismissed as 'childish prank' ...
Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 July 2012 14.18 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/29/bill-keller-fake-column-wikileaks

The organization actually has somewhat of a history of huff-n-puff and outright bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:09 AM

14. dipsydoodle

dipsydoodle

It sunds more and more like a "honey-trap" to me..

Diclotican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:16 AM

16. "He deliberately ripped a condom so he could have unprotected sex with her."

Let's see. You rip the condom, and wear said shredded, flappy condom while having sex. Does that make sense? If you want unprotected sex, wouldn't you just not wear the condom at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:59 AM

25. The idea being he wants these women to have babies for him.

With two condoms it directs to a pattern of behavior. With only one, ... not so much at all. Considering that we can pull DNA from finger prints, not finding his DNA is interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #25)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:13 AM

64. But they can't conclusively match or not match his DNA until they have a sample,

and he fled Sweden the day before he was supposed to give one.

The authorities don't say there's 'no' DNA--just that there isn't a conclusive match.

Edited to add--the same source as the OP backs up your statement as to wanting to father children:

Donald Bostom, a Swedish journalist and WikiLeaks volunteer, told police investigating the rape allegations that Mr Assange had ‘at least’ four children. Gawker said the figure had been ‘independently confirmed’ by a friend of Mr Assange.

According to a Gawker source, Mr Assange was obsessed with fathering children because he has a superiority complex. ‘He thinks he is so good that the world needs more of his kids,’ said the source.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355853/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-fathered-4-love-children-friend-claims-tell-book.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #64)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:42 AM

79. Please provide a link that backs up your statement that he fled the day before he

was to give a DNA test?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #79)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:03 PM

88. Testimony from his lawyer, Mr. Hurtig, pages 5, 6, and 7, in the

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #88)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:29 PM

94. Answered this one before. At least provide a page number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #88)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:14 PM

115. Revelant paragraph from your link does not support your conclusions:

The lawyer gave live evidence covering in some detail the attempts made to secure an interview with his client. On 15th September Ms Ny told him there were no “force measures” preventing Julian leaving the country, i.e. he was allowed to leave. He asked when his client would be interrogated but was told the officer she needed for the investigation was sick. He phoned his client to say he was free to leave the country to continue his work. His client was worried that he may be difficult to get hold of, so they agreed that when he had found a stable place he would contact his lawyer. On 22nd September he received a text message from Marianne Ny saying that she wanted to interrogate Julian Assange on 28th September. “I could not get hold of Julian, which I told Marianne on 27th September.” He was able to speak to his client on 29th September and Mr Assange offered to return on Saturday 9th October for interrogation. Eventually this proposal was not accepted as the dates were too far away. He gives details about a proposal to hold an interrogation on 6th October, which he believes was because the police thought his client would be in Sweden then giving a lecture. That information was leaked to him. On 8th October Mr Hurtig suggested a telephone interrogation, but this was refused. He provided further detail about the evidence he had seen on 17th November and on 18th November before the detention hearing which was decided on 24th November. However there was nothing in English. He was allowed to read text messages but not allowed to make notes or copy them. The text messages were “not good for the claimants and spoke of revenge”. They also spoke of gaining money from Julian Assange. The complainant’s statement is confidential. Therefore Mr Hurtig sought the advice of the prosecutor and then the Bar Council before disclosing it. He was advised that he could. In the statement the alleged victim of the rape allegation said she was half-asleep at the time. That is very different from the allegation in the EAW.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #115)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:25 PM

121. Isn't it funny how they do that?

Post a link claiming the information supports their agenda, yet when you read it, you find that the information directly refutes them?

struggle4progress does that A LOT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #121)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:42 PM

123. Uh huh. Which is why I asked for specific pages on his 28 page link. S/He gave me three pages and

the relevant material was on the third page. Which suggests s/he didn't expect me to read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #123)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:42 PM

147. No--I expected that you would read the direct and cross of the witness. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #121)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:52 PM

170. pbfft! you're just jealous that i actually give links that support my arguments

against assange's psychotic fantasies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #170)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:55 AM

283. Your nose has been rubbed in your deposits in these threads, repeatedly.

I read your drivel, and I read the information posted by you and other DUers. You don't fool me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #283)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:42 AM

294. There's not a link from you anywhere in the thread yet. I've provided various links

and quotes from the UK case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #294)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:34 PM

303. There are only a certain number of available facts.

Posting more links to them won't increase anyone's understanding of what's going on here.

The links you post do very little to advance your argument, as they usually deal only with obscure minutia, disagree with your overall agenda or even refute your arguments outright. Your spam has been dealt with repeatedly by other posters who have eviscerated you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #303)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:42 PM

306. There's not a link from you anywhere in the thread yet. I've provided various links

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #306)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:48 PM

308. Yes, you've posted lots of links,

and they crap out every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #121)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:08 PM

189. yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #115)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:43 PM

124. YOu need to read more than one paragraph--like where he's caught lying--

Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight.

Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong. He had forgotten the messages referred to above. They must have slipped his mind. There were then questions about DNA. It was suggested to him that a reason for the interrogation taking place in Sweden was that a DNA sample may be required. He seemed to me to at first agree and then prevaricate. He then accepted that in his submissions to the Swedish court he had said that the absence of DNA is a weakness in the prosecution case. He added “I can’t say if I told Ms Ny that Julian Assange had no intention of coming back to Sweden”. He agrees that at least at first he was giving the impression that Mr Assange was willing to come back. He was asked if Julian Assange went back to Sweden and replied: “Not as far as I am aware”.

In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldn’t have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf


Perhaps you missed that part? Or did not understand the import of judge using the word 'prevaricate' when describing the testimony of a lawyer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #124)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:57 PM

133. I read the three pages you said supported your conclusions. They don't support your

conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #133)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:20 PM

139. Upthread, you make the claim that mitochondria only exist in our hair and fingernails.

So I'm not surprised by this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #139)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:12 PM

160. no s/he didn't n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #160)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:31 PM

164. Check out #103. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #164)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:46 PM

169. check out #99 and #162 and apologize n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #64)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:37 PM

96. Nice gossip link from the Daily Mail, citing snark from unnamed sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #96)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:49 PM

128. DUDE!! The OP is from the DAILY MAIL, too! Citing unamed sources. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #25)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:07 PM

187. I'm sure hundreds of women would love to have babies with him. So the allegation is that he wanted t

to impregnate women without their consent? I thought the big deal was about STD testing a year ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:54 PM

158. Seems ridiculous to me too.

Did he always rip the condoms when he had sex? Didn't he have sex more than once with these individuals? How many guys really want a bunch of kids from different mothers that they would have to support? How did he rip the condoms without the women noticing?

If these women were so worried about pregnancy why would they count on just a condom anyway. I sure wouldn't.

Whether you like him or not, the whole thing smells like a setup to me. If I were him, I wouldn't want to go back either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #158)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:11 PM

190. I know. how often do really intellegent, really rich men run around trying to get women pregnant?

Remember, one of the women went back to sleep with him again AFTER the alleged incident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:17 AM

17. --- don't let facts get in the way of a prosecution.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:30 AM

20. And the Farce Goes ON

So Russian....Dostoevsky would be envious. Also Solzhenitsyn. And George Orwell is rolling in laughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demeter (Reply #20)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:17 AM

28. I doubt Orwell is rolling -

I'm sure he's just as disgusted as the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)


Response to bupkus (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:43 AM

38. Why do people keep blaming the US for Swedish allegations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #38)


Response to bupkus (Reply #40)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:16 AM

66. The UK could have extradited him

This one is so blatantly a false argument. Who is going to fall for that argument? Only blind worshippers of Julian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #66)


Response to bupkus (Reply #108)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:08 PM

112. No, the UK could have extradited him

The idea that only Sweden can do so is ridiculous.

That one does not work. Julian should go to Sweden to deal with the charges. He could have done so long ago. He might even be through with the entire thing by now, probation and all. It's ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #112)


Response to bupkus (Reply #114)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:26 AM

292. Beyone belief!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #292)


Response to bupkus (Reply #319)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 06:21 PM

323. Why should they?

In Sweden's eyes he's just a common criminal being sought for prosecution for rape.

Is every country in the world obligated to promise everyone they arrest that they will not extradite that person to another country?

No, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

The man is wanted for suspicion of rape. He left the country with the promise that he'd go back to be questioned for the crime. He didn't. Now he's holed up in a third country's embassy. Actually Ecuador is the fourth country if you consider Sweden, the UK, and the US (which has nothing to do with the rape charges)

Tell me, why should Sweden promise Assange anything?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #114)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:41 PM

305. Oh, right! That's why he skipped Sweden while the authorities were talking to his lawyer to arrange

an interrogation, that's why he didn't return to Sweden as planned, that's why he spent a year and a half fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden, and that's why he jumped bail in the UK: it's all because he's so very very willing and eager to face the accusations in Sweden!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #305)


Response to treestar (Reply #112)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:59 PM

316. You're spouting nonsense.

Last edited Tue Sep 18, 2012, 12:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Politically and legally, it is much easier to transfer custody from Sweden, because no extradition is required as per the 1983 supplemental to the extradition treaty between the U.S. and Sweden. All that is required, is that there is at least a 2 year sentence for the alleged crime. No such agreement exists between the U.S. and the U.K.

[link:http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #38)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:49 AM

41. Because some want badly to believe in heroes.

So they are willing to suspend objectivity in order to satisfy that 'craving'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #41)


Response to George II (Reply #38)


Response to bupkus (Reply #122)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:20 PM

269. WHAT??

Because he is accused of a SEX crime it has to be the US that's behind it?

And just what is the rationale behind your conclusion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #269)


Response to bupkus (Reply #289)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:23 AM

291. But Bill Clinton was an AMERICAN living in AMERICA...

...Assange is neither.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #291)


Response to bupkus (Reply #302)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:43 PM

314. So...

...you're taking the tactics used in an incident almost twenty years ago by completely different people in a completely different context and applying that to an incident today in a different contry on a different continent under completely different circumstances?

Wow, that's an amazing stretch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #314)


Response to bupkus (Reply #317)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 06:23 PM

324. Ah, so now it's NOT the US, it's the Republican Party that wants him?

Remember, the United States Justice Department is controlled by the Democratic administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #324)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 06:55 PM

325. The point is...

Assange is constantly being demonized for his alleged sexual misconduct, while the greater crimes exposed by Wikileaks rarely even get discussed. It's not just Republicans who "want him". Biden, Feinstein and Clinton have all made statements at one time that he should be prosecuted for the leaked cables. Being held in Swedish prison for the sex crimes would buy more time while the US decides what to finally do with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #325)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:23 PM

327. Is there any viable PROOF that the US is behind it, or is this just paranoid theory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #327)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:48 PM

328. US is behind what exactly?

There is viable proof that the US is conducting an investigation:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/cables-reveal-australia-us-focus-on-assange-20120527-1zd8a.html

Australian diplomats have closely monitored the US Department of Justice investigation into WikiLeaks over the past 18 months. The embassy in Washington reported ''a broad range of possible charges are under consideration, including espionage and conspiracy''.

The diplomats dismiss Mr Assange's claims that the US investigation is politically motivated retribution for WikiLeaks' publication of leaked US military and diplomatic reports. They instead highlight US prosecutors' claims that the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning, dealt directly with Mr Assange and ''data-mined'' secret US databases ''guided by WikiLeaks' list of 'most wanted' leaks''.


and if he were to be ultimately prosecuted then he would have to be extradited. The US has never claimed that they won't suddenly decide to have him extradited in the future, when this case is further along.

Why would you expect there to be proof that Sweden might be cooperating with the US, especially since this whole case is shrouded in secrecy to begin with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #328)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 09:05 AM

333. That's an investigation into US-Australian intelligence exchanges, not rape in Sweden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #333)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:30 PM

337. Wrong, it's an investigation of Assange's alleged wrongdoing against the US...

and if prosecution moves forward then he would likely be extradited to the US which is what Assange and his legal team are afraid of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #324)


Response to bupkus (Reply #329)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 11:06 PM

330. So?

Okay, sex sells in America, but Assange is in the Equadorian embassy in the UK and is being investigated for rape in Sweden.

Where does the US come in here? Why not Cuba? Why not Russia? Why not Libya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #330)


Response to bupkus (Reply #332)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 09:18 AM

334. Again with the "ignorant"?

Last edited Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

What's up around here - a difference of opinion (one based on fact, yours based on speculation) results in an insult?


The case under discussion is one between Sweden and Assange, with the UK in the middle and Equador unwittingly dragged into it as well.

Using your logic, since the US is investigating his role in Wikileaks, Assange is immune from prosecution for any crime anywhere in the world?

The US involvement in THIS case? Bupkes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #38)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:12 PM

191. because of Bradley Manning. because of the national embarrassment. duh.

Assange caught the US government in a series of major lies. major lies. He told truth to power. That is why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #191)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:22 PM

271. So the US Government go the Swedish Government to accuse him of rape?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:50 AM

24. It appears the US will have to come up with other charges...

...in order to get him here.

Let's see: Unpaid parking tickets? Complaint from neighbor about loud music? How about keeping his trash cans in full view of the street?

C'mon, USA: you can think of something!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #24)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:50 AM

42. The last time I checked the news reports..........

.....it was Sweden that charged him with rape, not the US.

Conspiracy theory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #42)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:16 AM

45. Do you really think this is only about rape allegations?

Do you really think Assange seeking political asylum in Ecuador's embassy in London while British troops waited outside for a possible invasion is all about rape allegations?

Really?

And Iraq was behind 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #45)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:53 AM

55. Interesting...you mention Equador and the UK, not the US..

...confirms my point.

No, Iraq was not behind September 11 just as the US is not behind this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #55)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:38 PM

166. "No, Iraq was not behind September 11..."

But they had to have been! We invaded and killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens! All because Saddam had WMDs!

And if you think that once Assange steps out of the Ecuadoran embassy that the US wouldn't snatch him, then I've got a palm tree in Wisconsin to sell you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #45)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:33 PM

219. of course

why not? Not everyone is certain that world is out to get Julian and that there is no way he ever did anything wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #42)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:52 PM

104. yes, conspiracy theory..

you seem woefully uninformed regarding this case. why not spend the morning bringing yourself up to speed so as to prepare yourself for the discussion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #42)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 05:22 PM

322. "Conspiracy theory?"!?!?!?!?

Certainly NOT!

No two parties have ever gotten together and planned any kind of bad behavior.

Only the stupidest person in the WORLD would ever fall for a story about anyone planning to do something wrong!!!!

What do you take us for?!?!?!

(if I need any smiley here, then it's just not worth it)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:17 AM

27. Well I'll be. *sarcasm* nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:18 AM

29. Wow, that is one clever dude. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:42 AM

37. Did it contain any DNA?

If not, maybe he decided not to use it when he saw that it was torn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #37)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:43 AM

52. Your comments make it clear you know next to nothing about this.

It's best to read something about the topic before commenting. That way, you don't appear so foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #52)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:54 AM

56. I have read about it, but why don't you enlighten me instead of insulting me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #56)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:36 AM

76. Your use of the 'conspiracy theory' meme doesn't make any sense

considering the U.S. government has stated publicly that it intends to silence both Wikileaks and Assange, one way or another. Also, according to statements made by the woman in question, the condom was torn after it was initially used, not before it was used.

Your comments make it obvious that you are not in possession of many of the facts, but you don't really need me to enlighten you. If you read and post on this board regularly, you have easy access to the same information I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #76)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:38 PM

97. Ah, I see....

So the US has convinced the government of Sweden to lodge rape charges against Assange, correct?

Connecting the US government intention to silence Wikileaks and Assange to the Sweden rape accusation is NOT a "conspiracy theory"?

Here's a fact that you overlook - there were TWO women involved in the Swedish rape allegations, not just the one that this thread is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #97)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:16 PM

118. Sweden is a highly subordinate client state, and close ally to the U.S. government.

The Swedish government does not need to be "convinced" of anything.

This sort of naivete/willful ignorance, never ceases to amaze.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #118)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:27 AM

293. Why is it that when confronted with reality some here resort to insults?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #293)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 10:49 AM

296. Why is it that some here scrupulously avoid discussing the topic? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #296)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:45 PM

315. The topic was being discussed....

....but you didn't agree with the opinion so you resorted to an insult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #52)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:55 AM

57. And there is an example of what it's like to cross a 'true believer'.

Disparagement and insults. It always seems to come from the 'pro' Assange side when their heroes have smudges on them.

Perhaps you could read a little bit more about tarnished heroes.
Like Ray Bradbury.
Scott Ritter.
Michael Crichton.
Clint Eastwood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #57)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:17 PM

91. Yes, beware my wrath.

Cross me again, and I shall blast you with my lightnings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #91)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:21 PM

92. Hey! No electricity!

That stuff's dangerous!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:45 AM

39. Good. Now I expect the anti-Assange threads to cease.

 

You can't argue with DNA evidence. It is definitive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #39)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:18 AM

47. You forgot the sarcasm thingie. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #39)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:21 AM

49. If he's obviously innocent, why not go to Sweden and clear this up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #49)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:33 AM

50. Because the evidence clears it up for him, therefore not requiring his traveling to another country?

Why do you want him prosecuted for nothing so very very badly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #50)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:14 AM

65. That is not how the legal system works

He should go back to Sweden and get that case dismissed and deal with the other one.

The fallout from both would have been over by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #50)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:18 PM

138. He's lost twice in Swedish court and four times, over a year and a half, in UK court

He left Sweden while Swedish authorities were trying to schedule an interrogation with him. He was expected back a month later and stiffed the Swedish authorities on that, too. He's jumped bail in the UK, costing his supporters hundreds of thousands of pounds.

I don't know whether he's guilty or not, but he obviously doesn't want to face the Swedish prosecutors. I'm not interested in trying the case on a bulletin board: let him go to Sweden and clear matters up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #138)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:21 AM

285. His destiny is a dungeon in the United States.

That's what he fears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #285)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:44 PM

307. It's too bad if Assange has psychotic delusions, but the rest of us are not obliged to believe them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #307)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:52 PM

310. Are you a psychiatrist who can diagnose from a distance?

If not, your comment is devoid of meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #310)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:02 PM

311. "If Assange has psychotic delusions, then the rest of us are not obliged to believe them"

doesn't seem meaningless to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #311)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:08 PM

313. I'm *trying* to understand.

But most of your messages are not conducive to understanding. They only attempt to promote an impression in the minds of the gullible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #49)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:53 PM

106. third base

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #49)


Response to bupkus (Reply #117)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:30 PM

141. His lawyers had their chance to argue that in court -- but they decided it was too crackpot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #141)


Response to bupkus (Reply #142)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:46 PM

148. Actually, one of Assange's own witnesses told the court that onward-extradition was not possible

Another of Assange's own witnesses got caught lying to the court

So they decided not to try the court's patience further with more crazy-ass bullshizz

Thoughtful people may see that's not exactly the same thing as "Durn ole Judge Lynch stacked th'deck agin us in his Kangaroo Court"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #148)


Response to bupkus (Reply #149)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:09 PM

151. Res judicata. Let him go on to Sweden and settle matters there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #151)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:16 PM

194. what is your problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #194)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:20 PM

197. He's lost twice in Swedish court and four times, over a year and a half, in UK court

He left Sweden while Swedish authorities were trying to schedule an interrogation with him. He was expected back a month later and stiffed the Swedish authorities on that, too. He's jumped bail in the UK, costing his supporters hundreds of thousands of pounds

Let him go to Sweden and clear matters up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #197)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:20 PM

245. Why do you think he has so many supporters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #245)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:30 PM

250. Population of London: 8+ million. Number of Londoners who turned out for Assange's balcony speech:

a few hundred. Fraction of Londoners really jazzed about Assange: less than 0.01%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #250)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:32 PM

251. You really spend a lot of time disliking Julian Assange. Do you know him personally?

Are you working right now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #141)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:16 PM

193. says you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #193)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:19 PM

195. "... There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA

(possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing. It may be worth adding that I do not know if Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States of America. There has been no evidence regarding this. I would expect that there is such a treaty. If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also. But none of this was argued ..."

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons


If Assange had wanted to argue that in court, he was free to do so. He did not -- because the theory is so ridiculous that one of his own specialist witnesses testified against the possibility

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #195)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:18 PM

243. or they didn't argue it because there is no case, hence no need. Did you know thaqt both women bragg

bragged in writing AFTER sex with Assange? And one went back for another round. There are no victims here except for Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #243)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:39 PM

275. If there's no good case against him in Sweden, he'll be quickly cleared to go his merry way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #275)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:55 PM

279. really? Is that a fact?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #279)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:48 PM

309. ... The Swedish court system is characterized by foreseeability, fairness, humanism

and high professional quality ...

During Assange's stay, two events occurred that led to accusations against him for sexual assault of two women. Before Assange was interrogated, he left the country. He then refused to return to Sweden, starting an almost two-year process to extradite him.

The UK Supreme Court's decision means only that Assange will be transferred to Sweden for interrogation. It does not mean that he will be tried, or even charged. It is entirely possible that he will be transferred to Sweden, questioned and released if the Swedish authorities find that there are insufficient grounds for prosecution. It is impossible - as it should be - to predict how the case will unfold.

What we do know is that Assange will receive fair treatment by Swedish legal institutions. And, yes, their respect for the rule of law extends to accusations of sexual offenses. As recently as a few years ago, the Swedish Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the same high standard of proof applied to other criminal allegations are to be applied in cases of suspected rape ...

Sweden is owed justice and respect over the Assange affair
Marten Schultz
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/06/26/3533222.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #49)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:14 PM

192. because of what happened to Bradley Manning!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #39)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:18 AM

67. There's still another case!

I am appalled at this demand that people who don't think Julian is all that to shut up. I've seen it over and over. No one is beyond criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #67)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:22 PM

198. Bradley Manning was tortured. The good that julian did for the entire world is huge. It really

looks like the charges are fake and ridiculous. That is why. The charges are of having sex with a broken condom. Who cares? seriously. if we all reported every man who ever had a condom break, there would be no time for politics or DU.
That is not a crime.

Picasso actually beat his wife. Julian Assange possibly had sex with a broken condom.
haven't you ever seen a condom break?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #198)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:57 PM

207. "... David Coombs, a lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, ... said Manning was confined in such a way

to prevent anything bad from happening to him ..."
Lawyers in WikiLeaks Case Argue Over Email Access
By ERIC TUCKER Associated Press
FORT MEADE, Md. August 28, 2012 (AP)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-soldiers-wikileaks-case-back-military-court-17093558

You'd scream Murder! if Bradley Manning had killed himself in custody

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #198)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:58 PM

208. BTW, the accusations are not "the condom broke." One of the accusations is rape

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #208)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:01 PM

237. No there is not a rape accusation. there is a sexual misconduct accusation, and

some people want to bicker about the translation of the Swedish words and translate a word to mean rape. . There was no rape. There is no charge of rape. there is no accusation of rape. there aresensationalist translations and boogeyman stories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #237)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:21 PM

246. ... The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list

is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape ...
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons


"The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story"
– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #246)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:28 PM

248. There was no rape period. That woman bragged in writing about the event, and subsequently had sex

with Assange again. No raped woman ever went back to see her rapist willingly. never. ever. never. ever. Both women bragged about the sex they had with Assange. They did not complain about it. they bragged about it. in writing. get over it. It did not happen. And again, there is NO rape charge. you can say translating this might equate that, but there is NO rape charge in Sweden. period. no charges at all, as a matter of fact. They did not charge him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #248)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:34 PM

273. I expect the Swedish justice system can sort it out better than we can

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #273)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:56 PM

280. obviously not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #246)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:30 PM

249. Why did she go back and sleep with him again several nights later if there was a problem?

That tells me there werent a problem. Why did she brag in writing about that night to friends?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #249)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:56 PM

255. That did not happen.

I do not know where you are getting your information but it is false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #249)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:00 PM

265. Wait, what? Where did that come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #265)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:02 PM

266. I dont have a link, but read it many many times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #249)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:35 PM

274. I expect the Swedish justice system can sort it out better than we can

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #198)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:28 PM

217. There's more to the cases than that

At any rate, he should not be above the law. If the cases against him fail, then fine, he's free.

He has not had that much effect - this article explains why:

http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?AID=1964

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #217)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:24 PM

247. Actually there is not more than that. Both women put in wriitng how happy they were that they had se

sex with Assange, after the sex. One of the women went back for sex again.
the prosecution admitted that both women texted friends bragging that they had just had sex with him. not complaining that something bad happened. happy. bragging. texting. That means in writing. after.
case closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #198)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:56 PM

225. never has anybody been charged for not wearing a condom

anywhere, apparently. I have asked many, many times, here and elsewhere, nobody can cite a case example with a similar scenario as alleged in this case.

Which doesn't surprise me at all, because the charges are complete BS. In addition, what Ms Ardin claims, also sounds completely false and made up. Many people feel this way, see e.g.:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #225)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:02 PM

238. espeically when you find out that the second woman subsequently went back to see him and had sex aga

again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:03 AM

44. So whose DNA is it? This could turn into a real soap opera... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:16 AM

46. What makes the most sense to me is that this was never about sex at all...

Way longer than a year ago Assange let something slip about having incriminating documents, about BOA I think it was. And then that guy affiliated with Wikileaks left and supposedly took some documents with him and allegedly destroyed them. I don't remember all the specifics. It was subsequent to that that all the sex allegations surfaced.

IMO, those who really pull the strings (way above Obama) don't give a rat's ass about leaked diplomatic cables, war crimes, or even rape, but if you have some real dirt on the big banks or you threaten to throw a monkey wrench into their criminal enterprises, you're toast.

Most recently, see: Col. Gaddafi and the pan African bank.


Feel free to ridicule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:39 AM

51. So no DNA on one condom (Ms. A) But DNA on another condom (Ms. W) and both torn?

I can see why Assange's lawyers want to spin this in the public.

Of course there's "no conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it." Or anything...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html#ixzz26e1MpaBZ

Assange fled Sweden the day before he was scheduled to give another interview and a DNA test.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #51)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:05 AM

60. The article doesn't say both condoms were torn.

Also from the article:

The report also appears to cast doubt on the claim made by the second alleged victim, who told police that she was ‘raped’ by Mr Assange when she was asleep.

But during a police interview, the woman, now 29, apparently suggests that she did not mind him having unprotected sex with her.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #60)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:10 AM

62. Well, I hardly expect the defense to admit to that. We will have to wait until Assange gives a DNA

sample, and see what recovers from the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:12 AM

63. Great. So go back to Sweden and get that case dismissed.

Then get on with saving the world. Or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #63)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:34 AM

75. He will never go back willingly---his DNA sample will be taken and

I suspect that a few skeletons will come out of the closet.



Donald Bostom, a Swedish journalist and WikiLeaks volunteer, told police investigating the rape allegations that Mr Assange had ‘at least’ four children. Gawker said the figure had been ‘independently confirmed’ by a friend of Mr Assange.

According to a Gawker source, Mr Assange was obsessed with fathering children because he has a superiority complex. ‘He thinks he is so good that the world needs more of his kids,’ said the source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355853/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-fathered-4-love-children-friend-claims-tell-book.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #75)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:50 AM

82. He should donate to a sperm bank!

Rather than refuse to use condoms on one-night-stands. Those women might get abortions.

It would be no surprise if he thinks he should father many children to pass on his amazing DNA. Also willing to bet he does not think he should be legally required to support them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #82)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:08 PM

90. I sincerely doubt he's supporting four children. But I bet Sweden has interviewed the

moms. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #75)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:57 AM

85. This article is nothing more than gossip. Let's hear from the mothers of these alledged children.

Let's see the birth certificates and the DNA evidence or the court documents assigning paternity.

And even if it is true, what does it have to do with these cases? Unless the mothers of the apocryphal children claim rape, it has nothing to do with this case and is designed to defame Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #85)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:07 PM

89. That article is from the same source as the OP. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #89)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:32 PM

95. And so? Still extraneous and pejorative with no evidentual value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #95)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:51 PM

129. But you want to hear from the mothers, as your post upthread

indicates?

I would, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #129)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:56 PM

131. Sorry. I forgot the "sarcasm" tag. No. Even were it true, it's not my business nor yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #129)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:04 PM

134. Do you have no shame? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #75)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:41 PM

98. Jesus Christ! You keep posting this snarky, largely unsourced gossip...

...as if it meant anything.

Obsession can sneak up on people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #98)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:45 PM

126. You realize I am using the SAME SOURCE as the OP, right?

If their source is okay, why are you challenging my use of the source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:47 AM

81. If the condom isn't split, you must acquit...

Or in this case if the split condom contains no dna or the wrong dna. Guess we will have to wait for those pesky dna tests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #81)


Response to bupkus (Reply #120)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:33 PM

156. What if he is masturbating, I might end up on the ceiling. lol nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #81)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:23 PM

200. omg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #200)


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:00 PM

86. Doesn't Assange have at least 1 son and 1 daughter?

Strange that they haven't been heard from during all this. Or that Assange wouldn't want some contact with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #86)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:13 PM

137. Do you have children?

 

In his speech from embassy balkony Assange apologised his children for not being able to be father to them. Let's leave it there and respect his privacy, unless you want discuss publicly your role as parent and have zillion character assassinators digging up all the dirt they can find about you and your family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #137)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:21 PM

154. And why couldn't he be a father to them?

Because he was too busy partying in Sweden? Yes, I have children. They adore me as much as I adore them.

And I would not be embarrassed about ANYTHING dug up about me because I will always admit the truth. If you don't have anything to hide, they don't have anything on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #86)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:22 PM

140. At least 4 kids by different mothers, according to the OP's source.

Donald Bostom, a Swedish journalist and WikiLeaks volunteer, told police investigating the rape allegations that Mr Assange had ‘at least’ four children. Gawker said the figure had been ‘independently confirmed’ by a friend of Mr Assange.

According to a Gawker source, Mr Assange was obsessed with fathering children because he has a superiority complex. ‘He thinks he is so good that the world needs more of his kids,’ said the source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355853/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-fathered-4-love-children-friend-claims-tell-book.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #140)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:18 PM

153. I have an uncle just like this.

He's brilliant and he's a millionaire. When he was younger, he, too, was obsessed with having a male heir, although he could only father daughters so he adopted a boy. He was domineering and abusive and since his divorce, he has had 4 mail order brides because he cannot conceive of not having someone around to look up to him.

This is only anecdotal, of course, but Assange fits that same profile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #140)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:26 PM

201. Someone with that avatar should be much less judgmental..

about lack of parenting skills and absentee fathers.

Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #140)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:04 PM

239. i think having too many children actually is bad for the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #239)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:58 PM

264. Well, his every sperm is sacred....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:53 PM

105. Gross.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:55 PM

130. Subheadline: "But its thought another condom, submitted by the second alleged victim, does"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #130)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:35 PM

144. Oh--even better--the Daily Mail is now an approved source for Assange info.



Julian Assange's celebrity backers set to lose $540,000 bail money as he remains holed up in Ecuador Embassy
Wikileaks founder breached conditions by seeking political asylum before he was due to be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault charges
Nine high profile backers were today given a month to argue why they should not hand over the £140,000 they promised between them
A handful of celebrity backers, including Jemima Khan, lost their £200,000 bail money at a hearing in July

By Emily Allen

PUBLISHED:07:12 EST, 4 September 2012| UPDATED: 04:43 EST, 5 September 2012

****
Nine other supporters now face losing a further £140,000 offered as a ‘surety’ for his bail unless they can persuade him to hand himself over to the police.

****
Meanwhile, another handful of celebrities including socialite Jemima Khan, journalist John Pilger, film director Ken Loach, publisher Felix Dennis have already lost the £200,000 they stumped up between them to help free him before he was bailed.
****

The nine backers who were today fighting to save their money are retired Professor Tricia David, Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir John Sulston, who helped unravel the human genome, former Sunday Times journalist Philip Knightley, Lady Caroline Evans, wife of former Labour minister Lord Evans, his personal friend Sarah Saunders, a catering manager, Frontline Club founder Captain Vaughan Smith, who provided his Norfolk country mansion as a bail address. They all offered £20,000 sureties.

Marchioness Tracy Worcester, 53, the model and actress turned environmental campaigner, offered £10,000 while his Wikileaks assistants Joseph Farrell and Sarah Harrison, both stumped up £5,000 in return for his freedom.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198072/Julian-Assanges-high-profile-backers-set-lose-340-000-bail-money-remains-holed-Ecuador-Embassy.html#ixzz26evEJxev

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #144)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:42 PM

146. I don't think that tabloid is a good source for anything.

I was merely pointing out that the OP left out an important subheadline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #146)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:35 PM

157. True. But if his supporters think it's a credible source, I'm willing to explore

that possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #130)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:07 PM

150. Why is that news?

He admitted to having consensual sex with both women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #150)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:04 PM

226. It's not news. It's a single element of the case. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:33 PM

143. Now this is an interesting twist. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:10 PM

152. This has been known since at least February 2011

• Miss A. saved the broken condom from her encounter for a week while Assange stayed in her flat in Stockholm, and then turned it over to police once the criminal investigation began. A Xeroxed photo of the condom is in the file. Police forensics examiners were unable to obtain a DNA sample from the condom.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/wikileaks-sweden/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #152)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:44 PM

167. exactly, so why would the DM bring it up now?

Perhaps they failed to report it at the time.

Or maybe it's juicier now to talk about condoms rather than the fact that Assange is confined in an Embassy and has been granted asylum by Ecuador.


As to the heavily slanted Wired account you cited, here is what actually happened:

13 August 2010
Anna Ardin returns a day early to her Stockholm flat, which she has lent to Julian Assange in connection with a seminar. He offers to find other lodgings, but she invites him to stay. That night they engage in a lengthy session of consensual sex, during which she utters not a word of objection or dissatisfaction.

21 August 2010
Less than one full day after the arrest warrant is issued, it is revoked by prosecutor #2 who finds that there are no grounds for suspicion of rape or any other sex crime.
Anna Ardin is interviewed by the police via telephone, and gives an account of her sexual encounter with Assange on 13 August which differs from what she has previously told friends. Now, she says that she was the victim of a sexual assault, during which Assange is said to have destroyed a condom and duped her into having unprotected sex.

"To my question Anna replies she did not look closely at the condom in order to see if it was broken in the way that she suspected; but she believes that she still has the condom at home and will check to see."

But the "used" condom she subsequently provides (on 25 August 2010) as evidence turns out to be unused, and therefore could not have been destroyed in the manner that she claimed.

---

Why submit a condom in the first place?

The answer is of course given: Anna Ardin was interrogated by telephone on Saturday 21 August; she told the investigator she thought she might have that condom she and Julian Assange used still lying about her small flat one week later; the case was all but tossed out a few hours after Ardin completed her interrogation; Ardin's friends at the 'Rebella' blog posted a hit piece the following Tuesday, accusing Assange all over again; Ardin contacted Claes Borgström already on Sunday 22 August as she didn't like the way things were going; she submitted 'a' condom to Gehlin on Wednesday 25 August, the day after the hit piece hit the blogosphere.

But it wasn't until Monday 30 August that Julian Assange was interrogated, this only for the remaining 'molestation' count (it wasn't even sexual molestation) for his encounter with Ardin. And Assange readily admitted having sex with Ardin - but his recollection of the evening was entirely different.

Up until that moment, no one knew Julian Assange would admit having sex with Ardin. But now that he had, the condom was moot. It served no purpose. There was nothing to prove.


http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/sequence.htm
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #167)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:55 PM

171. I imagine the Mail wanted something to print

and, whether or not they knew this was already public knowledge, when they talked to Assange's lawyers who pointed it out, they thought it was worth printing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:26 PM

155. The "magic condom"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:33 PM

175. So he was trying to forcibly impregnate those women with someone else's DNA?

 

That's messed up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:01 PM

185. Strong case, weak case, doesn't matter. Assange has imprisoned himself.

I still can't understand why Assange and his supporters are so certain that extradition to Sweden leads automatically to extradition to the U.S., when Assange could have been extradited to the U.S. directly from UK instead during the last couple of years. I've read the links politely provided to me by navarth in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014228271 and remain unconvinced. There's nothing one can say about Sweden's willingness to extradite and cooperate with the U.S. that cannot also be said of the UK.

Some people seem to think that Sweden has been unreasonable, therefore the only explanation is that Sweden wants to get their hands on Assange to send him to the U.S.

My humble theory:

The Swedish demand for Assange's arrest and extradition to Sweden is a standalone 'honey trap', no need to infer that Assange will thereby end up in a cell next to Bradley Manning or at Gitmo.

Sweden cannot give a guarantee they will not extradite Assange (or anyone) to the U.S., because if a demand for extradition for anyone comes in while that person is on Swedish soil, Sweden is obligated to follow its extradition treaties and consider the request in their court system. Assange is asking to be treated as an oh-so-special snowflake and requesting Sweden guarantee they won't extradite him to the U.S., no matter what request might come in at any point. No Swedish official even has the authority to make such a commitment. Therefore, the failure of Sweden to make this guarantee means nothing to me.

Sweden will not accommodate Assange in any way, by questioning him in London, for example, because Assange has been openly defiant of the MIC and Swedish law enforcement. Open defiance is met with hard-ass, by-the-book prosecution by the authorities, always and everywhere. A top Swedish official tweeted to the effect that 'suspects don't get to set the terms of questioning'. I think that a decision was made (afer the matter had initially been dropped by the local prosecutor) at the highest political / prosecutorial level in Sweden to push this sexual assault case to the maximum letter of the law, to distract and harass Assange and hopefully immobilize Wikileaks.

But it doesn't necessarily follow that this case is a smokescreen for snagging Assange and throwing him in a cell next to Manning. If that was the intent of the U.S., he would already be there. Assange could have been extradited from the UK -- he could have been told to report to a police station, informed there was a US warrant for his arrest, and taken immediately into custody and put before a magistrate who could have increased or revoked his bail on the spot, keeping Assange in custody until they delivered him to the U.S. I sincerely believe that the UK/US relationship is so very close that it would have happened, if the U.S. thought it could come up with a valid indictment and wanted to do it. If the U.S. has such a plan for Assange once he gets to Sweden, I just don't see the reason why they wouldn't have already implemented it in the UK.

It is my guess (remember this is all my humble opinion ) that if Assange had returned to Sweden, the case would have been dropped/ Assange would have been acquitted, after the prosecution had pushed it absolutely as far as it could, for maximum harassment value. Maybe they would have gotten lucky and gotten a conviction that would result in some probation, most likely not. But at least they'd tie him in knots and cost him some money for a while.

But, that's not what has happened. Assange has imprisoned himself in a tiny room in London, where the police can monitor who visits him, probably can listen to his conversations using directional microphones, and can monitor all electronic communication in and out. And this situation might continue for many years.

Wikileaks is struggling to function, starved of funds and effective leadership. I'm thinking that the powers that be are chuckling at this result, thinking that the flawed, weak case 'honey trap' that fell into their laps (because I think the women honestly wanted assistance from the authorities in getting Assange tested for STDs, not that they were complicit in setting the trap) has paid off better than their wildest dreams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #185)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:22 PM

199. This has been debated numerous times elsewhere....


1.) Sweden is smaller than the UK and more likely to cooperate with US in secretive national security matters, even beyond the the close scrutiny of their own Parliament (one of the released Wikileaks secret cables even supports this statement).

2.) There is an active US investigation directly against Assange that is closely tied to the Bradley Manning case, which won't even go to trial until 2013. It has been hung up due to the government's inability to provide classified documents to the defense. The media has even claimed that the case is so secretive that the court has acted unconstitutionally. The government is investigating whether Assange acted in a conspiracy together with Manning and may not make a decision of whether to prosecute Assange until the Manning case is further along. There is no need for either Sweden or the UK to extradite to the US until the US calls for extradition. All the US has to do is promise that they won't give him the death penalty, and there's nothing stopping them.

3.) Assange could be detained in Swedish prison until the point where the US is ready to act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #199)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:55 PM

234. Thanks for the reply, yet I remain unconvinced

1) The UK has been lockstep with the US throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, from Day One through today. The UK helped the US fabricate the evidence that Colin Powell presented to the UN, as an example. It is simply impossible for me to imagine that any country could be MORE willing to cooperate with the US MIC than the UK. Sweden probably is equally willing, but not more so. I just can't buy it.

2) If a US indictment does not yet exist for Assange, it would be smart to go to Sweden, clear up this matter as quickly as possible, and then leave for Ecuador permanently. It seems likely to me that if he'd done that a year and a half ago, he'd be long done with it by now. Impossible to know, of course.

3) Only if he's been convicted. Very tough to do with uncooperative victims.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #234)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:13 PM

257. Another point to make...

the UK probably wants Assange out of the UK as soon as possible, which is probably why they keep trying to facilitate talks with Ecuador, etc. It is precisely because of their previous collusion with the US that much of their population now distrusts government in these matters just as in the US. Assange has become a very hot potato around the world and they don't want to humiliate themselves anymore like they did when the OAS reacted to their threat to enter the embassy.

They can't just send him to the US without an extradition request from the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #199)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:06 PM

240. I believe Australia confirmed the US intent already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #185)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 12:34 AM

331. There are far too many assumptions in your post with nothing to support them.

The fact of the matter is, no extradition proceedings are necessary for custody of Assange to be transferred from Sweden to the U.S. He can be tried and sentenced here before the case in Sweden goes to court, and the U.S. is under no obligation to return him. That's the bottom line, according to the supplement to the U.S./Swedish extradition treaty.

[link:http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #331)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:44 PM

336. The UK extradition treaty also has provisions for 'temporary surrender'

With virtually identical provisions.

Both UK and Sweden prohibit extradition for political offenses, both UK and Sweden prohibit extradition if the person will be subject to the death penalty.

When I read through your link, I don't see where Assange can be extradited without Swedish judicial review. All documents have to be submitted ready for the judiciary....quote:
Article XIII
(1) The requested State shall provide review of documentation in support of an extradition
request for its legal sufficiency prior to presentation to the judicial authorities.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #336)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:54 AM

338. Sweden can transfer custody without extradition proceedings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #338)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:40 PM

339. Thanks for the link, but I am internet-challenged and can't watch videos (no hi speed connection

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:07 PM

188. well, did they at least find antiAssange DNA instead?

I could have swore they were up his ass, but maybe it was the broken condom after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:58 PM

209. up next Assange is identified as the guy in the rain coat on the grassy knoll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:09 PM

212. ''If the DNA don't fit.....

...you have to acquit.''

- Johnny Cochran would be so proud....

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:28 PM

218. Classic Spycraft "Honey Pot" Operation Begins to Unravel.

Assange aside, this whole rape/sexual charge has struck me as prototypical spycraft work. This has CIA written all over it.

J

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoodleyAppendage (Reply #218)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:37 PM

221. It's too bad if Assange has psychotic delusions, but the rest of us are not obliged to believe them

Last edited Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoodleyAppendage (Reply #218)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:32 PM

230. No. If this was a CIA op from the beginning, it would be a strong rape case. Good evidence, etc

Not a matter of 'he tried to have sex without a condom the second time, I want him to be tested for STDs'. It's a weak case, at best.

The US and CIA may well have encouraged Sweden to pursue this matter doggedly, to the exact letter of the law, but I don't think it was a set up from the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #230)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:40 PM

231. Wasn't one of his accusers a former NGO worker with organizational ties to the CIA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoodleyAppendage (Reply #231)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:56 PM

235. She definitely knew what she was doing

when they went to the police. Not so sure about the other one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoodleyAppendage (Reply #231)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:15 PM

242. Everybody read the link posted by noodley! Both women boasted in writing after sex with Assange. On

The referenced NGO worker worked with a group led by a CIA guy accused of terrorism (anti-Castro).
And the Swedish prosecution said THERE IS NO RAPE CHARGE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoodleyAppendage (Reply #231)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:58 PM

263. If either woman was concocting a rape trap, they would have acted like a 'legitimate rape' victim

from day one. I cannot believe I just typed that phrase. Egad.

They would have gone straight to the police, fresh evidence in hand, with no friendly dealings with Assange in the days immediately following. Both women did too much to muddy a rape prosecution -- they did things they would definitely NOT do if they were CIA plants setting a rape trap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #263)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:54 PM

341. If you know anything about how the CIA sets rape traps

pray tell us about it. I'm very curious to find out and know next to nothing how they usually go about it.

Wouldn't the fake complainant have to be a local? Wouldn't she have to be able to control the situation? Like knowing everybody around the target and being constantly informed about what he is doing? Like, a trustworthy, politically solid and fairly attractive person who might see how to take advantage of opportunities, career and otherwise? Wouldn't a second complainant be perfect who is barely visible, comes out from nowhere and all we can see is the childish behavior, the ingénue, the damsel in distress, before she vanishes back into the dark again.

The muddier, the better, I'd say. Looks so real. What does it matter if the case is a joke, as long as the authorities go along with it? Having the perfect excuse, those two most intimately involved in this matter, what they have worked for throughout the last 10 years or so at least, to strengthen the position of women vis a vis the perceived violence of men. Without the slightest fear that there will be criticism from the established media and politicians, if only for extraneous reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #230)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:08 PM

241. I would think the CIA would do a better job too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:43 PM

253. This is what sabrina's been saying from the beginning! But this info was disappeared online

and trying to validate it again became pretty hard.

So let me get this straight. Victim #1 claims that Julian Assange deliberately tore the condom when they had consensual sex. That's "rape" in Sweden. So now she produces a torn condom without any Assange DNA.

Victim #2 can produce a condom but her claim of "rape" is that he penetrated her while she was in a morning drowse WITHOUT a condom when she had deliberately asked him to use one. Yet she has a condom with his DNA on it??

Am I missing something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #253)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:03 PM

256. Assange's lawyers admitted Assange penetrated her without a condom.

Which was a violation of the terms of consent. That's already been established.

11.35am: The so-called "minor rape" allegation – when Assange was alleged to have had sex with one of the alleged victims, known as SW, when she was asleep or half asleep – was an "entirely consensual sexual encounter", Emmerson says.

12.07pm: Emmerson is now explaining the alleged victim SW's witness statement. Emmerson says:

They fell asleep and she woke up by his penetrating her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: "You." She said: "You better not have HIV." He said: "Of course not." She may have been upset, but she clearly consented to its continuation and that is a central consideration.


The condom she produced is likely one from an earlier encounter that night, as they had had sex before that night. All it establishes is that she has a condom with DNA, it may or may not be Assange's. If it's not Assange's the case would be dropped in a heart beat. He needs to try to get the DNA checked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #256)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:29 PM

259. But producing a condom with his DNA in it, weakens her case severely, if not entirely.

Talk about "he said, she said".....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #259)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:43 PM

261. As is the case with very many rape cases.

And one reason a lot of women don't pursue rape cases because it's just "he said / she said." Particularly in the case of date rape and such. Millions of cases go unreported because of that.

All it would substantiate is that she was in a position to get a condom with his semen on it. It would potentially show that he was in the same room with her as would be argued but Assange isn't disputing that. In fact, Assange's lawyers are arguing that it's not "legitimate rape" because the accuser didn't "stop him immediately." (As if that is always the go-to reaction to rape victims. Many allow it to continue on for fear of violence or to get it over with.)

This is all one reason that if the semen is not his then they will probably just drop the case because slandering her as a slut who sleeps around is a common defense in rape cases. I recommend he at the minimum give the Swedish authorities, voluntarily, his DNA sample. He could get the case dropped quick if it's not his DNA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #261)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:54 PM

262. Well, it demonstrates he was willing to use a condom.

Her rape case, and again I stress that "rape" as used here is in a very strange domain, revolves around her assertion that he penetrated her without using a condom. She says the sex was consensual but that he didn't use a condom in that morning romp even as he knew she wanted that to happen.

And then she produces a condom with his DNA??

He isn't accused of rape as we understand it. Swedish law indicates he can be charged with "rape" if he didn't use a condom. The first "victim's" case revolves around the assertion he willfully broke the condom during consensual sex. Then she produces a torn condom that doesn't even has his DNA??

Both women are in agreement, the sex was consensual. Swedish law is what's mucking this up and making it a rape case in regards to condom usage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #262)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:13 PM

267. Both women are pursuing charges. I'm not sure where you get that.

I think AA's case is much harder to prosecute given the events (she had sex with him multiple times after his alleged abusive behavior, etc).

But SW broke it off with him after the "surprise sex" encounter. The condom with DNA only proves that Assange and her had an encounter. It doesn't prove nor disprove that Assange inserted himself into her without a condom violating the terms of consent (though his lawyers admitted that he had done that already it probably can't be used in court and Assange may argue that he in fact did not do that, thus making the case even harder to prove).

The timeline is often distorted and the various actions of the women are in dispute, of course, as is common with rape allegations.

Anyway, if your sexual consent is predicated on various rules, then it's rape if those rules are violated. For instance, if someone says "no anal" and there is anal penetration, that is rape. In this case consent for penetration was predicated on a condom being worn. It would be rape in the UK and it would be rape in the United States. It's quite clearly a violation of consent if true and if it can be proved in a court.

I have my doubts it can be proved though because these women seem like their character can be dragged through the mud. Already, outside the courts, their name is being dragged through the mud by suspicious innuendos and the like.

It remains the case that they are still pursuing charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #267)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:19 PM

268. I haven't seen anything that demonstrates the women themselves are pursuing charges

They have a person who is pursuing charges FOR them, on behalf of the Swedish state.

From the very little that can (still) be found online, the women themselves did not go to the police to file charges but went instead to get Assange to take an HIV test because of the condom issues. The Swedish state itself is pursuing the charges. The women's lawyer isn't actually even necessarily acting on their behalf - he's a celebrity attorney whose been implicated in insinuating himself into other controversial women's rights issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #268)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:43 PM

277. That is incorrect. They are pursuing the charges themselves.

If you recall the prosecutor dropped the initial investigation against Assange the day after wanting him for questioning. It wasn't until the two women appealed the investigation that a higher prosecutor got involved. I don't know where you are getting this about them "dropping the charges." Rape cases like this are almost impossible to pursue unless the victim testifies in the court room! It would require violent actions, video taped evidence, a dead body in a freezer for them to prosecute without the victim's testimony. How else do you prosecute date rape cases but with the person as a witness?

Anyway it seems I was incorrect, according to reorg SW, the "surprise sex" victim's condom didn't have DNA, it was AA apparently. So I don't know if that has any real relevance here or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #256)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:39 PM

276. there is no such thing as "the terms of consent" in the Swedish rape law

Go to and read the extensive interpretation of the entire case as it is known through the documents here:

http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/

The author was called as a witness before the magistrate in the UK, he is the one who discovered the deleted twitter messages and other things. He is, however, in no way a supporter of Wikileaks or against Swedish feminism, on the contrary, he is an enthusiastic campaigner for (even) harsher rape laws in Sweden and what he mainly criticises is that they haven't introduced the concept of "consent" yet, like it is (allegedly) used in common law countries.

Fact is, in Sweden just as in most other penal codes, that rape is defined as a violent act, IOW it needs to be proven that the accused has broken the will, through an act of violence, of the aggrieved person. There are other, secondary definitions, like abusing the helpless state of someone and so forth. But the main concept always has been and still is that rape is a violent act, not some breach of contract.

In this particular case, it is alleged that the complainant was sleeping. Until 2005, this act would NOT have been prosecuted as "rape", there was a different paragraph on "exploiting the helpless state" for taking sexual advantage of someone, which carried a maximum sentence of two years. Since 2005, the same act is now considered "minor rape" and carries a longer sentence.

It is, of course, a travesty that the allegation was even brought up since the allegation is not at all about taking sexual advantage of someone, but about condom use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #276)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:49 PM

278. The terms of consent are the only thing that gives consent.

Are you kidding me?

I have read that hatchet job against these two women and am not interested in it. This is a typical innuendo piece that attacks the alleged victims. I refuse to believe that if someone places conditions on sex and if those conditions are ignored it's just "rude" or "inconsiderate" or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #278)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:05 AM

281. I don't like this guy

I merely cited him as an example that there is a vivid debate going on in Sweden to INTRODUCE the concept of consent in rape law because it's not there.

Read the penal codes, there are no provisions for "conditions" to be met and the act is not treated as a contractual matter. If someone says "use a condom" or "cut your toenails first" but still has sex with the partner even though s/he refuses to comply with such "conditions", it isn't rape. It's only rape if the partner uses force to get his/her will.


Chapter 6 – On Sexual Crimes
Section 1
A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another
person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act ...

http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/uploads/Sweden%20-%20Unofficial%20translation%20of%20the%20Swedish%20Penal%20Code.pdf




CAL. PEN. CODE § 261 : California Code - Section 261

(a)Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, ...

(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance ...

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. ...

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #281)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:27 AM

282. "against a person's will" and...

"A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.

This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state."

Are the same effective type of law.

If "the circumstance in general" are that protection be used do you not agree that not using protection would violate the circumstances in general? I think that it's not worded clearly or at least the translation is lost somewhat, but as far as I can tell it's about consent and the will of the partners. I cannot conceive of how a condom not being used on a sleeping person who requests one be used isn't rape here in the United States.

A prosecutor might not even go for it though here though. It'd tough to prove.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #253)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:21 PM

270. Regarding whose condom is what, I believe it's the other way round

This is the 100 page document the article is referring to, I believe:

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf

The condom part starts on page 79/100, on page 85 is a short note taken on 20 October by the officer in charge of the investigation which explains which condoms were produced and what they found.

"MÄ2" (Sofia Wilén) is the one who was drowsy, "half asleep", and allegedly didn't notice that a condom was missing while she had sex with Assange. (Why she even brought a condom to the police is a mystery to me, but THIS is the one where no DNA was found.)

"MÄ1" (Anna Ardin*) is the one who claims the condom was deliberately ripped apart. Although she didn't know when she was interviewed if the condom was still to be found somewhere in her flat, and hadn't examined yet if it was actually broken (8 days after the fact), she delivered a torn** condom to the police station on 25 August 2010. This is the condom with DNA, from Ardin and from a man, the same DNA from a man was found in vaginal swops (vaginaltops) taken from Ardin (don't know at what point).

* It seems apparent from the final remark in this note that "MÄ1" is Ardin, it is a short summary of Ardin's allegation (it was dark and she couldn't see the condom but heard a sound like from a balloon, found condom under the bed).

** on page 81 the forensic report says the condom looks like it has been damaged by a knife or scissors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:21 PM

258. What? False charges are brought agaist someone who exposed

imperialism and meddling?

No way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 02:16 AM

287. I don't see that it changes anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the story was that Mr. Assange...

Two happy ladies had consensual sex one night, together. Condoms were used some of the time or not used. Only the people in the bed knew what happened or how. The story is conflicting. There's also a photograph of one of the ladies and Assange the next day with friends and they seem relaxed and happy. Unfortunately, the other lady is not in the picture, and we can't know all that went on between them. We don't know if this the lady making the complaint, but if it is not her, that may show her unhappiness or perhaps she was busy, meaning nothing. I note it because the picture is mentioned as a sign of the people being happy.

This is the complaint here:

In the report, the first alleged victim, now 33, claims she was sexually molested by Mr Assange at her flat in Stockholm on several occasions.


That sounds like rape, and it doesn't say when it happened. This was originally reported as one affair with the three, not 'several occasions.' Did he leave and return? Was this all at the same time period, and she felt coerced in some way to stay there with him?

She also claims that Mr Assange deliberately ripped a condom before wearing it so that he could have unprotected sex with her against her will.

That sounds crazy on everyone's part. It sounds like rape. Was the sex against her will or was it only unprotected sex she was unwilling to have with him? If he ripped a condom before he was wearing it, but still wore it, hy bother to wear it if he was intent on unprotected sex? Why would he do that, because of the consequences to his health and life, of disease or a child?

Earlier on, one of the ladies who already had intercourse with Mr. Assange willingly, says that she was awoken by him having sex with her but that would be rather weird. Maybe they were all three of them on drugs or drunk and not really paying attention the whole time.

Some of the earliest threads on this story, if I remember correctly, the reason the lady or ladies went to the police was that after he left, they could not get ahold of him to see if he'd been tested for HIV. They were worried about disease and that was the reason for the concern about the broken or torn condom.

This indicates they weren't thinking straight to begin with, none of them knew or could prove their sexual history or it didn't matter when they were in the throes of passion or drugged, etc. All of a sudden, they begin to worry about diseases.

The reason for disclosure is that condoms break with the best of intentions of all parties. Thus the worry of exposure at that time is valid. If the issue was as stated before, that they did not mind him having sex with a condom, but that he either broke one or didn't use one, and they didn't have control of themselves at the time, due to sleep or other vulnerabilites, he could be found at fault right there.

But if the question isn't just about the condom, it's more about the possible contraction of a disease than rape. That could be settled by medical tests no matter where Assange is. And the ladies themselves, could have had AIDS and passed it to him. All three people could be at risk for disease here.

But this story is saying that at least one of the ladies is saying she was forced to have sex. That doesn't have anything to do with condoms. Or DNA. That's what she said. The fact that the three of them indulged in consensual sex that turned into something else, or as the one woman now says happened several times, is troubling. But they may have all been under the influence of some intoxicant. We really haven't heard what Assange's specific defense is other than he denies the force. Ripping the condom to wear a broken one doesn't sound like anything that a person in their right mind would do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread