General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Are Liberals Too Eager to Believe Sex Charges Against Julian Assange? [View all]sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)There have been many reviews of the available evidence in this case by Swedish legal experts who have concluded that this case could not succeed in court. So you might want to revise your statement about 'all lawyers'.
You are now claiming that the evidence given by the women has changed over the course of time. Well, you are somewhat correct.. One of the women, the one who supplied the condom, which was torn, claiming it to be the one worn by Assange, but which turned out to have no DNA on it, has, aside from providing that piece of fabricated forensic 'evidence' also changed her story no less than three times.
Unfortunately actual evidence has not changed. Her text messages eg, stating that she 'can make money from this' by 'destroying his reputation' by 'going to the right wing tabloids' among other odd murmerings now scrubbed from the internet, but in the possession of the attorneys, have not changed and she admitted that she 'may be in trouble' for this.
The other woman's testimony has not changed. She has refused to cooperate by signing the police documents, outraged over what she called the 'false allegations of rape'. She is supposedly the woman they are claiming was asleep. Her original testimony does not state she was worried about the sex, she was worried that he was not wearing a condom. She and he had a conversation which those of us who have researched this case have read and both of them separately, Assange and the woman gave their accounts of that conversation regarding her concerns, which were entirely about him not wearing a condom. That was all..
If that changes, then someone is lying now, or they were lying then. And they would have to explain the original testimony. You can be in a lot of trouble in Sweden for falsely accusing someone of rape btw.
But we have not heard from the woman, only the allegations produced by her extremist attorney, constructed late in the case to try to overcome the fact that no charges had been filed.
The interviews taken by the police are still the evidence in this case. And none of it accuses anyone of rape.
However we are dealing with a Patriarchal attorney who has stated that a woman does not know when she has been assaulted and that the state will make that determination for her.
Given that we know the evidence from the woman herself, 'no rape, no threat, no fear of danger' which is on the record, we can assume HE, Mr. Women-are-too-stupid-to distinguish-between-sex-and-assault, is now making that determination for her since she had refused to cooperate. And that is one good reason why the Prosecutors will not file charges. They do not have a case.