Finally a bit of good news during the events that have been happening currently...
A ripped condom given to Swedish police by one of Julian Assange’s accusers does not contain the WikiLeaks founder’s DNA, forensic scientists have reportedly found.
In a 100-page document shown to Assange’s lawyers, it was revealed that the torn prophylactic, having been examined by staff at two forensic laboratories, did not bear conclusive evidence that Assange had ever worn it, the Daily Mail reported on Sunday.
Assange’s lawyers said the lack of DNA evidence on the condom, which was allegedly used during a supposed August 2010 sexual assault, indicates that a fake one could have been submitted.
The woman in question, now aged 33, claims to have been molested by Assange at her flat in Stockholm. She says that at one point he deliberately broke a condom in order to have unprotected sex with her.
Assange claims he had consensual sex with the woman, but denies intentionally tearing the condom. He had previously told police that he continued to stay at her residence for the week following the alleged incident, saying his accuser never made any mention of the ripped condom.
But DNA purportedly belonging to Assange was present on a condom submitted by a second woman, who has accused him of rape, prompting Swedish authorities to push ahead with their bid to have him extradited from the UK.
However, his second accuser, now 29, who claimed to have been raped in her sleep by Assange, apparently told police she had not been opposed to having unprotected sex with him despite previous statements to the contrary, the daily reported.
Assange denies the allegation of rape, maintaining he had consensual sex with the second woman as well. The Swedish prosecutor’s office refused to comment on the report, saying that the investigation was ongoing.
"The condom DNA evidence was supposed to be the killer evidence… Now, when we have found that there is no DNA on one of these condoms for one of the alleged victims, it rather calls into question substantial evidence against him,” human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell told RT.
The whistleblower has been holed up at Ecuador's Embassy in London since June, after the UK Supreme Court upheld his extradition warrant to Sweden.
In August he was granted political asylum by the country’s president, Rafael Correa, out of fear he could be handed over to American authorities upon setting foot in Sweden, and eventually charged with leaking classified documents.
Safe passage to Ecuador has not been secured by British authorities, however, as the UK maintains it will arrest him if he leaves the embassy, deporting him to Sweden.
In August, Assange told Ecuador's Gama television network that he expected the diplomatic impasse with the UK to be resolved within a year.
And while Canberra has often been accused of turning a blind eye to Assange’s plight, the Indigenous Social Justice Association, an Australian group which wants recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty, showed their support by offering him an Aboriginal Nations passport on Sunday, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.
His father, John Shipton, accepted the document on Assange’s behalf at a celebration in Sydney, which was attended by more than 200 people.
"Australian governments of every color are happy to abandon their citizens when they're in difficult situations overseas," the daily reports him as saying.
The group, which also accused the Australian authorities of failing to provide sufficient aid to one of its citizens, said the passport will be sent to Assange in London
This certainly adds a bit of a kink in the attempt to deal with the "Assange Problem" that various governments' seem to be having. This gives more weight to the conspiracy theories that have been circulating that believing that the entire thing was a set up. Personally, that seems to be the most logical standpoint from me at this time as well - it was quite odd how it all happened initially. What does TL think?
On a side note: It also irks me when I watched the speech by Hilary Clinton the other day when pertaining to current riots in the middle east, when she said more or less that she wants to protect the freedoms of people who want to post things on the internet - but obviously not when it comes to people like Assange - obviously they should be thrown in jail /sarcasm.
Sure...except government do not actually really care about Assange because Wikileaks...changed nothing. No earthshattering revelations, no great epiphany of government action, and no substantive policy changes nor, I might add, any real pressure by any significant polity to induce said changes.
Wikileaks is an annoyance to governments because all those leaked diplomatic cables did was show that the conduct of a nation's foreign policy is oftentimes a haphazard affair based on partial information filtered through many eyes, and that attempts to speak bluntly about issues in diplomatic circles often result in statements and reports that show a striking contrast between diplomatic jargon and the harsh reality of political shenanigans.
Hell, I'm more surprised his lawyers took 100 pages to put this in a report, what the hell do they ramble on about for so many pages!?!
The government of the United States indeed dislikes Assange for leaking classified information-who can blame them?
However, he has not yet been extradited, and it's unclear if he will be, so I don't see why people are talking about his trial like it's the US trying to suppress the rest of the world's freedom of speech.
It's like Herman Cain-become famous and then suddenly become the target of accusations.
On September 18 2012 19:09 Praetorial wrote: The government of the United States indeed dislikes Assange for leaking classified information-who can blame them?
However, he has not yet been extradited, and it's unclear if he will be, so I don't see why people are talking about his trial like it's the US trying to suppress the rest of the world's freedom of speech.
It's like Herman Cain-become famous and then suddenly become the target of accusations.
I don't think Herman Cain is a valid comparison to Julian Assange.
i said from day one to my family/friends/peers that the case was bullshit hoax. People said i was being too cynical, i knew i was right so i avoided arguing about it.
On September 18 2012 19:09 Praetorial wrote: The government of the United States indeed dislikes Assange for leaking classified information-who can blame them?
However, he has not yet been extradited, and it's unclear if he will be, so I don't see why people are talking about his trial like it's the US trying to suppress the rest of the world's freedom of speech.
It's like Herman Cain-become famous and then suddenly become the target of accusations.
I don't think Herman Cain is a valid comparison to Julian Assange.
Both become people that others recognize->accusations of sexual harassment.
On September 18 2012 19:09 Praetorial wrote: The government of the United States indeed dislikes Assange for leaking classified information-who can blame them?
However, he has not yet been extradited, and it's unclear if he will be, so I don't see why people are talking about his trial like it's the US trying to suppress the rest of the world's freedom of speech.
It's like Herman Cain-become famous and then suddenly become the target of accusations.
I don't think Herman Cain is a valid comparison to Julian Assange.
Both become people that others recognize->accusations of sexual harassment.
That's all I was saying.
I guess that fits in a way, just seems apples and oranges to me.
How in the world does this prove the conspiracy theory? It proves that everything is entirely above board.
You people were ranting and screaming that the Swedish government was out to get Assange. If the entire system is corrupt from top to bottom, which you were all suggesting, how in the world can't they plant his DNA?
Or, you know, just lie?
Has the CIA really fallen that far that they can't get a guy to lie?
You people switch between suggesting the CIA is the most powerful group in the world, until the next day when you claim they are more incomptent than a 10-year old.
For the conspiracy folk the CIA remains in a constant flux between being rulers of the world and being the biggest group of idiots known to man. Only by utterly accepting both extremes can they hold onto their conspiracy nonesense and explain why, at every turn, they are proven wrong.
Proof for a conspiracy? Don't make me laugh. It is literally the exact opposite.
On September 18 2012 20:29 zalz wrote: How in the world does this prove the conspiracy theory? It proves that everything is entirely above board.
You people were ranting and screaming that the Swedish government was out to get Assange. If the entire system is corrupt from top to bottom, which you were all suggesting, how in the world can't they plant his DNA?
Or, you know, just lie?
Has the CIA really fallen that far that they can't get a guy to lie?
You people switch between suggesting the CIA is the most powerful group in the world, until the next day when you claim they are more incomptent than a 10-year old.
For the conspiracy folk the CIA remains in a constant flux between being rulers of the world and being the biggest group of idiots known to man. Only by utterly accepting both extremes can they hold onto their conspiracy nonesense and explain why, at every turn, they are proven wrong.
Proof for a conspiracy? Don't make me laugh. It is literally the exact opposite.
The CIA are compentent. Their recruits aren't always, they work with what they get. Meaning that you didn't refute anything.
That said I would imagine this whole thing to only be orchestrated through somewhat gentle diplomatic pressure and coercion of the ladies if anything at all. The justice system as such is more or less not involved. That's my take on the situation. Given that there's nothing concrete tying him to any crimes he shouldn't be convicted if extradited. But I can understand his paranoia as you can never know for sure to what people the CIA has gotten, if any. If Assange is unlucky his entire future might be swept away, so I can see why being holed up in an embassy seems like a good alternative.
On September 18 2012 18:50 Elegy wrote: Sure...except government do not actually really care about Assange because Wikileaks...changed nothing. No earthshattering revelations, no great epiphany of government action, and no substantive policy changes nor, I might add, any real pressure by any significant polity to induce said changes.
The main damage of wikileaks was that it allowed people to challenge the narrative of the US government using reliable US government sources. And it focused media attention on some stuff they'd rather not talk about.
The perception of US policy around the world is actually more positive than the reality. By bringing perceptions closer to reality it was bound to hurt the standing of US foreign policy in the rest of the world (and probably in the US itself too).
To me it's clear that the US would want to discourage this as much as possible, even using illegal actions.
Nothing new. The wikileaks proved to be nothing but steam. Unless Assange and company has anything substantial, they will not even be worth mentioning in any obscure news report a year from now.
On September 18 2012 18:50 Elegy wrote: Sure...except government do not actually really care about Assange because Wikileaks...changed nothing. No earthshattering revelations, no great epiphany of government action, and no substantive policy changes nor, I might add, any real pressure by any significant polity to induce said changes.
Wikileaks is an annoyance to governments because all those leaked diplomatic cables did was show that the conduct of a nation's foreign policy is oftentimes a haphazard affair based on partial information filtered through many eyes, and that attempts to speak bluntly about issues in diplomatic circles often result in statements and reports that show a striking contrast between diplomatic jargon and the harsh reality of political shenanigans.
Hell, I'm more surprised his lawyers took 100 pages to put this in a report, what the hell do they ramble on about for so many pages!?!
You realize wikileaks was one of the major triggers of the arab spring revolutions rights?
Huh? Now I'm confused. I thought both parties agreed that Assange had sex, so why are they testing the condom for his DNA? Obviously it should be there, since they had sex.
And now it's revealed that one of the condoms doesn't have his DNA, what does that show? That he didn't use that condom?
On September 18 2012 18:50 Elegy wrote: Sure...except government do not actually really care about Assange because Wikileaks...changed nothing. No earthshattering revelations, no great epiphany of government action, and no substantive policy changes nor, I might add, any real pressure by any significant polity to induce said changes.
Wikileaks is an annoyance to governments because all those leaked diplomatic cables did was show that the conduct of a nation's foreign policy is oftentimes a haphazard affair based on partial information filtered through many eyes, and that attempts to speak bluntly about issues in diplomatic circles often result in statements and reports that show a striking contrast between diplomatic jargon and the harsh reality of political shenanigans.
Hell, I'm more surprised his lawyers took 100 pages to put this in a report, what the hell do they ramble on about for so many pages!?!
cute how you try to deny the facts.
The document revealed that some prisoners were off-limits to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something that the U.S. military had in the past repeatedly denied.[
while it might not surprise you that the US military denies even basic human rights to it's prisoners it is earth shattering to some ppl. Also noteworthy is that you can't trust anything they say.
Some of his leaks in Iceland led to new freedom of press laws. corrupt politicians have been exposed. While your govt wants you to think Assange was meaningless, it is simply not true.
On September 18 2012 21:05 paralleluniverse wrote: Huh? Now I'm confused. I thought both parties agreed that Assange had sex, so why are they testing the condom for his DNA? Obviously it should be there, since they had sex.
And now it's revealed that one of the condoms doesn't have his DNA, what does that show? That he didn't use that condom?
Yes, he didn't use the ripped condom. Which was what she accused him of.
EPT
