|
On September 18 2012 21:20 blamekilly wrote:
Why do they continue to pursue this even after the two women and the prosecutor wanted to drop the case? The women even recanted their statement.
Likely one of the following depending on whether or not there is a conspiracy.
1) This trial is just an attempt to hurt Julian Assange and/or WikiLeaks, either by having him extradited to the US, having him convicted in Sweden on false charges, or simply by defaming the figurehead of WikiLeaks with rape accusations. Maybe they even just want to safe face.
2) There is sufficient evidence to warrant investigation, even if the women retract their statements. In criminal trials there are many reasons why witnesses may step down, not all of which means the accused is innocent. They may have been threatened or offered compensation to retract their statements, or may just be sick of their sexual assault (or whatever you call it) being brought up all the the time in the media.
|
On September 18 2012 20:44 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Like I said, in order to keep the fantasy going you need to accept both extremes. This allows the CIA to be behind everything, whilst also explaining away stuff like this which clearly shows that the case is just going through all the proper channels and is entirely above board.
Now, before Sweden was a free-speech paradise. Then it was hell on earth, owned by the US entirely, afterall, it had always been so.
After today Sweden will always have been the free-speech paradise, what else could it have been? We have always been at war with Eastasia.
This conspiracy nonesense is insanity of the highest degree. I wonder what it must be like to live in a reality that changes on daily basis to accomodate what your views need it to be.
|
On September 18 2012 21:21 Wesso wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So? What does that prove? I thought the case was simply a question of whether or not the sex was consensual.
I don't see what a condom with or without his DNA has to do with anything. It doesn't prove that the sex was consensual, it doesn't disprove the sex was consensual. It seems like information that is irrelevant to both sides.
|
This is getting out of hands... I just hope this entire thing will be over soon
|
On September 18 2012 21:40 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 21:21 Wesso wrote: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. So? What does that prove? I thought the case was simply a question of whether or not the sex was consensual. I don't see what a condom with or without his DNA has to do with anything. It doesn't prove that the sex was consensual, it doesn't disprove the sex was consensual. It seems like information that is irrelevant to both sides.
She claims she consented to protected sex only and he ripped the condom on purpose, thus having unprotected sex against her will.
|
On September 18 2012 21:59 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 21:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 18 2012 21:21 Wesso wrote: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. So? What does that prove? I thought the case was simply a question of whether or not the sex was consensual. I don't see what a condom with or without his DNA has to do with anything. It doesn't prove that the sex was consensual, it doesn't disprove the sex was consensual. It seems like information that is irrelevant to both sides. She claims she consented to protected sex only and he ripped the condom on purpose, thus having unprotected sex against her will.
Basically it is more proof about something everyone knows. This is total bullshit and whether it is 2 girls trying to get attention or a conspiracy theory the fact remains, there is no credible proof he "raped" anyone. We have a girl who decided to live with him at her own free will when he was suppose to be living alone who through twitter messages seemed to idolize him and was of age and who slept with him on multiple occassions during the stay claim he "raped" her with a broken condom which was not true whatsoever (as proven through this).
Anyone who began beliving this, well that's fair the evidence was on the fence and it wasn't very clear but now? If you still think he "raped" anyone you're extremely naive. That being said unless you can provide some counter points/evidence, then I would be in the wrong but I have yet to see that.
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On September 18 2012 21:59 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 21:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 18 2012 21:21 Wesso wrote: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. So? What does that prove? I thought the case was simply a question of whether or not the sex was consensual. I don't see what a condom with or without his DNA has to do with anything. It doesn't prove that the sex was consensual, it doesn't disprove the sex was consensual. It seems like information that is irrelevant to both sides. She claims she consented to protected sex only and he ripped the condom on purpose, thus having unprotected sex against her will.
You know that only a person who is both a misandrist and a virgin would believe such bullshit? You may want to have unprotected sex because you dislike how sex in condom feels, but having sex while using a ripped condom is definitely not better.
|
All those people with all those answers. My favorite science forum <3
|
On September 18 2012 23:59 Evilmystic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 21:59 Paperplane wrote:On September 18 2012 21:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 18 2012 21:21 Wesso wrote: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. So? What does that prove? I thought the case was simply a question of whether or not the sex was consensual. I don't see what a condom with or without his DNA has to do with anything. It doesn't prove that the sex was consensual, it doesn't disprove the sex was consensual. It seems like information that is irrelevant to both sides. She claims she consented to protected sex only and he ripped the condom on purpose, thus having unprotected sex against her will. You know that only a person who is both a misandrist and a virgin would believe such bullshit? You may want to have unprotected sex because you dislike how sex in condom feels, but having sex while using a ripped condom is definitely not better.
Whoa calm down buddy. I only said her statement, not whether I believe it or not.
|
so do you put it on ripped or do you rip it when you're on the go
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On September 19 2012 02:09 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 23:59 Evilmystic wrote:On September 18 2012 21:59 Paperplane wrote:On September 18 2012 21:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 18 2012 21:21 Wesso wrote: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. So? What does that prove? I thought the case was simply a question of whether or not the sex was consensual. I don't see what a condom with or without his DNA has to do with anything. It doesn't prove that the sex was consensual, it doesn't disprove the sex was consensual. It seems like information that is irrelevant to both sides. She claims she consented to protected sex only and he ripped the condom on purpose, thus having unprotected sex against her will. You know that only a person who is both a misandrist and a virgin would believe such bullshit? You may want to have unprotected sex because you dislike how sex in condom feels, but having sex while using a ripped condom is definitely not better. Whoa calm down buddy. I only said her statement, not whether I believe it or not.
Sorry, no offense intended on you. I've only wanted to say that the statement itself is just bizarre.
|
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.
This is brought up wrongly in J.A. threads ad nauseam.
Wikileaks is an annoyance to governments because all those leaked diplomatic cables did was show that the conduct of a nation's foreign po
The list of leaks is bigger than US diplomatic cables. Many regimes like Wikileaks because they report the stupid shit some governments and corporations do.
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!?!
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.
Besides being wrong, what was your motive here, just taking a cheap shot at the verbosity of lawyers? You should see how many pages of laws the government passes every year.
|
My opinion: Reap what you sow. He's pissed off a lot of people. He's behind the leaking of numerous classified documents. He's accused by not one, but two women for sexual assault or rape.
He's being a coward and paranoid by hiding in this embassy. There should be a law how long you can reside or hide out in an embassy if there are criminal charges and a warrant for arrest pending. At some point, his visa will expire - then what? To remain lawfully in the UK he has to have his visa extended.
Ultimately, unless the charges are withdrawn entirely - he's stuck. If they never do, he inevitably has to leave, or stay there indefinitely. The former will occur much sooner than the latter.
Face the music dude, and walk out the front doors.
If he gets shipped to the USA for an ass kicking there after Sweden is done with him - so be it. He was the one that swatted the hornets nest.
|
Ehh.
The conspiracy nuts will go on no matter what the news is. Sure, they'll say its RIPPED CONDOMGATE and this is the watershed moment where the vast, international conspiracy comes untangled and the world sees the truth. However do you know what I see? Some woman lied. I don't know why but it's obvious that if she gave fake evidence then she has some motive to defame the guy.
Or maybe it really happened and she couldn't find the broken condom so she acted like an idiot and.. ok well that's a bit elaborate, she'd have had to get someone else to ejaculate into a condom then break that condom then submit it to the police.
Wow, writing all that out, this womans really a nut if the DNA didn't simply become unreadable.
|
On September 19 2012 15:47 Grimmyman123 wrote:
My opinion: Reap what you sow. He's pissed off a lot of people. He's behind the leaking of numerous classified documents. He's accused by not one, but two women for sexual assault or rape.
He's being a coward and paranoid by hiding in this embassy. There should be a law how long you can reside or hide out in an embassy if there are criminal charges and a warrant for arrest pending. At some point, his visa will expire - then what? To remain lawfully in the UK he has to have his visa extended.
Ultimately, unless the charges are withdrawn entirely - he's stuck. If they never do, he inevitably has to leave, or stay there indefinitely. The former will occur much sooner than the latter.
Face the music dude, and walk out the front doors.
If he gets shipped to the USA for an ass kicking there after Sweden is done with him - so be it. He was the one that swatted the hornets nest.
So what you're saying is that you're against an open government? What terrible atrocities have happened from the things that he has leaked? The governments' involved are the real cowards.
edit: I'll also go and see if I can find the leaked emails from 2 people involved in the US gov't I believe (they are CIA or some shit, I forget, this was a while ago) and they had a few emails from each other saying that it was obvious it was a set-up (meaning they didn't know about it, but they believed it to be a set-up)
|
On September 19 2012 19:40 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 15:47 Grimmyman123 wrote:
My opinion: Reap what you sow. He's pissed off a lot of people. He's behind the leaking of numerous classified documents. He's accused by not one, but two women for sexual assault or rape.
He's being a coward and paranoid by hiding in this embassy. There should be a law how long you can reside or hide out in an embassy if there are criminal charges and a warrant for arrest pending. At some point, his visa will expire - then what? To remain lawfully in the UK he has to have his visa extended.
Ultimately, unless the charges are withdrawn entirely - he's stuck. If they never do, he inevitably has to leave, or stay there indefinitely. The former will occur much sooner than the latter.
Face the music dude, and walk out the front doors.
If he gets shipped to the USA for an ass kicking there after Sweden is done with him - so be it. He was the one that swatted the hornets nest. So what you're saying is that you're against an open government? What terrible atrocities have happened from the things that he has leaked? The governments' involved are the real cowards. edit: I'll also go and see if I can find the leaked emails from 2 people involved in the US gov't I believe (they are CIA or some shit, I forget, this was a while ago) and they had a few emails from each other saying that it was obvious it was a set-up (meaning they didn't know about it, but they believed it to be a set-up)
No, that isn't what I am saying at all. Please read my post again.
We can argue that it is he or government(s) that are cowards. But, I can prove that he IS a coward. He refuses to face his charges, claiming false persecution and that the USA wants to get back at him for releasing documents. He is a coward, hiding in an embassy to avoid answering to the swedish charges directly. I think the USA "threa" is simply his excuse - he actually is concerned about the criminal charges, but doesn't know if they will stick or not.
Whether you like it or not, every single government in this world has secrets they do not want the general public knowing. Some we might not like. Some might have kept us safe, but we are better not knowing.
He is not the savior of the free world from itself and its secrets and spies. He is a predator and a self centered egotist.
And if the USA wants to kick his butt, so be it. He deserves it. You don't obtain classified confidential documents, regardless of how meaningless or simple they might be, release them, and not expect a spanking. So he should get it from Sweden, and when they are done, from the USA as well. Pay the piper I say.
|
honestly this case deserves a lot more international appearance simply due to how much political influence of this case has
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
