|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On September 20 2012 12:56 Grimmyman123 wrote:
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.
You mean that if a person reveals a crime and the criminals seek to punish him for that then it's completely acceptable if these criminals are actually government and intelligence officials?
|
On September 18 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 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. 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.
You do realize that most rapes are perpetrated by people who know the victim, right? Former romantic partners are among the most common perpetrators of rape. And "If you still think he "raped" anyone you're extremely naive", really? So if there is no evidence on either side, no evidence that she consented to sex in the instance in question, no evidence that he raped her, we should automatically believe him because... wait why should we believe him? I don't think there is enough evidence to get a conviction, nor do I think he should go to jail, but I am saying the vast majority of the time someone accuses someone else of raping them, they aren't lying.
|
On September 19 2012 15:57 Probe1 wrote:
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.
Yeah this whole affair seems extremely dubious, really.... I really don't buy this at all, clearly they have some sort of motive. Though the second woman is not going back and saying that the sex was actually consensual...
Ripped condomgate though PFFTTT LOL.
|
On September 20 2012 14:03 Evilmystic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:56 Grimmyman123 wrote:
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. You mean that if a person reveals a crime and the criminals seek to punish him for that then it's completely acceptable if these criminals are actually government and intelligence officials?
What crime was revealed again?
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On September 20 2012 14:21 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 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. 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. You do realize that most rapes are perpetrated by people who know the victim, right? Former romantic partners are among the most common perpetrators of rape. And "If you still think he "raped" anyone you're extremely naive", really? So if there is no evidence on either side, no evidence that she consented to sex in the instance in question, no evidence that he raped her, we should automatically believe him because... wait why should we believe him? I don't think there is enough evidence to get a conviction, nor do I think he should go to jail, but I am saying the vast majority of the time someone accuses someone else of raping them, they aren't lying.
The liability of presenting sufficient evidence lies on the accuser, don't forget about the presumption of innocence.
|
On September 20 2012 14:03 Evilmystic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 12:56 Grimmyman123 wrote:
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. You mean that if a person reveals a crime and the criminals seek to punish him for that then it's completely acceptable if these criminals are actually government and intelligence officials?
What was the crime, and which specific individuals commited it.
And if you refer to the attempted bodgery of the 2008 election... Puhhlease. Minor details. Yeah, it happened in the USA, land of the free and all that jazz - but rigged elections have been going on for centuries, even to this day in eastern countries. If that tidbit of information was word it for Assange to string his head onto a target for government(s) to want to prosecute him, he has to learn to pick his targets better.
|
On September 20 2012 14:46 Evilmystic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:21 Blennd wrote:On September 18 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 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. 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. You do realize that most rapes are perpetrated by people who know the victim, right? Former romantic partners are among the most common perpetrators of rape. And "If you still think he "raped" anyone you're extremely naive", really? So if there is no evidence on either side, no evidence that she consented to sex in the instance in question, no evidence that he raped her, we should automatically believe him because... wait why should we believe him? I don't think there is enough evidence to get a conviction, nor do I think he should go to jail, but I am saying the vast majority of the time someone accuses someone else of raping them, they aren't lying. The liability of presenting sufficient evidence lies on the accuser, don't forget about the presumption of innocence.
In a court of law, yes. That's why I said I don't think he should go to jail. But the poster I was replying to said that people who believed Assange's accuser instead of Assange were being "naive". I am confused by this, as it seems to me like there is little reason to believe one party over the other based on the details of this particular case. I can't pretend to be familiar with how your culture treats sexual assault, nor how Sweden does, but I know that women where I am who accuse people of rape with anything other than 100%-absolute-scientific-proof levels of evidence aren't exactly showered with positive attention. I just don't see any motivation for them to lie, and the main arguments for it seem to be some incredibly unconvincing conspiracy theories that zalz has dealt with more eloquently than I ever could.
|
The problem is, that once sufficient evidence is presented to the courts, the charge awaits answering, and the warrant for arrest also awaits.
His trial isn't going to answer for itself. At some point he has to be put into custody, get bail, make a plea, and go through the process. Unless he plans to bludgeon the court with motions and pray that no substantial evidence appears, the victims/witnesses drop dead, and the matter goes away magically all by itself.
|
On September 20 2012 15:03 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:46 Evilmystic wrote:On September 20 2012 14:21 Blennd wrote:On September 18 2012 23:44 NeMeSiS3 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. 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. You do realize that most rapes are perpetrated by people who know the victim, right? Former romantic partners are among the most common perpetrators of rape. And "If you still think he "raped" anyone you're extremely naive", really? So if there is no evidence on either side, no evidence that she consented to sex in the instance in question, no evidence that he raped her, we should automatically believe him because... wait why should we believe him? I don't think there is enough evidence to get a conviction, nor do I think he should go to jail, but I am saying the vast majority of the time someone accuses someone else of raping them, they aren't lying. The liability of presenting sufficient evidence lies on the accuser, don't forget about the presumption of innocence. In a court of law, yes. That's why I said I don't think he should go to jail. But the poster I was replying to said that people who believed Assange's accuser instead of Assange were being "naive". I am confused by this, as it seems to me like there is little reason to believe one party over the other based on the details of this particular case. I can't pretend to be familiar with how your culture treats sexual assault, nor how Sweden does, but I know that women where I am who accuse people of rape with anything other than 100%-absolute-scientific-proof levels of evidence aren't exactly showered with positive attention. I just don't see any motivation for them to lie, and the main arguments for it seem to be some incredibly unconvincing conspiracy theories that zalz has dealt with more eloquently than I ever could.
There is plenty of evidence that the accusers are lying in one form or another. The conspiracy theories are only about why they're choosing to lie now.
Flip-flopping on rape charges is "normal", because of the nature of the offence. However, deleting tweets, changing your story and accusations, and actively attracting media attention is not normal.
I don't think the US is pushing these women to press charges. I don't doubt that they'd love to have Assange in a country that has looser extradition laws, but I don't think they're trying to force it. However, given the actual story and accusations, I'd say this is more about two women pissed off at Assange for relationship reasons, who are now trying to cash in on 15 seconds of fame.
EDIT: And for the record, the accusation is not that he "raped" her. It's that they had consensual sex, but he lied in knowing that the condom he was using was ripped. There is no claim that he forced the woman to have sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
