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.
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 20:29 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 21:05 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.
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 21:40 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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...
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 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 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 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 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
