Condom used as evidence in Assange sex case 'does not contain his DNA'
Source: Mail
Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have revealed that a key piece of evidence does not contain his DNA.
A torn condom given to Swedish police by one of the alleged victims was examined by staff at two forensic laboratories but they could not find any conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it.
The same forensic teams found DNA thought to belong to the WikiLeaks boss on another condom, which was submitted by the second alleged victim.
The revelation is contained in a 100-page police report that was written after witnesses were interviewed and forensic evidence had been examined.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)
Occulus
(20,599 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)in Sweden sooner, rather than later.
And of course there's no "conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html#ixzz26e1MpaBZ
He hasn't submitted a DNA sample to Sweden. He fled the country the day before he was going to.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)DNA?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)What I took away from the article was this---
You have one condom with a DNA sample that has yielded a scientifically valid result. This is the second victim.
You have a second condom with an inconclusive amount of genetic material--it can't rule anyone in conclusively as it stood two years ago. BUT the mito DNA in that genetic material might be useable.
Assange fled before giving his DNA sample in Sweden.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)have a DNA sample.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)The previous poster does not accept the authenticity of the 100-page police report (with the police interviews and the results of the forensic analysis) because she believes the document to be unverifiable. But when a tabloid is reporting on it, misrepresenting some facts and confusing others, she uses it as a launching pad to spread her own unverifiable theories ...
What I took away from the article was this---
You have one condom with a DNA sample that has yielded a scientifically valid result. This is the second victim.
You have a second condom with an inconclusive amount of genetic material--it can't rule anyone in conclusively as it stood two years ago. BUT the mito DNA in that genetic material might be useable.
Aside from the fact that the poster must have taken away "mito DNA" from somewhere else because it is not mentioned in the article, she interprets the statement that "no DNA (belonging to Assange) was found" as saying "an inconclusive amount of genetic material" was indeed found and might even be usable ...
Headline: Condom used as evidence in Assange sex case 'does not contain his DNA'
First sentence: Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have revealed that a key piece of evidence does not contain his DNA.
Second sentence: A torn condom given to Swedish police by one of the alleged victims was examined by staff at two forensic laboratories but they could not find any conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it.
The fact of the matter is that on one condom no DNA at all was found, thereby positively ruling out Assange. Which should raise the question why it was taken into evidence in the first place. As proof that it was not used? The DNA on the other condom did contain DNA "from a man", but we don't know if Assange can be conclusively linked to it, because rumor has it (which the poster was referring to) that the DNA found is only mitochondrial DNA which apparently is not specific enough to identify an individual.
And finally, all this talk about DNA is totally moot and inconsequential because Assange never denied having sexual relations with these women and thus having left his DNA in some form or other at their abodes.
pnwmom
(109,001 posts)"But its thought another condom, submitted by the second alleged victim, does"
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)someone thinks has his DNA was one that was supposed to have been used when he raped the lady in her sleep. So apparently he was aware enough to use the condom but then left it at the scene?
You recognize he is innocent until proven guilty. And as I understand it, there have not been any charges filed.
I would like him to clear up the rape allegations but recognize that there is no certainty that he wont get thrown in prison by the USofA just like Manning.
pnwmom
(109,001 posts)until they have him in custody. That's why they need to extradite him before they charge him. (Charging in Sweden comes near the end of an investigation, not near the beginning.)
If the US was so anxious to throw him into prison, they could have easily extradited him from the UK. If he goes to Sweden now, the US would have to get both the UK and Swedento approve a further extradition.
What is unlikely about the idea that he left the condom at the scene? One of the problems with date rape situations is that the rapist often isn't aware that he's crossed the line.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Here is THE SWEDISH CODE OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE in English translation: http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf
Please point out where it says that "they cannot charge him until they have him in custody".
See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101641910#post27
pnwmom
(109,001 posts)He isn't wanted for initial questioning in Sweden. They are ready to prosecute him -- unless the interrogation once they have him in custody causes them to drop the case -- and they need to have him in custody for that.
http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?%20utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co
Assange did argue in the Magistrates Court that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning rather than prosecuting him. In response to that argument, the Prosecutor, Marianne Ny, provided a statement dated 11 February 2011 explaining the Swedish procedure. (The High Court quotes from this statement at para.142 of its judgment.) She concluded as follows:
"Subject to any matters said by him [in the second interview] which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
The Senior District Judge found against Assange on this point and Assange did not pursue it in the High Court. At para.131 of the High Court judgment: "It was accepted in oral submissions made on behalf of Mr Assange that the surrender of Mr Assange was sought for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (satisfying 2(3)(b)), as the Senior District Judge had held. That concession was made because it was accepted that the words 'for the purposes of being prosecuted' were broad enough to encompass a prosecution that would commence in the future." [Emphasis added] Rather, it was argued that as an additional safeguard the proceedings must already have commenced. As already indicated, Assange lost on that point.
reorg
(3,317 posts)You said in post # 215
"Under the Swedish justice system's procedures, they cannot charge him until they have him in custody."
I provided you with a link to the English translation of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedures. You can check for yourself. It is easy to read and quite concise. Nowhere does it say that they cannot charge him until they have him in custody.
Your quote from the extradition case has nothing to do with this whatsoever. It only shows that Ms Ny affirms that Assange is not yet indicted. She states that he currently thinks he should be indicted, but perhaps not, in case "matters said by him (...) undermine ... (her) present view".
She has not yet "filed for a summons" with the court, which would be the end of the preliminary investigation (the current stage) and start the prosecution phase:
II. PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
Chapter 45
INSTITUTION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION
Section 1
A prosecutor who wants to institute a prosecution shall file with the
court a written application for a summons against the person to be
charged; however, to the extent found appropriate, the court may
authorize the prosecutor to issue a summons.
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf
pnwmom
(109,001 posts)the same thing it does in English. And even a translated version of the Swedish justice code won't make that clear.
reorg
(3,317 posts)The process is different. In common law systems, charges are brought earlier in the process, apparently.
Which does not change the fact that no charges have been brought yet, the prosecutor is still conducting a preliminary investigation.
And, that's where we started and where you were wrong in post #215:
"Under the Swedish justice system's procedures, they cannot charge him until they have him in custody."
Not true, the defendant does not have to be in custody for a prosecutor to file for a summons-which would start the prosecution phase in Sweden-as set forth here:
II. PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
Chapter 45
INSTITUTION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION
Section 1
A prosecutor who wants to institute a prosecution shall file with the
court a written application for a summons against the person to be
charged; however, to the extent found appropriate, the court may
authorize the prosecutor to issue a summons.
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf
Likewise, the accused does not have to be in custody for the prosecutor to conduct an interview. The prosecutor has the power to arrest him, but it is not a necessary step for the interview to be conducted. The prosecutor would not break the law or be in breach of procedure if they didn't arrest Assange, they don't need to do that before an interview nor do they need to do it after an interview.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)they are slowly building a case against him and, if and when the time is right, they would then call for his extradition, probably after the election.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)after the election. Slowly building a case is even better if the accused is already in prison.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Insertion without a condom violated the terms of consent.
The condom that apparently has DNA was from an earlier encounter where the condom was used (and the terms of consent were upheld).
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)pnwmom
(109,001 posts)The hero's fatally flawed.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)and you want to see him in prison because of this. This agenda is obvious, and honestly, mainly prevalent only among the consistent supporters of the MIC on DU.
If Joe Biden were accused of something like this, with these unprovable allegations against him, you'd be out raising an army to defend him.
And I'd be right there with you. Injustice is injustice.
pnwmom
(109,001 posts)There's plenty of evidence of his disorder even if you don't believe those women's allegations. His lawyer's ludicrous statement connecting the Libya attacks to his hiding out in the embassy in Libya was typical. Assange's convinced the world revolves around him and anything he does is justified because HE did it.
Any good thing Assange has accomplished was in service to the notoriety his narcissism demands. But that same personality disorder has made him willing to sacrifice innocent people. That's why I find him personally repulsive.
OTOH, finding him personally repulsive doesn't mean I want to see him in prison (unless it turns out he is guilty of rape). I don't think he's at risk of being extradited here, at least under a Democratic administration, because (according to Charles Rangel and others) there are no laws that would support such a prosecution, despite what some Republicans might say -- which is why we didn't extradite him from the UK in all the months he was there. So all his squealing about being sent to Sweden is just an effort to avoid prosecution for the rape allegations, not to avoid prosecution here.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)The other victim still has a case.
The one victim has one too, but has one less piece of evidence.
tama
(9,137 posts)There is evidence of nothing but consensual sex. Later regrets are immaterial for establishing criminal intent during the event, when according to all the hearsay testimonies Assange had no reason to assume that there was no consent.
1monster
(11,012 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That to some the accusation itself is proof of guilt...and that is a useful tool.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)One of the OP's nay sayers checks in; right on schedule!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Besides, when might the condom have been broken. Difficult to say.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html#ixzz26e2VRaCl
Of course there's no conclusive evidence--Assange fled Sweden the day before he was scheduled to give an interview and a DNA test. So there's no piece of evidence that can be conclusively linked to him, without a sample.
They didn't say "found NO DNA evidence."
1monster
(11,012 posts)to leave. The case was dropped or closed, then reopened AFTER he left Sweeden. He stayed in Sweeden until he was told he was in the cleard.
Your arguements would hold more water if you didn't repeat fake facts or falsehood, to put it more politely than succinctly.
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't see how you can have this both ways.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)I can sum it up thusly: "They changed their minds."
Likely after a communique from the US.
randome
(34,845 posts)He admits he had sex with the women. So the absence of his DNA means...he did NOT have sex with them? I don't see that the OP is all that relevant to anything.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)He's never claimed not to have had sex with them.
Are you one of the people that actually thinks this whole thing is about rape charges?
randome
(34,845 posts)And yes, you know I'm 'one of those' who think Assange's actions and words prove him to be unreliable.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)this has to do with the US getting their hands on Assange, there wouldn't be any half-intelligent people still believing this bullshit about rape.
So what 'words and actions' have proven him 'unreliable'?
randome
(34,845 posts)That were 'conveniently' stolen. I mean, how is that any different from alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy involving the U.S., the U.K., Sweden, Australia, Interpol, etc?
He does act like a narcissist. He can't go to Sweden because the U.S. might 'get' him, although the document dump he and Manning did made practically no difference in the world.
The allegations of some that embarrassing some mid-level diplomats is tantamount to signing one's death warrant.
His characterization of informants as expendable.
His characterization of Sweden as 'the Saudi Arabia of feminism'.
His leaving Sweden when he was scheduled for a DNA test.
All classic signs of a narcissist and someone who has something to hide.
On edit: when I say 'classic', I mean IMO. I am no expert on psychology.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)serious enough for the US to be actively investigating if he might have conspired with and directed Bradley Manning in getting at the documents. FOIA documents show that Australia is cooperating with the US in this investigation.
randome
(34,845 posts)And if Assange's own country is investigating -and does not want to intervene in his 'problem' with Sweden- that sounds to me like they, just like Interpol, the U.K. appeals courts, etc., believe that the Swedish matter should proceed on its own merits.
And part of the U.S. investigation will no doubt focus on Manning's psychological and emotional problems, and how such an unbalanced individual was allowed to have access to classified material.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)they are actively working toward building a case against Assange. Why put in so much effort if there is no hope of ever getting Assange extradited to the US??
randome
(34,845 posts)Who says the investigation has anything to do with extraditing him? Other than Assange and his supporters.
Assange conspired with Manning to do a document dump of classified information. It makes sense that officials would want to know how this was allowed to happen. Backtrack and find the steps that led to a serious breach of national security?
I don't see why they would NOT want to investigate.
But investigating HOW it happened does not mean extradition is likely. By Assange's point of view, he can commit any crime in the world now and claim he cannot be tried because he 'might' be extradited to the U.S.
With all the attention -and time and effort- that has followed him around, there is no way in hell he could be extradited now without massive world-wide protests. It isn't going to happen, IMO.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)the Obama Administration is divided on the wisdom of prosecuting Assange. That should tell you quite a bit about the current state of the case. The only way Assange could be tried is if he were extradited or if he willingly came to the US. I don't understand how prosecution could proceed any other way.
randome
(34,845 posts)Because if there were, then there would be no division. He needs to face the music in Sweden and be done with it. He has done everything he can to turn a relatively minor incident -note, I said 'relatively'- into a world-wide kerfuffle.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)how does that make it a "conspiracy"? Biden, Feinstein and Clinton have all made statements that Assange should be prosecuted (for the cable release, not the broken condoms!) Does that mean they are all part of this conspiracy? There was outrage that Assange had defied the State Department request and gone ahead with publication of the secret cables. That's what the US investigation is all about. Your attempts to drive this back to a case about broken condoms seems....rather flaccid.
randome
(34,845 posts)That's where it will end, too. Assange will either be arrested or acquitted. Either way, the world-wide conspiracy -or 'honey trap'- that many on this thread have alleged, will be proven to be incorrect.
I don't have any dog in this race, by the way. If Assange somehow 'proves' there is a conspiracy to get him, it's no skin off my nose.
But all I see right now is a man who treats women poorly and does not want to face the music for his careless dalliances in Sweden.
And if you are not one to believe in the grand conspiracy, good for you. But that doesn't mean Assange should be allowed to get away with stealing U.S. intelligence documents.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)I'm not alleging any sort of underhanded intelligence conspiracy to get Assange (although I wouldn't be surprised if Karl Rove might behind part of it).
All I'm trying to point out is that there is a very real investigation by the US against Assange, aided by the cooperation of Australian authorities. There have been calls for his prosecution, including by no less than the VP. The only way to prosecute the case in US court is to have him extradited. The only thing standing in the way of extradition, when the US is ready to make such a request, is that the US guaranty not to sentence him with the death penalty. That is all.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)"Overwhelming evidence that the rape charges are bullshit."
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)day before his scheduled interview and DNA test--this was a finding of fact, detailed by the Belmarsh court---(read pages 5, 6, and 7) the testimony of Mr. Hurtig. The Belmarsh magistrate demolished him.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
1monster
(11,012 posts)It's really cute to offer a link that is 28 pages long. I glanced through it and saw no reference, and my time online is limited.
In the meantime, there are dozens of references on Assange leaving Sweden with permission. I have quoted the relevant passages on two of them here.
Perhaps you could do the same for one reference?
http://notesonwikileaks.tumblr.com/post/15251907983/assange-extradition-fact-sheet
"...in a letter dated September 14 2010, Julian Assanges lawyer at that time, Björn Hurtig, asked Marianne Ny if there were any obstructions for Julian Assange to travel abroad, as Julian had some acute businesses he needed to attend there. In a note to the Svea Court of Appeal, Marianne Ny writes the following: "in the reply to lawyer Hurtig, if there were any legal obstructions for Julian Assange to leave Sweden I answered that there were no such obstructions."
She has thereafter changed her mind several times and pushed Hurtig to arrange for interrogations in Sweden.
Julian Assange, as a matter of fact, left Sweden in good faith that he was doing the right thing."
http://www.skandinaviflorida.com/web/sif.nsf/d6plinks/JEIE-8XFQA4
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)... In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days <after 15th September> I telephoned <Ms Ny> a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.
Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight ...
Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong ...
In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldn’t have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.
The witness had to leave to catch a flight. Miss Montgomery said that there were further challenges she could make to his evidence, but thought it unnecessary in the circumstances. That was accepted by the court after no point was taken by Mr Robertson. The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave ...
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)the prosecutor notified his lawyer on Sept 22 that Assange was going to be interviewed on the 28th. Assange left Sweden on the 27th.
All of.this from sworn testimony from Assange's lawyer in a British court.
1monster
(11,012 posts)Now, at that point -- 25 October, 2010 -- one would hope that a competent and impartial investigations team would turn toward investigating how this forensic finding came about. Sweden takes very seriously the issue of making false claims or presenting false evidence in sex crime cases, which is punishable with a 2-year prison sentence. In this particular case, however, the lead investigation officer, Mats Gehlin, simply asked the SKL to run the test again (page 81 of the FUP). In fairness, the first result does mention a tiny speck that might be "something," which a second test later found to be a very small sample of mitochondrial DNA.
This is significant for two reasons: first, mitochondrial DNA is not uniquely identifying in the same way as chromosomal DNA; and, more importantly, a sample which contains mitochondrial DNA but no chromosomal DNA can only come from hair and nails. And, of course, a used condom should be awash with chromosomal DNA from both participants -- but this one has none.
http://wlcentral.org/node/2325
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Mitochondrial DNA is not just present in hair and fingernails. Whoever wrote that never took an actual science class.
reorg
(3,317 posts)The quote doesn't say that mitochondrial DNA is "just present in hair and fingernails".
The entire DNA business is moot, anyway, since Assange never denied having sex with these persons. But, of course, it is far more interesting to have another sex thread instead of having to deny that Assange is persecuted for political reasons.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)The information provided by independent supporters of Wikileaks at WL Central is informed by discussions in Sweden's popular Flashback forum, in particular the following post (which I'm sure you won't bother to read, but feel free to refute it anyway, or just take a glance at the "simplified summary" below):
Quote:
As mentioned above, DNA is extracted from the cell nucleus of the cell. Outside the cell there are organs called mitochondria whose task is to regulate the energy supply to the cell. These mitochondria have something called mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA). mtDNA is build the same way as chromosonal DNA in form and combination between the base pairs but has a lesser variation between individuals and the 'rope ladders' are significantly shorter. This means that the number of base pairs in the DNA strand are significantly fewer. mtDNA can be extracted from cells that lack chromosonal DNA such as hair strands and nails (Kupper & Olsson, 2009).
Quote:
When there's not a sufficient quantity of chromosonal DNA for a standard analysis or an LCN-analysis used with findings such as fallen hair strands, buried bones, teeth or faeces, analyses of mtDNA are used. Each mitochondrion has a small amount of DNA called mitochondrial DNA. Each cell has many mitochondria which makes it possible to perform the analysis on small traces of poor quality.
Here's a link to the PDF:
http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:291776/FULLTEXT01
SKL on the topic of mitochondrial DNA:
Quote:
Because mtDNA is inherited by the child from the mother and from the daughters to their children etc, mtDNA is not unique and cannot be decisive in an identification. The value as evidence is therefore lower than with a match from standard DNA tests.
mtDNA is a special analysis to be used when the ordinary DNA analysis isn't enough, a final straw to clutch onto to try to solve the case. The cases where mtDNA is applicable are serious crimes such as murder or as a complement to STR analyses used to identify corpses or body parts.
http://www.skl.polisen.se/sv/For-rattsvasendet/Om-DNA-analyser/Spar-fran-brottsplats/Mitokondriellt-DNA-mtDNA-/
A simplified summary:
Almost all cells in your body have both chromosonal DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Nails and hair have only mitochondrial DNA.
Mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, which means it's identical for siblings and the mother (which lowers the value as evidence of mitochondrial DNA, which isn't so interesting in this particular case). It's however completely possible to distinguish the mitochondrial DNA found on the condom, if it comes from JA or Ardin (as everyone knows, they don't have the same mother). That either of their mothers or siblings would be involved in the handling of the condom is not likely.
A purely hypothetical alternative is that the mitochondrial DNA that was found comes from cells from skin, secretion, sperm, or the like where the chromosonal DNA was destroyed, but that's an extremely artificial and almost impossible scenario.
http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
Proletariatprincess
(718 posts)I do not know if this is good news or bad news for Assange. I have always believed the charges were trumped up, but a used condom with no DNA? And even if it had his DNA, what does that prove?
tama
(9,137 posts)that AA tried to manufacture evidence. That she is a lying and attempting fraud.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts)... but to me it means THIS WAS ALL TRUMPED UP BULLSHIT, AS MOST OF US STRONGLY SUSPECTED FROM THE START, and now our opinion is confirmed.
If you are going to present a condom to the police as support for your story, it needs to have SOMETHING to indicate that your story is true. No DNA, no support for your story, in fact, it pretty much destroys your story.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Let me start by saying I'm all for evidence exonerating Assange.
If used condom means a man ejaculated into a condom I'd expect his DNA to be found in it, and maybe pubic hair. The lack of such would make it very hard to link the object to sex with Assange.
But if used merely means taken out of it's individual packaging maybe there would be no DNA deposited. In the various accounts that have been told there is also an allegation/story that he tore a condom and said he would wear -that- during sex.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)and not refer to other evidence?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and provided a torn condom as evidence.
What this means is that there was no torn condom associated with Assange, so her claim that he deliberately tore said condom is invented and that she manufactured the evidence against him.
There was only one claim of a torn condom. The other condom that contains his dna proves that he wore a condom, as requested during the consensual sex.
The plot isn't thickening so much as revealed as a frame up by 2 women with buyer's remorse.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html#ixzz26e2VRaCl
Thing is, that can mean a few things. One, Assange hasn't given a DNA sample, so ANY DNA found on the condom cannot be conclusively said to be his. Two, you may have DNA on the condom, but at such a low level due to degredation, that testing is either impossible, or improbable unless a purported suspect can give a sample that a mitichondrial match can be run against.
Once you have a defense attorney spilling like this, it means two things...
1) They have a guilty as all-get-out-client that needs to convince the public that a miscarriage of justice is happening, or
2) you have an innocent client, and not enough definitive evidence to clear him, so you muddy the waters.
Thing is, your innocent clients usually want to clear their names as quick as possible. Julian doesn't.
1monster
(11,012 posts)from fingernails and hair.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=232996
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)evidence to back your claim?
FYI--wikileak's claim about mitochondrial DNA was written by someone who has never taken a science class in college. I am going to suggest that you might want to look up where mitochondria are in your body.
reorg
(3,317 posts)http://wlcentral.org/node/2325
WL Central:
About Us
This site was started by a group of WikiLeaks supporters who got to know each other in recent months. Our aims are simple:
(a) To provide a one-stop resource for WikiLeaks-related information, current and historical.
(b) To build a community site for WikiLeaks supporters.
(c) To counteract the many rumours and plain false information disseminated about WikiLeaks.
We come from different countries and backgrounds, and our personalities are just as colourful. But we share the same ideals of truth and justice, the same respect for WikiLeaks and similar organizations, the same belief in individual responsibility and action. And last but not least, we are here because we believe in doing the right thing.
We are not affiliated with WikiLeaks. We also don't work for any government agency. We are not paid by anyone for our work on this site. We are just kindred spirits volunteering our time for a cause we think is worthwhile.
Please find below some of our editors' statements, and feel free to add yours!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Assange had already admitted to having sex with the women on the days in question. There being none of his DNA in either of the condoms really only could possibly mean that he either didn't wear them or took them off before ejaculating. If anything at all it only marginally helps both women in that it could possibly be used as evidence that he didn't want to use condoms. However, I'm not even really seeing that as evidence in their favor or whether or not it could be used as evidence of anything as it certainly could be argued that they could be condoms that he never came into any contact with at all. But seeing as Assange already admitted to having sex with the women on the dates in question, I'm really not seeing how it's evidence of anything either for or against him or for or against the women. There is no need for any DNA evidence of his because there is no argument as to whether or not he had sex with the women - he already admitted that he had sex with them on the dates in question. The argument is solely on the nature of the sex and whether or not it amounted to consensual sex or rape/sexual assault, therefore, his DNA (or lack thereof) on condoms just isn't relevant to the case.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)No DNA to test, unless a stray skin cell can be found.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Why? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Put on a condom, then remove it. What evidence is left that you ever used it?
high density
(13,397 posts)Men don't need the big o to emit precious bodily fluids.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)all come to mind as alternative DNA sources. It seems none were present.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Plastic tight over a hard-on is going to pick up DNA, even without ejaculation, including pre-ejaculate.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)greiner3
(5,214 posts)The female's DNA from vaginal fluids? There would always be some DNA from the male from hair follicles and/or preseminal fluid and more.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Two women keep condoms so they can bring them to the police over the same man?
And what was the time lapse? How were the condoms stored. How does anyone even know if these condoms had anything to do with Assange, if they could have been tampered with by either of the women during transit to the police.
I am a supporter of Assange and this new revelation makes me more convinced that there's something not quite accurate about the details in these two women's complaints.
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)Both women saved the condoms from consensual sex? What are the odds of that unless they were put up to it?
1monster
(11,012 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)
aquart
(69,014 posts)The day I heard about Monica's dress was the day I exonerated Bill Clinton.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Who hangs that back in the closet?
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)That one had semen. This one is a fake.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)
A little odd both victims managed to get away with that particular piece of evidence.
FYI: I am 100% neural i'm not sure of his guilt or innocence. this is just the question, that pop in my head when I read the article.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)the Swedish authorities to confirm or refute it
Certainly if Assange and his lawyers believe there is no good case in Sweden, then Assange should return to Sweden and clear everything up as quickly as possible: the fact that he has jumped bail to avoid returning to Sweden does rather suggest he's concerned the accusations there might stick
Again, I'll say it is entirely inappropriate to attempt to try such a case in the media or on a public bulletin board
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)to extralegally extradite him to the US.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)we should not expect the Swedish authorities to confirm or refute it
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sample...and he fled Sweden the day before he was scheduled to do so.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)but that's what you have been doing non stop for weeks.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I am literally amazed at the response time. On every single mention of this topic.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)Used to be the case for another subject, which shall remain nameless, often discussed on DU.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)As his challenge in the Swedish courts of the Swedish arrest order failed, and as his year-and-a-half fight in the UK courts against extradition to Sweden to face the accusations also failed, I take the view he can properly be sent to Sweden
Alexander
(15,318 posts)You're deliberately saying things that you know are false.
There's a word for that.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)You won't find the link, because I never said any such thing. So I'll await your apology
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Maybe in the future you should avoid putting words in other people's mouths
druidity33
(6,449 posts)
GetRidOfThem
(869 posts)... just to win.
My wife is very skeptical of prosecutors' overall truthfulness and transparency. She would know, having been a federal one herself....
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)then Assange should prevail, since (after all) he has dozens of lawyers
frylock
(34,825 posts)okay then!
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)in Sweden. I've never taken a stand one way or the other on whether Assange was guilty or innocent of the Swedish allegations. I have taken the PoV that it is grossly inappropriate to engage in a public smear campaign against the women
frylock
(34,825 posts)1monster
(11,012 posts)http://wlcentral.org/node/2325
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)been seen by Mr Assange’s lawyers ..." etc etc. These quotes from the OP clearly indicate that everything discussed in the OP is simply alleged by Assange's lawyers
And, of course, after the Wikileaks confessed to the Keller hoax, nobody in their right mind should be overly eager to believe any web documents touching on the Assange case
WikiLeaks claims responsibility for fake Bill Keller column, citing donation ban
Hoax including fake tweets and a counterfeit Times website dismissed as 'childish prank' by former editor Bill Keller
Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 July 2012 14.18 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/29/bill-keller-fake-column-wikileaks
1monster
(11,012 posts)http://wlcentral.org/sites/default/files/AssangeSexAllegations%20FUP.pdf (in the original Swedish)
http://wlcentral.org/node/2325
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Hoax including fake tweets and a counterfeit Times website dismissed as 'childish prank' by former editor Bill Keller
Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 July 2012 14.18 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/29/bill-keller-fake-column-wikileaks
frylock
(34,825 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Hoax including fake tweets and a counterfeit Times website dismissed as 'childish prank' ...
Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 July 2012 14.18 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/29/bill-keller-fake-column-wikileaks
The organization actually has somewhat of a history of huff-n-puff and outright bullshit
Diclotican
(5,095 posts)dipsydoodle
It sunds more and more like a "honey-trap" to me..
Diclotican
mainer
(12,031 posts)Let's see. You rip the condom, and wear said shredded, flappy condom while having sex. Does that make sense? If you want unprotected sex, wouldn't you just not wear the condom at all?
Festivito
(13,452 posts)With two condoms it directs to a pattern of behavior. With only one, ... not so much at all. Considering that we can pull DNA from finger prints, not finding his DNA is interesting.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and he fled Sweden the day before he was supposed to give one.
The authorities don't say there's 'no' DNA--just that there isn't a conclusive match.
Edited to add--the same source as the OP backs up your statement as to wanting to father children:
According to a Gawker source, Mr Assange was obsessed with fathering children because he has a superiority complex. ‘He thinks he is so good that the world needs more of his kids,’ said the source.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355853/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-fathered-4-love-children-friend-claims-tell-book.html
1monster
(11,012 posts)was to give a DNA test?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)findings of the Belmarsh court
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
1monster
(11,012 posts)
1monster
(11,012 posts)http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Post a link claiming the information supports their agenda, yet when you read it, you find that the information directly refutes them?
struggle4progress does that A LOT.
1monster
(11,012 posts)the relevant material was on the third page. Which suggests s/he didn't expect me to read it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)against assange's psychotic fantasies
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)I read your drivel, and I read the information posted by you and other DUers. You don't fool me.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)and quotes from the UK case
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Posting more links to them won't increase anyone's understanding of what's going on here.
The links you post do very little to advance your argument, as they usually deal only with obscure minutia, disagree with your overall agenda or even refute your arguments outright. Your spam has been dealt with repeatedly by other posters who have eviscerated you.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)and they crap out every time.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong. He had forgotten the messages referred to above. They must have slipped his mind. There were then questions about DNA. It was suggested to him that a reason for the interrogation taking place in Sweden was that a DNA sample may be required. He seemed to me to at first agree and then prevaricate. He then accepted that in his submissions to the Swedish court he had said that the absence of DNA is a weakness in the prosecution case. He added “I can’t say if I told Ms Ny that Julian Assange had no intention of coming back to Sweden”. He agrees that at least at first he was giving the impression that Mr Assange was willing to come back. He was asked if Julian Assange went back to Sweden and replied: “Not as far as I am aware”.
In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldn’t have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
Perhaps you missed that part? Or did not understand the import of judge using the word 'prevaricate' when describing the testimony of a lawyer?
1monster
(11,012 posts)conclusions.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)So I'm not surprised by this post.
reorg
(3,317 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)to impregnate women without their consent? I thought the big deal was about STD testing a year ago?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Did he always rip the condoms when he had sex? Didn't he have sex more than once with these individuals? How many guys really want a bunch of kids from different mothers that they would have to support? How did he rip the condoms without the women noticing?
If these women were so worried about pregnancy why would they count on just a condom anyway. I sure wouldn't.
Whether you like him or not, the whole thing smells like a setup to me. If I were him, I wouldn't want to go back either.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Remember, one of the women went back to sleep with him again AFTER the alleged incident.
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)So Russian....Dostoevsky would be envious. Also Solzhenitsyn. And George Orwell is rolling in laughter.
TBF
(32,109 posts)I'm sure he's just as disgusted as the rest of us.
Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)Response to George II (Reply #38)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)This one is so blatantly a false argument. Who is going to fall for that argument? Only blind worshippers of Julian.
Response to treestar (Reply #66)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The idea that only Sweden can do so is ridiculous.
That one does not work. Julian should go to Sweden to deal with the charges. He could have done so long ago. He might even be through with the entire thing by now, probation and all. It's ridiculous.
Response to treestar (Reply #112)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)Response to George II (Reply #292)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)In Sweden's eyes he's just a common criminal being sought for prosecution for rape.
Is every country in the world obligated to promise everyone they arrest that they will not extradite that person to another country?
No, it doesn't work that way in the real world.
The man is wanted for suspicion of rape. He left the country with the promise that he'd go back to be questioned for the crime. He didn't. Now he's holed up in a third country's embassy. Actually Ecuador is the fourth country if you consider Sweden, the UK, and the US (which has nothing to do with the rape charges)
Tell me, why should Sweden promise Assange anything?
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)an interrogation, that's why he didn't return to Sweden as planned, that's why he spent a year and a half fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden, and that's why he jumped bail in the UK: it's all because he's so very very willing and eager to face the accusations in Sweden!
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #305)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 18, 2012, 12:45 AM - Edit history (1)
Politically and legally, it is much easier to transfer custody from Sweden, because no extradition is required as per the 1983 supplemental to the extradition treaty between the U.S. and Sweden. All that is required, is that there is at least a 2 year sentence for the alleged crime. No such agreement exists between the U.S. and the U.K.
[link:http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf|
randome
(34,845 posts)So they are willing to suspend objectivity in order to satisfy that 'craving'.
Response to randome (Reply #41)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to George II (Reply #38)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)Because he is accused of a SEX crime it has to be the US that's behind it?
And just what is the rationale behind your conclusion?
Response to George II (Reply #269)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)...Assange is neither.
Response to George II (Reply #291)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)...you're taking the tactics used in an incident almost twenty years ago by completely different people in a completely different context and applying that to an incident today in a different contry on a different continent under completely different circumstances?
Wow, that's an amazing stretch.
Response to George II (Reply #314)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)Remember, the United States Justice Department is controlled by the Democratic administration.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)Assange is constantly being demonized for his alleged sexual misconduct, while the greater crimes exposed by Wikileaks rarely even get discussed. It's not just Republicans who "want him". Biden, Feinstein and Clinton have all made statements at one time that he should be prosecuted for the leaked cables. Being held in Swedish prison for the sex crimes would buy more time while the US decides what to finally do with him.
George II
(67,782 posts)AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)There is viable proof that the US is conducting an investigation:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/cables-reveal-australia-us-focus-on-assange-20120527-1zd8a.html
The diplomats dismiss Mr Assange's claims that the US investigation is politically motivated retribution for WikiLeaks' publication of leaked US military and diplomatic reports. They instead highlight US prosecutors' claims that the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning, dealt directly with Mr Assange and ''data-mined'' secret US databases ''guided by WikiLeaks' list of 'most wanted' leaks''.
and if he were to be ultimately prosecuted then he would have to be extradited. The US has never claimed that they won't suddenly decide to have him extradited in the future, when this case is further along.
Why would you expect there to be proof that Sweden might be cooperating with the US, especially since this whole case is shrouded in secrecy to begin with?
George II
(67,782 posts)AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)and if prosecution moves forward then he would likely be extradited to the US which is what Assange and his legal team are afraid of.
Response to George II (Reply #324)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Okay, sex sells in America, but Assange is in the Equadorian embassy in the UK and is being investigated for rape in Sweden.
Where does the US come in here? Why not Cuba? Why not Russia? Why not Libya?
Response to George II (Reply #330)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)
What's up around here - a difference of opinion (one based on fact, yours based on speculation) results in an insult?
The case under discussion is one between Sweden and Assange, with the UK in the middle and Equador unwittingly dragged into it as well.
Using your logic, since the US is investigating his role in Wikileaks, Assange is immune from prosecution for any crime anywhere in the world?
The US involvement in THIS case? Bupkes.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Assange caught the US government in a series of major lies. major lies. He told truth to power. That is why.
George II
(67,782 posts) 
KansDem
(28,498 posts)...in order to get him here.
Let's see: Unpaid parking tickets? Complaint from neighbor about loud music? How about keeping his trash cans in full view of the street?
C'mon, USA: you can think of something! 
George II
(67,782 posts).....it was Sweden that charged him with rape, not the US.
Conspiracy theory?
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Do you really think Assange seeking political asylum in Ecuador's embassy in London while British troops waited outside for a possible invasion is all about rape allegations?
Really?
And Iraq was behind 9/11.
George II
(67,782 posts)...confirms my point.
No, Iraq was not behind September 11 just as the US is not behind this.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)But they had to have been! We invaded and killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens! All because Saddam had WMDs!
And if you think that once Assange steps out of the Ecuadoran embassy that the US wouldn't snatch him, then I've got a palm tree in Wisconsin to sell you...
treestar
(82,383 posts)why not? Not everyone is certain that world is out to get Julian and that there is no way he ever did anything wrong.
frylock
(34,825 posts)you seem woefully uninformed regarding this case. why not spend the morning bringing yourself up to speed so as to prepare yourself for the discussion?
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Certainly NOT!
No two parties have ever gotten together and planned any kind of bad behavior.
Only the stupidest person in the WORLD would ever fall for a story about anyone planning to do something wrong!!!!
What do you take us for?!?!?!
(if I need any smiley here, then it's just not worth it)
TBF
(32,109 posts)2on2u
(1,843 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)If not, maybe he decided not to use it when he saw that it was torn?
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)It's best to read something about the topic before commenting. That way, you don't appear so foolish.
George II
(67,782 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)considering the U.S. government has stated publicly that it intends to silence both Wikileaks and Assange, one way or another. Also, according to statements made by the woman in question, the condom was torn after it was initially used, not before it was used.
Your comments make it obvious that you are not in possession of many of the facts, but you don't really need me to enlighten you. If you read and post on this board regularly, you have easy access to the same information I do.
George II
(67,782 posts)So the US has convinced the government of Sweden to lodge rape charges against Assange, correct?
Connecting the US government intention to silence Wikileaks and Assange to the Sweden rape accusation is NOT a "conspiracy theory"?
Here's a fact that you overlook - there were TWO women involved in the Swedish rape allegations, not just the one that this thread is about.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)The Swedish government does not need to be "convinced" of anything.
This sort of naivete/willful ignorance, never ceases to amaze.
George II
(67,782 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....but you didn't agree with the opinion so you resorted to an insult.
randome
(34,845 posts)Disparagement and insults. It always seems to come from the 'pro' Assange side when their heroes have smudges on them.
Perhaps you could read a little bit more about tarnished heroes.
Like Ray Bradbury.
Scott Ritter.
Michael Crichton.
Clint Eastwood.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Cross me again, and I shall blast you with my lightnings.
randome
(34,845 posts)That stuff's dangerous!
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)You can't argue with DNA evidence. It is definitive.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts) Occulus
(20,599 posts)Why do you want him prosecuted for nothing so very very badly?
treestar
(82,383 posts)He should go back to Sweden and get that case dismissed and deal with the other one.
The fallout from both would have been over by now.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)He left Sweden while Swedish authorities were trying to schedule an interrogation with him. He was expected back a month later and stiffed the Swedish authorities on that, too. He's jumped bail in the UK, costing his supporters hundreds of thousands of pounds.
I don't know whether he's guilty or not, but he obviously doesn't want to face the Swedish prosecutors. I'm not interested in trying the case on a bulletin board: let him go to Sweden and clear matters up
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)That's what he fears.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)If not, your comment is devoid of meaning.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)doesn't seem meaningless to me
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)But most of your messages are not conducive to understanding. They only attempt to promote an impression in the minds of the gullible.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Response to struggle4progress (Reply #49)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts) Response to struggle4progress (Reply #141)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Another of Assange's own witnesses got caught lying to the court
So they decided not to try the court's patience further with more crazy-ass bullshizz
Thoughtful people may see that's not exactly the same thing as "Durn ole Judge Lynch stacked th'deck agin us in his Kangaroo Court"
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #148)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)He left Sweden while Swedish authorities were trying to schedule an interrogation with him. He was expected back a month later and stiffed the Swedish authorities on that, too. He's jumped bail in the UK, costing his supporters hundreds of thousands of pounds
Let him go to Sweden and clear matters up
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)a few hundred. Fraction of Londoners really jazzed about Assange: less than 0.01%
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Are you working right now?
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)(possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing. It may be worth adding that I do not know if Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States of America. There has been no evidence regarding this. I would expect that there is such a treaty. If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also. But none of this was argued ..."
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons
If Assange had wanted to argue that in court, he was free to do so. He did not -- because the theory is so ridiculous that one of his own specialist witnesses testified against the possibility
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)bragged in writing AFTER sex with Assange? And one went back for another round. There are no victims here except for Assange.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)and high professional quality ...
During Assange's stay, two events occurred that led to accusations against him for sexual assault of two women. Before Assange was interrogated, he left the country. He then refused to return to Sweden, starting an almost two-year process to extradite him.
The UK Supreme Court's decision means only that Assange will be transferred to Sweden for interrogation. It does not mean that he will be tried, or even charged. It is entirely possible that he will be transferred to Sweden, questioned and released if the Swedish authorities find that there are insufficient grounds for prosecution. It is impossible - as it should be - to predict how the case will unfold.
What we do know is that Assange will receive fair treatment by Swedish legal institutions. And, yes, their respect for the rule of law extends to accusations of sexual offenses. As recently as a few years ago, the Swedish Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the same high standard of proof applied to other criminal allegations are to be applied in cases of suspected rape ...
Sweden is owed justice and respect over the Assange affair
Marten Schultz
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/06/26/3533222.htm
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I am appalled at this demand that people who don't think Julian is all that to shut up. I've seen it over and over. No one is beyond criticism.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)looks like the charges are fake and ridiculous. That is why. The charges are of having sex with a broken condom. Who cares? seriously. if we all reported every man who ever had a condom break, there would be no time for politics or DU.
That is not a crime.
Picasso actually beat his wife. Julian Assange possibly had sex with a broken condom.
haven't you ever seen a condom break?
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)to prevent anything bad from happening to him ..."
Lawyers in WikiLeaks Case Argue Over Email Access
By ERIC TUCKER Associated Press
FORT MEADE, Md. August 28, 2012 (AP)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-soldiers-wikileaks-case-back-military-court-17093558
You'd scream Murder! if Bradley Manning had killed himself in custody
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)some people want to bicker about the translation of the Swedish words and translate a word to mean rape. . There was no rape. There is no charge of rape. there is no accusation of rape. there aresensationalist translations and boogeyman stories.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape ...
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons
"The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story"
– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)with Assange again. No raped woman ever went back to see her rapist willingly. never. ever. never. ever. Both women bragged about the sex they had with Assange. They did not complain about it. they bragged about it. in writing. get over it. It did not happen. And again, there is NO rape charge. you can say translating this might equate that, but there is NO rape charge in Sweden. period. no charges at all, as a matter of fact. They did not charge him.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)That tells me there werent a problem. Why did she brag in writing about that night to friends?
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)I do not know where you are getting your information but it is false.
Robb
(39,665 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)At any rate, he should not be above the law. If the cases against him fail, then fine, he's free.
He has not had that much effect - this article explains why:
http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?AID=1964
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)sex with Assange, after the sex. One of the women went back for sex again.
the prosecution admitted that both women texted friends bragging that they had just had sex with him. not complaining that something bad happened. happy. bragging. texting. That means in writing. after.
case closed.
reorg
(3,317 posts)anywhere, apparently. I have asked many, many times, here and elsewhere, nobody can cite a case example with a similar scenario as alleged in this case.
Which doesn't surprise me at all, because the charges are complete BS. In addition, what Ms Ardin claims, also sounds completely false and made up. Many people feel this way, see e.g.:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)again!
bananas
(27,509 posts)truth2power
(8,219 posts)Way longer than a year ago Assange let something slip about having incriminating documents, about BOA I think it was. And then that guy affiliated with Wikileaks left and supposedly took some documents with him and allegedly destroyed them. I don't remember all the specifics. It was subsequent to that that all the sex allegations surfaced.
IMO, those who really pull the strings (way above Obama) don't give a rat's ass about leaked diplomatic cables, war crimes, or even rape, but if you have some real dirt on the big banks or you threaten to throw a monkey wrench into their criminal enterprises, you're toast.
Most recently, see: Col. Gaddafi and the pan African bank. 
Feel free to ridicule.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I can see why Assange's lawyers want to spin this in the public.
Of course there's "no conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it." Or anything...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203920/Condom-used-evidence-Assange-sex-case-does-contain-DNA.html#ixzz26e1MpaBZ
Assange fled Sweden the day before he was scheduled to give another interview and a DNA test.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Also from the article:
The report also appears to cast doubt on the claim made by the second alleged victim, who told police that she was ‘raped’ by Mr Assange when she was asleep.
But during a police interview, the woman, now 29, apparently suggests that she did not mind him having unprotected sex with her.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sample, and see what recovers from the evidence.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Then get on with saving the world. Or something.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I suspect that a few skeletons will come out of the closet.
According to a Gawker source, Mr Assange was obsessed with fathering children because he has a superiority complex. ‘He thinks he is so good that the world needs more of his kids,’ said the source.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355853/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-fathered-4-love-children-friend-claims-tell-book.html
treestar
(82,383 posts)Rather than refuse to use condoms on one-night-stands. Those women might get abortions.
It would be no surprise if he thinks he should father many children to pass on his amazing DNA. Also willing to bet he does not think he should be legally required to support them.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)moms. nt
1monster
(11,012 posts)Let's see the birth certificates and the DNA evidence or the court documents assigning paternity.
And even if it is true, what does it have to do with these cases? Unless the mothers of the apocryphal children claim rape, it has nothing to do with this case and is designed to defame Assange.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1monster
(11,012 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)indicates?
I would, too.
1monster
(11,012 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)...as if it meant anything.
Obsession can sneak up on people.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)If their source is okay, why are you challenging my use of the source?
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Or in this case if the split condom contains no dna or the wrong dna. Guess we will have to wait for those pesky dna tests.
Response to Kalidurga (Reply #81)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Response to robinlynne (Reply #200)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
randome
(34,845 posts)Strange that they haven't been heard from during all this. Or that Assange wouldn't want some contact with them.
tama
(9,137 posts)In his speech from embassy balkony Assange apologised his children for not being able to be father to them. Let's leave it there and respect his privacy, unless you want discuss publicly your role as parent and have zillion character assassinators digging up all the dirt they can find about you and your family.
randome
(34,845 posts)Because he was too busy partying in Sweden? Yes, I have children. They adore me as much as I adore them.
And I would not be embarrassed about ANYTHING dug up about me because I will always admit the truth. If you don't have anything to hide, they don't have anything on you.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)According to a Gawker source, Mr Assange was obsessed with fathering children because he has a superiority complex. ‘He thinks he is so good that the world needs more of his kids,’ said the source.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355853/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-fathered-4-love-children-friend-claims-tell-book.html
randome
(34,845 posts)He's brilliant and he's a millionaire. When he was younger, he, too, was obsessed with having a male heir, although he could only father daughters so he adopted a boy. He was domineering and abusive and since his divorce, he has had 4 mail order brides because he cannot conceive of not having someone around to look up to him.
This is only anecdotal, of course, but Assange fits that same profile.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)about lack of parenting skills and absentee fathers.
Seriously.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
pnwmom
(109,001 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Julian Assange's celebrity backers set to lose $540,000 bail money as he remains holed up in Ecuador Embassy
Wikileaks founder breached conditions by seeking political asylum before he was due to be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault charges
Nine high profile backers were today given a month to argue why they should not hand over the £140,000 they promised between them
A handful of celebrity backers, including Jemima Khan, lost their £200,000 bail money at a hearing in July
By Emily Allen
PUBLISHED:07:12 EST, 4 September 2012| UPDATED: 04:43 EST, 5 September 2012
****
Nine other supporters now face losing a further £140,000 offered as a ‘surety’ for his bail unless they can persuade him to hand himself over to the police.
****
Meanwhile, another handful of celebrities including socialite Jemima Khan, journalist John Pilger, film director Ken Loach, publisher Felix Dennis have already lost the £200,000 they stumped up between them to help free him before he was bailed.
****
The nine backers who were today fighting to save their money are retired Professor Tricia David, Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir John Sulston, who helped unravel the human genome, former Sunday Times journalist Philip Knightley, Lady Caroline Evans, wife of former Labour minister Lord Evans, his personal friend Sarah Saunders, a catering manager, Frontline Club founder Captain Vaughan Smith, who provided his Norfolk country mansion as a bail address. They all offered £20,000 sureties.
Marchioness Tracy Worcester, 53, the model and actress turned environmental campaigner, offered £10,000 while his Wikileaks assistants Joseph Farrell and Sarah Harrison, both stumped up £5,000 in return for his freedom.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198072/Julian-Assanges-high-profile-backers-set-lose-340-000-bail-money-remains-holed-Ecuador-Embassy.html#ixzz26evEJxev
pnwmom
(109,001 posts)I was merely pointing out that the OP left out an important subheadline.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that possibility.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)He admitted to having consensual sex with both women.
pnwmom
(109,001 posts)cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,388 posts)http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/wikileaks-sweden/
reorg
(3,317 posts)Perhaps they failed to report it at the time.
Or maybe it's juicier now to talk about condoms rather than the fact that Assange is confined in an Embassy and has been granted asylum by Ecuador.
As to the heavily slanted Wired account you cited, here is what actually happened:
13 August 2010
Anna Ardin returns a day early to her Stockholm flat, which she has lent to Julian Assange in connection with a seminar. He offers to find other lodgings, but she invites him to stay. That night they engage in a lengthy session of consensual sex, during which she utters not a word of objection or dissatisfaction.
21 August 2010
Less than one full day after the arrest warrant is issued, it is revoked by prosecutor #2 who finds that there are no grounds for suspicion of rape or any other sex crime.
Anna Ardin is interviewed by the police via telephone, and gives an account of her sexual encounter with Assange on 13 August which differs from what she has previously told friends. Now, she says that she was the victim of a sexual assault, during which Assange is said to have destroyed a condom and duped her into having unprotected sex.
"To my question Anna replies she did not look closely at the condom in order to see if it was broken in the way that she suspected; but she believes that she still has the condom at home and will check to see."
But the "used" condom she subsequently provides (on 25 August 2010) as evidence turns out to be unused, and therefore could not have been destroyed in the manner that she claimed.
---
Why submit a condom in the first place?
The answer is of course given: Anna Ardin was interrogated by telephone on Saturday 21 August; she told the investigator she thought she might have that condom she and Julian Assange used still lying about her small flat one week later; the case was all but tossed out a few hours after Ardin completed her interrogation; Ardin's friends at the 'Rebella' blog posted a hit piece the following Tuesday, accusing Assange all over again; Ardin contacted Claes Borgström already on Sunday 22 August as she didn't like the way things were going; she submitted 'a' condom to Gehlin on Wednesday 25 August, the day after the hit piece hit the blogosphere.
But it wasn't until Monday 30 August that Julian Assange was interrogated, this only for the remaining 'molestation' count (it wasn't even sexual molestation) for his encounter with Ardin. And Assange readily admitted having sex with Ardin - but his recollection of the evening was entirely different.
Up until that moment, no one knew Julian Assange would admit having sex with Ardin. But now that he had, the condom was moot. It served no purpose. There was nothing to prove.
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/sequence.htm
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml
muriel_volestrangler
(101,388 posts)and, whether or not they knew this was already public knowledge, when they talked to Assange's lawyers who pointed it out, they thought it was worth printing.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)That's messed up.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)I still can't understand why Assange and his supporters are so certain that extradition to Sweden leads automatically to extradition to the U.S., when Assange could have been extradited to the U.S. directly from UK instead during the last couple of years. I've read the links politely provided to me by navarth in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014228271 and remain unconvinced. There's nothing one can say about Sweden's willingness to extradite and cooperate with the U.S. that cannot also be said of the UK.
Some people seem to think that Sweden has been unreasonable, therefore the only explanation is that Sweden wants to get their hands on Assange to send him to the U.S.
My humble theory:
The Swedish demand for Assange's arrest and extradition to Sweden is a standalone 'honey trap', no need to infer that Assange will thereby end up in a cell next to Bradley Manning or at Gitmo.
Sweden cannot give a guarantee they will not extradite Assange (or anyone) to the U.S., because if a demand for extradition for anyone comes in while that person is on Swedish soil, Sweden is obligated to follow its extradition treaties and consider the request in their court system. Assange is asking to be treated as an oh-so-special snowflake and requesting Sweden guarantee they won't extradite him to the U.S., no matter what request might come in at any point. No Swedish official even has the authority to make such a commitment. Therefore, the failure of Sweden to make this guarantee means nothing to me.
Sweden will not accommodate Assange in any way, by questioning him in London, for example, because Assange has been openly defiant of the MIC and Swedish law enforcement. Open defiance is met with hard-ass, by-the-book prosecution by the authorities, always and everywhere. A top Swedish official tweeted to the effect that 'suspects don't get to set the terms of questioning'. I think that a decision was made (afer the matter had initially been dropped by the local prosecutor) at the highest political / prosecutorial level in Sweden to push this sexual assault case to the maximum letter of the law, to distract and harass Assange and hopefully immobilize Wikileaks.
But it doesn't necessarily follow that this case is a smokescreen for snagging Assange and throwing him in a cell next to Manning. If that was the intent of the U.S., he would already be there. Assange could have been extradited from the UK -- he could have been told to report to a police station, informed there was a US warrant for his arrest, and taken immediately into custody and put before a magistrate who could have increased or revoked his bail on the spot, keeping Assange in custody until they delivered him to the U.S. I sincerely believe that the UK/US relationship is so very close that it would have happened, if the U.S. thought it could come up with a valid indictment and wanted to do it. If the U.S. has such a plan for Assange once he gets to Sweden, I just don't see the reason why they wouldn't have already implemented it in the UK.
It is my guess (remember this is all my humble opinion 
) that if Assange had returned to Sweden, the case would have been dropped/ Assange would have been acquitted, after the prosecution had pushed it absolutely as far as it could, for maximum harassment value. Maybe they would have gotten lucky and gotten a conviction that would result in some probation, most likely not. But at least they'd tie him in knots and cost him some money for a while.
But, that's not what has happened. Assange has imprisoned himself in a tiny room in London, where the police can monitor who visits him, probably can listen to his conversations using directional microphones, and can monitor all electronic communication in and out. And this situation might continue for many years.
Wikileaks is struggling to function, starved of funds and effective leadership. I'm thinking that the powers that be are chuckling at this result, thinking that the flawed, weak case 'honey trap' that fell into their laps (because I think the women honestly wanted assistance from the authorities in getting Assange tested for STDs, not that they were complicit in setting the trap) has paid off better than their wildest dreams.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)1.) Sweden is smaller than the UK and more likely to cooperate with US in secretive national security matters, even beyond the the close scrutiny of their own Parliament (one of the released Wikileaks secret cables even supports this statement).
2.) There is an active US investigation directly against Assange that is closely tied to the Bradley Manning case, which won't even go to trial until 2013. It has been hung up due to the government's inability to provide classified documents to the defense. The media has even claimed that the case is so secretive that the court has acted unconstitutionally. The government is investigating whether Assange acted in a conspiracy together with Manning and may not make a decision of whether to prosecute Assange until the Manning case is further along. There is no need for either Sweden or the UK to extradite to the US until the US calls for extradition. All the US has to do is promise that they won't give him the death penalty, and there's nothing stopping them.
3.) Assange could be detained in Swedish prison until the point where the US is ready to act.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)1) The UK has been lockstep with the US throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, from Day One through today. The UK helped the US fabricate the evidence that Colin Powell presented to the UN, as an example. It is simply impossible for me to imagine that any country could be MORE willing to cooperate with the US MIC than the UK. Sweden probably is equally willing, but not more so. I just can't buy it.
2) If a US indictment does not yet exist for Assange, it would be smart to go to Sweden, clear up this matter as quickly as possible, and then leave for Ecuador permanently. It seems likely to me that if he'd done that a year and a half ago, he'd be long done with it by now. Impossible to know, of course.
3) Only if he's been convicted. Very tough to do with uncooperative victims.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)the UK probably wants Assange out of the UK as soon as possible, which is probably why they keep trying to facilitate talks with Ecuador, etc. It is precisely because of their previous collusion with the US that much of their population now distrusts government in these matters just as in the US. Assange has become a very hot potato around the world and they don't want to humiliate themselves anymore like they did when the OAS reacted to their threat to enter the embassy.
They can't just send him to the US without an extradition request from the US.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)The fact of the matter is, no extradition proceedings are necessary for custody of Assange to be transferred from Sweden to the U.S. He can be tried and sentenced here before the case in Sweden goes to court, and the U.S. is under no obligation to return him. That's the bottom line, according to the supplement to the U.S./Swedish extradition treaty.
[link:http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf|
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)With virtually identical provisions.
Both UK and Sweden prohibit extradition for political offenses, both UK and Sweden prohibit extradition if the person will be subject to the death penalty.
When I read through your link, I don't see where Assange can be extradited without Swedish judicial review. All documents have to be submitted ready for the judiciary....quote:
Article XIII
(1) The requested State shall provide review of documentation in support of an extradition
request for its legal sufficiency prior to presentation to the judicial authorities.....
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Douglas McNabb explains it here:
[link:http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2010/12/09/wikileaks-julian-assange-u-s-extradition-involving-sweden-guess-what-i-found/|
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)I could have swore they were up his ass, but maybe it was the broken condom after all.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...you have to acquit.''
- Johnny Cochran would be so proud....
K&R
NoodleyAppendage
(4,619 posts)Assange aside, this whole rape/sexual charge has struck me as prototypical spycraft work. This has CIA written all over it.
J
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Not a matter of 'he tried to have sex without a condom the second time, I want him to be tested for STDs'. It's a weak case, at best.
The US and CIA may well have encouraged Sweden to pursue this matter doggedly, to the exact letter of the law, but I don't think it was a set up from the beginning.
NoodleyAppendage
(4,619 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)when they went to the police. Not so sure about the other one.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)The referenced NGO worker worked with a group led by a CIA guy accused of terrorism (anti-Castro).
And the Swedish prosecution said THERE IS NO RAPE CHARGE.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)from day one. I cannot believe I just typed that phrase. Egad.
They would have gone straight to the police, fresh evidence in hand, with no friendly dealings with Assange in the days immediately following. Both women did too much to muddy a rape prosecution -- they did things they would definitely NOT do if they were CIA plants setting a rape trap.
reorg
(3,317 posts)pray tell us about it. I'm very curious to find out and know next to nothing how they usually go about it.
Wouldn't the fake complainant have to be a local? Wouldn't she have to be able to control the situation? Like knowing everybody around the target and being constantly informed about what he is doing? Like, a trustworthy, politically solid and fairly attractive person who might see how to take advantage of opportunities, career and otherwise? Wouldn't a second complainant be perfect who is barely visible, comes out from nowhere and all we can see is the childish behavior, the ingénue, the damsel in distress, before she vanishes back into the dark again.
The muddier, the better, I'd say. Looks so real. What does it matter if the case is a joke, as long as the authorities go along with it? Having the perfect excuse, those two most intimately involved in this matter, what they have worked for throughout the last 10 years or so at least, to strengthen the position of women vis a vis the perceived violence of men. Without the slightest fear that there will be criticism from the established media and politicians, if only for extraneous reasons.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and trying to validate it again became pretty hard.
So let me get this straight. Victim #1 claims that Julian Assange deliberately tore the condom when they had consensual sex. That's "rape" in Sweden. So now she produces a torn condom without any Assange DNA.
Victim #2 can produce a condom but her claim of "rape" is that he penetrated her while she was in a morning drowse WITHOUT a condom when she had deliberately asked him to use one. Yet she has a condom with his DNA on it??
Am I missing something?
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Which was a violation of the terms of consent. That's already been established.
12.07pm: Emmerson is now explaining the alleged victim SW's witness statement. Emmerson says:
They fell asleep and she woke up by his penetrating her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered: "You." She said: "You better not have HIV." He said: "Of course not." She may have been upset, but she clearly consented to its [the sexual encounter's] continuation and that is a central consideration.
The condom she produced is likely one from an earlier encounter that night, as they had had sex before that night. All it establishes is that she has a condom with DNA, it may or may not be Assange's. If it's not Assange's the case would be dropped in a heart beat. He needs to try to get the DNA checked.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Talk about "he said, she said".....
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)And one reason a lot of women don't pursue rape cases because it's just "he said / she said." Particularly in the case of date rape and such. Millions of cases go unreported because of that.
All it would substantiate is that she was in a position to get a condom with his semen on it. It would potentially show that he was in the same room with her as would be argued but Assange isn't disputing that. In fact, Assange's lawyers are arguing that it's not "legitimate rape" because the accuser didn't "stop him immediately." (As if that is always the go-to reaction to rape victims. Many allow it to continue on for fear of violence or to get it over with.)
This is all one reason that if the semen is not his then they will probably just drop the case because slandering her as a slut who sleeps around is a common defense in rape cases. I recommend he at the minimum give the Swedish authorities, voluntarily, his DNA sample. He could get the case dropped quick if it's not his DNA.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Her rape case, and again I stress that "rape" as used here is in a very strange domain, revolves around her assertion that he penetrated her without using a condom. She says the sex was consensual but that he didn't use a condom in that morning romp even as he knew she wanted that to happen.
And then she produces a condom with his DNA??
He isn't accused of rape as we understand it. Swedish law indicates he can be charged with "rape" if he didn't use a condom. The first "victim's" case revolves around the assertion he willfully broke the condom during consensual sex. Then she produces a torn condom that doesn't even has his DNA??
Both women are in agreement, the sex was consensual. Swedish law is what's mucking this up and making it a rape case in regards to condom usage.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)I think AA's case is much harder to prosecute given the events (she had sex with him multiple times after his alleged abusive behavior, etc).
But SW broke it off with him after the "surprise sex" encounter. The condom with DNA only proves that Assange and her had an encounter. It doesn't prove nor disprove that Assange inserted himself into her without a condom violating the terms of consent (though his lawyers admitted that he had done that already it probably can't be used in court and Assange may argue that he in fact did not do that, thus making the case even harder to prove).
The timeline is often distorted and the various actions of the women are in dispute, of course, as is common with rape allegations.
Anyway, if your sexual consent is predicated on various rules, then it's rape if those rules are violated. For instance, if someone says "no anal" and there is anal penetration, that is rape. In this case consent for penetration was predicated on a condom being worn. It would be rape in the UK and it would be rape in the United States. It's quite clearly a violation of consent if true and if it can be proved in a court.
I have my doubts it can be proved though because these women seem like their character can be dragged through the mud. Already, outside the courts, their name is being dragged through the mud by suspicious innuendos and the like.
It remains the case that they are still pursuing charges.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)They have a person who is pursuing charges FOR them, on behalf of the Swedish state.
From the very little that can (still) be found online, the women themselves did not go to the police to file charges but went instead to get Assange to take an HIV test because of the condom issues. The Swedish state itself is pursuing the charges. The women's lawyer isn't actually even necessarily acting on their behalf - he's a celebrity attorney whose been implicated in insinuating himself into other controversial women's rights issues.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)If you recall the prosecutor dropped the initial investigation against Assange the day after wanting him for questioning. It wasn't until the two women appealed the investigation that a higher prosecutor got involved. I don't know where you are getting this about them "dropping the charges." Rape cases like this are almost impossible to pursue unless the victim testifies in the court room! It would require violent actions, video taped evidence, a dead body in a freezer for them to prosecute without the victim's testimony. How else do you prosecute date rape cases but with the person as a witness?
Anyway it seems I was incorrect, according to reorg SW, the "surprise sex" victim's condom didn't have DNA, it was AA apparently. So I don't know if that has any real relevance here or not.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Go to and read the extensive interpretation of the entire case as it is known through the documents here:
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/
The author was called as a witness before the magistrate in the UK, he is the one who discovered the deleted twitter messages and other things. He is, however, in no way a supporter of Wikileaks or against Swedish feminism, on the contrary, he is an enthusiastic campaigner for (even) harsher rape laws in Sweden and what he mainly criticises is that they haven't introduced the concept of "consent" yet, like it is (allegedly) used in common law countries.
Fact is, in Sweden just as in most other penal codes, that rape is defined as a violent act, IOW it needs to be proven that the accused has broken the will, through an act of violence, of the aggrieved person. There are other, secondary definitions, like abusing the helpless state of someone and so forth. But the main concept always has been and still is that rape is a violent act, not some breach of contract.
In this particular case, it is alleged that the complainant was sleeping. Until 2005, this act would NOT have been prosecuted as "rape", there was a different paragraph on "exploiting the helpless state" for taking sexual advantage of someone, which carried a maximum sentence of two years. Since 2005, the same act is now considered "minor rape" and carries a longer sentence.
It is, of course, a travesty that the allegation was even brought up since the allegation is not at all about taking sexual advantage of someone, but about condom use.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)Are you kidding me?
I have read that hatchet job against these two women and am not interested in it. This is a typical innuendo piece that attacks the alleged victims. I refuse to believe that if someone places conditions on sex and if those conditions are ignored it's just "rude" or "inconsiderate" or something.
reorg
(3,317 posts)I merely cited him as an example that there is a vivid debate going on in Sweden to INTRODUCE the concept of consent in rape law because it's not there.
Read the penal codes, there are no provisions for "conditions" to be met and the act is not treated as a contractual matter. If someone says "use a condom" or "cut your toenails first" but still has sex with the partner even though s/he refuses to comply with such "conditions", it isn't rape. It's only rape if the partner uses force to get his/her will.
Chapter 6 – On Sexual Crimes
Section 1
A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another
person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act ...
http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/uploads/Sweden%20-%20Unofficial%20translation%20of%20the%20Swedish%20Penal%20Code.pdf
CAL. PEN. CODE § 261 : California Code - Section 261
(a)Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, ...
(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.
(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance ...
(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. ...
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)"A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.
This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state."
Are the same effective type of law.
If "the circumstance in general" are that protection be used do you not agree that not using protection would violate the circumstances in general? I think that it's not worded clearly or at least the translation is lost somewhat, but as far as I can tell it's about consent and the will of the partners. I cannot conceive of how a condom not being used on a sleeping person who requests one be used isn't rape here in the United States.
A prosecutor might not even go for it though here though. It'd tough to prove.
reorg
(3,317 posts)This is the 100 page document the article is referring to, I believe:
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/memoria.pdf
The condom part starts on page 79/100, on page 85 is a short note taken on 20 October by the officer in charge of the investigation which explains which condoms were produced and what they found.
"MÄ2" (Sofia Wilén) is the one who was drowsy, "half asleep", and allegedly didn't notice that a condom was missing while she had sex with Assange. (Why she even brought a condom to the police is a mystery to me, but THIS is the one where no DNA was found.)
"MÄ1" (Anna Ardin*) is the one who claims the condom was deliberately ripped apart. Although she didn't know when she was interviewed if the condom was still to be found somewhere in her flat, and hadn't examined yet if it was actually broken (8 days after the fact), she delivered a torn** condom to the police station on 25 August 2010. This is the condom with DNA, from Ardin and from a man, the same DNA from a man was found in vaginal swops (vaginaltops) taken from Ardin (don't know at what point).
* It seems apparent from the final remark in this note that "MÄ1" is Ardin, it is a short summary of Ardin's allegation (it was dark and she couldn't see the condom but heard a sound like from a balloon, found condom under the bed).
** on page 81 the forensic report says the condom looks like it has been damaged by a knife or scissors
rachel1
(538 posts)imperialism and meddling?
No way!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Two happy ladies had consensual sex one night, together. Condoms were used some of the time or not used. Only the people in the bed knew what happened or how. The story is conflicting. There's also a photograph of one of the ladies and Assange the next day with friends and they seem relaxed and happy. Unfortunately, the other lady is not in the picture, and we can't know all that went on between them. We don't know if this the lady making the complaint, but if it is not her, that may show her unhappiness or perhaps she was busy, meaning nothing. I note it because the picture is mentioned as a sign of the people being happy.
This is the complaint here:
In the report, the first alleged victim, now 33, claims she was sexually molested by Mr Assange at her flat in Stockholm on several occasions.
That sounds like rape, and it doesn't say when it happened. This was originally reported as one affair with the three, not 'several occasions.' Did he leave and return? Was this all at the same time period, and she felt coerced in some way to stay there with him?
She also claims that Mr Assange deliberately ripped a condom before wearing it so that he could have unprotected sex with her against her will.
That sounds crazy on everyone's part. It sounds like rape. Was the sex against her will or was it only unprotected sex she was unwilling to have with him? If he ripped a condom before he was wearing it, but still wore it, hy bother to wear it if he was intent on unprotected sex? Why would he do that, because of the consequences to his health and life, of disease or a child?
Earlier on, one of the ladies who already had intercourse with Mr. Assange willingly, says that she was awoken by him having sex with her but that would be rather weird. Maybe they were all three of them on drugs or drunk and not really paying attention the whole time.
Some of the earliest threads on this story, if I remember correctly, the reason the lady or ladies went to the police was that after he left, they could not get ahold of him to see if he'd been tested for HIV. They were worried about disease and that was the reason for the concern about the broken or torn condom.
This indicates they weren't thinking straight to begin with, none of them knew or could prove their sexual history or it didn't matter when they were in the throes of passion or drugged, etc. All of a sudden, they begin to worry about diseases.
The reason for disclosure is that condoms break with the best of intentions of all parties. Thus the worry of exposure at that time is valid. If the issue was as stated before, that they did not mind him having sex with a condom, but that he either broke one or didn't use one, and they didn't have control of themselves at the time, due to sleep or other vulnerabilites, he could be found at fault right there.
But if the question isn't just about the condom, it's more about the possible contraction of a disease than rape. That could be settled by medical tests no matter where Assange is. And the ladies themselves, could have had AIDS and passed it to him. All three people could be at risk for disease here.
But this story is saying that at least one of the ladies is saying she was forced to have sex. That doesn't have anything to do with condoms. Or DNA. That's what she said. The fact that the three of them indulged in consensual sex that turned into something else, or as the one woman now says happened several times, is troubling. But they may have all been under the influence of some intoxicant. We really haven't heard what Assange's specific defense is other than he denies the force. Ripping the condom to wear a broken one doesn't sound like anything that a person in their right mind would do.
