Rapey Aussie to face brutality of Swedish justice

[Muz]

Feb 26, 2011 11:33:12 GMT auldhippy said:

Feb 26, 2011 10:38:52 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

But on Saturday, as international media outlets were beginning to pick up the story, Eva Finne, Sweden's chief prosecutor, announced that Assange was no longer wanted.

"I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," the chief prosecutor said, but declined to go into any more details.

As I said, she decided his actions constituted sexual assault not rape and withdrew the warrant for his arrest for rape. he meanwhile had been released on a promise to return for a police interview, a promise he decided not to keep.

The fact that Mark Stephens his solicitor decided to put it about that everything had been dropped and this was largely taken up by the leftie press and clowns like John Pilger doesn't make it fact.

she decided his actions constituted sexual assault not rape

Not from any link so far provided, she declined to give more details!

He's fighting extradition for sexual assault charges.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

As Muz said, it's in the original link:


Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations, a judge has ruled.


The whole rape charges dropped is a red mullet put about by his attorney.

[auldhippy]

Below is what's known so far about those encounters, based on reporting by London's Daily Mail and the allegations made in a London court on Tuesday by Gemma Lindfield, an attorney acting for Swedish authorities.

Aug. 11: Assange arrives in Stockholm, where he is to be the key speaker at a seminar organized by a group called the Brotherhood Movement.

London's Daily Mail reports his point of contact is a radical feminist who once held a university post of "campus sexual equity officer." The two had never met but earlier agreed that Assange would stay at her apartment, the Mail stated. She planned to be out of town until the day of the seminar.

Aug. 14: The woman, identified by Swedish officials only as Miss A, returns to Stockholm, 24 hours earlier than planned. The two go out for dinner, return to the apartment and have sex during which a condom breaks. She would later tell police that Assange used his body weight to hold her down during sex and that she was a victim of "unlawful coercion."

Aug. 15: Assange delivers his seminar speech and meets another woman who tags along for lunch with friends, the Mail reported, adding that the two then go to a movie where the woman suggests they were "intimate."

That evening, Miss A hosts a party for Assange at her home, afterward reportedly tweeting this to friends: "Sitting outside ... nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!"

Aug. 16: The second woman, identified only as Miss W by Swedish officials, calls Assange and they meet in Stockholm. They go by train to her hometown and to her apartment, where they have sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom.

Aug. 17: Miss W later tells police that Assange that morning had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep.

Aug. 18: Assange is alleged on this day to have "deliberately molested" Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity."

Soon after, Miss W contacts Miss A, knowing her from the seminar, and confides that she had unprotected sex with Assange, the Mail reported. Miss A says that she, too, had slept with him and reportedly later phones an acquaintance of Assange to relay to him that she wants him out of her apartment.

Aug. 20: Assange leaves the apartment. The two women go to Stockholm police to seek advice on how to proceed with a complaint by Miss W against Assange, the Mail reported. According to one source, Miss W wanted to know if it was possible to force Assange to undergo an HIV test. Miss A said she was there merely to support Miss W, but she also gives police an account of what had happened between herself and Assange, the Mail reported.

The female interviewing officer concludes that Miss W had been raped and Miss A subject to sexual molestation. A duty prosecuting attorney agrees Assange should be sought on suspicion of rape.

Aug. 21: The chief prosecutor dismisses the rape charge and arrest warrant, saying what occurred were no more than minor offenses.

In the following days, the claimants appeal, and a special prosecutor reopens the case, eventually reissuing the arrest warrant.

By now the press had gotten hold of the story. Miss A spoke to a Swedish newspaper, saying: "In both cases, the sex had been consensual from the start but had eventually turned into abuse."

"The accusations were not set up by the Pentagon or anybody else," she added. "The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man with a twisted view of women, who has a problem accepting the word 'no.' "

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40551118/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/


Woman A returns and agrees to have sex, her complaint is that he used his body weight to hold her down! What the feck?

Woman B agrees to consentual sex and complains Assange had sex with her whilst she slept! What the feck?

Second complaint from Woman B is a molestation the following day. What it is is not mentioned.

These are the woman's version of events. Assange's is unknown.

"The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man with a twisted view of women, who has a problem accepting the word 'no.' "

My first thought is that even if their version of events is true is their no responsibility on women to ascertain a persons view of women (twisted or otherwise) before agreeing to have sex with them?

Second thought is though there is obviously ungentlemanly ways of using body weight to hold a partner down this must happen a lot during all manners of sex. Is it something that should involve courts in otherwise consentual sex?

Third thought is the separate molestation charge. I can imagine, having had recent sex with someone, using more intimate signs of affections to them than if I were to simply grab the boob of someone I hadn't recently had sex with. She can obviously complain if she didn't like it but is it something the courts should be involved in.

Fourth thought is sex whilst asleep, this is completely out of my experience zone. Who hasn't woken their partner with actions that you hope will lead to sex but to actually have sex with someone while they sleep? Is that even possible?

These women, who both agreed to sex with someone they'd met that day, appear to be having after the event regrets and again I'm sure that's not an unusual occurrence but is it something courts should be involved with?

All this when the only person who knows Assange's version of events is the prosecutor who considered the case in the first instance and dropped the charges.

[auldhippy]

Feb 26, 2011 11:44:40 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

As Muz said, it's in the original link:


Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations, a judge has ruled.


The whole rape charges dropped is a red mullet put about by his attorney.

There were no charges of rape brought because the prosecutor clearly said there was no evidence of rape.

Tell the author of the thread the charges relate to sexual molestation because he's hung drawn & quartered the "rapey Aussie".

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

There were no charges of rape brought because the prosecutor clearly said there was no evidence of rape.


There were no charges of stealing the Mona Lisa either.
The extradition is for sexual assault.

it's not that difficult.

[auldhippy]

& about the women's lawyer:

He claims that all men carry a collective guilt for violence against women

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claes_Borgstr%C3%B6m

Claes Borgström shares a law firm with former minister of justice Thomas Bodström - the one who finagled with the White House to bust The Pirate Bay, the one who just the other day wrote an op-ed for the social democrat Aftonbladet where he called for even more expansive definitions of rape

&

It's fairly certain Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén are not paying Claes Borgström's bills. He's much too expensive for them.

Opinion only but a valid point

rixstep.com/2/1/20100919,00.shtml

[auldhippy]

Feb 26, 2011 12:55:26 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

There were no charges of rape brought because the prosecutor clearly said there was no evidence of rape.


There were no charges of stealing the Mona Lisa either.
The extradition is for sexual assault.

it's not that difficult.

It's not that corroborated either.

[auldhippy]

More detailed version of the women's allegations can be found here:

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden


I choose to copy Assange's lawyers remarks:

"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.

"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.

"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."

[wonder]

your very selective OH

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

The women were not claiming rape and it is only in Sweden that this is a crime

Here's how the judge saw it:
Fairly straightforward even for you.


. As far as offences, 1,2, and 3 are concerned it is argued that these do not constitute extradition offences because
the conduct alleged would not amount to an offence against English law. The court must apply the “conduct
test” of double criminality. That means the court must consider whether the conduct alleged would amount to
an offence under English law as if it had occurred in this jurisdiction. The applicant must establish this
proposition to the criminal standard of proof. What must be proved is that the conduct, if it were established,
would constitute the extradition offence relied on here. Although detailed separate argument has been made
about each of the three offences, it amounts in essence to this: the description provided does not permit an
inference that there was a lack of consent by the complainant, nor that the respondent did not reasonably believe
the complainant to be consenting.
21
Mr Hurtig tells me that in Sweden the prosecution does not have to prove consent for these offences to be made out. Mr Rudling explained to me the difficulties of expressing the notion of consent in Swedish. However, this is not the issue for me. As was said by Auld LJ in Norris: “It is immaterial whether dishonesty was a necessary constituent of the offence in the United States constituted by the conduct there, if the conduct alleged included acts or omissions capable of amounting to dishonesty here”. In cases where a dual criminality must be shown, there is no requirement to identify or specify in terms the relevant mens rea. It is sufficient if it can be inferred by the court from the conduct that is spelt out in the warrant, and further information where appropriate.
For each of the three offences to be made out in this jurisdiction the Crown must prove that the complainant did not consent to the touching and the defendant did not reasonably believe that the complainant consented. These essential elements of the offence are not stated explicitly in terms in the warrant
Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 lists the circumstances in which the complainant is taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether the complainant consented. Also the accused is taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. Where a section 75 evidential presumption arises there is no question of the issue being removed from the jury. The circumstances in which evidential presumptions about concerned apply include:
2(a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;
(d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act.
(There are other circumstances that are not relevant in this case.)
Offence 1, set out in full above, specifically alleges that Mr Assange “by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight prevented her from moving or shifting”. This brings into play section 75(2)(a) above. These are circumstances in which the complainant is taken not to have consented and the accused is taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented. This is an extradition offence pursuant to section 64(3) in that:
(a)
the conduct occurred in Sweden
(b)
If the conduct had occurred in England and Wales it would amount to sexual assault
(c)
The maximum penalty that may be imposed in Sweden for the offence is 2 years imprisonment
Offence 2, set out in full above, says that M a “deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Mr Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a pre-requisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual
22
intercourse with her without her knowledge”. The obvious and straightforward way of reading that allegation is that the complainant had made it clear that she would not consent to unprotected sex, and yet it occurred without her knowledge and therefore without her consent. Mr Assange was aware of this. Unprotected sex is wholly different from protected sex in that its potential repercussions are not confined to disease and include pregnancy. Again this meets the criteria for section 64(3) set out above. In addition the terms “molested” and “violated” are inconsistent with consent (see below).
Offence 3, also set out in full above, alleges that Mr Assange “deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity, by lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body”. Deliberately molesting someone so as to violate their sexual integrity is not language that is consistent with consent or belief in consent. Molest means to cause trouble to; to vex, annoy, to inconvenience. A secondary meaning is to meddle with (a person) injuriously or with hostile intent. (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: Third Edition.) Among the various meanings attributed to “violate” in the OED is to ravish or outrage a woman; to do violence to; to treat irreverently; to desecrate, dishonour, profane or defile. A secondary meaning is to destroy a person’s chastity by force. There are other definitions, many of which have at their core the use of violence. If this conduct is attributed its ordinary meaning, then if proved it would amount to sexual assault in this country. Again section 64(3) applies.
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list 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.
I have not thought it necessary or desirable to consider extraneous material. I have looked only at the language used in the warrant. The parties have taken me to some further information in the bundle. This appears to consist of an interview with the complainants. I am not sure if this information provides the full extent of the allegation. Even if it does, however, it is unnecessary to consider this material in this context. Section 64(2) applies.
As I am satisfied that the specified offences are extradition offences I must go on to consider whether any of the bars to extradition specified in section 11 are applicable. No bars are raised and none is found.

[Muz]

Good God, OH has got a serious hard on for Assange.

[auldhippy]

OK, who here has shagged a sleeper? Is it possible?

[Muz]

If he's got a really small cock, he could manage it.

And by the way he's bleated about his privacy being invaded, he sounds whiney enough to be a microphallus.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

OK, who here has shagged a sleeper? Is it possible?

It's really not the issue. The issue is whether he should be sent back to sweden to face the music.

No doubt if it's all a crock of sh*t it'll all turn out to be a crock of sh*t.

[auldhippy]

Feb 26, 2011 15:02:54 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

OK, who here has shagged a sleeper? Is it possible?

It's really not the issue. The issue is whether he should be sent back to sweden to face the music.

No doubt if it's all a crock of sh*t it'll all turn out to be a crock of sh*t.

There is no supporting evidence whatsoever of what these women claim. At best this will turn out to be their individual words against his.

All this expense and palaver could have been avoided by a return ticket for the prosecutor to come to Britain and interview him in the embassy. Something he long ago agreed to.

Already one of these women has given (?) an interview to a Swedish tabloid and there are texts (SMS) to the effect they could make money out of this.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

The argument that the swedish prosecutors could have come here is fairly fatuous. Assange had assured them he would attend a meeting but then failed, but it's all pretty much covered here:

Two Swedish witnesses have given evidence that in their opinion Mr Assange is not wanted for prosecution. However their opinion is fatally undermined by having been based on an incorrect assumption as to the facts. They had been told that Ms Ny made no effort to interview Mr Assange before he left Sweden with her permission and knowledge on 27th September 2010. In fact it is overwhelmingly clear that Ms Ny had contacted Mr Hurtig to arrange an interview significantly before 27th September. Having left Sweden Mr Assange has not returned. She did not know he was planning to leave Sweden on 27th September – even his own lawyer apparently only discovered that later. The most that had happened was that she had confirmed at an earlier stage that there was no legal constraint, at that time, on Mr Assange leaving the country. It is not necessary for me to determine for current purposes whether Mr Assange deliberately fled the country to avoid further proceedings. That has not been specifically alleged. What is clear however is that he has not made himself available for interview in Sweden. It is said that an interview could have occurred in another way, for example by telephone or by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. Perhaps another prosecution lawyer would have taken that step. I don’t know. Similarly I heard no submissions that English law would allow Mutual Legal Assistance in these circumstances. On the information I have, it does not seem unreasonable for a prosecutor in a serious matter such as this to expect and indeed require the presence of Mr Assange in Sweden for questioning, and if necessary to take a DNA sample. Such unanswered questions that remain are unanswered because this defendant has not complied with the request made to be interrogated in Sweden.

[Eric]

If they guy must face trial, so be it. IF the trial is a fair one, then there should be no objections. There does seem to be some doubt on this guys appreciation of what is right, so a trial may be handy.

[lala]

Feb 26, 2011 13:45:51 GMT auldhippy said:

More detailed version of the women's allegations can be found here:

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden


I choose to copy Assange's lawyers remarks:

"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.

"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.

"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."

The women may not have regarded themselves as raped or molested or abused; but when they described Assange's actions to the police, the police may have recognised an offence may have been committed. You don't always require the victim's consent or support to follow up on an alleged offence; especially in sexual crimes. Otherwise, very few wife beaters or marital rapists would ever face justice, as their victims would be too scared / suborned to pursue the action.

FWIW, if the accont of Assange's actions with Miss W are accurate, then he clearly raped her under English law:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

He penetrated her vagina while she was asleep and without a condom, which he could not reasonably believe she would consent to.

[lala]

Feb 26, 2011 15:47:05 GMT auldhippy said:

There is no supporting evidence whatsoever of what these women claim. At best this will turn out to be their individual words against his.

As is the case in a lot of rape cases. f**k me, when did you become a champion of the world's knuckle dragging misogynist abusive meathead scum?

[Muz]

You mean apart from when he's beating his Pro-Palestine drum?