Sex, Lies and Julian Assange (TV documentary)

Given the amount of noise around the Assange case for the past few days, it’s unsurprising that confusion reigns. The rape allegations against Assange, made two years ago, have suddenly resurfaced, and that debate has masked important global events: in particular, illegal and undemocratic behaviour by the UK government last week, in its unprecedented threats against the Ecuadorian embassy. The ex-Ambassador Craig Murray covers this in a recent post. Surely nobody, other than the most moronic, thinks the UK would threaten centuries of diplomatic precedent over a rape suspect; this is the kind of act that begins wars.

The behaviour of the Swedish authorities also has been bizarre in the extreme; it’s true that anyone accused of rape should face justice – what the mainstream reports, and much of the debate, have missed is that it’s Sweden, not Assange, that has obstructed justice for the women alleging rape. Senior Swedish ex-prosecutor Sven Erik Alhem has explained in a detailed statement how the prosecutors themselves have breached fundamental protocols for carrying out a valid prosecution which could lead to a fair trial.

Unfortunately, much of the online debate has lapsed into hysteria. Anyone questioning the bizarre behaviour of the Swedes has been attacked with this week’s Orwellian slur: “rape apologist”. So before this is repeated in the comments below let’s be clear: rape is a serious allegation. Alleged rapists should face trial. If anyone is a “rape apologist”, it’s those who turn a blind eye to Sweden’s abuse of due process in the case of rape allegations. The Swedish prosecutors have ensured that no fair trial can be possible – where are the howls of outrage about this?

A new Australian TV documentary breaks down the events of the past couple of years. It’s important viewing for anyone with an interest in this case. And everyone should have an interest – this story is about alleged crimes from rape to mass murder, the greatest attacks on Western free speech since the 1930s, and the full-scale subversion of Western democracies, including our own in Britain.

I posted the video yesterday, but YouTube removed it; here it is again. It’s worth 45 minutes of your time.
.

Disclose.tvSex, Lies and Julian Assange (Full Documentary 2012)

22 thoughts on “Sex, Lies and Julian Assange (TV documentary)”

  1. It seems to me that behind all this noise, is a single element that is missed.
    1. The USA states that it would not in event of seeking Assnage’s extradition from anywhere agree to guarantee that the extraditee would not face the death penalty.
    2. Sweden has a long standing policy of not extraditing people to countries where they might face the death penalty.

    Mr. Assange, an Australian citizen, while in Sweden is alleged to have committed acts which under Swedish law could be crimes. The Swedish police wish to question him. Mr. Assange has refused to return to Sweden, claiming that he fears that either he could be extradited but provided no substantiation for this belief. He choice of location in UK is counter-intuitive if this is his concern due to the ease at which the USA has been able to secure extradition of UK nationals from UK. i.e. He is at greater risk of being extradited from UK to US, than Sweden to US.

    His recourse to the Ecuadorian Embassy is an interesting choice. Ecuador is not a country famed for its human rights or freedom of expression,but it is known in conjunction with other Central and South American countries for its antipathy to the USA. This therefore was an astute choice by Mr. Assange, and he has been able to exploit this to turn this into an international political matter. Mr. Assange has adeptly exploited “popular” left antipathy to the USA to deflect attention from the real issues.

    As an Australian citizen Mr. Assange could have gone to the Australian Embassy and sought protection from extradition to Sweden and further extradition to the USA. But he has chosen not to do this.

    Mr. Assange is accused of a number of crimes. Like all other persons in similar situation he should be subject to the law and in Europe that means returning to the state where is alleged to have committed the crimes to be questioned by the police and possibly face prosecution. As much as Mr. Assange has rights so do the alleged victims of the alleged crimes.

    If Mr. Assange and his lawyers have genuine grounds to believe that Sweden would overturn its national policies and permit his extradition to the USA, the it is up to him to provide evidence to a UK court which he has not done.

    The UK govt was stupid to suggest that it might storm the Ecuadorian Embassy. It would have been better to calmly state that he would be arrested if he emerges from it, and quietly let the clamour fall away. In that way Mr. Assange would have effectively been imprisoned in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

    Mr. Assange is a highly intelligent yet manipulative individual whose understanding of himself in relation to others and the world about appear to be shaped primarily by his own self-obsession. References to the psychological assessments connected with his earlier conviction would provide highly illuminating if Mr. Assange & Wikileaks cared to make them public. They were cited as being the grounds for him not receiving a substantial period in prison.

  2. “2. Sweden has a long standing policy of not extraditing people to countries where they might face the death penalty.”

    Sorry RSD, you need to look at reality rather than official statements. Sweden has been complicit in the illegal “rendition” for torture of people at the request of the US. This of course is illegal under Swedish and international law. But it happens anyway. The US black prisons, of which Guantanamo is just one, have been accused of widespread torture, rape and murder of inmates, most of whom are never charged with any crime.

  3. As far as I am aware Swedish involvement in US rendition appears to be limited to a single incident of 2 men being surrendered to “CIA?” and dispatched to Egypt in 2001. One of them was subsequently compensated by Sweden and Swedish investigation found that that it was an illegal act and there has been no further incidents.
    In 2006 Swedish military authorities put a stop to US using Sweden for stop-overs for rendition flights as reported by Wiki-leaks.
    Thus Mr. Assange knows that the Sweden has prohibited such activities within its territory. & as he has the evidence that they have prevented such things, why does he maintain that he fears that he might be extradited? (http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-flights-stopped-by-swedish-military)

    Mr. Assange is playing this game to avoid having to face questioning about sexual offences, and the possibility that he may have to face a criminal trial. Let none of forget that in a court Mr. Assange would not have the same degree of control over proceedings, and I suggest that he is indeed scared of being subject to such scrutiny over his attitudes and actions.

    Let none of forget that if the allegations are true, then Mr. Assange breached these women’s human rights in the acts and then their human rights by avoiding, so spectacularly, the demand that he faces trial.
    If any of us were one of those women, how would we feel if our rights for justice hang on whether the USA and Sweden reverse their national policies and make special provision for this man who they claim has abused them?

  4. I don’t think Sweden’s complicity in rendition is relevant here. Rendition only works when the subject has no public profile so that can s/he easily be ‘disappeared’ without public knowledge or protest. That hardly applies to Assange; he’s simply too visible.

    I have no opinion on Assange’s guilt or innocence of the crimes of which he has been accused. That’s for a court to determine. Given the procedural irregularities it would seem that the odds favour Assange successfully defending himself should he be prosecuted.

    I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that Assange faces a greater risk of extradition to the US from Sweden than he does remaining the UK. I therefore see no reason why he should further delay his return to Sweden to answer the allegations made against him.

  5. Interesting documentary.
    RS:
    ‘ Ecuador is not a country famed for its human rights or freedom of expression’ of course, it doesn’t have the same fame as Sweden, Australia, UK, or even the USA, we all know how much freedom is streaming from their regions. I mean look at their human rights record, they have a lot of ‘fame for freedom of expression’. Of course many Latin countries don’t like the US, will you like a country that have numerously tried to fuck you, would you? Or organise death squads, and replace you with a puppet? If someone came to your house and tried to control you, would you sit there and smile to your enemy and say fuck me, in your own house?

    Viva la ecaudor, they kicked ass, I salute them. We all know that US (today’s empire) like to control and they certainly don’t like other countries democracy. So Ecaudor did the right thing, by granting him asylum on the basis, that there is a high risk of him being extradited to US, without a trial. US doesn’t like the fact that their ‘human rights’ preaching is being exposed.

    You say ‘Swedish police wish to question him. Mr. Assange has refused to return to Sweden, claiming that he fears that either he could be extradited but provided no substantiation for this belief’
    He went to the police, they interviewed him, the information was leaked to the media, and the authorities decided to let him leave country, you say they ‘wished’ to question him, does that mean he wasn’t questioned so he must return to Sweden to be questioned, then how was he ALLOWED to leave the bloody country. Sweden refused to interview him in UK, why? They have gone to other countries to investigate other crimes, why can’t they do the same with Assange?

    You say he is at: ‘greater risk of being extradited from UK to US, than Sweden to US’, bullshit, what has caused this risk to be greater, explain?

    ‘As an Australian citizen Mr. Assange could have gone to the Australian Embassy’ could have, but he didn’t, we have seen Australia’s reaction, do they care? Ecuador was the perfect choice, Latin American, hates US, and told them to fuck off, loving their attitude though. If he was in an Australian embassy, what could have happened?

    ‘Like all other persons in similar situation he should be subject to the law and in Europe that means returning to the state where is alleged to have committed the crimes to be questioned by the police and possibly face prosecution’ imagine he didn’t have anything to do with wikileaks, would they respond in a similar situation, and why? He was questioned, if he wasn’t, how was he allowed to leave the country. Like any other persons, it means if he does not go back to Sweden, why can’t they send in investigators, instead of waiting for him to step outside the embassy, less money and time will be wasted and questions will be answered. I agree that both alleged rape victims and Assange have rights to be heard. However I must ask how and why the interviews were leaked?

    ‘The UK govt was stupid to suggest that it might storm the Ecuadorian Embassy. It would have been better to calmly state that he would be arrested if he emerges from it, and quietly let the clamour fall away’, I agree very stupid of UK govt, they have showed to us what they really think, threatening to raid an embassy :O The likes of Louis Mensch cheering on the warning sent by UK govt, hence saying it’s acceptable to break international law. So UK was willing to break international law for such situation-all that trouble? Imagine all the UK embassies were threatened, I wonder how the UK would have reacted. The whole media would have gone wild, on the day this issue was widespread, but I love how they have changed the situation, and ignored that ‘stupid’ threat to move onto the likes of Galloway. Really UK, is this your freedom, is this why you’re famous?

    1. Assange prior to the extradition process was I understand requested to return of his own free will to Sweden. He declined to do so, hence the extradition process.

      As we have already seen it is relatively easy for the US judiciary to secure extraditions from UK to US. It is Swedish policy not to extradite anyone where the possibility exists that they may be charged with an offence resulting in execution. The US refuses to undertake to guarantee that a person may not be subject to the full range of sentences, including execution. Thus there is no chance that Assange will be extradited to the USA if there is the possibility that he could be charged with an offence which might produce a death penalty.

      Why should the Swedish govt acquiesce to Assange’s demand that he be questioned in the Ecuadorian Embassy? The whole purpose of the extradition process was to bring Assange to a place where he could be questioned, and the Swedes followed the procedure and secured his extradition. He ran away to the embassy. He is a fugitive from the law, plain & simple and in that respect I would say he has broken UK law by failing to comply with the orders of the court.

  6. “I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that Assange faces a greater risk of extradition to the US from Sweden than he does remaining the UK.”

    That’s not the point. The question is: why are you (and so many people) ignoring Sweden’s abuse of their own legal process? I don’t claim to know why they’re breaking their own rules, but they clearly are. Doesn’t that make you at all suspicious? And don’t you think that using rape for political ends is outrageous?

    1. In mu understanding the Swedish state prosecutor has breached one element of practice in the handling of rape prosecutions, and that is in naming the alleged rapist. But Mr, Assange’s name would have been made public as soon as Sweden sought his extradition. Also it was known prior to the review of the case, and the decision to overturn the previous decision, and to seek to prosecute Mr. Assange.

      To claim that these allegations of rape are politically motivated are informed exclusively by conspiracy fantasies, that motivated by the USA, Sweden and the alleged victims of the offences have conspired to bring this case in order to deliver Mr. Assange into a Swedish court and Sweden from where he will be extradited to the USA to face unspecified charges relating to the publication of US State secrets.

      The uncomfortable reality is that following a complaint by the alleged victims of the crimes, the Swedish equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the case and came to the judgement that there was a case to which Mr. Assange should answer in a Swedish court. It issued an arrest warrant and an order that Mr. Assange should be held in custody pending charges. (Not fundamentally different than the UK process) As Mr, Assange was in UK and declined to willingly return to Sweden the Swedish state sought his extradition, which Mr, Assange fought unsuccessfully through the British courts. While he was fighting this he was on bail. When finally he had unsuccessfully exhausted the process in UK, he jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy and sought asylum.

      While Mr. Assange claims to be innocent of all the charges of sexual assault, he is unwilling to face a court and prove this.
      IMO the probable motivation for Mr. Assange is that he is frightened of being placed once more in the dock, and not being in control of the process.

      In the trial it is highly likely that the prosecutor will present evidence from a wide range of sources to build the case against Mr. Assange as a rapist. Given the statements made by former associates and the psychiatric assessment in the Australian prosecution, these are likely to show Mr. Assange in a highly unflattering light.

      Based on my experience & training, IMO Mr. Assange is a man who exhibits significant narcissistic personality disorder traits. (Something he shares with a number of other high profile crusading journalists) From the statements made by former associates and employees, he exhibits the controlling manipulative characteristics where his lack of capacity for empathy leads him not to comprehend the consequences of his actions upon others, and where he places his need for gratification above all else. For anyone like this to be placed as a defendant in an open court removes from them the capacity to control events, dominate individuals and requires their subordination to the scrutiny of others, and as such this is far from their comfort zone that they could be. Whereas Mr. Assange has up to now been largely able to define the environment in which he operates, once he is taken into custody this ceases to be the case.

      I would suggest that far from Mr. Assange being the hero fighting for int’l justice, he is in fact a very flawed and troubled individual who knows that he will be portrayed as a rather grubby creepy man who abused two women. This is profoundly at odds with Mr. Assange’s self image.

      1. The complainants Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén consented to sexual intercourse, which they did not take the initiative to stop: they never expressed non-consent and afterwards declared to not have felt threatened by Julian Assange. Indeed, Anna Ardin continued to see Julian Assange for four days after the alleged offence, she allowed him to continue to stay at her flat and she also engaged in further consensual sex with him. There are the photos of her smiling with Julian Assange during a dinner engagement with members of the Swedish Pirate Party two nights after the night in question.
        Anna Ardin also created and then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating that she was enjoying Julian Assange’s company at a crayfish party she had arranged at her house to honour him the night after: “Sitting outside … nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!” And she deleted a blog posting detailing how to get revenge on unfaithful lovers. Anna Ardin even suggested one of her friends (Witness C) should also be intimate with Julian Assange: “Anna told her she already had done it (sex with Julian Assange) but Anna said it was the worst screw she’d ever had. Anna also told C that C could move in and take Julian if she wanted”.

        The two complainants stated that they only went to the police to force Julian Assange to get a HIV test, by which time they could have just had themselves tested. Indeed Sofia Wilén had already visited a sex crimes clinic at Söder Hospital earlier the same day, where she was tested with a rape kit and received preventive medicine against HIV.
        This initial complaint was escalated by the officer and friend of Anna Ardin, Irmeli Krans, to allegations of sexual molestation (both are SDP candidates for the Stockholm City Council in an election for which the campaign was currently in progress). Based on that limited information, prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand issues a warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange on suspicion of raping Sofia Wilén and molesting Anna Ardin. News of the warrant is immediately leaked by the police to the tabloid Expressen. Neither woman has been consulted about the warrant; the decision is made on their behalf by the prosecutor. The warrant is issued at 17:00, with the interview only half complete.
        Irmeli Krans stated: “After being told about the arrest warrant, Sofia had difficulty concentrating on the interview. I therefore made the judgement that it would be best to break off the interview. It has not been read to or by her for approval.” As far as is known, Sofia Wilén has never approved officer Krans’s account of the interview, which is the principal basis of the most serious accusation against Julian Assange.
        Her friend Marie Thorn told the police that “what happened after Sofia went to the hospital and the police was not what she wanted. The only thing she wanted was for Julian to be tested. She felt that she had been run over by the police and by others around her.”
        The interviews of Julian Assange and the journalists Donald Boström and Johannes Wahlström were recorded and transcribed, the other nine testimonies taken were not recorded and were ‘narrative’ testimonies written by the interviewing officer after the interviews. Anna Ardin gave her statement by telephone the next day. She then went to a tabloid newspaper. Within days the police had leaked Anna Ardin’s and Sofia Wilén’s statements to the newspapers. When Julian Assange is eventually found for questioning his statement is also leaked.

        In both emails and SMS messages provided to defence attorney Björn Hurtig, Sofia Wilén admitted that she was ‘half-asleep’, rather than ‘asleep’, and that she consented. Her ‘narrative’ testimony states: “You’d better not have HIV” and he said: “Of course not,” but “she couldn’t be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before”.
        Anna Ardin alleged: “He pressed down on me”, “he held my arm in an attempt to stop me from reaching for a condom”. Finally the condom was in use, however Julian Assange must have “deliberately torn” it, they continued to have sex, and afterwards Anna Ardin did not see if the condom was broken or not. A condom was submitted as evidence by complainant Anna Ardin 12 days after the alleged incident, it contained absolutely no chromosomal DNA from either the complainant or Julian Assange.

        The arrest warrant was cancelled on 21.08.2010 by Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne, and the investigation was downgraded to only cover one of the lesser allegations. Finne said in a statement to the press: “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” The warrant was subsequently re-issued on 01.08.2010 by another Chief Prosecutor, Marianne Ny, who considered that the allegations could be classed as rape after all.

        At the extradition hearing 07.02.11 City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the mismatches and exaggerations between the European arrest warrant (EAW) and the original accusers’ statements to the Swedish police were revealed. In particular the original police reports showed – contrary to the EAW – absence of alleged rape, absence of alleged force or injury, admission in both cases of consensual sex on the same occasions as the allegations, and splitting of a condom used with plaintiff 1 rather than failure to use one. Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends completely contradict the factual allegations in the EAW issued for Julian Assange and cast immense doubt on the allegations.

        Claes Borgström, the Swedish MP who had the case re-opened once it was learnt that Julian Assange was the subject of the dismissed complaint, became the lawyer for Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén. Thomas Bodström, the Swedish Justice minister responsible for the CIA renditions of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery (two Egyptians citizens seeking asylum in Sweden), and Claes Borgström are business partners in a law firm. Claes Bodström is a friend of Irmeli Krans, Krans has political ties to the Social Democrat Party.

        Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny refused to provide Julian Assange or his lawyers with information on the allegations against him in writing. This violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18.) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5) and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights. The prosecution also refused all voluntary offers for cooperation that fit under the Mutual Legal Assistance Protocol, such as making use of alternative methods to interview Julian Assange.

        Both the EAW and the Interpol red-notice were issued for Julian Assange by Sweden just before Wikileaks began to publish Cablegate.

  7. “The rape allegations against Assange, made two years ago, have suddenly resurfaced” . Err no they havn’t, they’ve been around for 2 years and at regular intervals have made headlines, and by an amazing coincidence they’ve always happened at the same time that a pass the decision up higher has been made as Assange’s case goes through the courts. If you buy into a conspiracy theory don’t give it away in your second sentence, otherwise people might watch and think ‘moron’

  8. Frankly the thing that amazed me about the whole Wikileaks splurge via Bradley was not the stuff about Iraq and Afghanistan – sorry we all knew that anyway – it was the vile stuff multinationals got up to other parts of the world such as Nigeria – I have been so impressed by the crusaders for truth

  9. RS Davies makes one good point, that the principal claims adduced in favour of Sweden’s subservient status concerns two cases of rendition; but everything else s/he says suggests that s/he is studiously ignoring the totality of evidence in favor of his/her own imaginative reconstruction of the case.

    I take it Davies did not watch the video; but perhaps s/he might like to respond to this extract, from 24:40:

    “Some time during Wilen’s questioning [August 20], the police announced to Arden and Willen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. Wilen became so distraught, she refused to give any more testimony, and refused to sign what had already been taken down.”

    Of course one can tell various purple stories as to how this might still be consistent with Assange having raped or molested her (perhaps she was mentally re-living that experience, and when the police put a name to her ordeal she was wracked with post-traumatic terror and remorse, eh, RS?); but it seems to me the primary interpretation is clear. That the two women honestly did go in to the station to seek advice, and the authorities seized on this as an opportunity to prosecute a campaign against Wikileaks.

    I don’t think anyone — either pro or anti Assange — has an excuse to be confused about this since the publication of the Shock Doctrine. Powerful organizations have an ability to react quickly to changing situations and draw advantage from them; this is clearly what some smart policeman in the Klara policestation did when s/he realized who these two women were. Subsequently, Assange’s defenders bleat “set-up” and Assange’s detractors find themselves vindicating in large measure the whole network of lawless oppression which the US is instigating in its final days.

    1. The programme is ostensibly the presentation of Mr. Assange’s position and not a critical examination of the facts. It commences with a single & powerful assertion that JA is the USA’s Public Enemy #1, but this is in fact merely journalistic hyperbole and not a matter of fact. At the time the USA had other individuals foreign & domestic whom it regarded as important objects of their ire. The programme sets the scene alluding to alleged covert activity, yet offers not proof in the real sense. Oddly despite the extreme demands by 2 USA’ns for JA to be killed, the sole representative of the US Govt dismissed any suggestion of possible extradition & prosecution of JA by USA.

      Inappropriately JA’s alleged victims are identified and the programme seeks through judgemental presentation of events to suggest that neither women have grounds for complaint nor have sought action against JA. The programme suggests that as the women have not lodged a complaint, that it is bizarre that the State Prosecutor & Police have progressed to issuing an arrest warrant. The programme also makes judgements of the actions of one of the alleged victims after the event to suggest that her behaviour is indicative that no rape or other sexual assault had occurred. But this judgement is clearly not informed by expertise regarding the behaviours of people post-abuse incidents. Rape and other sexual offences are not civil matters they are crimes, and the victim does not have a right in Sweden or UK to prevent prosecution of the offender. (This is to prevent offenders intimidating victims)

      The issue of the int’l arrest warrant is raised by JA’s legal advisor and comparisons made with Assad & Gadaffi, but these are meaningless as they are not effective comparators. To raise a Red IAW reflects perhaps concerns regarding flight, and not the notoriety.

      In JA’s tel call with presenter he complains of arrest without charge, but this occurs in UK & Australia as well where someone is arrested in suspicion of a crime and then after a few days brought before a judge – it is not somehow distinct and malacious specifically in relation to JA.

      That a US Grand Jury is looking at the whole Wikileaks affair is hardly surprising given what was passed to Wikileaks and then presented on a public stage, and the consequences for int’l relations. No more is it surprising that Australia, a long term strategic ally of the USA, should condemn Wikileaks & JA. It is also no surprising that the Grand Jury led investigation should have produced lists of individuals they wish to check on, and employees & associates of Wikileaks are naive to imagine that the USA & other states will willingly let them enter & leave countries with alacrity as though they were tourists. Whether the Grand Jury will prgress at some point in the future to seeking to interview JA or arraign him before a court is an unknown, and is unknowable.

      It was notable that the lawyer representing the alleged victims of JA declined to participate in this trial by media, and share the details of the defence.

      The programme could have interviewed the people who have left Wikileaks after acrimonious disputes with JA, and may have some very illuminating comments to make. It didn’t and so what they might have said in relation to events remains speculation.
      If the Swedish Police have anything to answer for it is the leaking of news to the press, and they should investigate this.

      Thus the programme is an entertaining presentation of JA’s perspectives, with an awful lot of speculation, spiced up with a touch of trial by media.

  10. Before anyone watches the above video programme they should read the document ( Victim Responses to Sexual Assault) by following the link below.
    In the programme the presenter offers a judgement about the credibility of one of the alleged victim’s behaviour, implying that rape or other sexual assault could not have occurred on the basis of it.
    This crass & ignorant judgement flies in the face of the evidence of how male & female victims of rape & sexual assault, especially someone known to them, behave.

    http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_victim_responses_sexual_assault.pdf

    1. The relevant point was:

      “Some time during Wilen’s questioning [August 20], the police announced to Arden and Willen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. Wilen became so distraught, she refused to give any more testimony, and refused to sign what had already been taken down.”

      Please address it.

      1. The alleged response of this woman may indicate any number of things:
        1. She felt she had overstated the situation and had approached the police for legal advice to compel Julian Assange to be tested for STD and nothing else, and felt she was losing control of the situation.
        2. She was a profoundly traumatised woman who realised that the police accepted her statement and on the basis of her allegations would bring Assange to court and she would have to face him as his accuser. Although she didn’t doubt that she had been raped and deeply traumatised by this man whom she had trusted, she now fears him and believes that the court case and the inevitable cross-examination will be like being raped again.

        Actually in itself the allegation of her response means nothing in the unqualified description provided by the programme. Many, if not the majority, of the victims of rape exhibit fear, hysteria, shame and other strong emotional responses, and we know that many women are often very reluctant to bring complaints of rape even in the most extreme incidents.

        IMO the presenter is reprehensible because he makes uninformed value judgements about these women, without any reference to expertise upon the behaviour of rape victims. In essence because the alleged victims and their legal representative choose not to participate in this programme, it has afforded Assange & his supporter free rein to cast aspersions upon these two women, as alleged victims of rape.

        The correct place to examine these issues relating to these women’s claims is in a court of law, where the women’s rights will be upheld as would Julian Assange’s. He chooses not to surrender himself on the specious claim that the USA will seek to have extradited and then possibly executed.

  11. Or perhaps it was just that at that precise moment in the conversation, she recalled that she had left the stove on, and was so eager to get back home and turn it off that she couldn’t wait to sign the statement.

    Your theodicy regarding alternative interpretations might seem to work if one already accepts that Assange is guilty. You evade the primary conclusion — that he wasn’t even accused — by the simple expedient of begging the question. This is, of course, something with which I cannot argue.

    1. The women allegedly go to the police station for advice regarding compelling Assange to undergo STD testing. While they are there they allegedly describe the circumstances in which this need has arisen, and the police write it all down in the form of a statements. The police apparently interpret the described events as crimes in Swedish law, and ask the women to sign the statements. One of the women becomes upset and declines to sign it.

      It is not always the case that a victim has to accuse someone of a specific crime for the police to take action and seek someone’s arrest. Someone may easily described a situation without knowing that the described events constitute a crime.

      Although one of the women allegedly declines to sign the statement, the other presumably is alleged to have signed it, and the charge of rape may relate solely to her.

      While the first woman may on the day of the report have been upset and declined to sign the statement, she may have changed her mind about it and decided to sign it. Regardless of one of the women’s decision the police are free to question Assange with what they have, and refer it to the prosecutor.
      The duty prosecutor seems to have believed crimes had been committed, the second disagreed, and the third, specialist in sexual offences, reversed that and sought an arrest warrant for Assange.

      It may all seem a bit messy, but I don’t think it really varies much from what happens with the CPS & Police in UK.

  12. BTW I don’t know of Assange is guilty or not. That can only be answered by the Swedish courts with Assange in the dock answering the questions of the lawyers.

Leave a Reply