Skip to main content

View Diary: With Friends Like This... (288 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, rape, and stop playing it down. (12+ / 0-)
    There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant:

    1.  On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, 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 preventing her from moving or shifting.

    2.  On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

    3.  On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

    4.  On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

    The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.

    Let's be abundantly clear:

    F'ing A Sleeping Girl To Work Around Her Repeated And Explicit Refusal To Consent To Your Preferred Form Of Sex Is Rape. No exceptions.

    Furthermore, from the police report:

    After that, AA telephoned PO on Friday, August 20th, when the other young woman had just contacted AA.  AA had said that the other woman had related that she had been raped by Julian.
    AA had said that she and the other young woman had decided to go to the police so that the other woman could report Julian for rape, and that AA would follow along in support.
    Then SW said that she had been raped by Julian Assange
    SW had said that Assange wanted to have sex with her, and that SW had said that she did not want to have sex without a condom. SW also said that, when she was half asleep on her side, she had been aroused from slumber to feel that Assange was inside her.
    From a message sent immediately before the assualt:
    MT  was awakened by an SMS message from SW.  MT’s recollection of that message is that it was not positive — that the sex was not good, that Julian was daft, that she would have to get tested because of his lengthy foreplay.  MT seems to recall that they spoke with each other while SW was in a shop to buy breakfast. SW was very angry because she had to buy everything, provide breakfast  and wait on him.  He irritated her.
    ...which matches SW's testimony:
    she turned to look at him and smiled and he asked her why she was smiling, what had she to smile about.  She did not like the undertone of his voice.

    ...

    He ordered her to fetch him some water and orange juice.  She did not like being ordered about in her own home, but thought  
    “what the hell” and fetched the liquids anyway.  He wanted her to go out and buy more breakfast.  She did not want to leave him alone in the flat — she  really did not know him very well — but she did it anyway.

    ...

    She had already eaten before he awoke, and had spoken with
    a friend on the phone.

    Concerning the press accusation, which was investigated by the police and found to be without merit:
    MT does not recall exactly what they said or wrote, but they had discussed going to Expressen because Julian had spoken out in Aftonbladet.  It was just something they said and had no intention of doing.  MT, in any event, has not spoken with any newspaper.
    Continuing with more testimony, before the incident:
    SW told JW (brother) that Julian Assange was in her flat and that it felt strange.  JW got the  impression that SW was a bit shaken by the situation.
    Then after:
    The next time JW heard something from SW was via an SMS message which said that Julian was not very nice.  JW  did not learn what had happened until after SW had gone to the police and it was reported in the newspapers.  He learned about what had happened from SW and his mother. The latter had said that Julian had sex with SW without a condom and
    against her will as she slept.
    Yes, the intial goal was to force Assange to take an STD test. But yes, SW did tell people she was raped. She didn't want to file charges in the beginning, but she was freaking out and telling her friends what Assange did to her while she was sleeping. This is, after all a person who:
    SB related that he had a relationship with SW for two and a half years. They had lived together during the last year of the relationship.  SB related that it was very important for SW that they use a condom, partly to prevent infection but also to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

    SW said the issue of infection was crucial for SW and that, before they had sex the first time, they had both got tested for disease and shown each other the results.  They did not have sex without a condom on a single occasion during their two and a half years together.  That was completely unthinkable for SW.  SB said that such was their agreement.  He said that, as far as he knew, SW had never had sex with anyone without using a condom.

    Assange doesn't dispute the events of that night, only that she "consented". Let's reiterate that, his defense is that a girl who had never had unprotected sex in her life and had immediately before the incident been complaining to friends about how mad she was getting at Assange suddentely woke up, had an epiphany, and consented to unprotected sex with the guy she was mad at.  Is it any wonder why the guy keeps losing court case after court case?

    But you know the ridiculous thing? Why the heck are we even having this conversation? The court of public opinion is NOT THE PLACE TO TRY A RAPE CASE.

    An don't even get me started on the "if it's not reported immediately afterwards to the police then its not rape!" crap. Do you have any damned clue how hard it is to come to terms with being raped? How long it takes to stop blaming yourself and making excuse for your rapist? How the vast majority of rapes are never reported?

    Assange and his supporters have been waging an ongoing smear campaign against the victims, and I find it sickening how much Daily Kos loves to take part in it.

    The day I'll consider justice blind is the day that a rape defendant's claim of "She consented to the sex" is treated by the same legal standards as a robbery defendant's claim of "He consented to give me the money": as an affirmative defense.

    by Rei on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 02:34:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site