Renewed rape suspicions for WikiLeaks' Assange

Now Assange should tell us exactly what went on between him and the girls.

And for him to becoming to Sweden at the hills of such a radical leak, yet had enough latitude to embark on sexual activity that threatens to cross the line of law.

Reckless at the least. The laws he knows and respect are only those of free press only, right Assange?.

I wonder if he still believe everything belong in public domain?

Maybe some one shoulld leak some more doc about him and his interaction with these women.

If this is the job of CIA they done a great job.

Seems like someone really doesn't want him as a Swedish resident.

(He applied for residency earlier in August according to another article on thelocal).

Very likely to be character assassination sponsored by the US Pentagon.

@dwb5555

hahaha This is time for him to show real freedom of press. It is easy to fight for it but when it is someone else's story :)

@rba

Did the Pentagon help him have sex with any of the women?. And remember the 31 year old lady worked for him.

Bad things do happen to good people, but SOME BAD THINGS ONLY HAPPEN TO BAD PEOPLE.

It's interesting that a few people have already decided Assange is guilty... even though the prosecutors have had a tough time figuring out whether they should even try to accuse him. It will be interesting to find out more about one of the women who apparently has written a book/pamphelt before having met Assange about how not to be sexually harassed in the work place... and how to ensure your claim of sex harassment gets taken seriously. Perhaps she is testing her theories?

hahahahah

@karvictho

I have not read any comment so far which states that Assange is guilty. And they have re-opened the case. Why?. Can only be cos there is something to pursue.

If she is testing her theories on rape, then why is he the only one so far?. At least that I know of?. She could equally accuse me seating here, right?.

He might be a lecherous person and one that isn't used to the Swedish way of life. Swedish girls can be quite free spirited especially when partying. (A slippery sloop for a lecherous man!). But it doesn't mean you are already entitled to having sex with her.

The U.S. government is probably behind this. (I am from the U.S. by the way.)

What a farce! And what a confused bunch of prosecutors! Seems the left hand and right hand are attached to different bodies.....

If I were Assange, I would withdraw my application for residence, take my servers and myself and go elsewhere. The authorities might grant him residence and work permits this week and withdraw it next week.

Regardless of his application for residency, Assange may well end up spending a lot of time in Sweden if the authorities decide to prosecute and they secure a conviction.

Also, there is nothing unusual in the categorisation of a possible crime being changed as more evidence and legal opinion becomes available.

Good. Maybe then this inconsiderate, selfish, creep can be extridited to the U.S. and face the justice he deserves to face. Hopefully Swedish law allows this?

Let's get WikiLeaks to dig up and release ALL the testimony against Assange so we get ALL the dirt on this guy!

Why would he be extradited to the US? He's not wanted for any crimes there. The alleged rapes happened in Sweden, against swedish citizens. That's why swedish prosecutors are handling the matter...err, or mishandling the matter it would seem.

Irony--Adjacent to this 'Assange article,' is a picture of surströmming (Swedish "rotten herring"). If Assange is granted Swedish residency, perhaps the surströmming picture copy would be better applied under his mug shot....."Rotten fish or beloved Swedish delicacy?

Total farce.

As for people asking for full disclosure here, its his life and he is not really obliged to answer to US (thats you and me, not the U.S).

While governments and their agencies as well as their armies, financial institutions etc ARE supposed to answer to the people.

You want dirt on particular people: read the tabloids.

An elected government should be afraid of its people - not the other way around.

Well said eZee.se

Come on Mr. Transparency, let's see the facts! Let the people decide!

Oh, wait.. you don't like playing that game anymore?

It would have been so much easier for everyone if he had pulled up his wallet and paid the girls to pleasurise him. Then we would know for sure he was guilty before sentence was passed.

The main character accusing him is a woman who made a long list of how to take revenge on a man. I think it tells a lot about her. I wonder if that material will be used against her in court?

http://sixdays.se/2010/08/24/valdtaktsoffret-anna-ardin-om-hamnd/

This sounds like the Pirate bay case. The charges was thrown out (well, half of them in the PP case) but the trial continues because he *will* be convicted. Regardless of facts.

And can someone tell me what crimes he have committed in the US (for those foxpublicans here who claim so)? And show some proof of your wild accusations.

Taxalien

(a) Where is your evidence that the woman you named (the name is in the link) is one of the people who made the complaint ?

(b) If it is the case that she is the person who made the complaint, why do you think its ok to remove her anonymity ? Do you know all of the circumstances surrounding this case ? If she is someone just out after revenge then a good defence lawyer would make that clear in a court of law.

Women are granted anonymity in these cases for good reasons, not least since violating anonymity can deter victims of sexual abuse from coming forward.

My prediction for Assange's future: he will be arrested and jailed, held without bond (since he has no permanent residence, he will be considered a flight risk), and then the US government will charge Assange with some crime and ask for his extradition to the States.

It is coming.

As for the charges: the only account I have read is that both women who are complainants in this case allege that they had consensual sex with Assange.

The rape allegation comes from Assange having consensual sex with one woman, but refusing to wear a condom.

The molestation allegation comes from Assange refusing to leave the house where he was a guest when the woman asked him to go.

The definition of rape: Section 1 of the Swedish Penal Code

'A person who, by violence or threat involving or appearing to the threatened person as imminent danger, forces the latter to have sexual intercourse or to engage in a comparable sexual act, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years. Rendering the person unconscious or otherwise placing the person in a similarly helpless state shall be regarded as equivalent to violence.

If in view of the nature of the violence or the threat and the circumstances in other respects the offence is considered less serious, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed."

Unless there is something missing from the story, how can Assange be charged with rape for consensual sex? Rape is a very serious offence and the allegation of it, let alone a conviction for the crime, would of course irreparably damage not only Assange's reputation but that of Wikileaks. Of course, if the charges are true, then the women who have been victimised will likely suffer lifelong trauma of some sort, and of course will be under a lot of pressure because of Assange's international celebrity status.

This case gets stranger and stranger still.

The defense secretary of the US, Gate, had threatened to take action. The US might twist the arm of the Swedish government (or Sweden's security agency without the government knowing it) to sabotage Assage's operation in Sweden. Compared to what the CIA can do, the Assange project is a child's play.

The only way the US and its allies can be prevented from distorting information is by exposing them. Assange has done more than his share. It is up to us to give him support. The discussion in this board clearly show a foul play is suspected. The way to go forward is for Assange to hand over his responsibilities to another person and make sure his work is not a one man show.

@GefleFrequentFlyer,

"Come on Mr. Transparency, let's see the facts! Let the people decide! "

Transparency in government and their agencies, but if you just want dirt and stories try Google or I'm guessing parez hilton and TMZ as well as FOX will more to your liking.

Or perhaps you are like one of those who women like sooo much, what are they called? oh yes: kiss-and-tellers. They were really popular when I was in college.

As for not liking that game anymore... the rest of the Afghan documents ARE going to be released - what does that tell you?

@nomark:

The fact that it was her was disclosed by a media outlet here in Sweden.

I have not personally digged it out, but came across it while reading the news.

You can google it yourself if you have doubts.

The fact that her name has been disclosed in what must be the most bisarre case in a long while imho is a news item because as far as I know this has never happened before.

Taxalien:

(a) Where is your evidence that the woman you named (the name is in the link) is one of the people who made the complaint ?

You mentioned a Swedish news outlet - which one ? I only found lots of blogs accusing her of making things up.

(b) If it is the case that she is the person who made the complaint, why do you think its ok to remove her anonymity ? Do you know all of the circumstances surrounding this case ? If she is someone just out after revenge then a good defence lawyer would make that clear in a court of law.

You didn't really answer this one. Why do you feel the need to take part in the blog herd spreading her possible name and trying to discredit her ? What effect do you think it has on a women who is a victim of abuse who is afraid to come forward for fear that she won't be believed and that everyone will know her name ?

Putting Assange in trouble does not change the fact that the US military is distorting information. America's war in Afghanistan is not doing well for it. Since last Saturday, 24 US soldiers had been killed. The US is leaving Iraq partially in a middle of civil war, which it triggered, in order to intensify its war in Afghanistan. Did it make the US safer by invading a normal country whose dictator would have fallen with its own internal contradictions the way they did in the Philippines, Argentina, Chile, Uganda and etc. In a BBC interview today, (Ex) PM Tony Blare suggested that the US and its European allies should invade Iran. This pathetic man is as fundamentalist as the Moslem fundamentalists he abhors.

I answered you alright. I told you that as far as I know it had never happened that:

a) Assange was named so early on.

b) That the accuser was named.

This is a political case. If you can't understand that there must be something wrong with you.

It is a smearjob aimed at the US populace. With these accusations, even better with a conviction, Assange's character is destroyed and it will be easier to convince the American public that he is evil in some way and should be disregarded and ignored.

Remember that in the US, a person of dubious character always lies by default. Especially if what he says doesnt fit into the American Exceptionalism mindset.

Since you can't find it, here it is: http://www.newzglobe.com/sv/

Apparently both accusers have now been named.

In The Guardian you can read what this case is all about.

It is a fight over the use of a condom.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/24/assange-wikileaks-swedish-prosecutors-charges

Elsewhere, the reports of events are different.

This is such a banana republic. Don't have sex without a condom. You could go to jail without passing go.

@Taxalien

Thanks for the link!

This whole thing is as silly as a girl saying "put it in" then after you saying "I changed my mind, its now rape".

This is starting to become a bigger farce than thepiratebay trial.

Let us be clear here.

The United States has sent plumbers from the CIA, NSA, DIA,

et al, to fix the leaks that were first revealed about the truth of United States activities, and to prevent 15,000 more of those activities from coming to light that will further reveal the Gestapo activities of the United States in the Mid East, and in particular their illegal conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Sonderkommando murders that have taken place, and continue to take place, in both of those places.

This blog is polluted by United States plants, some of whom are clueless, and others of whom are directly attributable to the "intelleligence" agencies of the United States.

The United States wants to legally extradite Assange, and failing that, later to "render" him either to the United States or to one of their "agencies" elsewhere. One commenter here clearly sees that fact.

The United States is trying to explain away their involvement in Iraq, whereas concurrently they are sending armoured combat brigades to Iraq as I type, in conjunction with the 50,000 "advisers" already there , and the 7,000Xe thugs that will follow, along with over 5,000 diplomatic personnel to the largest Embassy in the world. Empire.

Thus, Assange is a badly infected thorn in the United States posterior that they want lanced.

Sweden has been chosen as the attending physician for that United States operation.

Taxalien

http://www.newzglobe.com/ is a business and lifestyle magazine. I guess the definition of media outlet covers it, but only just. In comparison, the big boys, Aftonbladet, Expressen, SVD didn't name the women. Why do you think that is ? Why do you feel the need to print the name again and join the mobbing herd ? What do you think this type of mob behaviour does to a woman who is thinking of going forward with a complaint of sexual misconduct against a figure who has public supporters ?

Also, why do you assume the Guardian report is correct ? I note also that the Guardian didn't state the women's names.

What do you think this type of mob behaviour does to a woman who is thinking of going forward with a complaint of sexual misconduct against a figure who has public supporters ?

What do you think it does to someone being accused of rape?

But hey, its alright to blast Assange's name and picture everywhere isn't it?

Yeah, didn't think there, did you?

@nomark:

Why was it right to publish Assange's name? What kind of justice equality before the law do you actually practice in your head?

Not even Ms A herself believes it was rape according to an interview with herself in a "certified" newspaper.

This is two people who have consentual sex according to the guardian and herself and then there is something that goes wrong. Why is it a legal case at all?

I think most people have a very clear picture of what is rape and this does not fit the bill.

No I don't think its right to publish Assange's name, as I mentioned on another thread. However, just because one party is named (wrongly) doesn't mean the other party needs to be.

Regarding your question about it why it is a legal case, I have absolutely no idea and nor do you!!! The information isn't yet available to you or me. In this situation its sensible to wait for information to become available. Instead you're spreading sh*t about someone you've never met who has happened to make an accusation of sexual assault.

I note you still didn't answer my questions. I'll try asking them again for the third time:

Why do you feel the need to print the name again and join the mobbing herd ?

What do you think this type of mob behaviour does to a woman who is thinking of going forward with a complaint of sexual misconduct against a figure who has public supporters ?

What a total farce this situation has become. Yesterday JA's lawyer said the interview wit the police went well and he expected the molestation charge to be withdrawn. Today the rape charge that was dropped last week, is laid again. What will happen next? This has become a silly soap opera.

damned if you do damned if you don't. you risk prison having legal sex and you risk prison having illegal sex (with prostitute)

I seem to remember that in Sweden (in the case of a Chilean opera singer) one person's word against another is enough to convict a person of rape, provided the accuser has enough influential supporters. Guilty or innocent, Assange should have checked the country he was hoping to move to.

@Nomark:

I'm not Taxalien, but I'll take a stab at answering your two questions.

1) Since the anonymity of the woman in question has been publicly breached by at least one media outlet that is widely enough read that anyone on this forum could find it, "print[ing] the name again" contributes exactly zero additional harm to that anonymity.

On the other hand, there exists a standing assertion (whether it is true or not; I don't know, and I'm not attempting to make a judgment on it one way or the other here) that this woman has a demonstrable interest in manipulative revenge, as evidenced by the post she wrote on her very own blog (which is not password-protected in any way and is still publicly accessible, by the way).

Taken together, these two facts amount to a perfectly reasonable justification for why someone arguing about this case would print her name and/or a link to her blog. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a "mobbing herd" (whatever that means).

2) Your question is an excellent example of the logical fallacy known as "appeal to pity." Answering the question as written, without challenging the underlying implications, amounts to conceding that the woman in question _is_ an innocent victim; that the figure in question _is_ guilty of sexual misconduct; that the mere act of publishing her name is tantamount to "mob behaviour"; and that such publication is unfairly prejudicial. The last of those four items is arguably true, but _only_ if the first three are also all true.

In this case, as you yourself have stated repeatedly above, not all the facts are known, so none of those first three points is unquestionably true here. Thus you have no basis for making such a grand, strained leap to the conclusion you are implying.

It is perfectly fair to cite publicly known information in discussing the various sides of this issue. Repeating the pejorative terms "mobbing herd" and "mob behaviour," as you have, does not make them true, accurate, or relevant here.

Found a Swedish summary of the story so far on flachback. Here is a translation. The original is at https://www.flashback.org/sp25229122 (Click on visa to show) This is 4200 characters, TL only allows 3000, so I will split this into two.

People:

JA - Julian Assange. Founder of Wikileaks

AA - One of the women who accused JA. Is almost certainly the press secretary of the "Socialist Brotherhood Movement". Cousin to a Swedish lieutenant colonel in Afghanistan.

SW - The second of the women who accused JA. Lives in Enköping.

MHJ - Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, duty prosecutor in Stockholm City. Married to an expert of the Justice Minister Beatrice Ask.

LF - Lisa Finné, Chief Prosecutor

CB - Claes Borgström. Legal representative of the AA and T20

LS - Silbersky. Legal representative of JA.

MN - Marianne New. Head of the Public Prosecutor's Office Development Unit in Gothenburg. Handling of the trial.

Background:

JA is a little longer stay in Sweden for various reasons. Among other things, he should speak to with social democratic organization. AA handled the invitation and had contact with JA before the visit. JA is known to spend at least the first night with AA (Saturday 14/8 - Monday 16/8?). A few nights later (Tuesday 17/8 - Wednesday 18/8?) JA stays at SW instead.

Tuesday 17/8

JA - goes to Enköping and stays with SW (Maybe even Wednesday 18/8)

Wednesday 17/8

AA and SW - declared to not have known each other before - may be on Wednesday 18/8 (maybe Thursday 19/8) meet . Then the following occurs:

Friday evening 20/8:

- AA and SW to contact police for "discuss" what they say they have been involved with JA.

- The police make a complaint of rape and sexual molestation.

- Duty Prosecutor decides to ask JA in absentia for a case of suspected rape and one case of suspected sexual molestation

- Someone is leaking notifications and JA's name to Expressen. Within 24 hours is the story on major news media worldwide. Whoever leaked is still unclear. There is plenty of speculation but no proof.

- Possibly - SW undergoes testing for diseases.

Saturday 21/8:

- Chief prosecutor Lisa Finné drops most charges. "I do not think there is reason to suspect that he committed rape," says Eva Finn ". What remains is a notification of molestation (possibly with a sexual connection, but it still seems unclear)

Part 2, (needed a new account, TL does not allow consecutive posts)

Tuesday 24/8:

- Lawyer Claes Borgstrom suggested on behalf of AA and T20.

- Lawyer Silbersky proposed on behalf of JA.

- On http://rebellabloggen.wordpress.com/ Sarah Gunnerud writes what appears to be AA's version of events. It describes it as if JA had sex without a condom against AA's will. And that AA and SW sought out the police with a view to hear if/how to force JA to test for various diseases. Whether this is the true story or not, we do not know. Moreover Sara Gunnerud describes JA in a clear negative way when it comes to his way of dealing with women.

Wednesday 25/8:

- LF issued a press release in which she announces that the preliminary investigation will be initiated for a case of molestation. LL says that she does not doubt the information provided (by SW) but that the information obtained is such that the suspicion of rape does not exist.

JA, in a conversation with Silbersky said he is totally innocent, both legally and morally .. And that JA suffered "enormous damage" by the incident.

Thursday 26/8:

- Data from unclear source (possibly JA) argues that the harassment refers to the fact that JA does not want to move out of the AA' apartment when she asked for it.

Friday 27/8:

- Just before the Swedish authority closes for the day CB submits an appeal of the decision. CB now demands JA is charged with two counts of rape.

Sunday 29/8 - Tuesday 31/8:

- According to the magazine Resumé, the first hint to the Expressen came through SMS from an unknown sender to the freelance photographer Stefan Soderstrom, who was at Harpsund together with reporter Niklas Svensson. Svensson was informed with Expressen journalist Diamant Salihu, who roots up more information by contacting another source and then call the on-call prosecutors MHJ who confirms that JA is charged in his absence.

- A persistent rumor from several sources claim that the problem between AA and JA was that the condom broke during the act. On top of this there is then a lot of speculation about how it happened and what happened next.

- According to an equally persistent rumour the issue between SW and JA is that they had unprotected sex. Whether this was agreed between the parties or not and how an undesirable situation has arisen or is not yet known.

Monday 30/8:

- JA questioned concerning harassment.

Wednesday 1/9:

- MN decides that the investigation of rape (in one case) should be resumed and that the investigation of harassment (in one case) should be extended to all events in the notification.

All his police interviews and interrogations should be published on WikiLeaks.

Why do people feel Sweden is a haven for killers, child rapists,Art thieves, all-a-round scumb bags???? Oh! He also, wants to be a citizen... say Swedish Benefits. Just another free loader for the middle class to support......

ha ha has consensual sex with two woman and gets charged with rape

Swedish culture is so screwed

@Twiceshy

A few points.

First, because the name has already been made public by some (though not all, after all the mainstream media refuses to give the name) it is therefore asserted that repeating this one more time, in the context of a discrediting smear btw, does not harm. In effect, the individual seeks protection by the behaviour of the herd i.e. "everyone does it so its ok, it does no harm, I don't need to make an ethical decision". This is a dangerous path to follow. The only way the mob is persuaded not to do something is by individuals refusing to follow it. Also, you have no idea who may be reading this who hasn't read other blogs which name the woman.

Second, its far from a logical fallacy to ask what a victim would feel if she saw the mob in action. The internet mob has already identified (probably) one or both of the women who alleged abuse and has spread all manner of sh*t to try to discredit them. The mob btw does not *know* whether the women are fantasists, revenge seekers etc. because the mob is (a) biased and (b) does not have access to all of the information, only selected bits and pieces which have been pasted on the internet . Its not as is the mob have demonstrated JA's innocence. All I've seen is smears against the women and various reports for which we are unable to check the sources.

This is why we have a legal system rather letting a mob decide on things. When the courts are seen to have failed is the time to complain not before. Prejudice and not truth usually emerges in the comment pages. This is certainly the case here.

what is everyone talking about the so-called assange shows up one with a website and start poke-nosing with what not his business and now he is applying for residency in Sweden.how much will he contribute to our tax system and now some else is poke-nosing in his business .everyone is crying foul why not all us wait and see the evidence and prove them wrong or right.i just hope he goes in for rape.he is such a coward.not even capable of saying some else is wrong.he is such a coward period

Aftonbladet has now published that this the "condom" case.

Assange offered to show his mobile which must have some texts that come from AA or SW and proves they are up to no good, but the police refused to document it.

Suggest you people who want to stay on the right side of the law fill in one of these first:

http://blogg.tianmi.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/knullkontrakt.pdf

Aftonbladet hints that this is the "condom" case i.e. telling someone they were using a condom when the opposite was true. If proven, this is a sexual assault offence. However, you and I have no idea if this actually the case. Nor does Assange btw since he claims he doesn't know what its all about.

Given your ignorance about what happened, I'm still at a loss as to understand your actions. I can understand someone getting annoyed at the prosecuting authorities, though they're just doing their job. However, naming and smearing an alleged victim when you don't know all the facts and are unable to form an unbiased judgement is unnecessary and hateful.

That is your interpretation. You are entitled to it. We live in a country with freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Indeed I am entitled to my interpretation. However, unlike your interpretation of the Assange case, my interpretation of your actions is at least based on facts. It is factually correct to state that you don't know the full story. It is also correct to state that, despite this, you nevertheless named and smeared the alleged victim of a sexual assault.

Where we differ is that I think this is unnecessary and hateful. You seem to think its fine.

Its a tiring cliche beloved of people like yourself to remind others that we live in a country with freedom of speech. Unfortunately, they often forget that with every right comes a responsibility to use that right appropriately. Naming and smearing alleged victims of sexual assaults despite not knowing much about the case is pretty much inappropriate in my opinion.

You must be the most tiring person I have ever encountered on a bulletin board.

You are nothing but a troll repeating yourself ad infinitum.

If the prosecutors office and the police and the press cannot keep their mouth shut on both sides of the argument, it is obvious the media (which newzglobe.com is a part of) will report things if they see that the person accusing someone days before filing a complaint wrote a manual for how to get revenge.

If this had been the UK I am pretty sure the same would have happened.

I simply asked you to explain why you personally decided to spread sh*t about someone you've never met who may well be in a very vulnerable state. Its hardly trollish to ask someone to account for such actions.

The fact is that you were never able to explain without referring to other big mouths. I was curious to see if you had a sense of personal or herd ethics. I guess I've got my answer.

Here finally is the real answer as to why they are still investigating Assange despite having decided there was no case to answer at least once before.

http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/08/29/assange-aff-ren-visar-att-politiseringen-av-sex-hotar-grundl-ggande-samh-llsv-rde

"En följd av att inleda en förundersökning om våldtäkt är följande, eftersom minimistraffet är två års fängelse: Den misstänkte gärningsmannen får både hemligen teleövervakas och teleavlyssnas om det krävs för utredningen. Det innebär att Julian Assanges mobiltelefon och laptop skulle kunna avlyssnas av rättsväsendet. Både röstsamtal och all internettrafik. Förutom att man bakåt i tiden kan begära ut listor över alla han kommunicerat med, e-postmeddelanden som kanske fortfarande ligger lagrade hos en operatör m.m. Man måste förstås veta vilka abonnemang han använder men åtminstone något är ju med säkerhet känt eftersom han kommunicerat med arrangörer och de anklagande kvinnorna.

Man ville lokalisera Assange och kunde därför, om synnerliga skäl funnes, begära hemlig avlyssning av människor han kunde antas kommunicera med. Exempelvis Piratpartiets ledare Rick Falkvinge och vice partiledare Anna Troberg. Dessa hade bara några dagar tidigare skrivit ett avtal med Assange om att husera Wikileaks servrar och hade till och med varit på kräftskiva hemma hos en av de anklagande kvinnorna - tillsammans med Assange."

It is all about getting the legal grounds to wire tap him.

It is a hunt for whistle blowers, nothing else.

Welcome to Sweden.

> Naming and smearing alleged victims of sexual assaults despite not knowing much about the case is pretty much inappropriate in my opinion.

That used to be the case, nowadays you google and its there. However it is very unusual to name the alleged rapist officially. I don't think this has happened for several years and the only case I can think of when an alleged rapist was named before the trial was Tito the singer.

One has to think of the motives for naming, if the thousands of posts on flashback provide any sense then it seems that Diamant Salihu (see above post) contacted MHJ who confirmed that JA is the alleged rapist. This was even before it had been decided whether or not to press charges.

Also worth noting: It appears that on Friday evening (20/8) that the 2 women contacted the police to discuss what they claim to involved in with JA. When the police heard the story they (THE POLICE) - made a complaint of rape and sexual molestation. ie, It appears (flashback.info) that neither of the women have claimed that any assault has taken place. This also means that the women can not drop the charges as the charges have been bought by the police.

Two main theories now exist:

1) An overpowering man who is not able to connect action and consquence persuades 2 women within a few days of each other into the bedroom for a kiss and a cuddle. They are in awe of this man and his reputation. He is not easy to say no to and the "act" begins. Despite attempts to use protection it is not successful and each woman feels they were unlucky. However when they then meet and compare notes they realise that there is a pattern and that he probably did it on purpose. (Oh he did that to you as well). They contact the police to ask if they can force him to take a test at the doctors. The police understand the law more than the women and decide to make the complaint based on what they have heard.

2) He gets both women into bed but in case A) He says he will be true to her and he is not the kind of guy to sleep around. A believes she is in for a few weeks of the same treatment and just loves it. In case B) He says he has not been with anyone for months whilst talking her into it. She also loves it. In both cases the women ask for protection but neither of them are used to it and "accidents will happen". Both women now feel they have an ongoing and exclusive affair with one of the most famous (for 15 minutes anyway) men in the world. In their group of common friends someone puts them in touch. They now realise they have been lied to by a cad and take the story to the police. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

The interesting thing is that 95% of people who think Wikileaks was wrong to publish the Afghan files believe theory 1 and vice versa. Ie, he is being pre-judged! Is he likely to get a fair trial in Sweden? No. But this could work both ways depending on the political persuasion of the judges. (Sweden does not use a jury system).

It's on, it's off, it's on again. The Swedish justice system nothing but boring. You couldn't design a more ridiculous system for prosecuting serious offences if you tried. Will there be clowns at the trial? Can we throw peanuts?

I am not demeaning the seriousness of the charges by the way. The prosecution have done a great job of that already.

JA's song to his lawyer: "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right- stuck in the middle with you".

"Jailhouse Rock" may end up being more appropriate.

@Nomark:

I've met a number of people who argue as you do. They're just clever enough to use subtle (or not-so-subtle) verbal devices to create the impression of a substantial argument, but not nearly clever enough to actually construct one.

Specifically, you write "its far from a logical fallacy to ask what a victim would feel if she saw the mob in action." By using the word "victim" here, repeatedly, you're implying that the woman (or women, if you include both accusers) is telling the truth in making accusations of rape and/or molestation. You've browbeaten others in this thread by repeatedly saying no one knows all the facts, yet you do not apply the same standard to your own argument. That's disingenuous. Either take everyone's statements at face value, and let the legal process sort it out, or else just state upfront that you believe the accusers and not the accused, and abandon all pretense of objectivity. But you can't have it both ways.

And yes, what you've stated _is_ a logical fallacy -- several, actually. Repeating the loaded words "victim" and "mob" (the latter more than ten times, by my count, in this thread alone) is a textbook example of guilt by association; one might also reasonably view your statements as straw man arguments, loaded questions, or both.

Finally, with regard to your statement, "I simply asked you to explain why you personally decided to spread sh*t about someone you've never met who may well be in a very vulnerable state," I would simply question why you wouldn't do the same thing with respect to Mr. Assange. He has been accused of serious crimes in the most public fora imaginable, but I don't see you rushing to his defense with nearly the same vigor.

Stuck in the middle? Jailhouse rock,,, nah... what about

Here comes the story of the Julian

The man the authorities came to blame

For something that he never done

Put him in a prison cell but one time he could-a been

The champion of the world.

"I didn't do it" he says and he throws up his hands

"One of us had better call up the cops"

And they arrive on the scene with their red lights flashing

In the hot Sweden night.

Little artistic licence there..... Hurricane, Dylan....

Twiceshy

Your post contained a number of inaccuracies:

(1) My treatment of JA. I have argued that he should have been afforded anonymity. I'm surprised you want more since my theme here concerns the actions of one poster in his specific treatment of the women. It is a logical fallacy to infer that I because I write on one aspect of the topic I have to be equally vigorous in other areas. I'm not the site's policeman.

(2) The supposed logical fallacy of the victim being deterred from going forward. A "victim" in this context is someone who has been the victim of a crime. Such a person would undoubtedly be discouraged from going forward having seen the sh*t which is being spread about these women. Whether the women in JA-case made the whole thing up or are genuine victims is irrelevant for the purpose of the argument. The fact is that nobody in the mob "knows" what went on but are acting in support of JA. Even if the women are subsequently proven to have fabricated the story then criticism is merited. However, this still wouldn't justify the cr*p coming out right now from people who have absolutely no idea about went on. Discrediting someone when reliable evidence becomes available is fine. Doing so when little is known isn't.

(3) My use of the word "victim". Be careful here. I use "alleged victim" a bit when referring to the women in the JA-case.

(4) My use of the word "mob". What is happening is the mobbing of at least one of the women in question. Against common media standards, at least one of the women has been named and a poster has spread sh*t about her. This is in common with a lot of other people on the web who are equally ignorant about what went on but nonetheless smear the woman in the same way. This is internet mobbing. Its an appropriate use of the term. It is irrelevant how many times I use it.

(5) I apparently browbeat.... Wow. This is news to me not least since I'm in a minority of one on this thread in pursuing this particular issue of the mobbing of the women. I've simply asked someone who spread sh*t about a person that had they never met to account for themselves and justify their position with evidence. I feel strongly about personal ethics and evidence-based thinking. I exploit my freedom of speech to argue from this perspective.

Finally, you ought to be careful about making snide remarks about other people's intelligence. As an aspect of a debating style its weak and flawed. For example, the smartest people I know are the least likely to do this because they know how imperfect their own thinking is.

One extra point - your own position is still very unclear to me. I have patiently and politely explained my position to you now on a number of occasions, as is appropriate in any intellectually honest exchange of views. However, it is impossible to go further in any discussion until you outline your own opinions and open up for scrutiny the reasoning behind them. Its important to know where you stand.

If it is rape when man says he is using condom, but doesn't actually use condom, is it rape if woman says she is using pill or other contraceptives, but isn't actually using them?