Documents in Julian Assange Rape Investigation Leak Onto Web

Documents in Julian Assange Rape Investigation Leak Onto Web

www.wired.com

The ongoing rape-and-sexual-molestation investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is taking another in a series of odd turns. A file containing 100 pages of interview transcripts, investigatory notes and other material in the case has appeared online, where it’s being eagerly dissected by Swedish WikiLeaks-watchers.

The documents appear to consist of pretrial discovery material that prosecutors provided to Assange’s Stockholm lawyer Björn Hurtig last year, which Hurtig subsequently faxed to the office of Assange’s British attorney Mark Stephens. The documents begin with a Nov

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well, you will have to go to the main article to read the rest and see the evidence. Grab a coffee/tea. Good reading.

Personally I think he is being set up/upon for what he did. However, that being said, I am not a woman involved in this and I don't want to take away from them IF something did happen. So be it and the offender will pay (regardless of who they are).

I know I wouldn't want to be in his shoes now.

The evidence: (a little translation assistance please)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9827dd5676e1.jpg[/atsimg]

Best I can tell as I can't read it, the Police are/were trying to determne if Mr. Assange was responsible for another type of leak.

www.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow, this is ironic. What Assange does in his private life doesn't have anything to do with what he has done for us as an advocate for the truth. Though I honestly hope he didn't commit any of these acts. Last I heard, he was actually charged with lying about using a condom, not rape in the way that we think about it in America. Wish I could read that language! I'd be poring through those docs!

Question for the lawyers here on ATS.

Now that all this documentation is in the public arena,
would it now be in-admissible?

would any case be dropped, as any potential jury could have been influenced by this?

reply to post by CitizenNum287119327


That is a very interesting question.

Seems to me like the presenters are more concerned about making him look badly in the world's eyes instead on ensure justice is served.

I'm surprised the news hasn't went viral though.

Originally posted by schlub
Wow, this is ironic. What Assange does in his private life doesn't have anything to do with what he has done for us as an advocate for the truth. Though I honestly hope he didn't commit any of these acts. Last I heard, he was actually charged with lying about using a condom, not rape in the way that we think about it in America. Wish I could read that language! I'd be poring through those docs!

In my mind if a man can't be trusted in his private actions in his life why in the hell should I trust him to be an upstanding citizen in public life? Just because someone is beloved in the community doesn't mean they are a saint if they go home and beat the dog and treat their family like crap if you get my drift. I guess I hold my hero's to a higher standard than most?

reply to post by anon72


in the back end of the condom perimilary test damages where made with knife and siccors
on top of that the condoms back end was torn off , the damaged area reminded the torn area,
while the damages made with tools showed very thin risps /torn marks,
the look of the front end, the damaged part of the condom can be viewed on picture 1

a loose translation

basicly theyve been trying to replicate the damages ,

not the best police work in my opinion since theyve used cuttlery tools ,
would have been a lot easier to buy a rubber penis and a rubber vagina
and see if friction could have been the culprint,

heck in my years of fornication ive had my shear of condoms brake ,
yes condoms do brake , nothing new in the history books ,

reply to post by CitizenNum287119327


That depends on the laws in the nation in which the case is being tried. If the whole case is to be bought in Britain then thats certainly the way it seems to me. I have no idea what Swedish law, or for that matter European directives on the matter might be, but thats a matter for investigation I guess.

reply to post by TrueBrit


if this was the case then it would have been thrown out the minute the media tabloids got a hold of the info regarding the case,

theses been leaked official documents since day 1

reply to post by zerbot565


Well thats true, but in order to find out if the case can be tried, they have to put it in front of a judge, and then the lawyer for the defense has to make a representation to the effect that the defendant cannot recieve a fair trial because the jury may have been influenced by the release of certain information. It is categoricaly not the case, that the moment evidence which idealy should have been held in reserve until trial is released to the public, that legal proceedings merely cease . There are proceedures for these sorts of things, all of which involve an appearance before a judge.

reply to post by zerbot565


Thank you for you efforts of translation.

I have to say.. Is this all the cops got? His atty's should have a field day with this stuff. However, I don't know what the laws of that country are but.... come on-seems a little fishy to me.

Originally posted by schlub
Wow, this is ironic. What Assange does in his private life doesn't have anything to do with what he has done for us as an advocate for the truth.

Assange is not spreading truth.
He is spreading what disinfo the
CIA want to give him for an agenda.
Bradley Manning was used in this
endeavor. Manning fit the Army's
psychological profile for a whistleblower.
They then allowed his access to a
segregated part of SIPRNET where they
knew Manning's instincts would take
the bait. Mannings army weapon had been
modified so it was useless. It would not fire
therefore eliminating Manning's option
of going postal.

A lot of the dis-info being released by wikileaks
these days have absolutely nothing to do
with Manning and the cables. This disinfo
released to wikileaks now is nothing other
than a Psy-Op for the NWO. When they need
a public figure or entity discredited, the CIA
then leaks another lie to wikileaks and Assange
distributes it as truth when in actuality, it is a
lie for a political agenda. Manning was used.
Julian is STILL being used. The rape charges
against Assange was a form of control over Assange
just like Manning's weapon being defrocked.
And in both cases of Assange and Manning, they
have lawyers funded by Soros. Know the real facts
people. Don't fall for this Psy-Op.

Originally posted by jaynkeel
In my mind if a man can't be trusted in his private actions in his life why in the hell should I trust him to be an upstanding citizen in public life? (...) I guess I hold my hero's to a higher standard than most?

You’re trying to view the actions of one man through a hero or villain lens, that was your first mistake. The second was to imply that schlub’s words demonstrate that he thinks of Assange as a hero. I read schlub’s words to mean that what Assange has done privately has no influence over the authenticity of the documents and information his organization has presented, and this is self-evident.

You are free to disagree obviously, and in that case I anxiously await your demonstration of what Wikileaks has published is false. Thanks.

Originally posted by anon72
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9827dd5676e1.jpg[/atsimg]

...This is a condom that the prosecution has modified with scissors in order to replicate Assange's broken condom?

This trial is completely bunk. Nothing but a sham... this side of "justice".

Chalk one up for transparency.





Sorry, couldn't help it.



I really hate to sound fascist here, but if he is not guilty, then he has nothing to hide. I appreciate all the work Julian has done, but rape should really be a castrate-able offense.

Originally posted by Loki
Chalk one up for transparency.





Sorry, couldn't help it.



I really hate to sound fascist here, but if he is not guilty, then he has nothing to hide. I appreciate all the work Julian has done, but rape should really be a castrate-able offense.

And you think you should be defined as a rapist if you have sex with a woman and your condom falls off halfway in?

Originally posted by Loki
I really hate to sound fascist here, but if he is not guilty, then he has nothing to hide. I appreciate all the work Julian has done, but rape should really be a castrate-able offense.

Even if one agrees with your stance on the penalty for rape, why is that, at this time, relevant in regards to Assange? Has he been convicted of rape?

Let's clarify a little; Julian Assange is charged with "Sexual Misconduct" NOT rape.

Hyperbole and rhetoric makes you look like a biased moron.

Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327
Question for the lawyers here on ATS.

Now that all this documentation is in the public arena,
would it now be in-admissible?

would any case be dropped, as any potential jury could have been influenced by this?

As some already have been suggestion; no, leaking of documents can't make a case inadmissible in Sweden. Evidence can't be declared inadmissible. Anything can be used as evidence, like for example hearsay and so on.

On topic: The documents give a good picture of the events, but if this case reach the court it will be hard to prove that Assange had a criminal intent- that he understood that what he did was non-consensual.
Assange, according to the documents, acted like a complete jerk when he started having sex with S.W., when she was still asleep and without a condom, though she repeatadly had said earlier that she did not want to have sex without a condom.
But, unfortunately S.W. does not object strongly enough (she hardly admits at all) when she wakes up, and she admits to the police that she "let him continue". This will not be seen as rape unless the prosecutor can show that she was so threatened that she did not dare to object to having sex (not likely). Though, she states that she was chocked, and I can imagine that it was a very unpleasent experience. But still, if Assange does not admit that he at the time understood (or suspected) that what he did was non-consensual, there is no evidence of a criminal intent. So it all comes down to what Assange will say in an interrogation; if he will say that he thought S.W. consented - then the case is very weak.

There is a similar problem in the other case, concerning A.A. It will be very difficult, not say impossibly, to prove that Assange intentionally broke a condom. He could just claim that the condom broke, and that he did not know about it, then it will be impossibly to prove otherwise. So once again the case depends on what Assange will say when guestioned.

So it is unfortunate that Assange has not taken the oppurtunity to go to Sweden and speak to the police, then this farse would probably been over with long ago. The police can not drop a case without even hearing the suspect.

Don't forget its a political trail. This one is a long shot in order to get him extradited to Sweden. So that they can extradite him to the US and torture him.

The comedian is right, hahahaha its all a game hahaha. What a world we live in...