5 ms·

Read all four of the offenses (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf). Your option 2)

by hga 12y ago

Read all four of the offenses (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf). Your option 2) seems very unlikely for offense 4, of rape, when you look at the language of offense 2, which is very close to your option 2). Here are the first 3: "1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] 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 [AA] 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 [AA] 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." You can also see why there were initially two allegations of rape.... Per Wikipedia, it would appear offenses 2 and 3 are "sexuellt ofredande", "which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation", "sexual assault", "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment"." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Investigation_reinstated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...)

swombat 12y ago
"1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] 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. Well, that's very clearly rape (unless she had actually agreed to this kind of borderline BDSM sex, which he never said she did, afaik, so that likely means she didn't). So why are we talking about condoms then? Seems largely irrelevant except in a legal context of bringing on as many charges as possible...
- hga 12y ago
  I'm willing to give the Swedes the benefit of the doubt that offense 2, the only one that depends on this condom condition, is a legitimate crime. It very possibly goes hand in hand with 1, in that if the two offenses were together, "AA" couldn't visually confirm he was wearing a condom. For offense 4, it's explicitly "an aggravating circumstance".

by hga 12y ago

swombat 12y ago

"1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] 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. Well, that's very clearly rape (unless she had actually agreed to this kind of borderline BDSM sex, which he never said she did, afaik, so that likely means she didn't). So why are we talking about condoms then? Seems largely irrelevant except in a legal context of bringing on as many charges as possible...

hga 12y ago
I'm willing to give the Swedes the benefit of the doubt that offense 2, the only one that depends on this condom condition, is a legitimate crime. It very possibly goes hand in hand with 1, in that if the two offenses were together, "AA" couldn't visually confirm he was wearing a condom. For offense 4, it's explicitly "an aggravating circumstance".