Alright, I figured the Grayzone would have something to say regarding this, and sure enough :
That Assange has been right all along, and getting him to Sweden was a fraud to cover an American plan to “render” him, is finally becoming clear to many who swallowed the incessant scuttlebutt of character assassination.
“I speak fluent Swedish and was able to read all the original documents,” Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, said recently. “I could hardly believe my eyes. According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never taken place at all. And not only that: the woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm Police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.”
I don't think we have access to these documents and maybe this guy is lying for some reason and Assange actually is a rapist, but there's no doubt in my mind that the Great Satan or any other imperialist country would be willing to fabricate rape accusations to serve their own interests. Under exceptional circumstances like this, I think it's reasonable to be cautiously suspicious. Remember when Evo was accused of rape by the coup regime?
despite the fact that SW had sent text messages, including during her questioning at the police station, making clear that she was “chocked (sic shock ed) when they arrested him”, that she only wanted Mr. Assange totake an HIV-test, that she did not intend to accuse him of any offence but that the police were “keen to get their hands on him” and that “it was the police who made up the charges”;
And another:
that, on 25 August 2010, after having examined the evidence, including the original statements of SW and AA, Chief prosecutor of Stockholm formally closed the rape investigation against Mr. Assange, stating that “I do not think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape” and that the “conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all”;
Aaaaand another:
that AA’s own conduct and text messages (including tweets) after the alleged offence fail to support the prosecution’s “rape” narrative including, inter alia: that AA insisted to continue to host Mr. Assange in her one-bedroom apartment, although several other persons expressly offered alternative accommodation for him; that AA agreed to serve as his press secretary and postedenthusiastic tweets expressing how much she enjoyed his company; that AA casually informed others about Mr. Assange’s intention to engage in sexual relations with SW, whose address and contact details were known to her, but did not warn SW or anybody else about having been sexually assaulted by Mr. Assange; that AA did not intend to report any crime against Mr. Assange, but took SW to a police station whereIK,a friend of hers,worked as a police officer, so that SW could enquire about the possibility of compelling Mr. Assange to take a HIV-test; and that AA publicly affirmed, in a tweet of 22 April 2013, that she had not been raped;
Despite strong indications that the Swedish police and prosecution deliberately manipulated and pressured SW, who had come to the police stationfor an entirely different purpose, into making a statement which could be used to arrest Mr. Assange on the suspicion of rape, against SW’s own will and her own interpretation of her experience, no investigation for abuse of function, coercion or false accusation seems to have been conducted, and no disciplinary or judicial sanctions imposed on the responsible officials.
More:
c) Proactive manipulation of evidence : According to evidence made available to me, once the alleged rape-case involving SW had been formally closed by the Chief prosecutor of Stockholm on 25 August 2010:
On the following day, on 26 August 2010, police officer IK, who had formally questioned SW on 20 August 2010, modified and replaced the content of SW’s original statement in the police database, upon instruction of her superior officer MG and without consulting SW;
SW’s modified statement was then handed to CB, the legal counsel appointed by the State to represent AA and SW, who submitted it to a different prosecutor (MN) who, based on this modified statement, re-opened the investigation against Mr. Assange for rape of SW and expanded the alleged offence against AA to several counts of coercion and sexual molestation on 1 September 2010.
...
that SW’s original statement of 20 August 2010, which constitutes a critical piece of evidence, is no longer available, but has been replaced on 26 August 2010 by the statement unilaterally modified by police officer IK upon instruction of her superior officer MG;
...
that Facebook entries made by police officer IK, who had questioned SW and modified her statement, include pictures of herself with former Minister TB and show a strong bias against Mr. Assange, describing the decision of Chief Prosecutor EF to close the rape investigation as a “scandal”, and expressing her confidence that the women’s newly appointed legal counsel, namely “our(sic!) dear, eminent and exceedingly competent CB will hopefully establish a little order!”, and that the “overrated Assange bubble (is) ready to burst”;
that complainant AA, police officer IK, her superior MG, prosecutor MN, state-appointed legal counsel CB, and former Justice Minister TB, were all connected through the same political party and/oragenda, and that some of them were even personal friends and/or campaigning together for the upcoming elections
And from the conclusion:
The medical, factual and circumstantial evidence at my disposal shows that the manner in which Sweden conducted its preliminary investigation against Mr. Assange, including the unrestrained and unqualified dissemination and perpetuation of the “rape-suspect” narrative, was the primary factor that triggered, enabled and encouraged the subsequent campaign of sustained and concerted public mobbing and judicial persecution against Mr. Assange in various countries, the cumulative effects of which can only described as psychological torture. In my assessment,without the arbitrariness of the Swedish investigation, Mr. Assange most likely would not have been exposed to abuse and defamation amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
There's so much more in here. It really needs to be read in full to understand just how shady and clearly orchestrated this whole thing was. Trying to force somebody into making false rape allegations is disgusting and about what I'd expect from imperialists trying to cover up their genocidal war crimes.
Noch nie habe sie sich "so sehr missbraucht gefühlt" wie durch ihn, schreibt die Schwedin Anna A. in einem Dossier, das sie an Melzers Büro geschickt hat und das der SPIEGEL einsehen konnte. Melzer hatte von Manipulationen durch die schwedischen Ermittler gesprochen und die Erfindung einer "Vergewaltigungserzählung" behauptet.
So schiebe er die Schuld den Opfern zu, schreibt die Frau; es sei "eine klassische patriarchalische Technik, die Bedingungen dafür zu definieren, wie 'ein echtes Vergewaltigungsopfer' sich zu verhalten habe". Sie hält dem Juristen zudem vor, sie persönlich zu verleumden und teilweise die Unwahrheit über die Ermittlungen verbreitet zu haben, etwa über die Bereitschaft Assanges, zu den Vorfällen auszusagen. Dies sei "vollständig inakzeptabel, schockierend und ein Grund, seine Tätigkeit bei der Uno zu beenden".
This would point towards her not being in agreement with Melzer. Indeed, he had to immediately respond by saying he "Might not know all the facts". Given that this entire report is just the Melzer report, I feel like this is sufficient counter.
While it may be overblown, and while the polie may have been acting as... well, the lapdop of the imperialist class to punish a journalist (As we all know they would), the idea that Anna A. (AA) has been manipulated by the prosecution into fabricating a story has been dismissed BY HERSELF.
So insofar as this is important (And it is important, because if what he says is true it is absolutely horrifying), it can only be applied to one of the two accusers.
The parts about how her behavior wasn't consistent with a rape victim were highly sus, but this is the part that gets me:
and that AA publicly affirmed, in a tweet of 22 April 2013, that she had not been raped;
Ok, so it was unreasonably hard to actually find this, but this is allegedly a screenshot of the tweet in question, found via this.
Which apparently translates as:
no, i haven't been raped, but i still think animals have rights and people are animals, cool down!
This could be fake, but the shadiness of the situation and the actors involved make me more inclined to believe it, not that I'm certain of anything.
And then there are all of the other allegations in the report about the role of the police and all that. It could be that the report carries lot of patriarchal and victim blaming-related baggage but still accurately reflects a genuine conspiracy against him, which is what I lean towards. I also don't understand what "i still think animals have rights and people are animals, cool down!" is supposed to mean.
Edit: oh wait, I just realize it's directly archived. Yeah, no, it's legit.
Edit edit: and then, yeah, there's the other accuser who seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth.
There is only one tiny snag here. Well, there's two. But I feel like I need to get this one out the way first.
There are multiple words forwhat we could call " rape" in English in Swedish, and they denote types of offence. He is accused of "Sexuellt ofredande" ("Molestation" would be a decent translation I suppose), not "våldtäkt" ("Rape". Literally it means "Violence-taken") by Anna A. The prosecution tried to bump it to "våldtäkt". The specific "Trying to make a rape case happen" is the attempt to charge him with "Rape" rather than "Molestation". Melzer should know this distinction if he speaks fluent Swedish. I do, and I only speak it because of mutual intelligibility with my own language.
And secondly of course, at this point her name was not public, and you don't have to always admit you have been raped at all times.
I see. That makes sense. That might explain why it was just lumped in with the rest of the "inconsistent behavior" stuff. Although the other "accuser's" response:
that SW’s own conduct, text messages and statements after the alleged offence not only discredit the prosecution’s “rape” narrative, but are even indicative of efforts at manipulating and instrumentalizing SW for the purpose of falsely accusing Mr. Assange, including, inter alia: that according to SW’s own words in the police report, after a brief exchange with Mr. Assange about having unprotected sex, devoid of any elements of coercion, incapacitation or deceit, SW “let him continue” to have unprotected intercourse with her, but later worried that she might have contracted HIV; that SW sent text messages during and after her questioning at the police station stating that she only wanted to get Mr. Assange to take an HIV-test, that she did not want to report any criminal offence, but was pressured into doing so by the Swedish police who were “keen to get their hands on him”, and that “it was the police who made up the charges”; and that SW refused to sign her statement, suspended her questioning and left the police station as soon as she was informed that the prosecution intended to use her testimony in order to arrest Mr. Assange on suspicion of rape.
makes me more suspicious. Of course, he could have only assaulted AA, but her relationship with the police officer who did the interview with SW, modified it without her consent, and erased the original, and the web connecting them, the prosecutor, the legal counsel, and the former justice minister are also pretty suspicious.
that complainant AA, police officer IK, her superior MG, prosecutor MN, state-appointed legal counsel CB, and former Justice Minister TB, were all connected through the same political party and/or agenda, and that some of them were even personal friends and/or campaigning together for the upcoming elections.
And in particular:
that legal counsel CB had previously served as Equality Ombudsman for the Swedish Government, and ran an attorney’s office together with TB, who had been Minister of Justice at the time when Swedish security police unlawfully kidnapped and handed over two persons to CIA-custody and subsequent torture;
And then there's whatever's up with this:
that the forensic examination of a condom submitted as evidence, supposedly worn and torn by Mr. Assange during sexual intercourse with AA, revealed no DNA of either Mr. Assange or AA;
Together with the interests and known machinations of the Great Satan, I think this is reasonable grounds to be doubtful, and to expect a higher standard of evidence than an accusation, which under normal circumstances would be enough reason to believe that he did sexually assault her.
I get that, but based on the circumstances and the evidence I brought up, I think this is a pretty unique situation that deserves being looked into more closely.
The imperialists definitely aren't above doing something like this to discredit an enemy or lead them into a position where they could be extradited and tortured. It reminds me a bit of the whole "Uyghur genocide" thing in that questioning the narrative they push is itself socially unacceptable because of the nature of the accusation. It feels gross to argue it, and most reasonable people wouldn't bother, but that UN report was pretty shocking.
The small penis rule is an informal strategy used by authors to evade libel lawsuits. It was described in a New York Times article in 1998:
"For a fictional portrait to be actionable, it must be so accurate that a reader of the book would have no problem linking the two," said Mr. Friedman. Thus, he continued, libel lawyers have what is known as "the small penis rule". One way authors can protect themselves from libel suits is to say that a character has a small penis, Mr. Friedman said. "Now no male is going to come forward and say, 'That character with a very small penis, that's me!'"[1]
The small penis rule was referenced in a 2006 dispute between Michael Crowley and Michael Crichton. Crowley alleged that after he wrote an unflattering review of Crichton's novel State of Fear, Crichton included a character named "Mick Crowley" in the novel Next. The character is a child rapist, described as being a Washington, D.C.-based journalist and Yale graduate with a small penis.[2]
Alright, I figured the Grayzone would have something to say regarding this, and sure enough :
I don't think we have access to these documents and maybe this guy is lying for some reason and Assange actually is a rapist, but there's no doubt in my mind that the Great Satan or any other imperialist country would be willing to fabricate rape accusations to serve their own interests. Under exceptional circumstances like this, I think it's reasonable to be cautiously suspicious. Remember when Evo was accused of rape by the coup regime?
Edit: And here's his full report.
Another relevant bit:
And another:
Aaaaand another:
More:
...
...
And from the conclusion:
There's so much more in here. It really needs to be read in full to understand just how shady and clearly orchestrated this whole thing was. Trying to force somebody into making false rape allegations is disgusting and about what I'd expect from imperialists trying to cover up their genocidal war crimes.
Melzers accusation that the rape story was fabricated and that the testimony of the women in question was manipulated to suit a specific agenda, has been called patriarchal victim blaming, abusive, and a method to dismiss the story by criticising her as an imperfect victim by one of the women in question.
This would point towards her not being in agreement with Melzer. Indeed, he had to immediately respond by saying he "Might not know all the facts". Given that this entire report is just the Melzer report, I feel like this is sufficient counter.
While it may be overblown, and while the polie may have been acting as... well, the lapdop of the imperialist class to punish a journalist (As we all know they would), the idea that Anna A. (AA) has been manipulated by the prosecution into fabricating a story has been dismissed BY HERSELF. So insofar as this is important (And it is important, because if what he says is true it is absolutely horrifying), it can only be applied to one of the two accusers.
The parts about how her behavior wasn't consistent with a rape victim were highly sus, but this is the part that gets me:
Ok, so it was unreasonably hard to actually find this, but this is allegedly a screenshot of the tweet in question, found via this.
Which apparently translates as:
This could be fake, but the shadiness of the situation and the actors involved make me more inclined to believe it, not that I'm certain of anything.And then there are all of the other allegations in the report about the role of the police and all that. It could be that the report carries lot of patriarchal and victim blaming-related baggage but still accurately reflects a genuine conspiracy against him, which is what I lean towards. I also don't understand what "i still think animals have rights and people are animals, cool down!" is supposed to mean.
Edit: oh wait, I just realize it's directly archived. Yeah, no, it's legit.
Edit edit: and then, yeah, there's the other accuser who seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth.
There is only one tiny snag here. Well, there's two. But I feel like I need to get this one out the way first. There are multiple words forwhat we could call " rape" in English in Swedish, and they denote types of offence. He is accused of "Sexuellt ofredande" ("Molestation" would be a decent translation I suppose), not "våldtäkt" ("Rape". Literally it means "Violence-taken") by Anna A. The prosecution tried to bump it to "våldtäkt". The specific "Trying to make a rape case happen" is the attempt to charge him with "Rape" rather than "Molestation". Melzer should know this distinction if he speaks fluent Swedish. I do, and I only speak it because of mutual intelligibility with my own language.
And secondly of course, at this point her name was not public, and you don't have to always admit you have been raped at all times.
I see. That makes sense. That might explain why it was just lumped in with the rest of the "inconsistent behavior" stuff. Although the other "accuser's" response:
makes me more suspicious. Of course, he could have only assaulted AA, but her relationship with the police officer who did the interview with SW, modified it without her consent, and erased the original, and the web connecting them, the prosecutor, the legal counsel, and the former justice minister are also pretty suspicious.
And in particular:
And then there's whatever's up with this:
Together with the interests and known machinations of the Great Satan, I think this is reasonable grounds to be doubtful, and to expect a higher standard of evidence than an accusation, which under normal circumstances would be enough reason to believe that he did sexually assault her.
deleted by creator
I get that, but based on the circumstances and the evidence I brought up, I think this is a pretty unique situation that deserves being looked into more closely.
The imperialists definitely aren't above doing something like this to discredit an enemy or lead them into a position where they could be extradited and tortured. It reminds me a bit of the whole "Uyghur genocide" thing in that questioning the narrative they push is itself socially unacceptable because of the nature of the accusation. It feels gross to argue it, and most reasonable people wouldn't bother, but that UN report was pretty shocking.
slightly off-topic, but it reminded me of this:
"small penis rule"
lol
I will respond to this when you're done editing. Drop me a line when that's done.
Ok, I put everything I think is most relevant in there but there's so much else and it really needs to be read in full holy shit.
Thanks, I'll read through it now.