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]
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