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.
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.