My original piece on this matter was an attempt to cut through all the disinformation about Assange at the time based on the claims repeated in the mainstream media that Julian Assange was up on a sexual assault charge having been accused by two of his amours. I now have no qualms acknowledging he was fitted up for revealing the homicidal activities of leading governments. Furthermore, it transpires that his accusers had gone to the authorities to demand HIV tests, not to get him charged with rape. It's wrong to attack the women as they too were being fitted up. The horrific news that the Home Secretary has signed off on his extradition to the country that planned his assassination for doing his journalistic job makes me even more angry that some of us were suckered into this for even a minute.
It has been reported that they asked police to track him Assange down, not because he did anything illegal to them but in order for him to provide a blood sample to ensure he did not have HIV/AIDS.Edit: Sidney Criminal Lawyers 2019: Sexual Assault Investigation into Julian Assange Dropped
Police are said to have advised the women that Assange could not be forced to undergo such a test without criminal charges being brought against him, before advising them that the matter would be referred to a prosecutor – a referral which many believe occurred solely due to the fact Assange was wanted by the United States for leaking classified information, including those of atrocities committed by the US defence force.
The gist of their criticism was that the efforts to extradite Assange were not because he committed sexual assault, but in order to make it easier for the United States to get their hands on him.
* * *
Read the transcripts of the police interviews here. Thanks to Mark Anthony France for the tip.
2 comments:
'...and when she said "No" repeatedly.'
Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence either in the women's police statements (nor was it ever claimed before Mr Justice Riddle) that either woman ever used the word 'No.'
You appear to have fallen into the trap of using previous erroneous reports as the basis for your argument. For instance, when, as is claimed 'Miss A kept her legs closed and he tried to prise them open,' what you and others have omitted is the following: 'He asked her what she was doing and she told him she was reaching for a condom. He then put on the condom he gave her.' Assange was invited by this woman (Miss A) to stay in her single-bed flat for another five days.
You are also in danger of morphing both women's experiences into one.
Regarding Miss W, she actually told police she was 'half asleep' when he is accused of intercourse without a condom. Her statement says she immediately said: 'I hope you don't have HIV.'
Assange replied: 'Of course not.' They then continued sex, then she made him breakfast and went with him to the railway station and asked her to call him.
You must also remember that the allegations have been described as 'very serious.' Had they the substance that is claimed, I doubt very much indeed that Sweden's chief prosecutor would have dismissed the allegations. They were, of course, resurrected by a different prosecutor several days later (but we won't go into the shady political ramifications of that particular development).
Thank you,
Roy David.
Thank you for saying this! It sickens me how many people have taken a "black or white" attitude to what is, in fact, a very complex situation. The left's blind support for Assange has, unfortunately, caused them to downplay rape and normalise it further - do we really need that, when so many women suffer from its normalisation already?
I support Wikileaks, and I believe that its net effect has been positive. But I believe we can still be skeptical about Assange - I do not know if he is guilty or not, but there have been equivocations on both sides.
Post a Comment