Assange Secret Swedish Police Report Leaked 840
letsurock writes "The 68-page confidential report prepared by Swedish police got leaked which tells the police version on the alleged sexual misconduct by the Julian assange. The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August this year when 39-year-old Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women."
Old news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:the Julian assange (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what (Score:5, Informative)
in Sweden if the woman withdraws consent during the act it is still considered rape, with prision terms.
The point of contention is not the swedish law, but whether the consent was actually withdrawn and the credibility of the womens' statement. The women seem to have continued their relationship with Assange, despite the rape and condom-break incident, which makes their claims sound a bit dubious.
Re:So what (Score:5, Informative)
>>>in Sweden if the woman withdraws consent
There is no evidence this happened. All we have is two women who were apparently happy with Julian, but then they met each other and discovered he was two-timing, and suddenly the women weren't happy. i.e. We only have their word and their word is suspect, because they have motive to lie (to get back at the creep).
Re:Can someone link the report? (Score:4, Informative)
There is a Guardian article [guardian.co.uk] which seems to talk about it very in-depth but doesn't present the raw document. They've apparently seen it though so either whoever leaked it is letting people look but not touch or there's some reason for it being kept sort-of under wraps.
Re:One of the women has links to anti-Castro group (Score:5, Informative)
Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups link [counterpunch.org]
Re:Can someone link the report? (Score:5, Informative)
I've heard differently (Score:5, Informative)
Really, because from what I've read, even the Pentagon [hotair.com] had admitted that no troops were endangered by the leaks.
Yes, they originally stated that lives were endangered, but later had to change their tune after they really couldn't find anything to that effect.
So unless you count lives being endangered by people being more pissed off at the US in general (a symptom I attribute more to the ignorance of corporate-government policy and meddling than wikileaks), I'd say that the only real danger thus far has been to the careers of various high-up politicos and corporations.
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:3, Informative)
The only military video I've seen on Wikileaks was not misrepresented, at all. It is clear from the video and the conversations in it that the people firing the guns on the helicopter simply did not care if their targets were valid or not. They were excited at the prospect of killing people and didn't care about anything else.
Re:So what (Score:2, Informative)
This is actually how rape laws work in Saudi Arabia - men are incapable of rape and women are responsible for being raped.
Re:Clickwhoring (Score:4, Informative)
I'd assume because Slashdot editors don't like linking to the NYT because it has a semi-paywall thing. If they linked directly to NYT, you'd had pages of people complaining that they are being asked to subscribe to see the article. I had a similar experience when I submitted something from the NYT, they didn't post it for several days and then linked to a different newspaper that referenced the NYT story.
IIRC: NYT lets you see one article a day without subscribing or something like that. It's trivial to defeat by clearing your cookies, not accepting cookies in the first place, or using private browsing.
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:3, Informative)
The only military video I've seen on Wikileaks was not misrepresented, at all.
Then you don't remember the original sequence of events. The original video *was* misrepresented, in that it was edited to remove large portions of the video... it wasn't until later that the full, unedited version was provided.
Of course, you'd think, in "leaking" something, you'd just leak the whole thing and be done with it. Not so for Wikileaks...
Re:How does a condom break (no stupid jokes please (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if you've watched the full video, or just Assange's edit of it. If you watched the full one you know that at several points they asked for clearance to fire, and spent some time trying to figure the situation out.
Re:So what (Score:4, Informative)
While I don't condone his lying to both women, I'm still not convinced that he did anything that would be regarded as illegal even under Swedish law's definition of rape. There's certainly plenty of evidence that both women spent plenty of time with him socially after the fact. There's even some evidence that these women didn't really press charges even after they found out about each other until _after_ someone in the prosecutor's office started pushing them. In the end, though, his final guilt or innocence is for a trial to decide.
However, I'm not sure that he's ever going to get a fair hearing. Based upon the correspondence that has been released by his lawyers in Britain and Sweden, I'm FIRMLY convinced that the way his rights have been trampled by British and Swedish law enforcement go far beyond the point that a fair and impartial judge would declare the Swedish equivalent of a mistrial. In this circus-like, witch hunt atmosphere? Doubtful at best.
Re:Yo dawg, I heard (Score:4, Informative)
Now, STFU until you know what you are talking about.
Re:Yo dawg, I heard (Score:5, Informative)
The summary implies that Assange couldn't be guilty because they women initially consented, disregarding the fact that with one, he refused to stop and with the other, he waited until she was asleep and did something to which she did not consent.
The summary implies no such thing. The summary says:
The 68-page confidential report prepared by Swedish police got leaked which tells the police version on the alleged sexual misconduct by the Julian assange. The Swedish report traces events over a four-day period in August this year when 39-year-old Assange had what he has described as consensual sexual relationships with two Swedish women."
This is an impartial statement of events. The police report was leaked. Presumably (I must presume, as no one has posted a link to the actual report.), it contains allegations on which the prosecutor's indictment was based. The summary then proceeds to state Mr. Assange's version of events. It endorses neither the police report, nor Mr. Assange's denials.
You read with insufficient care.
Sourced to a fucking blog??? (Score:4, Informative)
For FUCK'S sake, cite the fucking original source not what has been passed through all these useless parasites regurgitating while diluting and colouring whatever facts there were at each step? So, it took me 2 whole minutes to find at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html [nytimes.com]
What next: A Tweet referring to a blog copying a Usenet post... How can the editors let these douchebags promote their worthless blogs like this, in the guise of a news story they've plagiarised from someone else?
Re:Yo dawg, I heard (Score:5, Informative)
Please do not speak of things you obviously do not have a clue about.. If you are convicted of rape in Sweden you get to spend 2-10 years in jail, depending on the age of the victim and the amount of violence that was used.
Maybe so, but the link given by A.C. leads to the most informative article [washingtonexaminer.com] about the Assange Affair that I have seen.
I here excerpt my favorite parts:
One of the women said in her statement to police that she was obsessed with meeting the tall, wiry man she had come to see as a hero of free speech — "interesting, brave and admirable."
For two weeks after seeing an Assange TV interview, the 27-year-old woman devoured news reports about him. Then one night, she Googled his name and learned he was giving a lecture in Sweden on Aug. 14.
The woman contacted the organizers and offered to do chores if she were allowed to attend. She turned up in a bright pink sweater and sat in the front row — looking out of place amid a sea of journalists in somber suits. The ice was broken when she agreed to buy a cable for Assange's computer.
I like a woman who knows what she wants; note the carefully orchestrated campaign, the subtlety of execution. She bought him a cable for his computer Surely, that can only spell Geek Love! How could poor Julian resist?
She was invited to a post-lecture dinner, she said, and seated next to Assange. They flirted, she told police: At one point Assange hand-fed her cheese and bread. The police report says she found it "flattering."
Bleah. Disgusting. How can people do that in public? Did he spoon-feed her saccharine also?
She and Assange went to the movies, where she said they kissed. Two days later she brought him home.
But by then, she told police, "the passion and excitement had disappeared."
On the train ride to her place, she said, Assange logged on to his computer and started reading about himself on Twitter. "He paid more attention to the computer than to her," the report said.
Disaster! A clear mismatch, as she was not googling on her own laptop.
They got to her apartment at midnight — and what happened next "felt very dull and boring," she told police. She later alleged, according to a British lawyer, that Assange pinned her down and refused to wear a condom.
The bold type in the last paragraph was added by your humble editor. I think we have here the nub of the matter, so to speak. But of course, we must also consider the woman behind Door Number 2:
The 31-year-old, a feminist scholar who was working for the organization that hosted Assange's Aug. 14 lecture, let him use her apartment while she was away on a trip. But she returned early, on the eve of his lecture, and the two agreed he could stay.
That night, they went out for dinner, returned to her place for tea, and, she said, became intimate. Later, in the middle of the night, she claimed in the police report, Assange sexually molested her. In a London court Tuesday, a lawyer accused Assange of having unprotected sex with the woman while she was asleep.
Afterward, he stayed in the apartment for nearly a week.
Again, bold type provided by yours truly. I can only guess what activities are covered by "became intimate", and the sex-while-asleep bit requires some context and clarification. However, it seems odd that the feminist scholar let him stay in her apartment for a week after an act that she now classifies as "rape".
Ah, but here comes the train-wreck:
During that time, the first woman tried unsuccessfully to reach Assange and, on Aug. 20, tracked down the apartment where he was staying. The two women got to talking.
After swapping Assange stories, they jointly contacted police — and filed rape complaints.
Mr. Assange, you are so doomed.
Re:Yo dawg, I heard (Score:5, Informative)
The report says that. Follow the timeline. Assange meets woman A, who arranged a party for him and put him up. They have sex. They hang out for days. She arranges another party. He meets woman B, who practically stalks him. They have sex. They go out for breakfast the next morning. Women A and B meet, compare notes. They realize he had condomless sex with both of them. They want him to get tested for HIV. He refuses. They both go to the police. The original prosecutor drops the charges, says there is no case. Months later, a new prosecutor (who just so happens to be instrumental in pushing the new Swedish anti-rape laws) convinces the women to reopen the case.
These facts have been reported in the UK Guardian and many, many other places.
And another fun fact, Woman A has posted an essay on her blog about using the legal system to extract revenge on men who have wronged a woman romantically.
Re:Not on wikileaks? (Score:4, Informative)
If anything, the full version was worse. There's a lull of about ten minutes in which the helicopter guys just hang around and wait for something to move so they can shoot it. The edited-out bits about the girl are also horrific, showing blatant disregard for civilians from the US military (the shot-up girl is denied medical aid, basically).