Some info about the Swedish sexual assault allegations against Julian Assange:
One of the alleged victims - SW - did not want to press charges. The reason she went to the police was that she’d had unprotected sex with Assange and wanted him to have an HIV test. However, when questioned, she did (seemingly unwittingly) allege an assault - she said that during a night of repeated (consensual) sex, Assange had removed the condom without telling her. This was after they had agreed beforehand that protection should be used. She has also said that she was 'half asleep' when he did it. Despite this, SW later said in a text message that she "did not want to put any charges against Julian but the police wanted to get a grip on him", and that she was "shocked when they arrested him".
Assange denies SW's account and says he is certain that she expressly consented to unprotected sex.
The second alleged victim is AA. She has tweeted that she was not raped by Assange, but she has accused him of ‘misconduct’. There are reasons to be skeptical: She has suggested selling her story to a newspaper. She posted tweets on the day after the alleged misconduct, boasting about being at dinner with him - an odd thing to do, if she'd just been assaulted by him. And why did she not warn SW that Assange was an abuser? She knew that he was planning on sleeping with SW. She texted a friend - "He's not here. He's planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?". Her graphic description of the abuse she alleges can be read here. If she is telling the truth, it is strange that she wouldn't have wanted to warn SW.
Both AA and SW provided police with broken condoms as evidence that they had both been assaulted in the same way. As detailed in her description of the incident, AA alleges that Assange cut the end of the condom just before ejaculating. However, no trace of Assange's DNA was found on the condom that AA provided to the police.
According to Assange's attorney, text messages sent by the two women revealed them speaking of 'revenge' and 'economic gain'. AA once wrote a paper on 'The 7 Steps To Revenge' against men who 'dump you'.
Initially, Stockholm's Chief Prosecutor - Eva Finne - had closed the rape case, saying - "I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape", and "The conduct alleged disclosed no crime at all". Another prosecutor - Marianne Ny - reopened the case. After being questioned by Ny, Assange stayed in Sweden for five weeks, until he was given permission, by Ny, to leave. He headed to the UK, and 12 days later, Ny issued a European arrest warrant and an Interpol 'red notice' for his arrest. This was not on the basis that he was charged with any offence, but that he was wanted for questioning by the prosecutor. (UK law was subsequently changed so only a court, not a prosecutor, must sign the warrant).
Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy after the UK Supreme Court rejected his request to not be extradited to Sweden. His (understandable) fear was that once in custody in Sweden, he would be vulnerable to extradition to the US - Assange's lawyers have said from the outset that he would return to Sweden for more questioning providing the authorities there guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US, where, following WikiLeaks’ release of their murderous war criminality in 2010, much of the political/military establishment have openly said that they want him prosecuted on espionage charges, which would mean life imprisonment or execution. According to Yanis Varoufakis, a friend of Assange, he has always wanted to go to Sweden to face his accusers.
Assange’s lawyers have also long requested that the prosecutors in Sweden take a short flight to London, to question him at Scotland Yard, (or do it via video link), pointing out that Ny gave him permission to leave. This is common practice, and according to Swedish Law, people can be charged in their absence. For almost seven years, while Sweden questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Marianne Ny refused to go to the UK and question Assange. She wanted Assange extradited before he was charged.
Ny was quoted in the Swedish newspaper as having said: “Even if I’m wrong, I won’t give up.” But she refused to take a short trip to the UK to question Assange.
Ny also refused to allow the Swedish courts access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women.
Given that Swedish prosecutors refused to go to London to questions Assange, as they would usually do in such cases, and given that they refused to guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US, it does not seem unreasonable for Assange to conclude that something was awry.
Ny also refused to allow the Swedish courts access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women.
Given that Swedish prosecutors refused to go to London to questions Assange, as they would usually do in such cases, and given that they refused to guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US, it does not seem unreasonable for Assange to conclude that something was awry.
In private messages, obtained under the UK’s Data Protection Act, UK intelligence officials suggested that Assange had been framed. One of the messages said “They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ, it’s definitely a fit-up though”.
Swedish investigators wanted to drop the case against Assange back in 2013, but the UK insisted that they carry on. A British official emailed the Swedes: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”. This was discovered following a freedom of information request. Most of the other documents relating to these conversations were unavailable. They had been destroyed by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service in violation of protocol.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that the UK and Sweden have abused the system and Assange should have been been allowed to walk free.
The UN rapporteur on torture has concluded that Assange is the victim of 'psychological torture'.
The head of the Swedish Bar Association has condemned the UK's and Sweden's handling of the case as 'deplorable'.
UK organization, Women Against Rape, believe the pursuit of Assange to be political.
Assange probably has more enemies than anyone on the planet. These enemies are extremely powerful and nefarious – eg the CIA. Sweden and the UK have a long history of collusion with the CIA. Both countries have partaken in secret CIA ‘renditions’ - illegally deporting people, to be tortured abroad.
The US has been covertly targeting Assange and WikiLeaks since as far back as 2008, having been identified as a serious threat. A secret Pentagon document laid out a plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange - he is on a ‘manhunt target list’, revealed by Edward Snowden's leaks; Joe Biden called him a terrorist; Hillary Clinton allegedly made a sick joke about drone bombing him. A secret grand jury in the US sought for years to contrive a crime for which Assange could be prosecuted.
Side Note: US government agencies have a long history of collusion with the media to propagandise and manipulate the public into supporting their agendas - hence the constant misinformation, and smearing and mocking of Assange, from mainstream journalists, (they also just hate him because he shows them up for the frauds that they are. Unlike most of them, Julian and WikiLeaks actually do real journalism that speaks truth to power!). On the day that the investigation began, the press in Sweden splashed across the front pages that Assange was accused of raping two women. Clearly, this was a result of coordination between authorities and the press.
If I’ve missed anything or got anything wrong, please let me know.
Obviously, the most important thing to remember is - even if he is guilty of misconduct, this is NOT why he has been targeted. He has been targeted for his incredibly brave work confronting the most powerful forces on the planet, unveiling their criminality, and hindering their ability to manipulate us into supporting more murderous conquests. Countless lives saved as result, no doubt.
I recommend watching this documentary, broadcast on Australian television in 2012.
