Much more detail on the WikiLeaks–Assange non-rape story

[kpete]

Much more detail on the WikiLeaks–Assange non-rape story
by Gaius Publius on 8/24/2010 10:00:00 AM

This is bar none the best account I've found of what's happened. I really want to print the whole thing — it's that good. But I'll make do with a taste (I'll find a prime slice) and then strongly suggest you read it all. Horton's a lawyer and an expert in these things; he's also a hell of a researcher.
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/08/hbc-90007522

The prime slice (with my secondary emphasis):

This weekend, the controversies surrounding WikiLeaks took another strange turn. Late on Friday, the Swedish newspaper Expressen disclosed that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was the subject of an arrest warrant arising out of charges by two female witnesses that he had raped them within a three-day period. The late-hours special duty prosecutor, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, issued an arrest warrant for Assange, who quickly protested his innocence and charged that the claims against him were a “dirty trick.” Within twenty-four hours, Swedish prosecutors did a near complete about-face. . . . One of the women behind the charges gave an interview to the Swedish paper Aftonbladet on Sunday, backpedaling furiously. She stated that she was surprised to learn that the accusations were treated as a rape charge and denied that there had been any encounter with Assange involving violence or force. She suggested that the controversy had to do with Assange’s failure to use a condom during intercourse. In the meantime, Sweden’s Justice Ombudsman was demanding a formal investigation into how the accusations came to be sensationalized by the press on the basis of an improperly issued arrest warrant.

A few points should be noted about this case. . . . Under the Swedish criminal justice system, like in many others, the preliminary investigation of allegations of a crime is a secret matter. That is doubly the case in questions relating to sexual misconduct, since disclosure may do severe damage to the reputation of all the parties involved. In this case, the information was fanned in a tabloid-style paper within minutes of its being opened. The prosecutors involved insist that they did not disclose this information. Who did? The Guardian speculates that it was the Swedish police.

Assange, however, quickly laid the blame on the Pentagon.
http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/much-more-detail-on-wikileaksassange.html

[Lance_Boyle]

1. Why in the hell does someone go to the police

because her partner did not use a condom? And then swear up and down there was no violence or force? Not wearing a condom is no crime - so why take it to the police? This shit still stinks.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

2. K&R