If she's lying, it's not rape. If she's telling the truth, it's goddamn rape.

[Robb]

Everything else is window dressing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

Again, if she's lying, it's not rape. If she's telling the truth, it's rape. Period.

[xor]

1. How are cases like this usually proven?

Is there anyway?

[TorchTheWitch]

32. logically, they can't be

This is exactly why so many rape cases never see the inside of a courtroom much less get past a prosecutor... the average prosecutor (at least in this country) isn't going to take on a case that is virtually impossible to prove particularly when both the accused and the accuser seem credible when questioned. Without physical trauma to the accuser and DNA testing, it's basically a case of he said/she said. Even WITH one or both of those pieces of evidence, there STILL can be no real way to know. Vaginal or anal trauma (unless it's extreme) and even light trauma to the general person can be brushed off as "rough sex" by the defense, DNA testing isn't infallible particularly with condom use, and if the accuser has so much as MET their attacker even DNA can be brushed off by the defense as consensual sex.

There IS no way to "prove" rape case that comes down to he said/she said. All that can be done is for the jury to listen to both sides of the story and make a decision more or less based on demeanor and behavior both of which are full of holes for both the accused and the accuser. It helps if there are clues about either of the accused or the accuser like whether or not either one lies about some aspect of the incident that is proven as such... for instance, if the accused claims that they were elsewhere at the time of the incident yet there are credible witnesses or even video evidence that proves they were not elsewhere (and better yet if it can be shown they WERE where the incident took place at the time it did), or in the case of the accuser the same thing but in reverse (if the accuser claims that the incident occurred in a certain place at a certain time and the accused can show they were elsewhere).

Other than that, it's just a matter of the prosecutor attacking the accused and the defense attacking the accuser with whatever information can be dug up and usually isn't even relevant, and sadly, it is by far the accuser that bears most of the brunt of irrelevant attacks yet they're allowed... pretty much exactly what's going on here concerning the accusers in the Assange case (minus the whacko conspiracy theory nuttery).

[LisaL]

34. Since neither one of these two women went to the police

right after these incidents, I think it's a safe bet there were no rape kits done. So I presume prosecution wouldn't even be able to prove (with DNA evidence) that Assange actually had unprotected sex with these women.

[TorchTheWitch]

46. he admitted to having unprotected sex with them

Smart of him since at the time he wouldn't have known whether they had rape kits done or not. Imagine if he had said they he didn't have unprotected sex with them and rape kits he wouldn't have been aware of proved that he did? But how does a DNA test prove that anyway? All it does is show whether or not their DNA got into either of these woman's vaginas, and it should be obvious that can happen when you have sex with someone even with a condom... his DNA doesn't just exist on that part of him covered with a condom. All a DNA test can prove is whether or not a person had sex with someone at ALL.

I think we're well past the point of realizing this is a he said/she said case anyway, so what's your point?

[LisaL]

67. Maybe you should read the OP article.

The article says he claims to have been not even aware that the condom ripped, so I sincerely doubt he admitted to having unprotected sex with them.

[LawnLover]

45. It's he said/she said apparently

And I can't see why someone would claim rape unless they have a hidden agenda. Who does the accuser work for? Has she been paid off? Does she have certain political ties that bring her story into question?

Does the accused have a history of this kind of behavior?

But if it's just a matter of he said/she said, I think any outcome should weigh in favor of the accused, since there's apparently no physical evidence of rape.

[NutmegYankee]

2. You do have an asbestos suit right?

Too many here see this guy as a hero who can do nothing wrong, and they will come to tear you down to defend him.

[cali]

38. I don't see him as a hero. More as a flawed protagonist

but from what I've read, he's not guilty of rape.

[NutmegYankee]

78. I wasn't focusing on the rape charge.

I just noticed a few folks here react with much anger over any suggestion that he isn't "perfect".

[denem]

3. Read it: This does not compute

According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

1. Realized he was trying to have unprotected sex
2. Reached for a condom but he held her back
3. He then agreed to use a condom
4. Put on the condom but ripped it
5. Got to ejaculate inside her


Q = Why. Unless he's a psychopath, the obvious reason for not wearing a condom is a loss of sensation, not impregnation.

[Hamlette]

57. It's not if she's lying, by her own words it's not rape.

Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

She does not say she said no. She does not say she tried to stop him from having sex. Read in context she says she was "uncomfortable" because it was going to fast.

She does say he initially stopped her from getting a condom but that he eventually used a condom. I don't know the laws of Sweden but that's not rape in the states.

All she says is "it was too late to stop" him, not that she did anything to try to stop him. Again, maybe under Swedish law, but not under ours. You have to SAY no, not just think that saying "no" would not have done any good.

[TorchTheWitch]

75. she isn't required to do anything to stop him

You are aware that a person out of fear of escalating violence isn't required to tell an attacker to stop or try to get away or try to fight them off? According to the allegations and without her consenting to sex he forcefully tore off her clothes so violently that her necklace snapped off, she attempted to put her clothing back on and he tore them off again. The violent nature of such an attack is reasonably considered fearful by anyone who has not consented to having sex. Trying to put her clothes back on after he allegedly tore them off the first time is a CLEAR indication that she did not want sex. Once an attack has begun the victim is not required to say stop or try to get away or try to fight them off because the attack has ALREADY begun and it began with the violent tearing off of her clothing the FIRST time. Anything the victim says or does ONCE THE ATTACK HAS ALREADY BEGUN is permitted in order to protect themselves as best they can from escalating violence. If AFTER her clothing was violently torn off TWICE and she decided the best course of action in order to protect herself from further violence was to just take it until he was finished that is entirely acceptable and recognized as such in a court of law.

By ANYONE'S standards a person who has not been given consent to have sex violently tears off someone's clothing a sexual attack has ALREADY begun. In this case it is alleged that not only did he violently tear off her clothes once, she attempted to put them back on (a CLEAR indication that she was not giving consent) and he tore them off AGAIN. Asking the attacker to wear a condom has long been established not be be consent ONCE THE ATTACK HAS BEGUN but the victim attempting to protect themselves from the further harm of the possibility of infection/pregnancy. There's a long list of case precedent behind this.

No, you DON'T have to SAY no as the law recognizes that the victim may not be in a position where it is physically possible to say no, and once the attack has begun it doesn't MATTER what the victim says or does as the law also recognizes that once an attack has begun anything the victim says or does is reasonable in order to attempt to protect themselves from escalating harm.

Where in the world do these ridiculous 19th century excuses come from??? We thankfully no longer live in an age where women are only considered to have been raped if they try to fight off their attacker. No means no IF the soon to be victim says no and are then attacked - it doesn't mean the victim is required to say no before the attack starts or once it has already begun.

[Hamlette]

76. you are reading more into this than is there

violence? Attack? Forcefully?

While it is true that if you believe you are not in a position to say/do anything you are not required to. But read what she said. HER words, not yours. I've had sexual encounters like this (the part about the clothes) and its more fun than you apparently think. (Sigh) (I'm also thinking you've never worn a necklace with a magnetic latch? I have a bracelet with a magnetic fastener and a door handle will "forcefully and violently snap it off".)

From her statement, he's not guilty in any state of the union. I admit there are facts we don't know but by her words, nada.

I'm not a fan of his (for other reasons) and as a former public defender recognize that women have a tough go in court BUT we need balance. Otherwise, any woman could accuse anyone of rape by just saying "I didn't want it."

He took her clothes off but let her put them back on? Rape? Really? I'm not seeing it.

I must admit my views are colored by the fact that she had sex with him after the rape. Several times. Over the course of six days. She was not held hostage. Could have left at any time. She only reported it when she found out he'd has sex with another woman. If those facts are true, he's not a rapist. An egotistical asshole, (but not because of this incident) but not a rapist.

[Turborama]

4. This isn't "window dressing"...

...it's motive: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Assange's defence team had so far been provided by prosecutors with only incomplete evidence, he said. "There are many more text and SMS messages from and to the complainants which have been shown by the assistant prosecutor to the Swedish defence lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, which suggest motivations of malice and money in going to the police and to Espressen and raise the issue of political motivation behind the presentation of these complaints. He has been precluded from making notes or copying them.

"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.

"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.

"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."

[Robb]

5. Yes. If she's lying, it's not rape.

But if she's telling the truth, it's rape.

[Turborama]

7. I read the title of your OP

And understood what you said the first time.

I also read this, "everything else is window dressing" and disagree. There are lots of details of this case which are much more than just "window dressing".

[Robb]

8. Do you agree, IF she's telling the truth THEN it's rape?

Big "if."

[Turborama]

9. If she's telling the truth about which version of events, exactly?

There is more than one version, you know.

[Robb]

12. The two paragraphs I posted. If they occurred as written, is that rape?

[Turborama]

14. I'm pleading the 5th

I have a policy of not having heated debates with moderators or administrators.

[Robb]

16. "Heated"?

Either the story as written describes rape, or it's not. This should not be a difficult question to answer.

(As an aside, answering either way would not be against the rules, and while I'm personally offended you would suggest it would be -- and that I might take action to that effect -- neither offending me, nor me being offended, breaks DU rules. If you truly think otherwise, I apologize and I'll accept my part of the blame for my role in helping shape the culture here. But I don't think it's a fair tactic to use to avoid the question.)

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. Wise. n/t

[truth2power]

36. Thanks, Turborama. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

62. ditto here

[redirish28]

6. It isn't rape regardless. You can't hold someone for a broken condom

[stray cat]

28. If the complaint is true - he forced her to continue after the condom broke

which seems to be ok to many progressives as is having sex with someone if they are asleep or drunk.

[Codeine]

54. DU is suddenly very enthusiastic to change its position on rape.

Strange place lately.

[juajen]

60. Excuse me, I'm a progressive and I believe this story is bunk!

Why put on a condom and break it on purpose unless you want a child from the union. None of this story holds water. Bunk!

[TorchTheWitch]

66. this isn't about a broken condom

and never has been despite the false claims of Assange's defense attorneys.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1208/Details-of-Sweden-s-case-against-WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange
The circumstances of the case – both women told Swedish police they had at least one consensual sexual encounter with Assange – has fueled plenty of online rumor and disinformation. A mention from the Swedish police and press reports that Assange failed to use a condom in one instance, and that in another his condom broke, have led to many false claims that having unprotected sex is illegal in Sweden, and that the country has a "broken condom law."

This is what the allegations are as testified in the Westminster court hearing by attorney Gemma Lindfield, representing the Swedish state:

http://www.3news.co.nz/WikiLeaks-founder-Assange-denied-bail/tabid/417/articleID/189847/Default.aspx
The first complainant, Miss A, alleged she was a victim of "unlawful coercion" on August 14, saying Assange had used the weight of his body to hold her down in a sexual manner.

She claims Assange "sexually molested" her by having sex without a condom, despite it being her "express wish" that he use one.

In a third claim, Miss A alleges Assange "deliberately molested" her on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

A second woman, Miss W, alleges Assange had sex with her without consent while she was asleep.

[KharmaTrain]

10. The Latest Bright Shiny Toy...

I know there are those who think this is some international conspiracy to shut up Assange...as if he's the only one who can get the stuff he's posted. Somehow he's been "Rittered" to shut him up. Sure doesn't look like its working too well if you look at all the posts around here. But this case is one that will and should be determined in court...with a jury of peers (according to my knowledge that's how they do it in Sweden). If he's guilty of rape or not is up to them to decide based on evidence and testimony...not on conjecture or projection. If he's guilty, so be it...if he's innocent he will be able to present that case as well. Until that time happens I reserve any judgement.

And what does all of this have to do with Wikileaks? If this is an effort to shut it down or try to go after any "whistleblowers", they've failed miserably. The controversy only distracts not only from the content (or to some, the lack thereof) in those cables and the real political prisoner in this situation...Col. Manning.

The sex angle is always one that titilates and captivates...especially in a he said/she said situation. But this is just a sideshow, a distraction. If he's guilty or not means nothing...he's only the messenger.

[Catherina]

11. Bullshit

From your same article

both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.

Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

What an insult to rape victims. No rape victim allows her rapist to stay in her flat for another week and throws parties for him.


Neither of the women's police statements dared complain of "rape". And you know why they didn't report him to the police for prosecution and one has now recanted her story while the rightwinger with CIA ties fled to Israeli occupied territories on a *Christian* mission?

“Neither Arden nor Wilén complained to the police but rather “sought advice”, a technique in Sweden enabling citizens to avoid just punishment for making false complaints­. They sought advice together, having collaborat­ed and irrevocabl­y tainted each other’s evidence beforehand­. Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange. They belong to the same political group and attended a public lecture given by Assange and organised by them."

Author: Melbourne barrister James D. Catlin, who acted for Julian Assange in London in October

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

The first prosecutor dismissed this flimsy, transparent case until the US put furious pressure on them to get a new prosecutor and pursue this scurrilous charges.

Rape my ass.

[Robb]

13. You don't believe her. But that doesn't answer the issue.

Independent of all else, the excerpt I posted: does that describe rape to you, or not?

Edited to add: it appears she didn't leave for Palestine http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025270-503543.html">after all, eh?

[Catherina]

18. Sincerely, no

This is so tranparently flimsy

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

I mean come on, really now. Anna Ardin had plenty of time during all that to say a simple no. The woman speaks how many languages and can't say *NO* in any of them? Then puts out tweets boasting of their intimate relationship, lets him stay with her his remaining time in Sweden, in her bed, and throws a party for him?

Don't think for a minute that I take rape lightly. My last job was working with abused young women and my younger sister was raped while in my care. This whole case offends me to the core because it makes a mockery of justice and a mockery of rape.

To answer your question directly, independent of who the players are, no, that does not describe rape to me.

[Robb]

19. I appreciate the answer, thank you.

Obviously I don't agree, but I'll point out your position on this adds weight to the rest of your argument and position.

[Catherina]

29. Thanks Robb. I edited to add that she let him stay in her bed

I think that sheds a sinister light on the accusation.

I appreciate that we disagree and thank you for the exchange.

[Maru Kitteh]

73. The psychology of rape is not so simple. It's not unusual for victims to share a bed, a meal,

a life, with their assailant.

[Catherina]

26. It was Ardin herself who blogged about going to her new home in Yanoun Palestine

http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-7576573/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmZlZWRibGl0ei5jb20vfi8yMjY3ODYxMy8wL2FsdGVybmV0flJlcG9ydC1Bc3Nhbmdlcy1Td2VkaXNoLVNleC1DcmltZXMtQWNjdXNlci1GbGVlcy10by1NaWRkbGUtRWFzdC1NYXktTm90LUJlLUNvb3BlcmF0aW5nLXdpdGgtUG9saWNl

Nothing about this woman is clear or direct.

[LisaL]

71. Even if you believe her side of the story a 100 %, does she state

that at any point of time she had voiced her objections to him?
I don't see where she states she had told him at any point of time to stop.
Her main objection appears to be not the sex, but that the condom was torn during the sex. She thinks he did something to the condom. He denies even knowing that the condom was torn.
I am just wondering as to why you think that if her story is accurate it constitutes rape?

[treestar]

40. Judging her about letting him stay at the apartment

Does not seem appropriate until we know what else was going on.

Sounds like the right wing's type of statements: why was she there, dressed that way, why does she stay with him, etc.

People are looking for an excuse for this guy because they want him to be their hero. If he is guilty of this, the fun goes out of that.

[Catherina]

59. Not just her apartment. Her bed. While she raved about him. Double fail. n/t

[rug]

15. Whether the leaks are true is the point.

Do you have an opinion on that?

[Robb]

17. I wholly believe the leaked documents are genuine.

...I wasn't aware anyone disputed that. :shrug:

[rug]

20. Then what is the point of speculating whether the leaker is a rapist?

That will resolve itself in court.

[Robb]

22. Because it should have nothing to do with the leaks.

Who Assange is, and who the women are, should not distract from the issue that if their story is true, a rape occurred. I don't care if it's the high school quarterback or the lead cheerleader involved, defending one by denigrating the other is not appropriate.

[stray cat]

30. The leaks about the accusations of sexual assault - because the truth of Wikileaks is irrelevant

[sendero]

23. I would agree..

... and I would also give it about 10% chance of being true, at best.

[alc]

24. there's an in between

I don't know how many times my wife has said something to the kids like "you can do it later" or "I'd rather you didn't" or even "if you really want to" with a voice very similar to when she says "sure, go ahead". Then they do it and she's mad because she is positive she had "told them no, in no uncertain terms". I've learned to tell the kids "no" when I hear some key phrases that don't mean "no". It happens with me also and sounds like it happens at work. What she's thinking is filtered by the "don't want to disappoint" part of her brain before it gets to her mouth and she doesn't realized that what she says is very different from what she's thinking (that's how she describes it).

I'm not trying to excuse rape in any way but women need to be assertive in all aspects of their life and say what they think. I do not think it happens often if at all, but I can imagine a situation where a women is certain she said "no" but the man is certain he heard "yes" and they are both right because the "no" got translated to "yes" subconsciously. And the same lack-of-assertiveness could happen with physical activity - in her mind she's putting up a fight but in reality she's just laying there. So he just had some rather boring consensual sex, but she just got raped.

[Nikia]

35. Maybe men shouldn't proceed unless they hear an enthusiastc yes

Some men seem to think that it is ok to proceed unless she yells no forcefully multiple times and physically attacks him. Maybe we could feel sure that a woman didn't feel raped and a man didn't feel falsely accused if it was the opposite.

[Silent3]

43. An enthusiastic yes, huh?

Why not have a standard by which a woman has to sign papers in triplicate in front of at least two witnesses, then after a seven day waiting period has to re-sign the paperwork and recite, "I, (woman's name here), being of sound mind and body, fully consent to engage in sexual activity with (partner's name here). If at any time during the sexual act I become less than wildly enthusiastic, (partner's name here) must cease activity immediately." At that point, sexual activity can cautiously begin, with the (presumably male, because it's only males who are vicious rapists at heart) partner ever-vigilant for the slightest sign of distress, discomfort, or loss of interest so that he, even if he's two seconds from orgasm, can immediately withdraw, disengage, and pull back out of physical contact.

Does that work for you for you?

Because anything else is the full moral equivalent to pulling a knife on a woman in a dark alley and beating her senseless while sex is forced on her?

When I was married I had sex a few times when I was less than fully enthusiastic about it, but I'm male. Does that also count as rape? Has my psyche been shattered to the core by a hideous violation of my innermost being, but I simply haven't caught on yet?

There comes a point where if we're serious about equal gender rights we have to stop acting as if women are weak-minded children with whom we have to be oh-so-delicately cautious, lest we be "taking advantage" of them. There also comes a point where the seriousness of real, vicious rape becomes diminished when it's put in the same category as little more than misunderstandings, mixed signals, and regrets over things done by people who both put themselves in foolish situations via mutually consensually consumed drugs and alcohol.

If we're worried that things like misunderstandings and inebriation can be excuses people hide behind to excuse deliberate rape, the answer is the messy and less-than-perfect solution of having to sort things out on a case-by-case basis, not out-of-hand denying realistic and perfectly valid reasons why people, people who need to take some measure of responsibility for their own actions sometimes, sometimes get involved in situations they're unhappy about later.

[Nikia]

49. There are some men who are predatory sexually that look for excuses

And when the two people involved are the only witnesses, there probably won't be a conviction because of reasonable doubt. There are areas between an enthusiastic yes and someone being raped fearing for their life. That said when it doubt it is moral to get a more definite consent than not. Do you think that it is moral to take aquaintances things from them if they might be aware of it or repeatedly badger them about giving them to you while under the influence of alcohol? Wouldn't it be more moral for them to offer or to ask nicely and get an enthusiastic yes?
I guess morality is relative, but I wouldn't invite someone to my home that is always trying to steal people's things and I wouldn't invite a man who was always trying to have sex with women who didn't want to have sex with them.

[Silent3]

70. You not inviting a certain kind of man into your home...

...is you taking responsibility for what happens in your life and the risks you take. That's a good thing.

I think it's better to leave to legal prosecution only those circumstances which are clear-cut cases of sexual aggression with a non-consenting partner. Just like our legal system is founded on the principle that it's better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man, it's better that some men occasionally get away with what might be the moral, if not legal, equivalent of rape, than to criminalize gray areas of consent, turning human sexuality into a dangerous minefield of criminality and liability, where mostly men have to treat mostly women as weak-minded, vulnerable children.

[krabigirl]

51. Wow...

Maybe women who have consensual sex shouldn't cry rape?

[bettyellen]

52. she could have said, " No " just once. but I haven't seen that reported. Have you?

[LisaL]

65. Whatever your opinion is, it's not the law. At least here in US.

Such as the man on trial for rape isn't required to prove that he got an enthusiastic Yes before having sex.

[moobu2]

25. If she's telling the truth, how is this rape? I cant see it. n/t

[zeemike]

27. And if she is lying can she financially benefit from it?

Do you think that there will be a lot of people in this world willing to shower her with money if she makes it stick and the nasty whistle blower is put away for telling secrets.
Just ask Paula Jones about how it can lead to a big payday....she got what...a million bucks and a free noes job.

[stray cat]

31. Can a progressive be guilty of rape or only conservatives?

[cali]

37. stupid rhetorical question

no one has said a progressive can't be guilty of rape. That said, her story stinks worse than week old herring at room temp.

[Forkboy]

48. LOL

:crazy:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. That first checkbox is first for a reason. -nt

[bettyellen]

33. Did she ever say "no" or "stop" after she initiated the sex?

Because I have after condom issues arose, and it worked out. Did she try saying stop? If not, I don't think we would in America at least, be tring to prosecute this man.

[treestar]

39. True, and it is all independent of Wikileaks

People who want Julian to be their hero over Wikileaks don't want to believe her, and would not give her a chance at all - whoever picks the jurors needs to be careful to find neutral people.

[Life Long Dem]

41. This has nothing to do with wikileaks.

Lets not forget we all have rights. And this includes the freedom of speech.

[LisaL]

42. After reading all this, it appears the women

didn't object to the sex but to the fact that he supposedly either did something to the condom or did not use the condom. Is that rape? If they objected and told him "no", and he proceeded anyway, I believe it would be rape (based on one their side of the story) but are they actually claiming they have told him no?

[NotThisTime]

50. That's what's not mentioned, did these women say NO? At any time?

[TheKentuckian]

44. Good luck getting me to vote for such a conviction.

The sex was by all accounts consensual. In the account you point out he actually puts on the condom. He continues to be a welcomed and even celebrated guest.

No way you can send someone away for years or life on no evidence and such a completely flimsy collaborating back story. To do so would mean about 0% credence to innocent until proven guilty and somewhere between 99-100% that you'd vote for conviction based exclusively on the accusation, in my opinion.

[Demstud]

47. Maybe

As written is doesn't say whether she actually told him that she didn't want to go any further, but holding her arms and legs when she at least wanted to use a condom, and intentionally breaking it should at least be some kind of sexual assault. Though I have know clue how a criminal case could be made out of any of this.

[LisaL]

64. But after she supposedly held her arms and legs

he agreed to put on a condom by her account. And it does not appear she claims she objected to having sex after he put on a condom. It's just that she thinks he did something to that condom because it ripped. But he denies even knowing that the condom ripped.

[deaniac21]

53. She is probably lying and he will probably soon be dying.

[Motown_Johnny]

55. so ripping a condom = rape

since it seems clear that she consented.... "as she had gone along with it so far, and so she allowed him to undress her"


and she doesn't know that he ripped the condom on purpose



it seems that even if she is telling the truth (and I assume she is) it isn't rape

[Generic Other]

56. Not rape unless she says "No" which she seems not to have done

Trying to reach numerous times for a condom sounds consensual to me. Not the actions of a reluctant woman. Plus, she let him stay the might and the rest of the week. This is a politically motivated lynching.

[Hamlette]

58. not from this clip, even if she's telling the truth, it's not rape.

she says he tried to stop her from getting a condom. She doesn't say she did or said anything to get him to stop having sex with her.

[tomm2thumbs]

61. if you are going to be 'judge and jury' over 2 paragraphs from a newspaper, stay out of my courtroom

nuff said about that

[Poll_Blind]

72. +1

PB

[Lucinda]

63. How did she know the condom was ripped? n/t

[SidDithers]

69. Agreed...

and I'm not just saying that 'cause you're a mod.

Sid

[Scurrilous]

74. K & R

:thumbsup:

[glinda]

77. Avoid having any sex in Sweden. In fact, don't even rub elbows with anyone there.