Part 6: GaslightingAssange Series Sex, Text, S-E-eXtradition…
Precis: Assange had sex in Sweden in August 2010 and the rest is revisionist history.
The initial premise of the Assange case, consensual sexual conduct, was never fully interrogated nor advanced on behalf of either the complaintants or the defendant. Keeping the cases in legal limbo afforded airtime / media / UK courts to dominate the reputation management of Assange. The sex cases became the primary method of sabotaging his reputation and ability to defend himself. It generated the window of opportunity to manipulate public opinion with lies, repeated GaslightingAssange talking points and prolong the UK’s arbitrary detention of him as a political hostage.
The talking points concerning Assange were set out from the start: Label him a rapist, molester and someone trying to evade justice. All three characterizations are repulsive and enough for anyone to avoid any news about his journalistic / publishing work and undermine his credibility. It’s the creep-factor or “ick” reflex that kicks in whenever a man is accused of sexual misconduct (or worse). Such lies work on a deep level and shape the way we consume any other information concerning the “suspect”. When lies are ubiquitous and persistent (eg. Manafort story)the abusers hope that the audience is too lazy to interrogate the lie or demand that the record be corrected.
Despite any facts that surface, people’s minds are already made up about Assange’s sex etiquette, even if the two women involved make efforts to repair the reputational damage. Assange has been wrongfully branded as a sex offender for 10 years. This is happening even now. It is almost impossible to undo that branding. This has been the basis for GaslightingAssange tactics and provided “cover” for judicial perversions, judicial scoldings, legal gymnastics, collusion to entrap, detain, kidnap and next rendition Assange to the US for a life sentence in the equivalent of a human mausoleum under S.A.M.s restrictions. The mafia bury people in concrete. The US buries people under SAMS. Assange will be buried behind concrete in the mausoleum of super-Max prison walls. He may as well be put in a pod and launched off into space as space junk if the US gets its way.
So, let’s talk SEX.
August 2010, Assange was invited to give a talk in Sweden. He networked with geeks to set up Wikileaks servers and explore the possibility of permanent residency there. (This is the simple version people, not including subplots). Long story short, he stayed in an associate’s apartment, call her AA. She was away. She returned before expected. They went for a meal. Had sex. Condoms were used. The conference happened. An attractive second woman (SW) was in attendance. People gathered for lunch. SW was invited. She ran an errand for Assange. A few days later they had sexual encounters, wound up at her apartment, had more consensual sex, condoms were used and the final time they had coitus, was “morning sex” which was followed by bowls of oatmeal for breakfast. The morning sex did not involve a condom, but did involve consent. This site has the chronology of events and all of the witness statements in English and Swedish.
Note: I will update this with as many links to events as available.
A few days later, the two women were in contact with each other and their individual networks. Texts (SMS messages), facebook and twitter posts happened. Swedish media got involved. Swedish politicians got involved. Assange was contacted to request that testing be conducted to ensure he was STD-free (he was). The women met at a police station that was not local to either of them, but in the neighbourhood of one of AA’s police friend.
Police statements were taken. Some by phone, some in person. Assange was interviewed. A Swedish prosecutor on the case dismissed the question of “rape” as without basis but kept a “molestation” investigation open. More people were interviewed in person. Condom samples were submitted for forensic analysis. The condom submitted by AA was virgin in so far as it had no DNA on it at all: not AA’s nor Assange’s. It turned out to be fabricated evidence. The lab technician was hauled into a police station for interrogation because the findings were not favourable to a sexual assault accusation. Forensic analysis of condom material from SW yielded expected results.
These facts are included in the Swedish police protocols / report and transcripts of interviews and evidence are not included in the English translation. The women were interviewed together, not separately, but AA’s testimony was further padded through telephone interview(s).
In the midst of all of this, SW (woman 2), while being interviewed, heard that Assange was being accused of “rape”. She felt “railroaded” and discontinued her testimony. She refused to sign her own witness statement. Swedish police did not record or transcribe either of the women’s testimonies. They summarized SW’s then forged her signature afterward. There were two versions of this police report. (I used to have copies of the edits). This is clearly outlined in Swedish emails and historical web content.
Assange remained in Sweden to make himself available for further questioning once the case was reopened in a different city within Sweden.
Editing a police report then forging the signature of a witness along with submission of false condom evidence constitute “tampering of evidence” in a preliminary investigation of a sexual assault case. The leaking of unsubstantiated accusations to the Swedish press / media branded Julian Assange as a rapist overnight. The entire case should have been collapsed but it wasn’t. Eventually Assange, who was in the throws of publishing and collaborating with numerous media outlets on the Iraq War Logs, Afghanistan and materials for which he has been indicted in the US, left Sweden with the permission of a Swedish authority. The timing of the rape allegations, international branding as a sexual offender and fugitive from justice happened within hours of the publication of the Chelsea Manning disclosures. It was not a coincidence. He was arrested “in absentia”, even though he received permission to be absent so he could travel for work.
Is Assange a sexual offender? No. He may have been a knob in bed, but he does not fit the criteria of being a sex offender even in Sweden where rape laws are far more complex and confusing than the rest of the world. It’s also important to note that Sweden’s enforcement of sexual allegations is extremely inconsistent. Most cases are pursued with due diligence, within a reasonable time frame and then either prosecuted (charges are laid) or dropped. It took between August 2010 until May 2017 for Sweden to close the cases. In the meantime, there were numerous instances of other alleged rapes (one gang rape of a woman in a wheelchair) which were dismissed. Another woman in a wheelchair was abducted and repeatedly raped in Stockholm after being confined for 3 wks but Swedish prosecutors recently dropped the case as reported Feb. 1, 2020. Application of the law was prejudiced, inconsistent and disproportionate against Assange.
Over the past decade, whenever any person associates Assange with the R-word, it amplifies GaslightingAssange talking points and reputational damage which has stuck to him like velcro and led to psychological torture. Sweden is complict. Britain is complicit. The US is complicit. Ecuador is complicit. Australia is complicit.
The GaslightingAssange sex talking-points formed the foundation for the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) process which was abused, perverted and led to Assange’s arbitrary detention, deprivation of due process and his human rights. If you don’t believe me, read the emails between the British prosecution service and the Swedish prosecution service here.