Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assange Secret Swedish Police Report Leaked

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the nothing-is-sacred dept.

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."

44 of 840 comments (clear)

  1. Yo dawg, I heard by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know what, actually, after writing the title, I can't bring myself to do this. You all deserve better.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Yo dawg, I heard by DrVomact · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess that Slashdot, Taco, and letsurock have forgotten that when the women says stop and the man doesn't, it is rape, even here in the U.S.

      I don't follow. Are you actually saying that because they make or permit posting on the Assange affair, they are pro-rape?

      As for "when the women (sic) says stop"...well, it's not quite that simple, is it? Let's pretend we're all adults here. Some women like to play games of "let's pretend", sometimes it's literally too late to stop, sometimes signals are simply not understood. I agree that, ideally, if either sexual partner wishes to terminate the activities, they should be forthwith terminated (er, the activities, I mean). And in an ideal world, that would always happen.

      Legally, such "rapes" are very difficult to prosecute in any country that has a sensible code of laws. If it is clear that the woman willingly began to have sex with someone, and she alleges that she cried "stop" at some point (perhaps because her partner was doing something she didn't like), unless the partner admits that this happened—that he heard, and did not stop—then this will be a case where the only two witnesses to the alleged crime contradict each other. If there is evidence of physical injury, that is indeed another matter.

      There is a simple way to avoid these complications: don't go to bed with people you don't know. Take note, Mr. Assange.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    2. Re:Yo dawg, I heard by DrVomact · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    3. Re:Yo dawg, I heard by BeanThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it basically their word against his, or has he also admitted that that's what happened? Far as I can tell, he's denied their version of events. It's not rape if they're just making it up.

      "... and in the second by having sex without using a condom with a woman who was asleep"

      I'll refrain from making silly jokes like 'slashdot forumites probably wouldn't understand this', but do you realize that unless she's extremely heavily under the influence of narcotics, it's all but impossible to have sex with a woman who is asleep without pretty much waking her up completely in the process? (And pretty much on first penetration, because if she's asleep she won't be dilated or wet either, so you'd have to use a sizable amount of force.) Story sounds a bit fishy to me. Add to that they seemed perfectly happy and then only seemed to decide later it was 'rape', after they found out he was cheating.

    4. Re:Yo dawg, I heard by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the finer points however get a little more complex.
      for example in practice:

      "no we shouldn't!" means "yes"
      "no we can't!" means "yes but shhhhh"
      and even a shriek of "ACK! NO! eeee!" confusingly often means "kiss there again!"
      "No" while grabbing your head and pulling it a little to the left or right can simply mean "no, a little to the left/right"
      "No" while you're slowing down can mean "speed up" or if uttered while speeding up can mean "slow down"
      "Nooo, damnit!" while doing something acrobatic can mean "Ah, my back, I've pulled something.... but don't stop" depending on physical actions

      Meanwhile without any verbal "no" simply pushing you away or grabbing a hand with the appropriate expression can mean very clearly "no".

    5. Re:Yo dawg, I heard by clone52431 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you know what actually happened how?

      Well, let’s see. What we know:

      Guy has consensual sex with woman A.
      Guy has consensual sex with woman B.
      Time passes, during which one/both women continue seeing Guy.
      Woman A and woman B learn Guy has been fucking both of them.
      Woman A and woman B both come up with stories about how they told him to stop, no not without a condom, was asleep, etc. how he “raped” them both.
      What a coincidence, obviously we should believe them over anything Guy has to say.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    6. Re:Yo dawg, I heard by Thinboy00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is the word of two against the word of one. What makes his word worth more than theirs?

      Innocent until proven guilty.

      --
      $ make available
    7. Re:Yo dawg, I heard by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nobody is saying that Julian shouldn't be questioned. We are saying, the facts, as outlined in the police report, show a particular pattern of behavior from the women in question. That pattern, hanging out with the guy for days afterward, throwing a party for him, and so on, do not indicate that the women felt that any sort of crime had taken place until they met each other and determined that Julian was sleeping with them both. Actually, several people HAVE said that Julian does not need to be questioned. That includes the original prosecutor. The fellow prosecuting now was also instrumental in getting Sweden's rape laws changed to their current incarnation. Coincidence? Possibly.

      I hear two things being said, quite clearly. One: no one is guilty until PROVEN innocent. Two: the women did not behave like rape victims, they behaved like jilted lovers.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    8. Re:Yo dawg, I heard by DrVomact · · 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 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.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    9. Re:Yo dawg, I heard by spun · · 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.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:Yo dawg, I heard by dreampod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He stayed in the country for the police to interview but they refused. Then after a cursory meeting they told him he could leave the country which he did. The next day a prosecutor in a different part of the country reinstated and increased the charges. While in the UK he offered to meet with the police through teleconferencing, meeting at their embassy, or by telephone but was refused and they insisted on his returning to the country (at his own expense) to be questioned. Additionally while refusing to inform Assange's lawyer of what charges were being investigated (in violation of international law) they were selectively leaking information to the press (which is highly ironic, but also wrong).

      While he may have commited a crime of a sexual nature, the prosecutor has been acting in bad faith from the beginning and unwilling to make reasonable accomodations.

  2. Can someone link the report? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So its apparently been leaked...

    And there's no link in Slashdots Article. And googling for it brings up hundreds of news sites and blogs who all talk about it but also don't link to the police report.

    Is it being hosted somewhere? Is it possible to get a copy of the police report and not rely on what people say it says?

    1. Re:Can someone link the report? by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

      So its apparently been leaked...

      Rather like Assange's condom

    2. Re:Can someone link the report? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a Guardian article 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.

    3. Re:Can someone link the report? by pipatron · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "cablegate" leaks clearly showed that the Swedish government have very close ties to the U.S. one, something that they are trying to keep from the public eye. Assuming that the U.S. are pressuring the Swedes right now is probably not very far fetched.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    4. Re:Can someone link the report? by pipatron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He's wanted for questioning.

      Meanwhile, we have a recent case of two Irish guys beating a Swedish guy half to death on a cruise. They were caught by the guards and on camera, and their identities and whereabouts in Ireland are known, but the Swedish government are not willing to do anything because the crime was not serious enough. Compare this with a broken condom.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    5. Re:Can someone link the report? by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone pointed out, a $200,000 bond for a $700 fine? Any time the bond is more than the maximum penalty, particularly in an extreme case such as this, then something else is at play. Interpol is involved over a $700 fine? Has there ever been a parallel, in all history, whereby interpol would get so involved in something that is punishable by an amount slightly more than a traffic ticket? I don't know if there is direct proof that the US is involved, but it is kinda like walking in the kitchen, seeing an empty cookie jar, and child with crumbs on their shirt. No, you didn't SEE the child eat the cookies, and it is technically possible for someone else to have eaten them an put the crumbs on the child's shirt, but the smart money bets on the obvious.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re:Can someone link the report? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is a long way from something being "not very far fetched" to that same something being "very clearly" so. Of course, you also point out a reason that the Swedish government might want to string up Julian Assange without any pressure from the U.S. government.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:Can someone link the report? by Kozz · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's wanted for questioning.

      Meanwhile, we have a recent case of two Irish guys beating a Swedish guy half to death on a cruise. They were caught by the guards and on camera, and their identities and whereabouts in Ireland are known, but the Swedish government are not willing to do anything because the crime was not serious enough. Compare this with a broken condom.

      But did the Swedish guy actually ask them to stop?

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    8. Re:Can someone link the report? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interpol's own constitution forbids them from getting involved in cases where a crime wasn't committed in more than one member country and where the punishment is less then 12 months in prison.

      This case fails on both counts. The fact that they're involved at all is clear evidence of corruption at the highest level. ...and has been pointed out on many occasions, women are raped every day. Really raped. Beaten senseless afterwards and dumped out of the backs of vans in alleyways. Traumatized and afraid to go outside for the rest of their lives. Even so it's very difficult to get the police involved and almost impossible to start a manhunt unless it's a serial rapist.

      And here we have an international manhunt over a broken condom. It's a complete perversion of justice and an insult to all the women who've ever really been raped.

      --
      No sig today...
  3. If only... by TheL0ser · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only there was some internet repository where leaks of this kind could be shared. It could even be made into a wiki, for easier access.

  4. Re:Not on wikileaks? by Halo1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?

    --
    Donate free food here
  5. Re:the Julian assange by Abstrackt · · Score: 5, Funny

    People these days use the Gregorian assange.

    --
    They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  6. Old news by airfoobar · · Score: 4, Informative

    This happened several days ago. The Guardian has the story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden I think The Times also had a story. No point looking for the original document -- it was in Swedish.

  7. Re:So what by iammani · · 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.

  8. Re:Not on wikileaks? by thijsh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed, this fallacy keeps popping up. If I commit severe crimes and attempt to cover it up you have the right, and I would even dare to say *duty*, to violate my privacy for justice. People and governments alike may keep some things hidden, but there is a limit to both.

  9. Re:the Julian assange by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry, but no. "A monkey", in French, is "Un singe". If you want something funny with French and English mixing with Julian Assange's name:

    Ass: you know what this means
    Ange: means "Angel" in French.

    So Julian Assange would be "Julian Angel Ass"

  10. Re:Not on wikileaks? by Motard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this not a government document?

  11. Re:Not on wikileaks? by Beerdood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikileaks doesn't divulge personal private information of an individual's sex affairs. Dealings between government and corporations and whatnot.

    This would be hypocritical if wikileaks leaked something like Tiger Woods' sex messages to his mistress or something along the lines of that. Plenty of sites posted that information, and possibly lots of trashy tabloids and gossip magazines - but wikileaks did not.

    --
    Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
  12. Re:So what by commodore64_love · · 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).

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  13. Clickwhoring by sirdude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is the summary not linking to the original article and instead pointing to a blog-post which is supposedly regurgitating a Press Trust of India release based on the NYTimes article? This story is also about 3 days old :S

  14. Re:Not on wikileaks? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikileaks themselves didn't seem to mind, when they leaked the membership list of the BNP.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  15. Assange himself is irrelevant, however. by EWAdams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's actually rather clever of him to serve as a lightning rod for Wikileaks, while the actual work continues to go on. Right-wing congressmen can call for his assassination all they like; even if it were to happen it would not affect the publication of the leaks. In fact, it would almost certainly trigger the mass publication of the unredacted material. "The personal strengths and weaknesses of a leader are no true indicator of the merits of his cause."

    --
    I piss off bigots.
  16. Re:One of the women has links to anti-Castro group by doperative · · 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

  17. Re:So what by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    exactly

    assange is a human being with human weaknesses, like all of us

    however, this particular flawed man started a movement for transparency which is laudable

    the proper response is to pay homage to the man for his good works, and chastise him for his transgressions in the bedroom, at the same time

    but apparently people can only process assange as devil or angel. when of course, this is a gross simplification that serves nothing other than to mark the person as an idiot who cannot bring himself to chastise the man (or laud the man)

    you who say "assange can do no wrong" or "assange can do no right", which is the starting point for many comments here, you are no better than the chattering monkeys who engage in celebrity worship on TMZ. you are simply no better if you cannot bring yourself to repudiate the man for his transgressions in the bedroom (or if you can't bring yourself to praise the man for his transparency efforts)

    the man, honestly, means nothing. but the MOVEMENT he helped start (and will not stop, with or without him) remains a permanent virtue on his permanent record (just as permanent as the rapes)

    yes, assange did something good in the world. he also did something wrong. it is possible for you to acknowledge both. so do it, and free yourself from shallow pointless celebrity worship, which is what you do when you mindlessly defend assange on an UNRELATED ISSUE to his transparency work

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  18. Re:Not on wikileaks? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?

    A police investigation *isn't* "government dealings"?

  19. Re:Not on wikileaks? by ubermiester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean documents should not be released based on the whims of the individuals but should instead be based on a reasoned and sensible analysis of what's being released and the impact on the people(s) involved?

    And of course unintended consequences are nothing to worry about because Assange knows what he's doing and has thought out all the implications and we can trust that no one else will follow his lead?

    You're saying this is not a PR war between Assange and the US that has little or nothing to do with better govt?

    I guess I must have been mistaken after all.

  20. Re:Not on wikileaks? by pipatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are no charges against him, yet.

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  21. I've heard differently by phorm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Really, because from what I've read, even the Pentagon 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.

  22. Re:So what by Artefacto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A jury? In Sweden?

  23. Re:Not on wikileaks? by nstlgc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Informants names are redacted.
    The idea that diplomacy and transparancy are mutually exclusive is a cop-out.
    The misrepresentation is debatable.

    At what point are you going to stop being a propagandists tool?
    Right back at you, sir.

    --
    I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
  24. Re:Not on wikileaks? by Motard · · 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.

  25. Re:Not on wikileaks? by bcmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    If you watched the full video, you'd know that they got clearance because they claimed they'd seen an RPG (it was a camera, but they could've just been stupid at that point), and then claim it has been fired (which they cannot possibly believe).

    It is conceivable that they mistook the event at 2:43 in the YouTube video, when the (large) camera was pointed directly at them, as an RPG being aimed at them, but if anyone was looking down the camera that the recording came from, they knew it wasn't fired. Again, immediately after this happens, they report on the radio that an RPG was fired, not just aimed. From the transcript: "02:23 Yeah, we had a guy shoot". (Time difference is due to 25 seconds of text at the start of the YouTube video).

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  26. Re:Not on wikileaks? by debrain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the other hand, wikileaks leaked their own donors list. As far as I know its not illegal to donate to wikileaks, even if mastercard, visa, paypal and BoA say otherwise, so maybe you do have a point.

    Sir –

    Incidentally, if you wish to make an anonymous donation to Wikileaks from a common law country (Australia, Canada, U.S., Great Britain, etc) you can give the money to a law firm and ask that they make the donation out of their trust account anonymously. In general, a retained law firm is barred by confidentiality to not disclose that you are even a client, and thanks to the client-solicitor privilege they cannot be forced to disclose that relationship by a Court except in a rare set of particular circumstances.

    This is, of course, a general rule and not legal advice you should rely on. Ask the law firm what protections in the form of privacy, confidentiality and privilege they provide for you if you wish to make an anonymous donation to Wikileaks through them, and under what circumstances your identity and donation could be disclosed by way of Court order or otherwise.

    For further protection, you could ask the law firm you retain to retain another law firm to make the donation.

    Some firms may not wish to engage in this practice, and indeed may be barred from doing so by way of their respective law society or applicable legislation, but if they are it is certainly a measure of anonymity with seasoned and tested protections that's not easily accessible by any other means.