C'mon Yabby. She asked him to wear a condom and it was reasonable of her to assume that he would. Therefore, she took reasonable precautions. I pay that we never reach the day where people generally have blood tests before having sex.

Two things, first, there is no evidence whatsoever that either of the complainants - they are not 'victims' until the case is proved - withdrew consent and even the prosecutor has confirmed that to be the case.

Secondly, who would advise anyone, male or female, to return to a country for trial where he/she could be convicted on a complainant's say-so alone without corroborating evidence and particularly where forensic evidence is not required for a conviction?

What if collusion between the complainants had also been accepted by the prosecutor?

What if the prosecutor's office had also leaked evidence that put the accused in a very poor light?

What if a previous prosecutor had dismissed a previous charge?

As far as anyone knows, it is simply one person's word against another's. That wouldn't in itself be enough to bring a conviction in any other area of law in Sweden, nor anywhere else in the world. Added to that, higher courts in Sweden have recently overturned other cases determined on the complainant's word alone. See here,
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/08/02/sweden-changes-its-tune-towards-rape-victims/

Cornflower

1) I see the allegation more as a case of her giving consent, conditional upon him wearing a condom. Therefore, she didn't need to withdraw consent.

2) It is possible in Australia to be charged on one person's evidence

Benk,

While legally you are correct on the definition of consent, and it is possible to charge someone based on a single person's word, it is extremely unusual to be able to convict on a single person's word.

On this basis prosecutors seldom lay charges where there is little chance of a successful prosecution.

In this case it is even the word of the women concerned in each case that the incidents even occurred.

The chance of a successful prosecution is zero.

*C'mon Yabby. She asked him to wear a condom and it was reasonable of her to assume that he would.*

Benk, you are spending your time, jumping to all your own little
conclusions here. Because she asked him, does not mean that he
agreed. How plain did she make it that without a condom, she was
not interested in having sex with him? Sounds more like both
groupies were shagging him and not the other way around.

One of these two has publicly documented that she is vindictive
and she was clearly not upset after the sex, for she was bragging
on Twitter. It was only after she discovered that he'd knocked off
the second one and they exchanged notes, that the two became concerned and seemingly upset.

If a woman insists on a condom at all times, perhaps she should
make it clear, before they climb into bed.

The fact that its not acknowledged that these sorts of laws create
an open door for some women who happen to be vindictive, is hardly
mentioned. Its always about the poor female and the evil male. Ha!

Hi Yabby,

"Its always about the poor female and the evil male. Ha!"

Well yes, it's apples and oranges: one party has a few minutes of ecstasy and slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am, the other has a taste of ecstasy plus the possibility of nine months' carrying the consequences, and twenty-plus years of raising the outcome.

In the modern world, surely gender-aware men have to be sensitive or empathetic to how women are feeling and what the differential consequences may be, and wear condoms if she asks for them: the consequences are, after all, far greater for her than for him. No ifs or buts.

Intercourse requires consent on both sides, no ifs or buts, no matter how significant the guy may be for the entire future of humankind. Yes, Assange may be God-like, with superior Holy-Ghost-type sperm, but he is still a guy in the eyes of the law, and if he forces intercourse, then he is guilty of at least assault, and maybe rape. How on earth can this principle be questioned ? If the women are lying, or fabricating, then he goes free.

Wait for the court's verdict. Don't infer motives on either side.

Joe