Re: Examining the contents of an old condom...
new kbd... this ones all sticky
The case against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange may be on the brink of collapse following claims from the defence team that the central piece of evidence used in the case does not contain Assange’s DNA. According to details that have emerged in a 100-page police report submitted after witnesses were interviewed and forensic …
Knochen Buttwaffle, it would be much more convincing if all the statements made about what Ms Ardin did or said contained in Craig Murray's blog were being presented in court of law for examination. Well, that is if your St Jules wasn't doing all he could, having exhausted all legal avenues, to avoid going to court in Sweden. But of course, in your fragile little mind, everything in that blog must be taken as gospel if it supports your Holy St Jules, right? Craig Murray doesn't even have legal training, he was a History grad. The UK courts DO have proper legal training, and they considered A$$nut's case and said he should go to Sweden. The Swedish courts DO have legal training and the authority, it's just people like you are scared to admit those simple facts.
Ah, Knobchen Buttwaffle, there's simply no sport in the matter when you concede the field so early. Come on, at least make a pretence at being able to debate the issue. Is it because you've been dropping something, maybe lysergic acid diethylamide? Your sulkiness forces me to taunt you - do you worry that A$$nut isn't getting enough groupie fluff in the Ecuadorean embassy? Are you unable to post a coherent argument because you're too angst-ridden by the thought that your darling St Jules might end up stuck in some dive in Quito, where no-one gives a damn who he is, living out his years in irrellevance?
Then this bit is where I tell you I'm happilly smiling at the thought that A$$nut is going to be, at best, a fugitive for the rest of his life, a convicted criminal, bail-jumper and wanted rapist, forever known not as a whistleblower but as the man who tried to say rape wasn't rape. Enjoy!
On the verge of collapse? During the extradition hearing on the allegations of the woman in question there was no mention of a condom. The condom lacking DNA was suggested over a year ago, but never got traction. That evidence seemed to have been removed. It is a wonder why Julian Assange's lawyers brought up again.
"It is interesting that the complainants refused to sign the police reports...." Allegedly, Sofia Wilen refused to sign, possibly because she predicted the deluge of hate that would fall on her from her fromer leftie friends. Anna Ardin had no such problem signing the complaint.
".....and at least one of them left for Israel shortly after making her report." What is that supposed to be, an inference of Mossad invovlement!?!?!? Holy anti-Semitism, Batman! That's really funny given that Anna Ardin was criticised for supporting and even arranging the speaking tours of anti-Semites in Sweden. But is the claim she went to Israel true? Actually, no. Anna Ardin was due to travel to West Bank to take part in the socialist Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel group's anti-Israel protests, having undertaken ten days of training ready for the trip, only to withdraw from the venture due to the rabid hate campaign unleashed on her by the left for daring to impunge the character of St Jules The Holy Truth Provider. She didn't travel to Israel, so you'll have to go back and be spoonfed a new myth, mmmkay?
So one side says something that might imply innocence?
If only there was some sort of venue where the other side could respond to this information, and maybe offer information of their own? Perhaps we could have someone neutral overseeing the process, to keep it in order. Maybe afterwards, and this is just a crazy thought, we could have some sort of final verdict that determines which side is more believable? Nuts, I know, but it just might work.
On the other hand, fuck it. Lets have some more half-informed speculation and blessings from the balcony. Justice for Assange! Justice for OJ! The Apollo landings were faked!
Local Dupe, you really should try reading a bit before frothing. Even Wikipeadia has this one covered:
"....Failing to attend court on time as required is an offence, for which the maximum sentence in a magistrates' court is three months' imprisonment, or twelve months in the Crown Court. (Sentences are usually much shorter than the maximum, but are often custody.) In addition to imposing punishment for this offence, courts will often revoke bail as they may not trust the defendant again. The amended Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction states (at paragraph 1.13.5) that "the sentence for the breach of bail should usually be custodial and consecutive to any other custodial sentence"...."
So A$$nut is looking at jail time even if the Swedish warrrant gets dropped, and there is no indication that warrant will be dropped as the whole condom matter would have to be raised IN COURT IN SWEDEN. Which A$$nut is trying desperately to avoid happening. Should A$$nut step outside the Ecuadorean embassy he will be arrested and locked up until deported to Sweden.
It is possible, although from reading the comments here, people have no idea how the technique works, in both instances. Nor have they an idea regarding the differerence of "viable semen" and "material suitable for extracting a DNA profile from".
Crudely put, if you've got a condomfull of jizz, you have more than enough material to make a DNA profile. DNA does deteriorate over time, but contrary to popular opinion, if a sample is not "consumed" by infection with microorganisms, it actually lasts a very, very long time, even if fragmented. ( which is why DNA typing of preserved/contained (pre)historic DNA is possible to begin with.)
Spermicide does not destroy DNA , as a couple of peeps here seem to think. It renders sperm cells immobile, which is a different matter altogether.
Ask yourself if you would voluntarily put a substance on/in your fiddly bits that would penetrate cells, and destroy DNA... ( a mix of industrial-stength degreaser and bleach would be the closest equivalent you could cook up in your kitchen, other "simple stuff" like toluene and it's nastier cousins work just fine..) .... I thought not.
With modern PCR machines getting a profile from a "fresh" DNA sample is a matter of hours. Hell, doing it by hand if you've got fresh DNA to extract and a stock of the proper restriction enzymes takes no more than half a day.
The delays in confirmation for judicial purposes lies more in getting *the rest* of the samples. Family members for paternity cases. One or more DNA samples of the suspect from other locales in the case of [enter suspect here].
Unless the Man already had Assange's DNA profile in a database, there would be no way to tell the DNA sample profile from the average Joe in the street.
Even as oversimplified as above, it's clear that it is quite possible to get a proper DNA profile from a condom, even if it's months old, and simply stuck to the bottom of the bin, instead of following the more usual sewer rollercoaster route. So if either condom providedis *the* condom, the DNA profile should be clear and unequivocal, since the forensic plods would have to have had either corroborating samples, or a proper DNA database profile to compare it against.
There is such a thing as "proper evidence" after all, and while commentard (anti)rage may rule here, the swedish forensics working on the sample *should* not even know whose sample it is they're processing. For lab purposes you simply need a unique processing number, which would tie to the actual file at a completely different level. ( which would also be another reason why things "take long". Unless it's an official rush job, such profiling goes on a first come, first served basis, and the queue might be long, as there aren't *that* many DNA profiling machines in any police force.)
Just a couple of things to ..unconfuse.. matters.
Oh, and Paris, because this thing is as whipped up as her Sillycones.
> are anyway his word versus theirs
so like 99% of rape cases then
> he risks being extradited the the USA!
I've read quite a lot of comment about this case, no one has *ever* made a reasonable case for this!
Personally I think the whole case seems a bit dodgy, but the only way to sort it all out is to have a proper trial. Assange has been accused of a crime an his response is to run. No amount of claiming 'its political' can justify this.
".....It is quite clear that this case wouldnt even get past the initial questioning...." Except here in the UK it got through all the courts and they judged that A$$nut had a case to answer to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault_and_political_refugee).
In summary, the extradition hearing took place on 7–8th and 11th February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. On 24th February 2011, the court upheld the extradition warrant. On 2 March 2011, Assange's lawyers lodged an appeal at the High Court. On 2nd November 2011 the High Court upheld the extradition decision and rejected all four grounds of appeal presented by Assange's legal team. On 5 December 2011, Assange's lawyers were granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, and on 30 May 2012 the court dismissed that appeal.
A$$nut could have made one more appeal on a technicality (which was likely to have been rejected), and then trotted off to the Eurpoean courts to waste more time and money, but instead he decided to go cuddle up with well-known champion of a free and impartial press Rafael Correa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Correa#Relationship_with_the_media).
"Utterly wrong....." Really, you seriously want to say that? Do you want to maybe retract that statement, go do a little reading, then come back when you have a clue? You did understand, before you trotted out that bilge, that the warrant validation process includes judging if there is actually a case to answer rather than there just being a frivolous claim in order to extradite someone? The initial argument of A$$nut's defence team at the extradition hearing before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court was that the acts did not consititute rape under English law, that at most they constituted "minor misdemeanors", and that argument was rejected. Whether what A$$nut is accused of would result in a conviction for rape in an English court is open to argument, but a copper I asked said there would be enough for A$$nut to be arrested and charged here in the UK, and I suspect he knows a whole heap more about the law than you do.
For so many Liberals and lefties, as DIna Rickman put it, the phrase "it's politically motivated" became the new "she was asking for it." Why should I be surprised when the Faithful say such gumph when full-time leftie idots like George Galloway are trying to whitewash the matter (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/21/julian-assange-rape-denial).
Ants v: "Letting him continue doesn't help the no consent argument, granted. But your reasoning that previous consent in any way grants consent for future jubilation is wrong."
Does that mean when the hottie I picked up in a bar and shagged all night wakes me up in the morning with a blow job and a bacon sarnie that she's sexually assaulting me? Or is it only men who shouldn't assume that the person they've been screwing all night won't want another go? I mean, fair enough if she says STOP but I was under the impression that outside of the navy one doesn't have to ask for permission to cum aboard every time.
"....wakes me up in the morning with a blow job and a bacon sarnie that she's sexually assaulting me?..." Well, you could be justifiably upset if the BJ made you drop the sarnie as her guide dog might get to it before you....
The whole point is A$$nut is using any recourse, legal and illegal, to avoid going to Sweden to discuss the issue.
"But that's because he doesnt want a surprise trip to the USA...." <Sigh> There is no US extradition request yet, and even if there were it would have ZERO bearing on the European arrest warrant issued by Sweden and deliberated and upheld by the UK courts.
"....Its quite clear that these allegations wouldnt get past the interview stage..." If you're so convinced of that then why won't A$$nut go to Sweden to clear his name? Why did he scarper from Sweden in the first place?
Try this one on for size.
Maybe Assange scarpered from Sweden in the first place because the account of his activities with fröken A and fröken B that they gave to the Swedish police, who then gave it to Assange's Swedish lawyers, bore no relationship at all with the real events that occurred on those nights and mornings in Stockholm.
(Please spare us your Ouija Board knowledge of what happened. You were not there. Your instinct is irrelevant and biased.)
Having just leaked embarrassing cables, videos, etc about the US of A, which was now followed by two dingbats in Sweden making up rape stories (pin downs and dawn's early penetration), Assange didn't have to be Stephen Hawking to jump into the nearest black hole out of Sweden.
250,000 stolen cables plus false accusations by two women equals get me the fuck out of here.
Now we see the limits of Local Dupe's ability to think outisde the tiny little box that A$$nut has given him.
".....bore no relationship at all with the real events that occurred on those nights and mornings in Stockholm....." So he says, but then surely the best way to fight that would be to stay for questioning and then see if any charges were pressed, and then defend himslef in court. Or could it be that he DID see many events that happened in the deposition, asked his lawyer and his lawyer said "oh skit, that could be 'sex by surprise', which is a crime here", at which point A$$nut did the runner. After all, you only have A$$nut's word against those of the two women. I know it is fashionable in the leftie-A$$nut-groupie camp to just slag the two women off in an attempt to smear them or initmidate them into silence, but it would be nice if you could take a step away from the comfort of your fellow lemmings, and actually think for yourself for a change, just to question what you are told for once.
".....(Please spare us your Ouija Board knowledge of what happened. You were not there. Your instinct is irrelevant and biased.)...." That plays both ways as you weren't there either, but I see you are unable to counter the points I raise as they are easily verifiable, whereas your counters are patheitc whimsy. Though I do suspect you would have loved to have been there when A$$nut did the deed, to record The Great Cuminngs of The Holy St Jules for the Faithful in a suitably doe-eyed manner.
".....Having just leaked embarrassing cables, videos, etc about the US of A, which was now followed by two dingbats in Sweden making up rape stories (pin downs and dawn's early penetration), Assange didn't have to be Stephen Hawking to jump into the nearest black hole out of Sweden...." So, in short, you're saying it had nothing to do with his paranoia? LOL!
In truth, I don't know which icon I should use. On the one hand, as with all your dribblings, the FAIL icon is so appropriate, but then on the other hand maybe I should use the GO icon as your postings and their exposure of your unquestioning faith in St Jules are just so hilariously funny. On the balance, I think it would be cruel to encourage you to continue as it smacks a bit too much of taking advantage of someone unequipped to properly defend themselves. FAIL!
This post has been deleted by its author
Okay, Matt, you finally won one. You tricked me into answering a rhetorical question: "Why did he scarper from Sweden in the first place?" I was dumb enough to think you really wanted an answer to that question.
As if there was any other answer to it acceptable to your prejudiced and biased mind besides "because he is (as I have constantly and indignantly described him for two years) a douchebag."
"Or could it be that he DID see many events that happened in the deposition," Hey, this is MY hypothetical and in it he sees events that DIDN'T happen.
"to just slag the two women off". The two women, as you call them, both put the moves on Assange. Tits out, arms akimbo, throbbing hips, no doubt. Why don't you and Gumby go to Stockholm and let us know if any women invite you home or even talk to you.
BTW, in Sweden if a hottie wants to have sex with you, does she have to read you the Condom Act before you get back to her place? Or can she spring it on you as you're putting the meat in the grinder?
" but I see you are unable to counter the points I raise" Oh, did you raise some points? I saw nothing but the same running sore you call your argument. You must tell me about your points some day. <sark>
"you're saying it had nothing to do with his paranoia?" (see me after class about how you came to this conclusion)
Matt Bryant uses the fail icon. Well, I never.
For you I'd like to use the D'oh Man, with both eyes covered and potatoes growing out of his ears.
That whole post was just more evasion, blather, and childish insults. TBH, the rest of the A$$nut supporters are probably wishing by now that you'd just shut up and stop making them all look stupid! I particularly liked the way you smeared the two ladies involved without realising that just made Anon groupies and the like look bad as that's EXACTLY what Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen were before the leftie packs turned on them. Good luck getting laid with that crowd now you have exposed your views on women to them!
by now that you'd just shut up and stop making them all look stupid!"
No, Matt, they are wishing that you would please stop using the infantile word "A$$nut".
And don't you have a lot of f**king nerve setting yourself up as an expert witness on Assange supporters? You have such colossal contempt for them, absolutely no one is going to believe a word you have to say about about them and what they want or don't want.
We all are wishing for Julian's immediate release and freedom from the threat of Washington's rendition of Vlad the Impaler.
"....absolutely no one is going to believe a word you have to say about about them and what they want or don't want....." Maybe not, but I bet the way I can post verifiable facts sways a few opinions. It certainly seems to make you shriek and whine, especially when you are unable to counter them!
".....We all are wishing for Julian's immediate release...." Well, when your view of the World is based on fairytale politics, clouded by drugs and blind devotion, it's not surprising you're left with wishing. The fact is the World - at least in the UK - works by the rule of law, and A$$nut has had his go at that and lost. Where he goes from here is pretty straight forward - if he leaves the embassy he will be arrested and deported to Sweden, or he can stay in there in self-imposed prison for as long as Correa is in power. Either way, his freedom is going to be very limited. Enjoy!
If the rape claims were actually a work of CIA reality reinterpretation it was probably not so much about extradition as public perception. People don't care about corruption or whistle blowers but they are fascinated by rape allegations. If anyone mentions Wikileaks now, people immediately think of the Cirque d'Assange and the Swedish sex show. The CIA would have known this would happen because their shrinks likely assessed Assange's potential reaction. The aim was to construct a bypass around Wikileaks in our brains. You can drive toward the Wikileaks subject but somehow when looking for the entrance you find yourself back in the circus drooling at the towering Clown Prince Himself. The point is not to turn people against Wikileaks, but to make Wikileaks invisible to people even when it is right in front of them. A kind of mass hypnosis was successfully pulled off and all it cost was a couple of large bags of cash and a little piece of our collective dignity.
All that is irrelevant over here in the UK though because all we care about is Princhess Willskate and immigration.
A few people have mentioned the uselessness of the Aboriginal gesture. The key bit is
"The Indigenous Social Justice Association is fighting for sovereignty within Australia and claimed that it wanted to forge solidarity with Assange, ***who has been largely unsupported by the Australian government.***"
Largely unsupported, not only by the Auusie government but by Aussie media. II read about Assange here at the Reg, not in our mainstream media in Australia. Sure, the gesture is symbolic but it serves a purpose if it, even briefly, raises the profile of this case in Australia.
Have you been wondering what contortions the Chilcot Inquiry team are being encouraged to try and perform and not pass comment nor submit a full and honest report on with a recommendation for prosecution, so that justice is not fundamentally compromised and the law proven beyond a shadow of doubt, to be as easily bent and broken as a bendy banana thing ....... and therefore absolutely useless as a tool of effective control, but a nice little earner, guv?
It is an impossible task if that is what is causing all the dither and rendering the report so long to write and present, don't you think?
Do we seriously believe that the CIA, rather than just bag him in the middle of the night and deny all knowledge (long before this became the media circus it is now), would go to the trouble of setting all this up, just so Saint Julian could string out his public career a bit longer.
Is it not more likely that he managed to annoy a girl by sleeping with someone else (usually not the best of idea's), she raised a complaint, police asked him for questioning and he see's a chance to get a bit more limelight, so does a runner, straight to the press. The police (not unreasonably) annoyed with someone who they wanted for questioning, not sticking around, keep up with the case, probably more to prove a point than for any other reason.
So after string out another case (very publicly) in the UK for a while, decides to moon the British as well (why annoy just one country's police force, when you can annoy 2) and does another runner.
Granted I don't pay too much attention to him, but I haven't seen him complaining so much about the guy he got to steal the information that made him famous, who is being held.
Maybe I don't have enough of an imagination for this whole case to make sense, but then again I believe that the moon landings really did happen, and that there are no aliens in area 51.
Anon because the black helicopter brigade scares me.