PS as to the alleged victims you're fakely so concerned about, NEITHER OF THEM say they were raped.
There are two women in question here - AA and SW. AA did *not* say she was raped. She has on multiple occasions denied being raped. She *has* said she was the victim of sex crimes. Guess what? There are no rape charges concerning AA. The charges concerning AA are 1x unlawful sexual coersion and 2x molestation. The only rape charge concerns SW.
SW has *never* denied being raped, and *has* said she was raped. She told the police:
Friday 20 August 2010 I, inspector Linda Wassgren was temporarily on duty in the reception at Klara Närpo, normally I am on duty outside at the
same station. At around 14:00 same day two women came into the station and talk and get some advice on two earlier events and they were a little insecure on how to proceed. The crime rape was mentioned.
She told AA:
Then he told me that Julian hade been accused of raping that young woman, [SW]. And that [DB] had spoken with [AA], and that [SW] had spoken with [DB]. And that [AA] was furious about what [SW] had told her — that for one reason or another, she believed what [SW] had said and that they were going to meet.
She told her ex boyfriend:
[SB] related that he had a relationship with [SW] for two and a half years. They had lived together during the last year of the relationship. Seth related that it was very important for [SW] that they use a condom, partly to prevent infection but also to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
[SB] said the issue of infection was crucial for [SW] and that, before they had sex the first time, they had both got tested for disease and shown each other the results. They did not have sex without a condom on a single occasion during their two and a half years together. That was completely unthinkable for [SW]. [SB] said that such was their agreement. He said that, as far as he knew, [SW] had never had sex with anyone without using a condom.
[SB] related that he learned about what had happened when [SW] sent an SMS message to him, asking if she could telephone him. He was somewhat baffled, because they had not been in contact with each other for several months. When [SW] called, she immediately asked what [SB] thought of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. He answered that WikiLeaks seemed positive.
Then [SW] said that she had been raped by Julian Assange, in that he had initiated unprotected sex with her while she lay sleeping. [SW] said that she had asked Assange if he was wearing anything and that Assange had replied, “Yes, you.”
The interviewer asked [SB] how [SW] had reacted to that. [SB] said that [SW] had related that she was shocked and did not know what to do. [SB] said that, given [SW]’s definite views on the use of condoms during sex, he could imagine that she was very shocked and afraid. He knows how important it is to [SW] that a condom is used when she has sex.
[SW] has told [SB] that she could not understand how a representative for WikiLeaks, which does so much good, could be so lacking in respect for another human being.
I could keep going if you' like.
Moreover, they have withdrawn their complaints when the prosecutor told them to sign a declaration of an accusation of rape.
First off, you're distorting the distortion of the distortion. The "statement" only concerns SW. It wasn't a "statement of rape"; it was concerning a police report representing that her words were accurately represented in the report (which isn't even a legal requirement in Sweden). Third, it wasn't even about signing. But, most critically, here's what it actually says:
In the course of the interview, [SW] and I were informed that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. After that, [SW] had difficulty concentrating, as a result of which I made the judgement that it was best to terminate the interview. But [SW] did mention that Assange was angry at her. There was not enough time to obtain any further information about why he was angry at her or how this was expressed. Nor did we have time to discuss what had happened afterwards. The interview was neither read back to [SW] nor read by her for approval; but [SW] was informed that she could do so at a later date.
Is that what you call "refusal to sign"? It says nothing of the sort. First off, the standard - which is not even required - is "read and approved". Secondly, the *officer* decided to terminate the interview. SW never objected to any content. Third, it would be quite difficult to "sign" a report which hadn't even been typed up yet.
Oh, well, I'm sure that SW didn't want to cooperate further, right? Like it's not like she'd hire an attorney to push the case forward for her, or that she then consented to a forensic medical report, or anything like that, right? Oh wait, yes she did:
[SW] gives her consent to the acquisition of a forensic medical report.
[SW] wishes to be represented by an attorney whom she will name at a later time.
The women had a legal defender, and his name is Claes Borgström. He is the man who got the case re-opened (more on that later) and who has relentlessly pushed forward the case ever since. Or are we to assume that the women don't know what their own representative is doing? Poor damsels!
Nah, sorry. What the heck am I doing here? Clearly you already know without a trial that the two women are lying sluts and Assange is innocent because People We Like never rape. They're too important after all, and any accusations are just an attempt to take them down - the women don't deserve their day, they deserve a massive smear campaign against them for being lying sluts! Just like what happened with those poor innocent football players in Steubenville!