Where does all this anti-Assange fluster come from? How could you know any more about it then anyone else that follows the media?
I've read the UK High Court opinion, which goes into significant detail about the events, including the ones that Assange confessed to having done. Specifically, from the opinion:
[Assange's lawyer] Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.
His own statements have done him in.
it is equally obvious that these "rape" claims are dubious.
Again, from the high court:
Plainly this is a case which has moved from suspicion to accusation supported by proof...
In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.
Just to emphasize that - "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged."
You have not debunked anything. If you could actually produce decent references to a few ground facts that would be most helpful.
Done. Here's the link for you, too.
The lobster dinner is obviously absolutely relevant.
Absolutely not, unless he was farking her during the salad course. The only question is whether he had consent at the time he penetrated her. Not when he had lobster. This is the same reason why any "regret" she had later is also irrelevant, as I'm sure you'd insist.
In these consent rape cases the question is whether the woman actually gave consent or not, i.e. who is telling the truth.
In typical ones, yes. But fortunately, here, we have Assange confessing to penetrating a woman, while she was asleep, knowing that she had told him no to sex. There is absolutely no question about facts or who is telling the truth, because everyone, from the victim to Assange to his lawyer to the prosecutor agrees on what happened: she said no sex without a condom; she went to sleep; he penetrated her while she was asleep, without a condom, knowing that she wouldn't consent and that she couldn't resist. That's rape.
A woman that thinks she was violated, raped, does not normally then have a pleasant dinner with her attacker.
Your turn: , please. Many, many studies have debunked your claim. In particular, in the vast majority of rape cases in which the victim knows the rapist (including sometimes friends, family members, trusted advisors, etc.), the reactions are all over the place.
But more importantly, this is all irrelevant. Assange confessed to raping her. Whether she acts appropriately in your eyes the next day is irrelevant, because it doesn't magically travel back in time and wake her up before he stuck his dick where he shouldn't have. Got it? She was asleep. He did not have consent and knew it. He did it anyway, and has admitted it. The end. She could bake him a farking cake the next day and it wouldn't change what he did at the time.
As far as I can determine this is entirely driven by the prosecutor, and not the women who would rather forget about it.
Yeah, it's almost like thousands of rape-apologists and blind Assange-supporters have attacked their reputations to the point that they would rather forget about the whole ordeal, since it can't undo the crime that was committed against them.
Of course, what you're really arguing for is that criminal liability or lack thereof should be based on how unpleasant we can make it for the witnesses to cooperate with prosecutors. Threaten to rip out their fingernails if the testify, and I bet magically, rape convictions would go away! Of course, only a rape apologist would then argue with a straight face that rape itself had diminished.
As to the loaded word "rape", that implies a certain amount of violence.
Only to you, apparently. To the rest of the world, sticking your dick in a sleeping woman when she's previously told you not to touch her is rape, not romance.
And who remains asleep while someone is fucking them anyway -- there is no claim that she was very drunk.
She woke up when he entered her. Are you seriously trying to argue that it's not rape if he doesn't orgasm?