|
|
|
|
|
|
by xkemp
2311 days ago
|
|
|
It's sad to see this conspiracy theory being voted to the top. For HN, the only cause more motivating than functional programming seems to be accusing women of lying. With, in this case, often the gall to claim that this would somehow "protect real victims". |
|
|
What I did mean (and I take this straight from the article) is that at least one of these women explicitely refused to sign a statement speaking of rape, because that was not what she came to report, or what she thought happened. She texted as much to a friend, too. Yet the police not only went ahead with an investigation based on a statement that the only witness had refused to sign, but they also altered said statement afterwards to re-open the case when the first statement was disregarded as a credible account of what happened, yet not an account of a crime. So I'm explicitly not saying that this first woman lied. She said the truth, told her story, and in her story, there was no rape. A prosecutor in Stockholm agreed with her, as did Assange. So this is the word of the police, against the prosecution, the defendant, and the purported victim and only witness. Hence my phrasing of "a woman did NOT make a rape allegation". I hope that clears that up.
And note the singular in that sentence up there. The second woman is different of course, and at least she clearly stated a rape allegation. I'm not the one to pass judgement on that. But the people who are, and who have seen the evidence, seem to not be convinced. Further, at the point where the second allegation even enters the picture, the case had already completely derailed, so if or if not the breaking of the condom was intentional, and if or if not such a condom could credibly hold no DNA whatsoever is pretty moot at that point.