[slg]

> the police went around to make those allegations

I'm not sure I follow this. It seems like there were two complaints, one of them was clearly a complaint of rape (I'm not saying a rape definitively occurred, but the accusation was intentionally breaking a condom and not using protection against the wishes of a partner is considered rape in Sweden) and one was a potential claim of rape (it is unclear in the other complaint if the preference for protection was a retroactive regret or something established before sex). Anything that transpired after that, no matter how shady, is irrelevant to the initial allegations. There were obviously people who wanted to use those allegations to achieve some political end. However that doesn't invalidate the accusations which deserve to be evaluated on their own merits.

[oh_sigh]

What I want to know is how exactly could any of this be successfully prosecuted, save for explicit admission from the alleged perpetrator? Would a valid Assange defense be simply "She said to not wear a condom"?

[slg]

It is often incredibly difficult to prosecute sexual crimes like this that don't involve a violent struggle. There is almost never any evidence that can distinguish beyond a reasonable doubt non-consensual sex from consensual sex. It is almost always the word of one party against the word of another. However, like the previous examples of police impropriety, that has no bearing on the validity of the accusations. Victims should feel welcome to come forward with their experiences regardless of the likelihood of their accusations resulting in a conviction.

[oh_sigh]

Absolutely agree with the last statement, I was mostly thinking from a prosecutors perspective. Is there any other crime that can only be prosecuted by the criminal admitting what they did?

[everly]

Certain crimes have multiple degrees which hinge on intent which often can’t be proved without a confession.