> a woman did NOT make a rape allegation against him in Sweden
The article you linked seems to contradict you. It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex, which would count as rape in my jurisdiction.
The article also recounts testimony of him waking up a woman by penetrating her which would also count as rape in my jurisdiction.
The article also explains that this is intentionally falsified by the Swedish police and lists emails as evidence that this tampering took place and contradicts the womans initial statement
The email conversation is not evidence of tampering. The emails is from one interrogator emailing another on how to best record the witness statements in their system. See this thread for English translations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868
The witness statement is supposed to be verified by the witness at the end of the interrogation. Editing that statement without consulting the witness is tampering, no system would save statements like that.
But the statement wasn't edited... It was copy-pasted into another record, just like the mail conversation shows.
Also, in this supposed grand conspiracy to frame Assange, two crime detectives were dumb enough to leave their marks in emails available to the public, due to Offentlighetsprincipen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_public_access_to_... It makes zero sense.
The original statement was overwritten, we only have some vague references about what it says. But moving it to another record without the witness present is still tampering.
>Also, in this supposed grand conspiracy to frame Assange, two crime detectives were dumb enough to leave their marks in emails available to the public
The conspiracy was to get Assange into US custody, not frame him of a crime, and that conspiracy has been proven to he true. The allegations didn't need to be flawlessly done.
> It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex
Actually, she supposedly accused him of intentionally breaking it, but also said that she didn't notice until later, which casts doubt on the "intentionally" part.
Poking holes in a condom is an intentional act and the woman wouldnt know. So as long as we dont know exactly what she meaned by „intentional breaking it“ we cant really guess who is wrong or right.
Whether that amounts to reasonable doubt is something that could be determined by a jury in a court of law following rules of evidence and procedure, if Assange went to trial.
Well, determining intent is difficult at the best of times, but it's hard to understand how you could determine the intent of something that you only noticed later.
I'm confused why you seem to so vehemently disagree with me but simultaneously will only speak in generalities.
Say for example I visit your house, and you notice many hours after I leave that a favorite ornament of yours is broken. How will you determine whether I broke it intentionally or not? If you watch me break it, you could make a reasonable judgement. If you only notice later, it's much harder. I don't understand what is controversial about this idea.
The article you linked seems to contradict you. It says a woman accused him of surreptitiously removing a condom while having sex, which would count as rape in my jurisdiction.
The article also recounts testimony of him waking up a woman by penetrating her which would also count as rape in my jurisdiction.