Oof...the herald sun? I once trusted them...then got nailed for it in another forum.
here...
But The Mail on Sunday has managed to obtain copies of the women’s police statements, which are made available to the media in Sweden.
'When they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom - it had split.
'She seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.’
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde, also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
Apparently it didn't bother her enough to cause any friction during the next days seminar huh?
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: ‘It felt boring and like an everyday thing.’
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
.
.
.
They ate in an atmosphere that was tense, though she said in her statement that she tried to lighten the mood by joking about the possibility that she might be pregnant.
They parted on friendly terms and she bought his train ticket back to Stockholm. When she asked if he would call, he said: ‘Yes, I will.’
So they had sex (apparently not great sex at that) which was apparently when she said to use a condom, had sex again in the morning where no condom was used and we don't know if she again insisted that he use a condom. She bought him food for breakfast, fed him, made a joke about being pregnant and they apparently left on friendly terms. This doesn't really sound like someone being upset for a supposed "rape" that everyone says he committed. It is also apparent that both women knew that something was not right. IE Woman A knew the condom broke and woman B knew that a condom was not being used..yet went along with it anyways despite knowing at the time of occurance.
Anyways, on we go...(Original Voice - the rest isn't really directed at you dirctly. it is to put this whole thing into perspective)
But he did not and neither did he answer her call.
The drama took a bizarre and ultimately sensational turn after she called the office of Woman A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar.
The two women talked and realised to their horror and anger that they had both been victims of his charm.
Uh oh...caught being a player. What woman doesn't get mad at that? Besides a prostitute that is.
The issue of unprotected sex left a fear of disease. It is believed that they both asked him to take a test for STDs and he refused.
Woman B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy.
And it was in this febrile state that the women, who barely knew each other, walked into a police station and began to tell their stories.
And the fear of diseases just now hits after the two talk to each other and find out that he had sex with both of them? Anyways...on we go...
Woman A said afterwards that she had not wanted to press charges but had gone to support the younger woman, who wanted police advice on how to get Assange to take a medical test.
Wait...this woman doesn't want to press charges and yet charges are being laid? Now I can understand cops pressing charges regardless of ones feelings when it involves a kid or a serious offense like..oh I don't know...actual rape? Which I'm sorry (not really) this in no way resembles any form of rape according to sane legal dictionaries.
The story was leaked to a Swedish tabloid and Assange’s high profile led to the case being taken over by a senior female prosecutor who, after reading the statements, concluded there was no evidence of rape.
Look Ma! Not rape!
What I find interesting is that apparently neither one of them even thought of going to the police until AFTER they had met each other and found out that Assaunge was nothing more than a cheap bastage of a player.
Now obviously the case has kept going thanks to the original prosecutor saying that she had "new evidence" (which I would dearly love to know what it is considering the circumstances of what was explained in that article) and was allowed to bring the case forward. Now the ironic part (and is what has got people wondering and talking about) is that this prosecutor didn't come up with this "new evidence" until
after wikileaks leaked that info which, if I have got the rough time line down correctly, was a few months later from the time that the charges were dropped originally.