Far more important, however, in converting Assange from being portrayed as a heroic fighter against state secrecy into a figure beyond the pale, were the allegations of rape made against him in Sweden in 2010.
It's extraordinary the power of even absurd allegations as those to ruin a man's life.
Rape allegations are the ideal way to slander any man. As they hinge on the alleged victim's consent, which resides entirely within their mind, they are near impossible to disprove when thrown by a determined, malicious opponent. Even when they are indeed disproved, they still leave a long lasting stain.
Whether Assange committed a sexual crime or not, it is incontrovertible that accusing him of one was the most effective and least risky way to discrete him. It wouldn't even have required any lying accuser either; manipulating a pissed off lover into reframing their relationship with him as less consensual than it was at the time would be a rather simple exercise for a spymaster.
Some presidents seem to have done ok, even with some pretty damn horrible accusations (much much much worse than the ridiculous crime that Assange was accused of).
No threats, coercion, or violence need to be involved. You must have explicit consent for every sexual encounter. Not just intercourse.
So, if you do something sexual but you failed to get her to sign a contract. She later reports the sexual encounter as not having the signed contract. You are a rapist going to prison.
> 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.
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"?
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.
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?
Suspiciously timed in terms of raising and dropping, let alone the actual detail of the accusations (not apparently made in those terms by the alleged victims) which trivialise the awful trauma of actual rape.
Inherently, nothing, but allegations do not equal guilt. However in Assange's case, the allegation was taken as fact before the evidence was investigated. Upon investigation of these allegations the case was dropped because the evidence was not strong enough. Witnesses memories had faded after 10 years.
Assange being in the Ecuadorian embassy would not have prevented Sweden from building a case and charging him.
The UK urged Swedish prosecutors not to question Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy,[1] though Swedish prosecutors eventually did so. When Swedish prosecutors wanted to drop the investigation, British officials urged them to continue it:[2]
> Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!
But immediately after the US began extradition hearings against Assange in London, and there was a debate over whether to give the Swedish or American request priority, Sweden dropped the case.
Just to top it off, Swedish prosecutors altered witness testimony[3] and UK prosecutors deleted emails relating to the case.[1]
The investigation was dropped because it had already served its purpose.
It's extraordinary the power of even absurd allegations as those to ruin a man's life.