Analysis of Assange, Anna, and Sofia’s Statements

Today, it was noted on one of our timelines this article

Though course and choppy language, the article did have links to the leaks testaments of Assange, Anna, and Sofia

It also was noted on one of our posts from three years ago, we made a successful imploration on behalf of the work Assange was tasked with via the Manning Files. In that light, an analysis of the statements is made.,04.shtml,00.shtml,02.shtml,01.shtml

Even given the minor and major signs of deceit and misgivings by the two other subjects. The one that stands out is

Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off. He entered her again and continued the act. Anna again checked his penis with her hand and again felt the edge of the condom where it should be and so let the sex continue.

Anna says she already heard from several sources that Assange ‘chases all women who cross his path’.

Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broke the condom at the tip and thereafter continued the sex with the resulting ejaculation. In answer to a question Anna says she didn’t look closer at the condom, if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it. She says that even the bed sheets used on that occasion are most likely still in her hamper.

Many people have had a rubber naturally break. The size of the hole created in an object, ie condom, created to fit snugly an object, ie a penis, creates a noticeable hole.

The fact the female subject did not inspect the condom, according to here statement “she thinks she still has it,” to see if she is safe from STDs or unwanted pregnancy and thus solving the mystery of exposure or not; suggests this was not a major concern.

However, within a certain subgroup of élite hackers, which the principles are unknown. there is a rape culture where details, tips, and tricks are exchange. Information and comradery are exchanged to the point that the members could be considered cohorts. The description of the nature and style resembles a principle from that group of cohorts. It is possible that a tip or trick could have been exchanged that would obscure condom breakage from casual observation.

In conclusion, without the full interviews and interrogations,  analysis is speculative.

It is possible that Assange was monitored for exploitable sexual behavior patterns, before this incident. It is also possible that it was “perfect storm” of inevitability.

What is remarkable is the behavior of the Sweden Judaical Officers.  It is their behavior pattern(s) that cast a strong doubt on the incident.

Was Julian Assange simply an gauche promiscuous person? Had he corhorted with elite hacker subgroup that exchanged stories, tips, and ideas? Had both of the women engaged in a honey pot? Had one of the women engaged in a honey pot? Were either or both of these women hired by one or more individuals of the sub-group, or part of the subgroup?

With no other women coming forward to collaborate Assange’s sexual behavior patterns or to deny the behavior patterns it is difficult  to asseverate Assange’s promiscuity or lack of previous promiscuity by Assange, save this one incident.