How do I know that person is even real?

Alright, I figured the Grayzone would have something to say regarding this, and sure enough :

That Assange has been right all along, and getting him to Sweden was a fraud to cover an American plan to “render” him, is finally becoming clear to many who swallowed the incessant scuttlebutt of character assassination.

“I speak fluent Swedish and was able to read all the original documents,” Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, said recently. “I could hardly believe my eyes. According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never taken place at all. And not only that: the woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm Police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.”

I don’t think we have access to these documents and maybe this guy is lying for some reason and Assange actually is a rapist, but there’s no doubt in my mind that the Great Satan or any other imperialist country would be willing to fabricate rape accusations to serve their own interests. Under exceptional circumstances like this, I think it’s reasonable to be cautiously suspicious. Remember when Evo was accused of rape by the coup regime?

Edit: And here’s his full report.

Another relevant bit:

despite the fact that SW had sent text messages, including during her questioning at the police station, making clear that she was “chocked (sic shock ed) when they arrested him”, that she only wanted Mr. Assange totake an HIV-test, that she did not intend to accuse him of any offence but that the police were “keen to get their hands on him” and that “it was the police who made up the charges”;

And another:

that, on 25 August 2010, after having examined the evidence, including the original statements of SW and AA, Chief prosecutor of Stockholm formally closed the rape investigation against Mr. Assange, stating that “I do not think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape” and that the “conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all”;

Aaaaand another:

that AA’s own conduct and text messages (including tweets) after the alleged offence fail to support the prosecution’s “rape” narrative including, inter alia: that AA insisted to continue to host Mr. Assange in her one-bedroom apartment, although several other persons expressly offered alternative accommodation for him; that AA agreed to serve as his press secretary and postedenthusiastic tweets expressing how much she enjoyed his company; that AA casually informed others about Mr. Assange’s intention to engage in sexual relations with SW, whose address and contact details were known to her, but did not warn SW or anybody else about having been sexually assaulted by Mr. Assange; that AA did not intend to report any crime against Mr. Assange, but took SW to a police station whereIK,a friend of hers,worked as a police officer, so that SW could enquire about the possibility of compelling Mr. Assange to take a HIV-test; and that AA publicly affirmed, in a tweet of 22 April 2013, that she had not been raped;

Despite strong indications that the Swedish police and prosecution deliberately manipulated and pressured SW, who had come to the police stationfor an entirely different purpose, into making a statement which could be used to arrest Mr. Assange on the suspicion of rape, against SW’s own will and her own interpretation of her experience, no investigation for abuse of function, coercion or false accusation seems to have been conducted, and no disciplinary or judicial sanctions imposed on the responsible officials.

More:

c) Proactive manipulation of evidence : According to evidence made available to me, once the alleged rape-case involving SW had been formally closed by the Chief prosecutor of Stockholm on 25 August 2010:

• On the following day, on 26 August 2010, police officer IK, who had formally questioned SW on 20 August 2010, modified and replaced the content of SW’s original statement in the police database, upon instruction of her superior officer MG and without consulting SW;
• SW’s modified statement was then handed to CB, the legal counsel appointed by the State to represent AA and SW, who submitted it to a different prosecutor (MN) who, based on this modified statement, re-opened the investigation against Mr. Assange for rape of SW and expanded the alleged offence against AA to several counts of coercion and sexual molestation on 1 September 2010.

…

that SW’s original statement of 20 August 2010, which constitutes a critical piece of evidence, is no longer available, but has been replaced on 26 August 2010 by the statement unilaterally modified by police officer IK upon instruction of her superior officer MG;

…

that Facebook entries made by police officer IK, who had questioned SW and modified her statement, include pictures of herself with former Minister TB and show a strong bias against Mr. Assange, describing the decision of Chief Prosecutor EF to close the rape investigation as a “scandal”, and expressing her confidence that the women’s newly appointed legal counsel, namely “our(sic!) dear, eminent and exceedingly competent CB will hopefully establish a little order!”, and that the “overrated Assange bubble (is) ready to burst”;

that complainant AA, police officer IK, her superior MG, prosecutor MN, state-appointed legal counsel CB, and former Justice Minister TB, were all connected through the same political party and/oragenda, and that some of them were even personal friends and/or campaigning together for the upcoming elections

And from the conclusion:

The medical, factual and circumstantial evidence at my disposal shows that the manner in which Sweden conducted its preliminary investigation against Mr. Assange, including the unrestrained and unqualified dissemination and perpetuation of the “rape-suspect” narrative, was the primary factor that triggered, enabled and encouraged the subsequent campaign of sustained and concerted public mobbing and judicial persecution against Mr. Assange in various countries, the cumulative effects of which can only described as psychological torture. In my assessment,without the arbitrariness of the Swedish investigation, Mr. Assange most likely would not have been exposed to abuse and defamation amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

There’s so much more in here. It really needs to be read in full to understand just how shady and clearly orchestrated this whole thing was. Trying to force somebody into making false rape allegations is disgusting and about what I’d expect from imperialists trying to cover up their genocidal war crimes.

Is there actually a public testimony?

There are the quotes released by Assange where he cites the women saying things like they “did not want to accuse JA for anything” and “it was the police who made up the charges”, but you can find reasons to disbelieve those if you want. (They supposedly stem from SMS messages between the two women that his lawyers were allowed to see, but not transcribe, so they’re admittedly paraphrased and second-hand.)