The thing about rape is that the intent and the act are very much intertwined with the victim's feelings of it. If the victim does not appreciate whatever is going on, the onus is on the perpetrator to realize that and stop. Failure to do so is "the act" and the intent is.. well, the state of mind where you do not choose to find out/acquiesce to the other person's desires.

However, if the "victim" says there was no rape, and has never said so, then the whole premise, including both the intent and the act, is unseated.

Disclaimer: I am no lawyer, and do not know much about this specific case. These are just my intuitions about rape laws. I also believe that if the laws, in fact, are much different from these ideas in spirit, they are SORELY off-base.

In this case, the alleged victim when interviewed described events that could certainly constitute rape - for example waking up and finding Assange having unprotected sex with her.

I understand what you are saying.

I am simply saying that in a criminal case if the only evidence presented is the accusation of the prosecution, especially if the supposed victim proclaims they are not a victim of the alleged crime, then I will find it hard to convict if I'm on that jury. Regardless of what the law says or the alleged intent of the accused.

In cases that any law can provide a conviction with no evidence other than an accusation from the state then that's an extremely bad law and should be stricken.