I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.
The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.
There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:
Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?
On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:
“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”
Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.
If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?
Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.
Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .
11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.
13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.
14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”
15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.
16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.
20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.
21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.
Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.
No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.
It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:
Either
Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.
Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.
Or
Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.
She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.
At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”
At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.
The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.
Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.
Conclusion
I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.
Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.
Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.
By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?
Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.
Anna Ardin is not a credible witness if all accounts, including much of her own, are to be believed. Militant feminists, and their pathetic male supporters, do not like the characters of alleged rape victims to be questioned, let alone discredited. There is a myth that has been created that the usual rules of justice do not apply to rape victims. Rape victims are special, different, more reliable as accusers. And any male involvement in the proper investigation of the truth is vilified as mysogyny and conspiracy to deny a victim of justice. It’s funny how these malicious accusations never apply when the female victim is murdered, not raped – I wonder why?
Jon beamed:
“…I should have known, but hope springs eternal :)”
Crumbs… does that mean you feminists are planning a 3rd wave !?
@JimmyGiro
11 Sep, 2012 – 2:06 pm
Ripper quote. Can you please advise who wrote/spoke it? Maybe a link?
Arnold Bocklin,
Let’s have an open court with public and media access and cross-examination, and you will have my hearty agreement. You won’t get any of those in a Swedish sex trial.
Jemand:
“Ripper quote. Can you please advise who wrote/spoke it? Maybe a link?”
Forgive me Jemand, but being the product of a thundering Irish protestant father, and a screeching Italian fascist mother, I’m naturally naaaaarcissistic, and quoted myself:
http://jimmygiro.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/fear-of-mens-impending-and-inexorable.html
Julian Assange should be applauded not persecuted for hearing the sound of suffering that our leaders are causing in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and more.
It was in the Iraq war and more recently in Afghanistan, innocent men, women and children are being murdered and maimed in what the Red Cross describes as the greatest civilian carnage…
Julian’s WikiLeaks documents have allowed us to ponder the judgements and decency of our leaders and their decision makers. To examine the massive duplicity and deceit the leaked documents reveal. We realise our own establishment is an undemocratic institution that does not represent it’s own citizens, operating independently of the Justice system and in conjunction with a mass media providing an arm of executive power broadcasting lies and propaganda far more often than it exposes them.
In the illegal Iraq war I can advance with a degree of certainty that terrible and hideous torture employing electric drills, acid and more [Ellen Knickmeyer] and mass murder has occurred. Julian’s cables reveal Mr Blair et al. bear a major responsibility for these warcrimes, among the worst since the end of WWII. These
zombiespeople are still free to lavishly spend their vast wealth obtained from exploiting others.I ask here can you ever image the magnitude of revenge from the murder of hundred of thousands of Muslims if/when Iran is smashed next?
God forbid.
It is in this light I applaud Craig Murray for his consistent support for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
Excellent post Craig.
A powerful and most thought-provoking comment from Dale also.
@JimmyGiro – thanks Jimmy, I”ve saved your link in my free thinkers resource kit.
Irish + Italian, great combo, hah!
I don’t really think a court is the right place to scrutinize these vague, confused, contradictory, and not least unprovable allegations. What good would a trial do? How would one prove who was telling the truth, without physical evidence and without any witnesses to the alleged crimes? Assange is unlikely to incriminate himself and the prosecution can’t prove anything the women say actually happened the way they remember it. So, under these circumstances a trial would be a waste of time, do to the extraordinary weakness of the prosecution case.
It would seem incredible that this case would be allowed to even lead to charges being made, let alone a trial, given the above. But this isn’t how things work in Sweden. Often the state, prosecutor and police, arrest someone and keep them in solitary without bail, which like jury trials doesn’t exist in Sweden, for months. This is an “unofficial” way to punish someone without the need of a trial. And it happens over and over again. One can look at the issuing of the EAW as part of this process too, a way to punish Assange for over-stepping the unwritten rules of Swedish sexual conduct, namely, don’t treat respectable women like groupies, even if they act like groupies. In this context Assange has already been punished more than adequately for his “crimes.”
What’s truly appalling and frightening is the hysteria and witch-trial atmosphere among the UK hacks, especially many of the liberal/leftie feminist types, like the ridiculous Laurie Penny, who are almost totally uninterested in the facts and details of the case, and the glaring and obvious weakness of the state’s case against Assange. Their premise seems to be that Assange should face the music in Sweden, clear his name, and effectively fight to prove his innocence, which kind of turns due process and the presumption of innocence on its head.
@Jemand – I’ve nothing against Jimmy personally, but I’d advise caution with his advocacy. Do a search for “feminism” on this very site, and you’ll find plenty of his railing against Marxist Feminazis (yes, really) and one of the most persistent sets of question-dodging I think we’ve seen here (and there are several strong contenders).
I do agree that genuinely problematic takes on feminism (“militant”) are in danger of discrediting the much more even-handed versions (i.e. the incremental equalisation of women’s rights in spheres where their power has traditionally been secondary to men). Some responses to the former – Jimmy’s included I think – are taking the form of Mens Rights Activism (MRA) which are, consciously or otherwise, forwarding intellectual arguments for misogyny.
Thus, MRAs and militant feminists are largely the same thing, except each prefers the supremacy of a different gender.
@Jon
11 Sep, 2012 – 3:49 pm
“JimmyGiro – I dread to ask – you think reducing consumerism and increasing altruism in people, through a media that is more reflective of social justice, are bad things to aim for?”
Jon, isn’t the problem inherently one of media ownership? Ownership based primarily on profit-motivated private shareholdings, with advertising revenues, cannot be reliably expected to discourage consumerism and increase altruism. Although, I’d prefer the media to focus on truth, knowledge and accountability. The ownership could be in the hands of the consumers themselves, each shareholding vote being equal, voting being voluntary. Maybe a news organisation can be divided into two independent parts – the business side that ensures viability and an editorial side that ensures quality of content. As it is, the MSM have simply become part of the establishment and without fundamental change to ownership and structure, it is unlikely to ever change.
Dale – powerful post – I agree completely with what you say about the egocentric and celebrity obsessed culture that surrounds us all; it’s a degrading and insidious factor. (Craig’s post re Anna Karenin alludes to a film director with an eye problem) How to counter it though? I do my small bit with grandchildren by pointing out the crassness of the ads that are directed at them and challenging their unthinking and careless use of language. They’re polite kids and don’t actually laugh in front of me – but I’m not sure how effective I am at raising their awareness, although I find humour helps.
Craig old man,you were wasted as a diplomat, you would have made an excellent defense lawyer….just showed your post to a collegue that was convinced he was guilty…she is now questioning her belief..keep it up…oh, and by the way, I would take an evening with Kiera rather than Andy any day, but then I am stuck in a remote village in South Sudan so I may be biased !
It is strange how the story of Assange & Wikileaks has morphed from being about serious disclosures of scandals and errors in diplomatic communications/public policy matters into one of unproven sex issues in another country. I would always be suspicious of “kompromat style” issues when they surface so conveniently against someone whom the intelligence/security apparatus has a problem with.
.
I wonder if there is still any serious risk of Mr. Assange being extradited to the US now, and risking further huge public disclosures at a future trial over there, when Mr. Assange’s enemies already seem to have achieved much of their objective with Wikileaks appearing to have been silenced, the discussion morphing into one about sex, and Mr. Assange “locked up”, albeit in an Embassy.
@Jon
11 Sep, 2012 – 5:25 pm
Re feminism, various forms.
I’ve always been in favour of justice and fairness for all but my personal experiences with feminists is emotionally equivalent to that suffered by victims of racism. Intimidation, ridicule, harrassment, bullying – it’s all the same to me, whatever the reason. I have visited blogs run by feminists and the language is no less hate-filled than what you would expect on some neo-nazi or homophobic blog. It is utterly vile.
The fundamental problem, I believe, is the permanent division of society into two competing groups. Tribalistic psychology drives the development of a hostile ideology that seeks political and legal concessions, privileges etc. The idea that one side seeks only equality is a bit too hopeful. That would imply that feminism would eventually become irrelevant and society would dismantle feminist infrastructure and slowly forget the culture that grows around it. Can you ever imagine the day that universities close down their Women’s Studies courses? I see the Swedish experiment spreading to other parts of the West with concommitant problems.
We might have to agree to disagree on this subject.
AFAIK JA is not accused of rape, yet. The Swedish prosecutor wants to interview him regarding the allegations by the sluts. The whole thing is a media show. The prosecutor(s) had ample opportunity to talk to JA while he still was in Sweden, had they wanted to. But they choose not to.
Something else is going on here, AA is a crazy woman, a liar and well connected in parts of the establishment, no doubt. But the other one, SW is also very interesting, she came from absolutely nowhere right into the underwear of JA in just a few days, seems to me she was there on a job. And not only a blow-job.
@Sunflower…moderation mate..
It is that morphing that worries me Roderick and why my post addresses the positive angle of Julian’s WikiLeaks blurred by the fog of sexual allegations that have been outed in my book as an attempt to destroy his reputation and WikiLeaks to boot. I do not however want to undermine the splendid and honourable attempts to demolish the flaccid accusations calculated to ultimately silence the truths uncovered forever.
@Sunflower – I don’t think “sluts” is helpful language. If we are not in favour of the use of sexual shame to denigrate Assange, I don’t think we should be in favour of the use of sexual shame to denigrate the women in question. This approach is regressive in all its forms, imo.
@Jemand – excellent replies on media and feminism, thanks. I will come back to them both in due course, tied up atm 🙂
Apologies for my bad choice of word. Should have been “women”.
Sunflower wrote:
“Apologies for my bad choice of word. Should have been “women”.”
Surely it should have been feminist:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1385469/Thousands-scantily-clad-women-march-London-SlutWalk-protest-reaches-UK.html
I see. So we are not allowed to believe that feminism is about equality, because otherwise the universities would have to close down their Womens’ Studies courses. We are urged to believe that the problem lies with feminism in Sweden, not US and UK foreign policy. We are encouraged to treat as rational people who hurl around sexual insults in a case which is political, or nothing. Along the way we’ve had a nice look at someone’s unfortunate experiences with something called ‘feminism’ (no details) and accusations of ‘feminist blogs’ which are like neo-Nazi sites (no links).
All of which, as Roderick and Mark point out, serves to trivialise and distort something which, at the start of this, seemed reasonably serious.
Craig,
Great article!
One important factual inaccuracy though… the original police report states that there were in fact TWO condoms analysed from the homes of two different people, one had DNA and the other didn’t:
a) There was a complete condom from the home of someone referred to in the report as “MA2” which had (as you say) no DNA, and
b) There was a condom tip from the home of SOMEONE ELSE who is referred to as “MA1” in the report. This condom tip DID have male DNA on it, and it matched the male DNA from a vaginal swab taken from MA1. This condom tip was stated to have been found under the part of the bed where Assange had been adjusting the condom, and had been cut off with a knife or scissors.
So presumably MA1 is Anna Ardin (condom bit with DNA), and MA2 is Sofia Wilen (DNA-less condom.)
This raises a contradiction between Anna Ardin’s statement that she had heard him (Assange) tearing the condom, and the lab analysis which states that it’d been cut with something sharp (knife or scissors) – which would presumably have sounded quite different to tearing.
Not to mention, how do you exactly “tear” a condom, so as to neatly remove just the tip? They are phenomenally strong.
So… is she (Ardin) saying Assange carried a set of condom-snipping scissors to his love-making activities, just in case? Or did there just happen to be one handy in the bedroom??? Or was this (as I strongly suspect) a plant?
The length of time between the complaint being made and this condom tip being “found” (12 days later I believe) would have given plenty of time to fabricate and plant evidence, if this were the case.
Plus, Anna Ardin is known to be a liar, as she lied to eg Donald Bostrom about not having slept with Assange, when she in fact already had. (At least, according to Donald Bostrom, who seems to be an impartial witness.) And Ardin’s testimony changes over time, which makes her doubly-suspect.
See http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/ for an excellent summary of the evidence.
We also have to wonder why MA2 (Sofia Wilen) provided an unused condom to the police for analysis… if she were an unwilling complainant and didn’t want to press charges, and just wanted Assange to take an HIV test, this would back that assertion up.
Keep up the good work!
David
Full lab report on broken condom: (With thanks to Komodo)
http://www.samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police_condom.pdf
@Tech
You’re gonna just lurve the comments on the next page ref: “no-tits-Knightly”
@JimmyGiro Sorry, I didn’t want to use the f-word. So I tried a less abusive one, obviously that was too much as well.
Craig has omitted another interesting (and in my view incriminating) fact about Miss AA. Apart from the fact that she acted as ‘sexual liaison officer’ for a Swedish university (and would have therefore known that you can’t go to the police to request someone to take an STD test), several months before meeting Assange, she had posted a blog on the internet called: ‘Seven steps for revenge against an unfaithful lover.’
She subsequently tried to delete this blog – but the cache was retrieved by those who know how. This woman’s behaviour is very strange.
It is really depressing to read this post and see that really common and understandable behaviour by someone who claims to have been a survivor of rape is being used to brand her a liar. This is profoundly unhelpful to other survivors of rape to see such scorn poured on this woman because the case concerns a powerful man and has been seized upon by state interests to use for political persecution.
Maybe, right, AA didnt warn Sophia because to do so would force her to confront directly what had happened to her. For some rape survivors, especially those whose experiences dont match the stereotypical but statistically rare rape by an aggressive stranger trope, coming to terms with havibg their agency taken away and being abused in this way takes time.
It is also not uncommon for survivors to stay close to their attackers as they try to convince themselves that everything is OK, that their attacker would never do that etc.
Look at this article written by a rape survivor recounting her experiences and mindset and you will see exactly this type of behaviour and her rationale: http://herbsandhags.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/how-i-became-rape-victim.html?m=1
Are we to assume that she is also lying? That she is only concerned with ruining a man’s life?
Beyond all this, the obvious reason why AA didnt warn Sophia is that she will have known, as most survivors of rape come to realise, that if she claimed that a powerful and respected man such as Assange had raped her she would face aggressive and humiliating scrunity and examination of her character, her lifestyle and every decision she made in her relationship with Assange.
And what do you know? She was right.
Have we got exact times for the Wilen and Ardin police statements?
It seems obvious that after Ardin took Wilen across town to meet Krans, it was Wilen who talked to Krans first, in Ardin’s presence. Was Ardin involved in the conversation at all? What a shame that the police broke the internationally well-known rule on interviewing witnesses who allege rape, and (what a coincidence!) they also didn’t manage to record the interview either, so there is no record of Ardin’s role in the interview.
And then – oh dear, after all that trouble – Wilen refuses to sign the statement that Ardin’s friend Krans asks her to sign.
Was it at that point that Ardin, wondering what on earth she’s going to say to her CIA case officer, decides to make her own statement accusing Assange of assault against herself?
Yes, Albanov, her blog was down for a while. It is up now and cleaned up.
http://annaardin.wordpress.com/
I notice among the blogs she visits, this is not one of them. Well, not yet.
Skipjack,
Except that Anna Ardin was not an impressionable 18 year old like the alleged victim you link to, but a mature woman with a history of campaigning on and writing on feminist issues, including the question of “white men” considering they had the right to define consent (on which she had previous internet correspondence with Irmeli Krans), and publishing detailed schemes for legal action as sexual revenge.
Actually I think your thesis, that female victims are easily controlled and dominated by powerful men into not even realising they were raped, is gross sexual stereotyping and demeaning to women. Not to mention tendentious post-hoc rationalisation, in this instance.
I am also sorry to say, Skipjack, that I do not necessarily completely believe every nuance of the story you link to. For those who keep saying Assange must face trial, to quote as irrefutable evidence alleged facts which have never been put before any jury, is somewhat strange. The story reads to me too perfectly calculated to advance precisely the point you are making, and it is without reserve stated by its author to be put forward in favour of that argument. But again, even if precisely true, I would again state that what is claimed to have been the psychology of a young woman some decades ago, is not the psychology of a modern, rather older woman in Sweden politically active on precisely these frminist sexual issues.