Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar

by craig on September 11, 2012 1:05 pm in Uncategorized

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.

Anna tweets at 14.00:

‘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.

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.

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.

Tweet this post

1,861 Comments

1 4 5 6 7 8 10

  1. Nice piece of detective work, Arbed. Why do they not guarantee Assange would not be deported? Why don’t they come to interview him here? It stinks. How anybody can kowtow to the US with its human rights’ record is above me. But it isn’t because I’ve been on this planet a good few years and know what they are up to.

  2. I see there’s to be a Christmas address to the crowds on Thursday, 20 December at 7pm, to mark six months of no-safe-passage-allowed political asylum.

    Anyone from Craig’s blog thinking of going down to the embassy for this? Would love to meet up with anyone who is.

    Someone posted a comment in Flashback about the possibility of organising a visit to London from Sweden. I wonder if Flashback are treating this as a serious idea? – Again, if any of the Good People of Flashback are thinking of coming over to London, maybe a “Flashback” placard in the crowd would be a good rallying point for those of us who’d like to come up and introduce ourselves, swap email addresses, etc?

    Hope the balcony gets decorated with straw, manger, star on high, lowly cattle, etc, for the occasion… ;) Ok, maybe just some sprigs of holly through the railings…

  3. I found an old article dated 10 December 2010 from ABC News. It shows that Wikileaks lawyers were already hearing from US lawyers that an indictment was imminent (doesn’t actually specify it would be a sealed one, though). Also notable for the outrageous outright lies Claus Borgstrom was putting out in the press at the time. AA and SW were Wikileaks employees? According to Claus Borgstrom, they were. Yeah, right… Look at what he says:

    “They were attacked by Mr. Assange and then they are treated like perpetrators themselves,” attorney Claes Borgstrom told ABC News. “He has molested them and then sacrificed them for his own interests.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/assange-lawyers-prepare-us-espionage-indictment/story?id=12362315#.UMhQ4aZw1II

    I know that Borgstrom has been reported to the Swedish bar for making prejudicial statements in the press ahead of the never-gonna-happen-in-million-years “trial”, which is illegal under Swedish law, but that was regarding similar statements after Assange’s asylum was granted in August this year. I wonder if this statement to ABC could be added to the report filed against Borgstrom?

  4. There’s been a request to “tell the world” about this one.

    The Swedish FOI site Undermattan and another blog specialising in leaks of Swedish Government malfeasance – corruptio.blog.com/ – have both been abruptly closed down. Both are heavily pro-Assange and are venues where crucial information about the Swedish handling of the sex case against Assange has first emerged.

    Use Google translate on this page. It gives a list of the names and times of networks visiting the Undermattan site immediately prior to the closure. Very revealing:

    https://gnuheter.com/creeper/site/undermattan.com

    Here’s the explanation Undermattan received from its host to their enquiry as to why they’d been closed down. The answer was apparently that it was done at the behest of the Swedish Army Special Intelligence unit:

    http://callisendorff.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/bloggen-undermattan-com-stand-av-sveriges-regering-precis-som-corruptio-blog-com/

    Hmmmm…

  5. Answer to John Goss request for more info about Prime PR:

    I don’t know very much about McCormac and Prime, other than what’s been posted on their connections to Karl Rove by Andrew Kreig and the Chilling Me Softly site:

    http://www.chillingmesoftly.com/content/rove-reinfeldt-ny-assange-ardin-and-bodstrom

    http://www.chillingmesoftly.com/content/six-degrees-karl-rove

    …if you haven’t already seen them. Here’s Flashback’s page on Sofia Wilen’s possible connections to Prime PR, which might help your research:

    https://www.flashback.org/sp28236066

    and another – Flashback pg 1795 (13/1/11) – inc good links for SW connection to Prime PR via her mysterious American boyfriend, Seth Benson:

    https://www.flashback.org/t1275257p1795

    This might be handy (no guarantees on its accuracy, though) – List of CIA front companies (October 2012):
    http://cryptome.org/2012/10/cia-proprietaries-agents.htm

    This is just a hunch, but I think the most fruitful place to continue your research on McCormac is to look into a guy called Roland Poirier Martinsson, a Swedish-American who returned to the States recently and seems to have been quietly directing the smear offensive against Assange in Sweden. Details here:

    Flashback on Timbro/Roland Poirier Martinsson’s anti-Assange campaign:

    https://www.flashback.org/sp39865896

    Hope that helps.

    Re meeting up at the Swedish Embassy on the 20th, hope you can make it. Have you seen the details of what’s planned? It sounds like it’s going to be fun.

    http://wiseupaction.info/2012/12/12/ecuadorian-embassy-thurs-20th-december-6-30-see-ya-there-solidarity-songs-speech/

  6. For Clark, John Goss and those interested, more details on the Swedish Army Intelligence shutdown of the Swedish Freedom of Information sites requesting FOIs regarding the Julian Assange case:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20121215,01.shtml

    Swedish law says FOIs should be released within one week of request but, strange, the Swedish authorities claim to have no information at all to release concerning Julian Assange and Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, the on-duty prosecutor who issued the initial arrest warrant for “rape” on 20 August 2010 – before either woman had been formally interviewed – and who happens to be married to someone who works in Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask’s office.

    Both sites seem to have been shut down as soon as they posted documents revealing the level of censorship they were under:

    “We’ve received documents from a similar shutdown of another Swedish blog where we can see in black on white which individuals ands which Swedish agencies are responsible. This blog was also hosted by Blog.com.”

    “So we’re convinced we’ve been watched for quite some time by the Swedish cabinet and their friends, and we’re making this information public for the first time.”

    “The blog was most likely shut down at the behest of Swedish army intel, the government, and the foreign office. They were all exposed in the documents uploaded immediately prior to the shutdown.”

    The names of the Swedish agencies reponsible “in black on white” is, I believe, the first link in my 13 December, 3.01pm post above.

  7. Here’s the official press statement of the censored Swedish FOI site Undermattan, who have done so much to uncover documents relating to the Julian Assange case:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20121215,00.shtml

    and here’s the SMS messages between the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny’s office and Assange’s then-lawyer Bjorn Hurtig obtained by Undermattan that the press release is referring to. Two lots:

    http://www.slideshare.net/swedenversusassange/sms-marianne-ny-and-lejnefors-with-bjorn-hurtig-assange-investigation

    and

    http://www.slideshare.net/swedenversusassange/assange-investigation-sweden-email-traffic-foi

    It would be wonderful if any kindly Swedish-speaking visitors to Craig’s blog could provide us with an English translation of the significant parts of this correspondence.

  8. Arbed, thanks so much for all the work you’ve been doing. I’ve been off Craig’s blog, or at least paying infrequent visits, while I’ve been writing up some of the available knowledge. I’ve had a look at some of the links but like you I do not have the Swedish, and because they are in slideshow format they cannot be put through Google translate. However under the circumstances I think it is well that as many copies are available as possible.

    I’m not a vengeful person but I would shed no tears if some of the talented crackers with a conscience brought down a few military computer sites.

  9. Arbed, 15 Dec, 3:54 pm,

    I’ve made copies of the scanned documents from your two links to slideshare.com.

    All: if you want copies, e-mail me and I’ll send them. The first link yielded twelve .jpg images. The second yielded fifteen. Compressed into a .zip file they come to 1888938 bytes. For my contact details, click on my name.

  10. A new way to donate to Wikileaks – the Freedom of the Press Foundation – without it showing up on credit card or bank statements (tax deductible in the US too) has been set up by such luminaries as Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, John Perry Barlow and Trevor Tim of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Micah Lee and others.

    Details here:

    Crowd-Funding the Right to Know:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ellsberg/wikileaks-funding_b_2313376.html

    here:

    New press freedom group is launched to block US government attacks:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/wikileaks-new-press-freedom-group

    and here:

    Group Launches to Encourage Transparency & Aggressive Journalism, Help WikiLeaks Survive Blockade:
    http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/12/16/group-launches-to-encourage-transparency-aggressive-journalism-help-wikileaks-survive-financial-blockade/

  11. I’m at the embassy, please find me

  12. I posted the comment above on an iPhone kindly lent to me by a young woman. Did anyone else attend? I tried holding up a sign reading “craigmurry.org.uk” (sic, misspelt in a rush, much to my shame) and calling through a megaphone, but I didn’t find anyone…

  13. Clark – Oh, bugger. Yes, I was there – on the steps directly opposite the embassy entrance. I did manage to meet up with John Goss and I was looking forward to meeting you (he told me you were there just before he had to rush off to catch a coach home). Never mind, next time, eh?

  14. Arbed, yes, next time. I should have been earlier. I’ve posted a bit more detail at the links below, and thereabouts, as has John Goss:

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/12/baghdad-conference-photos/#comment-386588

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/12/baghdad-conference-photos/#comment-386636

  15. So, the complaint to the Swedish Bar Association Disciplinary Committee that Claes Borgstrom behaved corruptly when he colluded with the Supreme Court chief judge Goran Lambertz to skew a television debate about the Thomas Quick case/scandal has failed. The Disciplinary Committee exonerated “our dear Claes Borgstrom”TM of “disloyalty to a former client”:

    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/borgstrom-slipper-varning-for-mejlen/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.expressen.se/nyheter/borgstrom-slipper-varning-for-mejlen/%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dopera%26hs%3Dftc%26tbo%3Dd%26channel%3Dsuggest%26biw%3D926%26bih%3D661&sa=X&ei=U-zeULLmB-W60QXao4HACQ&ved=0CDYQ7gEwAA

    Ah well. Perhaps it’s worth trying to get up a similar complaint against Frederik Werrsall, over this:

    Dagens Juridik, 26/11/12: “Draft” to a conviction handed out to members of the Court of Appeal – before the actual court hearing:

    http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagensjuridik.se%2F2012%2F11%2Futkast-till-fallande-dom-i-sexualbrottmal-delades&act=url

    Only tangentially relevant to the Assange extradition case maybe, but relevant nonetheless as it was Wersall who approved the SVEA Court of Appeal’s upholding of the EAW warrant issued for Assange’s extradition:

    https://www.flashback.org/t1275257p4198#goto_sharethis

    Not only does this case have a prosecutor who believes it’s a good thing if men are locked up pre-charge (and, in this case, pre-questioning) even if they are subsequently acquited in court it also has an Appeals Court judge who thinks it’s perfectly OK to write out and distribute Guilty verdicts before a court case takes place…

  16. The disciplinary committe was divided. The chairperson, Anne Ramberg and two others wanted to give him a warning. Borgstrom was lucky this time. But his star in Sweden is fading.

  17. Arbed wrote:
    “This is just a hunch, but I think the most fruitful place to continue your research on McCormac is to look into a guy called Roland Poirier Martinsson, a Swedish-American who returned to the States recently and seems to have been quietly directing the smear offensive against Assange in Sweden. Details here:

    Flashback on Timbro/Roland Poirier Martinsson’s anti-Assange campaign:

    https://www.flashback.org/sp39865896“.

    Roland Poirier Martinsson is very close to Karl Rove. He is also the only person employed by “Timbro mediainstitut”, a conservative PR-Agency which he manages. The way these things work means, I assume, that Rove could have placed a request for RPM to launch a trial by media against Assange in Sweden. Which he did in december/january 2010/2011. The money goes to Timbro Mediainstitut and because it is a business contract noone outside will ever see this.

    RPM has now moved back to Texas where he took his degree some years ago.

  18. more on RPM.

    He became director of Timbro Mediainstitut in the summer of 2010. He pushed out Billy McCormac who was believed to be the candidate for that job. Billy McCormac instead took up a senior job at Prime PR only a week or so before the rapecase against Assange exploded.

    In this TV interview, december 2010, RPM wants to see Assange behind bars
    http://www.makthavare.se/2010/12/09/tv-timbro-chef-jag-vill-se-assange-bakom-las-och-bom/

  19. Arbed, Axel, I’m dropping behind a bit here. Just been checking the last two comments to add to the Assange set-up intrigue. I agree Martinssen is an interesting character too. He and McCormac are probably in it up to their elbows. Proving it might be difficult. But certainly Martinssen has both expressed a desire to see Assange in jail and left for the US (either because the task is completed, or rather, I suspect, to get further instructions now the plan has somewhat backfired). Thanks for keeping us up to date.

    Arbed, it seems the ‘ha, ha’ comments never really caught on. I felt I was the only one. Then I saw yours. It is one of those things that everyone should be doing to make it a success.

    As to the well-written Darkhorsenet.com article I don’t know about Sophia Wilen whereabouts, but Anna Ardin’s blog is still going. It just does not contain much connected with Assange. The seven steps are not there but comments about them are. My guess is that she has been advised not to mention anything to do with the allegations she and Wilen made.

  20. Re-post from
    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/01/market-madness/#comment-387636

    “O/T – Julian Assange has been arrested:
    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/01/505232.html

    The Indymedia article was posted at 04.01.2013 18:00, just over 24 hours ago. I have found no other mention about this; nothing in the corporate media, nothing found by Google. Any further info, anyone?

  21. Total hoax Clark, don’t worry about it:

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/287631460985344001

    However, this is worth worrying about:

    http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/04/two-swedes-renditioned-to-the-us-possibly-to-death-penalty-in-secrecy-and-without-lawyers-knowledge/

    This 2nd Jan 2013 article in the Independent illustrates better how both the UK and the Swedish governments co-operated ahead of time to serve the political will of the US:

    Rendition gets ongoing embrace from Obama administration:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rendition-gets-ongoing-embrace-from-obama-administration-8434963.html

    Note the way Britain stripped its own citizen of citizenship to smooth the way. Note the Swedish government’s complete unwillingness to even protect the rights of its own citizens – it just served them up on request (wonder how a non-Swede or Australian would fare…?). Note the existence of a secret Grand Jury indictment handed down months before these individuals were detained in Djibouti – only unsealed just after arrest. And before you say “ah, but they’re terrorists”, note that the UK (ex-)citizen was a Somalian-born care worker working in Britain who filed a formal complaint in 2009 claiming harassment by the MI5 intelligence service, who threatened him with all sorts of trouble if he didn’t become an informant.

    For the kind of questions being asked about the legality of this case in Sweden, see this SvD Opinion article:

    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/ud-bor-forklara-hur-utlamningen-gatt-till_7793002.svd

    Not a whole lot of speculation needed to see from the above what would happen to Assange if he went to Sweden. All the better (from their point of view) that the ridiculous sex allegations case is so weak it can be dropped almost instantly in favour of a US request for extradition.

  22. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/us/new-evidence-to-be-introduced-against-bradley-manning.html?_r=1&

    “The prosecutors also said they would present logs of Internet chats in February 2010 between Private Manning and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, including one in which the two men appeared to be “laughing” together about a New York Times article. The March 17, 2010, article said that the Pentagon had listed WikiLeaks as a threat to military operations and security.”

    Manning and Assange laughed in February about an article printed in March? How is that possible?

    These chat logs are, presumably, those where the US Govt claims the Nathaniel Frank alias is Julian Assange. There’s a lot of problems with whether those chat logs can be authenticated as not being overwritten at a later date. I’ve said before that Nathaniel Frank – an actual person, btw, a campaigner against the US Army’s policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – doesn’t strike me as an alias that Julian Assange would choose. Maybe Bradley Manning (or an Army “forensic investigator”), but not Assange.

  23. PS to previous post.

    Even worse, the US Government is asking the judge to take “judicial notice” (ie, effectively treat as fact) that New York Times articles and a June 2010 New Yorker profile of Assange as authenticating the chat logs. From Alexa O’Brien, one of the few journalists who has covered the Bradley Manning trial in person from Day 1 and who has produced the only close-as-dammit transcript of proceedings:

    https://twitter.com/carwinb/status/289076311975145474

  24. Arbed did you notice that the NY Times artilce finished by saying how short of funds Wikileaks is? It says also that Wikileaks is supported by the CIA. To which Assange made a witty response,

    “Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the Army’s report, to Mr. Assange, was its speculation that WikiLeaks is supported by the Central Intelligence Agency. “I only wish they would step forward with a check if that’s the case,” he said.

    What a travesty though. Poor Bradley Manning. The good are imprisoned while the bad powermongers are imposing all kinds of diabolical crimes on the world.

  25. Truthout article that ties together all the disparate threads regarding the CIA cocaine smuggling plot against Ecuador’s president Correa which, of course, we all first heard about here in Craig’s blog. Craig gets mentioned quite a lot in this. There’s also a VERY intriguing parallel between Swedish accuser Anna Ardin’s association with CIA-backed activity in Cuba and those of the woman accusing Chilean whistleblower Patricio Merybell in the Chile/Ecuador subplot; the recent extraordinary rendition of UK and Swedish citizens to the US from Djbouti; and the rape smears/attempted extradition of Julian Assange – all covered here.

    A Tale of Cocaine-trafficking, Sex crime charges, Extraordinary rendition and Julian Assange:

    http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/a-tale-of-cocaine-trafficking-sex-crime-charges-extraordinary-rendition-julian-assange/

    Also details Craig’s and other whistleblowers’ stories of similar sex crime smears, and Craig’s speech outside the Ecuadorian embassy back in the summer. Recommended reading.

    And here’s an update from Sweden on the Djbouti rendition story, courtesy of Rixstep. It’s starting to get a LOT of attention in the Swedish MSM. (It’s almost like journos there don’t dare touch on the Assange case, but they are starting to cover this one properly, so the parallels are becoming clear.) Swedish intelligence was following the two Swedish guys for four years but promptly closed their investigation (and therefore any reason to bring them back to Sweden) as soon as the US request came in. Ditto the timing of the UK’s stripping of citizenship from the third suspect looks a bit suspicious:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130112,00.shtml

    Cage Prisoners also tweeted this link last night, along with the message “Does the #extradition of Swedish national M.Yusuf to US set a dangerous precedent for #julianAssange?”.

    European terrorism suspects secretly held in New York under false names:

    http://www.cageprisoners.com/learn-more/news/item/5758-european-terrorism-suspects-secretly-held-in-new-york-under-false-names

  26. Anyone been following the Live Mail Art project? A Swiss artists’ collective, !Mediengruppe Bitnik, posted a package yesterday at noon addressed to Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. It contained a camera and a GPS tracker which has been uploading pictures every 10 seconds to the Bitnik website. Assange was alerted it was on its way:

    Delivery for Mr Assange: http://cryptome.org/2013/01/assange-delivery.htm

    The website keeps going down, presumably due to heavy traffic, but the Twitter account is fun:

    https://twitter.com/bitnk/

    (PS. Yes, it did go via Vauxhall.)

  27. Just thought I’d post these details here too, for anyone who’s interested.

    Unfortunately there is a protest planned against Assange speaking at the Oxford Union. The usual sorry mixture of presumed-guilt and woeful ignorance of the facts of the case:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/09/julian-assange-speak-oxford-university-protests_n_2440339.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

    Backed to the hilt, of course, by the Guardian:

    https://twitter.com/santaevita/status/289082517594710016

    (note: this woman’s twitter account was set up literally one day before this tweet, so seemingly specifically for this protest. Talk about jumping on bandwagons…)

    She refuses to look at any ‘source’ about the case other than David Allen Green’s Legal Myths article in the New Statesman, despite having now been warned that it contained serious factual errors and was later (partially) corrected by Glenn Greenwald, here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition

    Never mind… what can you do with people like this? As the protest is planned for both Oxford and outside the Ecuadorian embassy, a counter-protest is also planned (a dignified silent vigil). Here’s a factsheet that’s been produced to give out at the counter-protest if anyone fancies shuffling down to Hans Crescent, SW1 on 23 January:

    http://wikileaksetc.blogspot.ch/2013/01/fact-sheet-julian-assange-his-asylumand.html

  28. Arbed, please check your Inbox; I’ve started a multiple-recipient e-mail for communication about the meet-up for the vigil.

  29. Thanks Clark – yes, will do later today. Sorry, bit rushed right at the moment. Just got time to post the latest on the Wikileaks Grand Jury.

    Some journalists have been digging into the reasons behind the US DoJ’s persecution of Aaron Swartz. First, there’s this:

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambridge-cops-arrested-aaron-swartz-secret-service-took-over-the-investigation/

    Not conclusive of anything much, but the involvement of the Secret Service in Swartz’s JSTOR case is odd. I understand it’s well off their patch. Then there’s this:

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/18/was-aaron-swartz-effort-to-foia-bradley-mannings-treatment-why-doj-treated-him-so-harshly/

    In December 2010 through early 2011 Aaron Swartz was persistently FOIing David House’s visits to Bradley Manning in Quantico. That article includes a handy timeline to bear in mind when reading this Wall Street Journal article, dated 9 February 2011:

    Assange probe hits snag:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703313304576132543747598766.html

    The Empty Wheel blog is starting to put two and two together, here:

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-six-week-delay-in-the-swartz-investigation/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=the-six-week-delay-in-the-swartz-investigation

    And then comes this:

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/292503580135538688

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/292503892569239552

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/292504484016439296

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/292504975865692160

    Holy Hell!

  30. I’d put my money on the above being to do with the 8 February 2009 Wikileaks release that WL retweeted immediately after the above 4 tweets about Aaron Swartz. That release was a fully up-to-date archive of Congressional Research Service reports:

    https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Change_you_can_download:_a_billion_in_secret_Congressional_reports

    and the reason I think Wikileaks is guessing Aaron Swartz was the source for that (they can’t prove it because their submission system was set up to anonymise leaks by pinging [technical term, that through dozens of different domain servers, shedding metadata as it goes, and keeping no logs) is this article I read a few days ago in the Naked Capitalism blog:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/aaron-swartzs-politics.html

    Aaron Swartz interned in Congress in 2009.

    The other thing to bear in mind is that it was the Secret Service who were on Aaron’s tail. It’s really worth studying the detail of those links to the Empty Wheel blog I’ve posted above. There’s a wealth of clues in them for peeps who’ve been researching the whole Wikileaks saga and know the background quite well.

    The Secret Service, of course, report directly to Barack Obama – at least I think I’m right in saying ‘directly’. They’re in charge of the President’s personal security detail, arn’t they?

    This is getting very big, and very juicy. I’m kinda hopeful that this is the turning point, the moment when people start realising just how merciless – and morally bankrupt – the whole Get Wikileaks/Extradite Assange witch hunt is.

  31. The excellent Marcy Wheeler at the Empty Wheel blog appears to be drawing the same conclusions that I am:

    First, there’s this where she analyses the US Govt requests for Swartz’s private data held by Google, Twitter and Amazon, despite those companies apparently having nothing to do with the JSTOR case:

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/14/what-kind-of-fishing-trip-did-the-government-conduct-into-aaron-swartz-amazon-data/

    then she notices the coincidental timing of these subpoenas with similar requests being made in relation to known Wikileaks associates:

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-fishing-expedition-into-wikileaks/

  32. This comment is in answer to something on another thread. I’m copy-posting it here (and the three or four above it) in the hope that someone from Flashback picks it up.

    “it seems, not wildly speculative, that a deal was reached, making Aaron either a Witness for Prosecution against Wikileaks, or a CI”

    I think this may be wrong. There was no deal reached by the time of Aaron’s death. The prosecution’s offer was plead guilty to all 13 felony charges and do 6 months in jail, or we up the ante (I think I’ve seen mention that the US DoJ would have asked for 7 years if it had gone to trial). The prosecutors were warned not long before Aaron’s death that he was suicidal. Their response was along the lines of “we’ll put him in jail then”.

    Aaron did not wish to plead guilty to ANY felony charges. It’s heavy shit being a felon in the US.

    All this is not to say that he had not been subpoenaed in the Wikileaks Grand Jury. Glenn Greenwald (while he was still at Salon) stated that the very first witness subpoenaed to the WL Grand Jury (in April 2011, I believe, two months before David House, Tyler Watkins and Nadia Heninger appeared there 15th/16th June 2011) was “an unnamed Cambridge, Mass. resident”. In a later post Greenwald confirmed that this first witness had refused to testify anything other than confirm his name.

    David House posted to the net what he claimed was his testimony [Ben, is it even legal for witnesses to publish Grand Jury testimony? I know it's a criminal offence for prosecutors and jurists]. It consisted of “I invoke [the fifth amendment right to not self-incriminate]“, “I invoke”, “I invoke” etc. It is not known whether he was granted immunity, which would force him to either testify or go to jail. He has become heavily anti-Wikileaks in recent months. Originally, House spoke publicly about being approached by the FBI with offers of money to become an informant on the “Cambridge hacker set” (of which both Bradley Manning and Aaron Swartz were a part). Many people now think David House has become an FBI informant. And he’s not doing much to dispel that idea:

    https://twitter.com/anewmath/status/289946013832196098

    A man who sees friendship as a commodity, something you can use as trade. Nice friend. Now, why would he be so keen to “ingratiate [him]self with Julian Assange”, I wonder?

    …and:

    https://twitter.com/anewmath/status/291797617841688576

    See Quinn Norton’s (Aaron Swartz’ ex-girlfriend who was subpoenaed by the Grand Jury in his JSTOR case) comment right at the top of this twitter thread. By the logic of that, David House’s own comment, and the fact his published “testimony” is invoking the Fifth, he should be in jail.

  33. Re the reopening of the Swedish case against Assange, does anybody know if it is true this happen because “This dismissal has upset the two women so much that they took a solicitor who went on their behalf to the Swedish courts to advise the prosecution to open it again.”, as claimed in the first comment posted under this article:

    http://oxford.tab.co.uk/2013/01/19/christines-compelling-comeback/

  34. Hi Macky,

    No, it’s not true. I tried to add a comment to that Tab article, setting out the facts behind Borgstrom’s involvement but my comment didn’t make it past the moderators. Often happens with me… (I’m always polite but certain venues don’t really like people posting facts :) )

    AFAIK, Anna Ardin phoned Claus Borgstrom on 24 or 25 August 2010, the latter being the day that Eva Finne closed down the investigation into Sophie Wilen’s allegations, leaving only Anna’s “deliberately torn condom” allegation outstanding. Bear in mind the following:

    1) Claus Borgstrom’s reputation (or lack of it now, following the Quick scandal) is as a defence lawyer.

    2) Borgstrom is on record as publicly stating that “the women” did not even know it was possible to get a closed investigation re-opened.

    3) Although Sophie Wilen’s allegation reached the level of seriousness needed to make it a ‘statutory crime’, meaning the State is obliged to prosecute whether the ‘victim’ agrees or not, the sexual molestation allegation of the torn condom does not meet that level, leaving the complainant as the person legally responsible for it.

    4) On 21 August 2010 – several days before she telephoned Borgstrom – Anna Ardin had handed in to the police a used-looking, torn condom as evidence to back her allegation that Assange had deliberately ripped it during sex. On later examination by Sweden’s national forensics lab (twice), this condom ‘evidence’ turned out not to have any DNA – male OR female – on it.

    4) In Sweden, the making of false allegations is prosecuted as a crime, with a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment (although it is rarely, if ever, used in cases where women make false rape or domestic abuse claims; nevertheless, Anna Ardin is a high profile politician in Sweden, so I doubt she could just slip under the radar).

    5) In Sweden, in sex cases, complainants are entitled to the services of a “Counsellor”. This is a State-paid role. Claus Borgstrom applied directly to the relevant authority to be assigned this role and has been paid directly by the State for his services over the last two years.

    6) It is now generally known that the ‘official’ leaked Wilen witness statement dated 26 August was heavily doctored by person/s unknown (but the evidence so far points to the culprit being Claus Borgstrom; lawyers in Sweden have the right to ‘amend’ witness statements, as long as it is BEFORE the witness signs it). It has been rumoured that Sophie Wilen made a further witness statement on 2 September 2010, the day after Marianne Ny – at the request of Claus Borgstrom – took over the case. However, in the UK court hearings Ny only produced the 26 August statement. She made reference to Wilen making a later “statement” but she nevertheless elected to use the earlier, unsigned version. Hmmm. All Ny would say was that the “second statement said substantially the same thing” owtte. Then why not use it, eh? In all, this provides strong circumstantial evidence that as at 18 November 2010 Sophie Wilen was still refusing to sign her statement. Borgstrom regularly claims to have spoken to both his “clients”, but only Ardin has ever publicly said anything.

    Get my drift here, Macky? Ardin contacted Borgstrom because she knew she might need a defence lawyer in a potential future prosection for making false rape allegations.

  35. Thanks Ardin, for the detailed replied; I’ve not followed all the intricate details, but this new “factoid” seemed very suspect to me; anyhow I see that the Poster who made that first Post has now received a lot of replies pointing out his/her many errors.

  36. For Stjarna Franfalle:

    Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir has put in an official nomination for Bradley Manning to get the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize:

    http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/01/21/bradley-manning-nobel-peace-prize-nomination-2012/

    This article’s dated yesterday, but it’s a little confusing because the text of the nomination mentions that Bradley has been incarcerated for “well over a year” when he’s actually been in prison for nearly two and a half years (and still no trial…)

  37. From a review of “We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks”, Alex Gibney’s new documentary:

    http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/the-latest/we-steal-secrets-the-story-of-wikileaks/5050934.article

    “… while also probing the sensationalistic Swedish rape allegations against Assange that coincidentally erupted at the same time. But the film shrewdly squashes the conspiracy theories and reveals the banal truths behind the sex case.

    We Steal Secrets is impressively researched, including interviews with nearly everyone involved, from a former CIA director to Assange’s second-in-command to one of the Swedish women who accused Assange of rape. However, the filmmakers did not have direct access to Manning, who is in a military prison, and Assange, who is hiding out in Ecuador’s consulate in the UK.”

    Interviewing Anna Ardin? Assange is legally barred from discussing the allegations publicly, so isn’t this film prejudicial to any potential future trial?

    When challenged that the title of the film itself “We Steal Secrets” was not only factually wrong, but incredibly prejudicial given the ongoing Grand Jury investigation in the US, Alex Gibney claimed the title was actually a quote from the CIA’s Michael Heyden, who appears in the film at one point. He’s been roasted alive on Twitter for the absurdity of this statement.

  38. Arbed, Bradley Manning’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize reminded me of what an unusual prize it is. It was set up by Alfred Nobel apparently because people were abusing the inventions for which he held patents, dynamite and detonators, which were being used for nefarious purposes like blowing up banks and stage-coaches. As with nuclear weapons once invented these things cannot be uninvented.

    What is surprising most of all is the people to whom it has been awarded, a curious mix of real peacemakers and out-and-out warmongers. Nobel was a freemason and all Nobel award winners, not just the peace prize winners, consist of a top-heavy brigade of the brethren of the firm handshake. For this reason alone I think the chances of Bradley Manning winning are very slim. He has already won many awards where the vote has been left to the public and my own feeling is there should be some kind of award like the Noble People’s Award for Peace.

    Though I am never likely to be nominated for a Nobel prize in any category, if I were, a question I would have to ask myself is whether or not I would like to join the company of people like Sadat and Begin and Obama. It is a burdensome question.

  39. Stjarna Franfalle

    23 Jan, 2013 - 8:21 pm

    For Arbed, regarding: Alex Gibney’s documentary, “We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks”.

    Cryptome’s view of the film “We’re averse to participating further in the Wikileaks exploit[ation film, 'We Steal Secrets']“. Young & Natsios, seems to conform to WikiLeaks opinion. Both went through a process of participation are finally rejected offers to take part. http://cryptome.org/2013/01/wikileaks-jigsaw.htm

    Further, I don’t believe that a filmmaker can make such stunning omissions by ‘happenstance’ (the ongoing U.S. Dept’ of Justice investigation and looming indictment). His view on the Stockholm affair seem naive and blinked, speaking of which; the inappropriateness of one of Julain’s accusers yet again appearing in the media is beyond description. Quite why accusers (especially regarding such serious and sensitive allegations) who engage in such morally questionable behavior are not named in the MSM, when those they accuse have to endure a permanent associate with unproven accusations and are unable to legally respond – does not seem fair – at all.

    Finally, did Gibney bother to ask the main question? Why the Swedish prosecutor continues to refuse (without giving any explanation of her reasoning) to interview Julian in London under the standard Mutual Legal Assistance Framework? Because we need an answer to this..

  40. Hi Stjarne, nice to see you here!

    And as Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt struggles to cover up the fact that he’s lied that Sweden didn’t make “an informal agreement” to allow the extraordinary rendition of the two Swedes from Djbouti to the US, news about what’s happened to the British ex-citizen (courtesy of Theresa May)has come out.

    British man who ‘vanished’ after being stripped of citizenship says he was tortured and forced to sign a confession by the CIA:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265185/British-man-vanished-stripped-citizenship-claims-tortured-forced-confess-CIA.html

    So, it would be impossible for the Swedish government to agree to Assange’s onward extradition to the US because it’s against Swedish law to extradite to countries which torture? Yeah, right.

  41. Anyone here know a ‘person of influence’? Someone’s done a brilliant open letter asking for action to protect Assange, which can easily be adapted for any recipient you fancy sending it to:

    http://cyklistbhriste.blogspot.ie/2013/01/my-open-letter-to-person-of-influence.html

  42. Stjärna Frånfälle

    25 Jan, 2013 - 5:26 pm

    Hi Arbed! Information regarding Alex Gibney’s ‘sources’ for the documentary, “We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks”.

    Mirrors of Distortion – Cases of the Old Media: Vendetta against WikiLeaks, the ‘Liberal’ Press &a Threatened History:

    http://marthamitchelleffect.org/#/cases-of-the-old-media-2/4572966061

  43. Finally!

    The Oxford Union appears to have relented and put up Julian Assange’s speech at the Sam Adams awards ceremony. I reckon the fuss must have been about Wikileaks’ use of Collateral Murder as a backdrop because the green screen here has been replaced with the Oxford Union’s logo but you can still see Collateral Murder behind Assange in the long shots from the auditorium.

    It’s a great speech.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vQNWYnQjUE&feature=youtu.be

  44. Hi Stjarne, that’s a great article you’ve done there. I read it yesterday and was really impressed. Thanks for including that snippet of one of my comments in the Guardian on the issue – it’s frustrating sometimes that there’s just not the space in a comment to a newspaper article to get all the relevant info, evidence and context about something you know really, really well to include it all. But you’ve certainly solved that problem with your article. Well done, it’s a corker!

  45. I have been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or weblog posts on this sort of house . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this web site. Reading this info So i am glad to convey that I’ve an incredibly excellent uncanny feeling I found out just what I needed. I such a lot surely will make certain to do not put out of your mind this web site and give it a glance a continuing basis|regularly}.

  46. Hi everybody,

    Remember how I said that the diary of the on-duty prosecutor, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, who first issued an arrest warrant for Julian Assange on the night of 20 August 2010 had disappeared? She ordered Assange’s arrest for ‘rape’ before either woman had formally given statements and then – illegally – leaked his name to the press.

    “Sorry, it’s disappeared” was what was first claimed by the Swedish Prosecution Authority when a Freedom of Information request was filed for MHK’s official diary. (In Sweden, it is a legal duty for all prosecutors to keep a diary of their official activities. Well, apparently it’s now been ‘found’ again, but look at the state of it:

    http://rixstep.com/2/1/20130127,01.shtml

    It’s for the wrong date – 21 August and not 20 August – and it’s completely blank (ie. whited-out, censored) except for the date/time at the top and the phrase “New contact in the afternoon”.

    Here is Marianne Ny’s personal response to the FOI citing the Secrecy Act as a reason to not release the information, also translated by Rixstep:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130127,00.shtml

    Rixstep does a wonderful job of explaining the full significance of placing this material under the Secrecy Act, but there’s one detail he leaves out here. It is known that Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand made her decision on the basis of “several phone calls”. The details would, of course, be in MHK’s diary but she may have spoken to Linda Wassgren, the policewoman on reception duty at Klara police station, and to Mats Gehlin at the Family Violence Unit, who became the lead police investigator reporting directly to Marianne Ny, who is officially Chief Investigator on this case (I’ll never understand how the Supreme Court managed to convince themselves Ny was an ‘impartial judicial authority’ with a title like that…).

    The other person who Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand may have spoken to on that fateful day, of course, was her husband, an official working for Beatrice Ask, Minister of Justice. Rixstep shows just how close this could make Carl Bildt, Swedish Foreign Minister, to this initial, otherwise nonsensical, decision to arrest Assange with the information available at 5pm exactly on 20 August. The detail Rixstep leaves out is that MHK’s husband was actually with Carl Bildt in person at that exact time. Both were attending the annual Harpsund party at the Prime Minister’s summer residence. Someone from Flashback kindly supplied photographs of the event, which are somewhere further back – page 5 or page 6, I think – in the Why I’m Convinced Anna Ardin is a Liar thread:

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-6/#comments

  47. I’ve been asked for an update on the state of public opinion in Sweden about Assange and whether there are any calls there for greater transparency about the case.

    Well, opposition to the Swedish Prosecution’s stance IS building over there and more critical articles are starting to appear in some of the more established blogs. One or two even in the MSM. In fact, sentiment about Assange does now seem to be shifting, and shifting quite rapidly, in Sweden. The levels of secrecy and obfuscation around the recent extraordinary rendition of two Swedish-Somalian citizens has made a lot of people wake up to the facts that Assange’s fears on onward extradition to the US are very well-grounded. Here’s a great example, from yesterday (use Google translate):

    http://www.etc.se/ledare/swartz-slogs-var-skull

    Maria-Pia Boethius is a highly regarded Swedish feminist and she agrees Assange is at clear risk if he goes to Sweden.

    Or, to save the bother of translating through Google, here’s Rixstep’s translation of the above:

    http://rixstep.com/2/1/20130127,00.shtml

  48. Swedish Svea Appeal Court rules compensation must be paid for violations of the presumption of innocence, even when there is no formal acquital (Svea Court of Appeal T 692-12 – Compensation Act (1998:714)):

    https://www.flashback.org/sp41743430

    You’ll have to use Google translate, I’m afraid. But keep a note of that thar case number – I think it might come in handy later… ;)

  49. More Flashback discussion of the CATO Institute (and Karl Rove)-linked Timbro and Prime PR in the smear campaign against Assange (in English):

    https://www.flashback.org/sp41757136

  50. Replying to a comment on another thread:

    “Amelia Hill in this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9296954/Phone-Hacking-Guardian-journalist-and-Met-Police-detective-will-not-face-charges.html appears to have worked closely to Nick Davis, and I think we know were he stands on the WikiLeaks story.”

    Interesting. The Martha Mitchell Effect link I posted earlier also has quite a lot of detail on Nick Davies’ involvement in the Guardian spin machine against Assange, the absolute low-point of which has to be his atrocious performance to camera in the Guardian co-produced “Secrets & Lies” documentary screened by Channel 4 just before Assange’s appeal hearing at the High Court.

    No, I take that back. Nick Davies’ absolute low-point has to be committing perjury at the Leveson Inquiry about the “they’re [Afghan] informants – they deserve to die” libel propagated by his colleague David Leigh. Davies told the Inquiry he had heard Assange make this remark with his own ears, despite the fact he wasn’t even at the dinner where Leigh claims (and Der Spiegel journalist John Goetz, who was there, refutes) Assange made it:

    http://wlstorage.net/file/cms/Folder%204/2.%20Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-29-November-2011.pdf

    http://wlstorage.net/file/cms/Folder%204/1.%20Signed%20statement%20by%20John%20Goetz.pdf

    The reason I’m re-posting this here, in Craig’s thread concerning the Swedish case, is because of some of the details contained in the Martha Mitchell Effect link mentioned.

    http://marthamitchelleffect.org/#/cases-of-the-old-media-2/4572966061

    The article details how the earliest mention of the ‘Wikileaks passed cables to Lukashenko via Israel Shamir’ smear – in a hurriedly compiled blog post by Andrew Brown – came on the same day (a few hours before, in fact) Nick Davies published his notoriously skewed account of the not-yet-public domain police protocol and witness statements, “10 Days in Sweden”.

    Two points:

    Israel Shamir’s son is Johannes Walstrom, Witness E in the protocol, and favourable to Assange’s defence/innocence. Andrew Brown’s blog devotes quite a lot of time to smearing Walstrom, a respected freelance journalist, by association with his father.

    Andrew Brown is the Guardian’s religious affairs correspondent, based in Sweden. He has ties with the Social Democrats Christian Brotherhood – the same politicial/religious organisation of which Anna Ardin is Political Secretary and, it is believed, Sophia Wilen is/was a member.

    Questions:
    1. Who leaked the police protocol to Nick Davies, and when exactly?

    2. How long did Davies take to get it translated?

    3. Did he sit on it a while, waiting for the ‘right moment’ to publish (ie. the day after Assange is granted bail and is released from solitary confinement in Wandsworth prison)?

  51. And they blithely say the US has no interest in extraditing Assange…

    DOJ Tells Judge WikiLeaks Investigation Details Should Remain Secret:
    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/doj-tells-judge-wikileaks-investigation-details-should-remain-secret.html

    OMG, some of the quotes in this article are mind-blowing.

    “Today, DOJ filed papers in Washington’s federal trial court asking a judge to shut down the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

    In support of the request, the government submitted a series of secret declarations to the chambers of the presiding judge, Richard Roberts, articulating why none of the responsive records—including evidence summaries and confidential source statements—should be released to the public. The WikiLeaks investigation, DOJ said, is ongoing.”

    “Congress did not enact FOIA to permit such unwarranted intrusion.”

    “Risner defended the filing of three ex parte declarations, written by DOJ officials, saying that “certain information concerning the requested documents and the bases for their withholding cannot be provided publicly.” – Ex parte on an FOI case? They’re having a laugh…

    “EPIC filed record requests to three DOJ components—the FBI, the National Security Division and the Criminal Division. The privacy group is seeking information about any individuals targeted for surveillance “for support for or interest in WikiLeaks.”

    The privacy group also wants to see any federal agency communication with Internet and social media companies—for instance Google and Facebook—about WikiLeaks supporters.

    DOJ lawyers said EPIC is requesting information that “would reveal whether, and to what extent, the government has employed particular investigative techniques in its attempts to identify suspects and obtain evidence.”

    “DOJ lawyers said today that disclosure of the requested information “would identify potential witnesses and other individuals who have cooperated with the investigation.” The FBI, for instance, according to DOJ, gave “expressed or implied assurances” that the identities of sources would remain confidential.”

    “The government also said the FBI has withheld from disclosure information created “in relation to the pending prosecution” of Bradley Manning and “in anticipation of potential other prosecutions stemming from “the disclosure of classified information that was subsequently published on the WikiLeaks website.”

    ****

    Speaking of the FBI, hurrah for Iceland, who booted them out when they turned up there – with no prior notice – in August 2011 demanding full access to Icelandic national police and national prosecutor records to further their investigation of Wikileaks:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130131,00.shtml

  52. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    1 Feb, 2013 - 2:39 pm

    Among other things, I think DOJ is concerned about the fingerprints all over Aaron Scwartz. So far, the public really doesn’t give a shit about any investigation into Wiki. But sympathy for Aaron might change those dynamics.

  53. Looks like there were also a few raised eyebrows at Wikileaks regarding news of the US Government’s ex parte application to summarily close down EPIC’s (Electronic Privacy Information Center) FOI request for details of surveillance of Wikileaks supporters as part of its Grand Jury investigation:

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/297341643684712448

    Here’s the news report of the US Government motion that I pulled all those eye-popping quotes out of again:

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/doj-tells-judge-wikileaks-investigation-details-should-remain-secret.html

    and here’s the actual motion itself (pdf)

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/doj-wikileaks.pdf

    First, bear in mind what it was exactly that EPIC were asking for in their FOI request:

    1. All records regarding any individuals targeted for surveillance for
    support for or interest in WikiLeaks;

    2. All records regarding lists of names of individuals who have
    demonstrated support for or interest in WikiLeaks;

    3. All records of any agency communications with Internet and social
    media companies including, but not limited to Facebook and Google,
    regarding lists of individuals who have demonstrated, through
    advocacy or other means, support for or interest in WikiLeaks; and

    4. All records of any agency communications with financial services
    companies including, but not limited to Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal,
    regarding lists of individuals who have demonstrated, through
    monetary donations or other means, support or interest in WikiLeaks.

    Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like it’s common or garden ‘citizens’ the FBI’s going after to me, albeit ones with political opinions the US government may not like.

    Anyone who’s interested in what exactly lay behind the prosecutorial overreach in Aaron Swartz’s JSTOR case and who has read Mary Wheeler’s (of the Empty Wheel blog) multiple postings about the Secret Service involvement in Aaron’s case and the overlap between the JSTOR and Wikileaks Grand Jury investigations should check out page 24 of this pdf. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? These articles give some more context (look at the dates):

    http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N30/wikileaks.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-stallman/protect-your-friends-prot_b_816438.html

    I think Wikileaks tweet is referring to this part of the motion to suppress EPIC’s FOIs:

    “E.O. 13526, § 1.1(a). In section 1.4, the Executive Order establishes eight categories of classification. Of relevance here, the order provides that information may be classified if it concerns: “(b) foreign government information; (c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology; [or] (d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

    and over the page it says:

    Section 1.4(b) of the Executive Order protects “foreign government information.” That includes “information provided to the United States Government by a foreign government or governments . . . with the expectation that the information, the source of the information, or both,
    are to be held in confidence.” E.O. 13526, § 6.1(s)(1). The protection of such information is critical because, “[t]he free exchange of information between United States intelligence and law enforcement services and their foreign counterparts is predicated upon the understanding that these liaisons, and information exchanged between them, must be kept in confidence.” Hardy Decl. (Ex. 1) ¶ 46. Here, the FBI has determined that numerous responsive documents contain such information.”

    In fact, just read pages 26 to 30. Wikileaks has got it bang to rights.

    Jeez, that is one of the scariest documents I’ve ever read.

  54. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    1 Feb, 2013 - 4:38 pm

  55. Following on from the 28 Jan, 9.43am post above about Marianne Ny’s sly substitution of the on-duty prosecutor’s 21 August 2010 diary (almost completely obliterated by redaction to boot] for that of the 20 August in response to an FOI request for the latter, here’s a useful timeline of the other events of 21 August.

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130202,00.shtml

    Rixstep makes pretty clear what Anna Ardin’s game was but, personally, I feel there’s much more to Sophie Wilen’s story than he outlines here.

    I’ve set out in detail further back in the thread the areas of Sophie Wilen’s story I feel need more investigation, to wit:

    1. The disparity between what is said in Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensic report about the piece of condom relating to Sophie Wilen’s complaint and remarks attributed to Sophie Wilen there, and her formal witness statement taken by Irmeli Krans (the 26 August version we have in the public domain).

    2. The fact that the physical evidence backing Wilen’s complaint is only a piece of condom, not the whole thing, and that we don’t know exactly how/when/from where/by whom it was submitted to the police. Various scenarios have been discussed but none of them really hold up logically. My personal belief is that the heavily redacted memo from Linda Wassgren (policewoman serving on reception at Klara police station) to Eva Finne dated 22 August is the key to the mystery.

    3. The issue of when exactly it came to be understood that Sophie Wilen only wished to ask advice from the police about forcing Assange to get a HIV test. The testimony of Wilen’s ‘witness’ friends, that of Anna Ardin and Ardin’s earliest media statements would seem to indicate that this narrative was a later addition.

    I’ve detailed all this in lengthy posts but offhand I can’t recall which page of the thread they’re on.

  56. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    2 Feb, 2013 - 5:02 pm

    Arbed @12:44

    Apparently no commentators thought my suggestion worthwhile, but ‘rope-a-dope’ could well be a strategy for dissident forces.

    “Slogging through the PDF, it struck me. This is a major pain-in-the-ass for principles of the DOJ, just answering these FOIA requests.

    Perhaps multiple requests from separate sources would help the overall situation. BTIM, if we manage to keep these assholes busy with FOIA’s, it might tamp down the resource reservoir. Keep them busy with the bullshit of bureaucracy. Make them so fucking overtime crazy, they have less time for their mischief. It is a game of inches, after all.”

  57. Hey Ben,

    Well, I like your idea! Unfortunately, I’m not a US citizen so I can’t contribute that side of the pond. Over here in the UK, the government is plotting to trim the FOI laws to make it possible to refuse FOIs if similar requests come from different quarters but together the cost of fulfilling – or, wait for it, the cost of considering whether the request should be granted – comes to more than £600. Jerks!

  58. Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    2 Feb, 2013 - 11:02 pm

    Arbed; Wasn’t sure of your nationality. I’m more a ‘big idea’ guy than a detail-oriented, eye for detail person, like yourself. I have a hard time with the verbose minutiae, and get bogged down in timelines, and such. I admire your attention to detail. Word craft and heuristic jumps with synthesis attached is my talent, but I need help getting across the street. :0

  59. Hi Ben,

    Oh, I like the big ideas genius stuff too – I totally agree with your comments on the TV Estadão interview on the front page. I remember not long after Wikileaks first crossed my radar (the press conference for the Afghan War Diaries release, which struck me as something ‘new’ in a zeitgeisty way) reading Assange’s essay Conspiracy as Governance and thinking ‘Wow!Stone cold genius’.

  60. Arbed and others

    Important. CIA were sent packing from Iceland for trying to get information on the Wikileaks operation there.

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130131,00.shtml

  61. Sorry FBI not CIA.

  62. Oh dear. You know that the credibility of your justice system has reached just about zero when Belarus starts criticising you on it!

    http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/sverige-sagas–av-vitryssland

    http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article16181317.ab

    (and says your treatment of Julian Assange violates international law too)

    Oh, hahahahahahahhahahhahahha

  63. Here is an article nearly 2 years old and just as valid today by Guy Rundle. It was unavailable for a long while but is back up again now and worth reading. As well as giving a good account of the sequence of events in Sweden it also shows how these goings on were distorted by Guardian columnist, Nick Davies. Now where have I heard that before?

    http://www.themonthly.com.au/julian-assange-sex-crime-and-feminism-crayfish-summer-guy-rundle-3184

  64. Two Swedish colleagues and myself wrote to Senator Bob Carr, Australia’s Foreign Minister, to ask why he courted the company of Sweden’s ambassador to Australia, Sven Olof Petersson. Petersson has a track record for rendition to countries where torture is endemic and has also called for Julian Assange to go to Sweden (presumably so he can be handed over to the CIA). The reply from his office was totally evasive.

    http://newsjunkiepost.com/2013/02/08/pressure-australia-to-act-on-behalf-of-wikileaks-assange/

  65. Hi John,

    Yes, I found your letter doing the rounds on Twitter and read it last night. Thanks for posting it here too.

    I think it’s a brilliant letter – and a very important one because it calls attention to the previously unknown close links between Bob Carr and one of the Swedish politicians who nodded through an illegal extraordinary rendition from Sweden.

    I’ll do my best to help spread the word.

  66. Actually, just to add to what John Goss’s article above is pointing out. While we are all busy focusing on the latest empty-headed smear pieces in the UK press, the REAL campaign against Assange is going on behind closed doors.

    Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has just visited South America (a week before the Ecuador elections) to lobby CELAC. Here’s what else is going on with CELAC:

    25/1/13: REGION : Sabotaging CELAC – The US and Sweden
    http://tortillaconsal.com/tortilla/es/node/12421

    The article mentions that this destabilisation push is being organised from Chile but is aimed at the 5-nation ALBA alliance including Ecuador (the source of that CIA-backed drug running op to fund anti-Correa activities too). The article also mentions a Swedish diplomat, Cederberg, who ran the embassy in Cuba while Anna Ardin was up to her destabilisation tricks there. And – you’ll love this bit, John – Timbro, a Swedish outfit aligned to US rightwing orgs that is thought to be behind a lot of the smear campaign against Julian Assange in Sweden.

    Here’s a webcache of a blogpost Anna Ardin wrote describing her deportation from Cuba (inc about her visit the embassy there – sounds cosy), which she’s since scrubbed from the net:

    https://www.flashback.org/sp25035413
    (use Google translate – it doesn’t muck this one up too much)

    Meanwhile, Ecuador’s opposition candidate (albeit with bugger-all chance of winning) has stated publicly that, if elected, he will rescind JA’s asylum…

    http://archive.is/2UYLb

    Not sure whether Carl Bildt is back in Sweden already, but he’s heading to Australia next, on 27 February…

    Looks like the Ecuadorian elections are bringing things to a head, just as Ricardo Patino hinted there would be “new developments in the Assange case in February or March”.

  67. Arbed, I wonder if the author of the above article is aware that Timbro’s staff (some of whom are now with Prime PR but doing the same job) are the one’s advising Fredrik Reinfeldt, Carl Bildt and other political players in the Assange affair? Let’s hope that Correa does get elected. I’m pretty sure he will. But we must always be mindful of what the CIA is capable of doing.

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/11/hilarcia-plot-against-correa-funded-by-drug-money/

  68. Precisely, John – it’s the same gruesome bunch every time, isn’t it. As you’re probably better prepped on Timbro than I am, why don’t you drop a quick email to the contact address for tortillconsal.com giving them a precis of Timbro’s connection to Assange’s case, just to be sure they know that angle?

  69. Smoking gun emails just leaked in Sweden:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130210,00.shtml

    Rixstep helpfully puts the all-important bits in bold, so no one can miss it. And dates, just so everyone’s clear on the order of events.

  70. Superb article by SACC setting out very clearly why Assange is right to fear US extradition via Sweden, proposing an alternative resolution for the allegations against him to be heard by a court of law that protects his human rights, and why the uptick in the UK MSM smear campaign against him matters so much:

    http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=931&catid=56

    Within this, there is also a link to an equally clear and comprehensive article on the extradition cases of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan:

    http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=921&catid=55

  71. I’m sorry to say this but I think Birgitta Jonsdottir’s motives for travelling to the US are a bit suspect. I read somewhere that she had made overtures to be taken back into the fold of Wikileaks (she’s contributed to several smear documentaries alongside Daniel Domscheit-Berg over the last two years, so she had grouped herself in with the ‘detractors’ pretty much), but I haven’t seen anything further on this so it’s not clear whether Wikileaks welcomed her back.

    Then there’s her twitter reaction to Jemima Khan’s article last week:

    https://twitter.com/birgittaj/status/299285475724754944

    which Glenn Greenwald responded to with:

    “the notion that there’s anything “brave” about criticizing Assange – easily one of the most hated people by western governments and establishment media outlets – is an embarrassing joke.

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/kv97s0

    Then there’s her involvement as a consultant on Dreamworks’ film about Wikileaks. When Assange first criticised this movie and said it had a scene set in an Iranian nuclear facility (this was before he read a section of the script out to the Oxford Union audience) she first claimed on twitter the scene had been changed to refer to Stuxnet, then two days later after Assange read out the scene, she claimed on Twitter the scene had been cut entirely. On the face of it, this doesn’t seem truthful behaviour.

    On the matter of her trip to the US, last week I posted this as a comment to her blog post about the Wikileaks movie:

    http://joyb.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/statement-dreamworking-wikileaks.html?spref=tw

    Don’t know about the movie but I think Birgitta’s decision to travel to the US in April is a silly move. If anything happens to Birgitta, it could actually detract from the focus being placed on the pre-trial hearings of poor Bradley Manning. If nothing happens to her (and, in my mind, that would raise BIG questions about Birgitta), the media will use that fact to say there is no possibility of onward extradition to the US from Sweden for Assange – “see, they aren’t interested in prosecuting Wikileaks personnel” – and he MUST go to Sweden. So, if you think it through, Birgitta’s not actually being supportive of Wikileaks.

    Back in July 2012 Birgitta wrote in the Guardian how she received a diplomatic message that she had nothing to fear in travelling to the US, but there were specific instructions that the message was to be passed to her only VERBALLY. Nothing in writing? Now why would the US government insist on that? Her US lawyers, the ACLU, also found a secret docket in US court filings with her name on it. They couldn’t get it unsealed. What’s it for? Witness subpoena to the Wikileaks Grand Jury would be my guess.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/evidence-us-judicial-vendetta-wikileaks-activists-mounts

    Look at this article from 31 January 2013 on how the US government went to a court ex parte to stop even the basis on which they were refusing an FOI request about FBI surveillance of Wikileaks supporters in the Wikileaks Grand Jury investigation from becoming public:

    DOJ Tells Judge WikiLeaks Investigation Details Should Remain Secret:

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/doj-tells-judge-wikileaks-investigation-details-should-remain-secret.html

    One of those reasons was that the FBI already had testimony from informants in the investigation and it would cause an international furore if their identity was revealed.

    And they are using a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act to get it:

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/02/01/doj-we-cant-tell-which-secret-application-of-section-215-prevents-us-from-telling-you-how-youre-surveilled/

    Long and the short of it? I think she may have cut a deal with the US Grand Jury prosecution team to give her testimony to the Grand Jury and have her identity concealed as a “protected witness”.

  72. Update: I’ve just seen this tweet from Wikileaks about Birgitta’s trip:

    .@birgittaj have you checked with WikiLeaks and Manning lawyers to see that such a trip to the US would be helpful and not harmful to them?

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/301406439807787008

    THAT is a politely coded but very strong signal to the world that no, she hasn’t, and that yes, it is an extremely dangerous move for them (but not necessarily her – if she’s already done a deal). For me, it also answers the open question in the first paragraph of my previous post:

    I read somewhere that she had made overtures to be taken back into the fold of Wikileaks (she’s contributed to several smear documentaries alongside Daniel Domscheit-Berg over the last two years, so she had grouped herself in with the ‘detractors’ pretty much), but I haven’t seen anything further on this so it’s not clear whether Wikileaks welcomed her back.

    Clearly, they didn’t.

  73. Okkkkkaay, here’s a further hint that Birgitta has indeed cut a deal with the US prosecution:

    https://twitter.com/birgittaj/status/301338605593452548

    No one can be that hopelessly naive. Here’s Kevin Gosztola calling for a Wikileaks subpoena victims support group back in June 2011:

    “Time for Those Subpoenaed in WikiLeaks Grand Jury Investigation to Setup Support Committee?”
    http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/06/09/new-subpoenas-issued-in-wikileaks-grand-jury-investigation/

    And here’s the really scary version of that (a very detailed rundown of how Grand Juries work and also covering the current targeting of anarchist and other protest movements):

    http://darkernet.in/obamas-inquisition-style-grand-jury-system-spreads-net-wide/

    And here’s a link to the Grand Jury flowchart mentioned in the above article:

    http://darkernet.in/obamas-inquisition-style-grand-jury-system-spreads-net-wide/grand-jury-flowchart-2/

  74. A very detailed multi-page rebuttal of David Allen Green’s lies in Legal Myths of the Assange case:

    http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#CONTENTS

    Enjoy.

  75. This is the best article on how the well-dodgy deportation of Gottfrid Svartholm from Cambodia is directly tied to the US prosecution of Wikileaks. It’s got all the details:

    Asia Times 14/9/12: Cambodia helps squeeze WikiLeaks:
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NI14Ae01.html

  76. This morning Birgitta Jonsdottir claimed on Twitter that the FBI visit to Iceland to quiz a Wikileaks volunteer (known as Q or ‘siggi’) was to do with the Anonymous hacker group, Lulzsec.

    “#fbi operations in #iceland based on fbi covert operations within #lulzsec. There was never any threat of attack on gov computers.”

    https://twitter.com/birgittaj/status/302016771626528768

    I previously posted a Twitter alert sent by Wikileaks to Birgitta, but ensuring ALL their 1.7 million followers saw it by adding a dot in front of her username:

    .@birgittaj have you checked with WikiLeaks and Manning lawyers to see that such a trip to the US would be helpful and not harmful to them?

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/301406439807787008

    … and Birgitta’s breezily insouciant reply (not direct to Wikileaks, but to a supporter asking whether she was afraid of being subpoenaed as a Grand Jury witness in the US investigation of Wikileaks):

    “@treisiroon i dont worry. if it happens – then it will happen, i will deal with it then:)”

    https://twitter.com/birgittaj/status/301338605593452548

    Now read these two Icelandic news account, in order:

    13.02.2013 | 12:30
    WikiLeaks and Icelandic Authorities Discuss FBI-Affair
    http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/WikiLeaks_and_Icelandic_Authorities_Discuss_FBI_Affair_0_397798.news.aspx

    14.02.2013 | 15:30
    Iceland Minister: FBI Used Hacker to Bait WikiLeaks
    http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=397837&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Here is Wikileaks’ official statement on the issue:

    Thursday February 7th 2013, 10:30 GMT
    Eight FBI agents conduct interrogation in Iceland in relation to ongoing U.S. investigation of WikiLeaks
    http://wikileaks.org/Eight-FBI-agents-conduct.html

    Notice how in the Icelandic Parliamentary committee investigating the FBI’s unauthorised behaviour in August 2011 the only person who is bringing Lulzsec into the whole affair is Birgitta herself. Well, that doesn’t mean all that much by itself – Birgitta was involved in Occupy and Anonymous too, so maybe she has inside info no one else has – but, but, but… look at the very last sentence of the second article:

    “The Icelandic police opened the possibility for the FBI to come to Iceland under false pretense, Birgitta claimed.”

    She’s covering the FBI’s ass here, and blaming the Icelandic police for drawing the poor wee innocent lambs into conducting a bogus investigation. WTF is she up to?

  77. To truly appreciate how monumentally reckless towards Wikileaks’ staff and supporters Birgitta’s decision to travel to the US is – and particularly how hugely reckless it is towards Assange’s safety – read this Congressional Research Service report dated 31 January 2013:

    Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf

    It is a survey of all the Espionage and other statutes available to the US to prosecute Assange and Wikileaks, and yes, it is specifically about Wikileaks’ prosecution. This, for instance, is from page 15 of the document:

    “Analysis
    In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.[92] There is some authority, however, for interpreting 18 U.S.C. Section 793, which prohibits the communication, transmission, or delivery of protected information to anyone not entitled to possess it, to exclude the “publication” of material by the media.[93] Publication is not expressly
    proscribed in 18 U.S.C. Section 794(a), either, although it is possible that publishing covered information in the media could be construed as an “indirect” transmission of such information to a foreign party, as long as the intent that the information reach said party can be demonstrated.[94] The death penalty is available under that subsection if the offense results in the identification and subsequent death of “an individual acting as an agent of the United States,”[95] or the disclosure of
    information relating to certain other broadly defined defense matters. The word “publishes” does appear in 18 U.S.C. Section 794(b), which applies to wartime disclosures of information related to the “public defense” that “might be useful to the enemy”…

    And here’s footnote 95:

    “95 The data released by WikiLeaks contains some names of Afghans who assisted Coalition Forces, leading to some concern that the Taliban might use the information to seek out those individuals for retaliation. See Eric Schmitt and David E. Sanger, Gates Cites Peril in Leak of Afghan War Logs, N.Y. TIMES, August 2, 2010, at 4. The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel published excerpts of the database, but did not publish the names of individual Afghans. Id. No deaths have yet been tied to the leaks.

    Fred Burton, Vice-President of Stratfor and ex-Deputy Chief of the DSS Counter-terrorism Unit, shared this advice internally with his fellow spooks:

    He says he “would pursue conspiracy and political terrorism charges and declassify the death of a source someone which [he] could link to Wiki”

    http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1074383_re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html

    In fact, see just how many of Burton’s predictions have panned out so far, including his boast that he could access material taken from the Abbottabad compound after the killing of Osama bin Laden – the prosecutors in Bradley Manning’s hearing recently confirmed the US govt intends to use that material in its “aiding the enemy” charges against Bradley (and Julian Assange):

    http://wikileaks.org/Stratfor-Emails-US-Has-Issued.html

    So, you see now why I considered Birgitta tweet to show breezy insouciance about the very real dangers – not for her, necessarily (if she’s cut a deal) – but for Wikileaks’ staff and for Assange?

  78. Troops at the ready – Goran Rudling’s back!

    Is former Ambassador Craig Murray a media seeking liar or just a pathetic researcher?
    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2013/02/is-former-ambassador-craig-murray-a-media-seeking-liar-or-just-a-pathetic-researcher/#more-1661

    Most, if not all, of Goran Rudling’s 14 supposed ‘mistakes’ in Craig’s research can be knocked out of the skies. And they deserve to be, given the sheer nastiness of the personal smears against Craig which Rudling prints here. Goran’s comment moderation policy seems to be that he holds the first comment of each new poster for moderation but thereafter lets everything through. So, ammunition:

    Most of the correct facts can be found somewhere on here:

    Extraditing Assange: Why David Allen Green is Wrong:
    http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#CONTENTS

    And I believe these were a tempering influence on Goran Rudling’s libellous misbehaviour for quite a while…

    Brain Garbage’s leak of the infamous Penisemails:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/112662612/Samtycke-Leaks

  79. Dear Arbed and your “troops”,

    Craig Murray has on his website published many false claims regarding the Assange case. ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-THREE (163) days ago I asked Craig Murray to back up two of his false claims with facts. The request was met with silence. Still there is nothing that supports his claims. Still Craig Murray has not admitted he lied.

    ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-TWO (152) days ago I pointed out FOURTEEN (14) of Craig Murray’s false claims in two of his articles. I asked for facts backing up the claims or that somebody, with a spine, could admit that he made serious mistakes relying on dubious sources. Again, silence.

    Now you have woken up from your 152 days sleep and have called “troops at the ready” (a call to Pinocchios and legal midgets world-wide) to find anything wrong with what I wrote in September 2012.

    “Most, if not all, of Göran Rudling’s 14 supposed ‘mistakes’ in Craig’s research can be knocked out of the skies.
    Most of the correct facts can be found somewhere on here:
    Extraditing Assange: Why David Allen Green is Wrong:
    http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#CONTENTS

    What is really amusing is that in 152 days you have not found one thing of what I wrote that is wrong. That is the reason you ask the “troops” to look at justice4assange’s website, hoping the troops can find something there. 152 days have passed Arbed. You are not only a pathetic researcher just like Craig Murray. You are very very slow too.

    I also note that you don’t call for assistance from the man behind “Craig’s research”, the “great textual analyst” Mr Murray himself. Why is that Arbed? Do you know that he is clueless too? Do you know that he is just making stuff up?

    You are most welcome to comment my article “Is former Ambassador Craig Murray a media seeking liar or just a pathetic researcher?” Hopefully you can come up with something better than your friend Jemand.

    My original comment from 7 September 2012 is below:

    Dear Mr Murray

    I don’t know the reason you were sacked as an ambassador but if you were as careless with facts as you are in this article I fully understand that you were sacked.

    You claim “Sofia Wilén refused to sign the statement and has not done so to this day”. I am asking you to show me where you got the information that Sofia Wilén refused to sign the statement. I cannot anywhere in the official documents find support for your claim. I am putting it to you straight. You are making that up. You lie.

    You go on to claim “The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law (it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.” I have not seen anywhere that the prosecutor, Marianna Ny, has stated that the interview with Sofia Wilén was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin. I am putting it to you straight. You are making that up. You lie. Until you can show me a statement where prosecutor Marianne Ny says that “the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin,” I will regard you as an inventor of stories and a certified lier.

    I have not checked your other statements regarding this case. But I assume you make a lot of other claims that are not supported by facts as if you were in some kind of competition with another certified misrepresenter of facts, Naomi Wolf.

  80. Don´t get into Rudlings trap, we loves to throw shit so you will generate traffic on his absurd blog, the only thing that works with this taxi-troll is to forget him. He kept his mouth shut on the swedish blogs since nov-12 and has just recently popped up with 2 new alias but spells the same way as before. If you really want to smoke this guy out, you should look cloose to his former x that he lived with together at the time as he took the witness-stand in Belmarch in the Assange-case, her name is Nedjma Chaouche, she was at that time the spokesperson for Swedish immigration services that turned down Assanges request for a working permit in Sweden, link: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedjma_Chaouche

    His story, that he started his blog as his mother was sexually harrazed does not match either, he has 2 brothers that has not confirmed this in any way, she also died a long time ago, so his agenda is a smokescreen for other purposes, and as he uses new alias on the net, he should be considered as a troll with criminal background, he even succeded to piss off the taxi-union erlier as he also quoted them as “liers”. Mary Engs mails shows that this guy is a complete disaster that only wanted to be in the limelight, together with another guy named Al Alan Burke of Swedish NNN, that come up with the “brilliant idea” to involve famous swedes in the fight for Assange, the problem was that these two morons made a list of these famous swedes, then mailed that list to a swedish newspapers, WITHOUT CONTACTING the persons in the list first, so the reaction when the newspapers called these people asking them if they wanted to stand up for rape-accused man was naturally that the said NO and got very upset.

    The only thing Rudling has succeded in, is a final position to Darwin awards 2013.

  81. Hello clarice

  82. Dear Blixt,

    I share your suspicions against Göran Rudling. He is arrogant and does not move an argument forward though reasoning but instead starts to call people liars when they have misunderstood something. It happens to all his adversaries. Al Burke is a very different matter. He is serious and has a serious web site http://www.nnn.se/. Of course, he has been mistaken sometimes, like most of us.

    The idea to form a Swedish defense committee of celebrities, around “no to extradition to the US” was good, but it was implemented much too late and leaked to the press before people had been asked, obviously disastrous. I believe that this idea originally came from Paul Ronge, a PR- consultant with a background in student activism, not from Al Burke.

  83. Excellent interview with Feliz Narvaez, Ecuador’s Consul to the UK. He talks about Correa’s recent victory and of having to sleep at the embassy for two months, it not being safe to leave Assange alone there at nights due to the threat of the police and security services stationed outside:

    http://www.theprisma.co.uk/2013/02/18/fidel-narvaez-“julian-assange-and-ecuador-will-hold-out-for-as-long-as-they-need-to”/

    Takeaway quote: “He’s a pleasant person to deal with…”

    Not recognisable as the same man we hear of from our beloved mainstream press then.

  84. Thanks for your excellent sleuthing Arbed and others, its slowly sinking in with the global public, that the Goran Rudlings of this world have failed to paint Julian Assange as a criminal.

    The real man is coming out and I wish him all the best in his campaign to become senator. meanwhile, there is nothing to stop el Presidente to appoint him ‘honourable consul to London, i.e. making him a quasi ambassador.

    The costs of the round the clock policing now approaching 4.7 million, with a police service cash strapped as it is, make it only obvious as to how many ‘spare’ officers we have at anyone time. Spare meaning expendable, ready for the chop.

  85. Axel,

    I don’t know if you are part of the “troops” that Arbed called for. If so you are not helping him.

    Not everybody knows what is up. I particularly like this comment of yours:

    He [Göran Rudling] is arrogant and does not move an argument forward though reasoning but instead starts to call people liars when they have misunderstood something.

    Should I read your comment as if you admit that Craig Murray has misunderstood something? Craig Murray has not yet admitted he has misunderstood anything. He has been silent for 165 days now. What you are doing is admitting Craig Murray has “misunderstood something. I don’t think that is what Arbed wanted his “troops” to admit. Maybe Arbed wants to court martial you since you now have told the truth to “the enemy”.

    Let’s just look at one of many ridiculous claims by Craig Murray:

    “The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law (it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.”

    Craig Murray claims that the prosecutor Marianne Ny has told the British High Court that the police interrogator Irmeli Krans doubled as a witness to Sofia Wilen’s interview. Are you serious in claiming that Craig Murray misunderstood that Irmeli Krans was the interrogator and as such she could not be a witness? Or what is it you are trying to say?

    Why cannot you guys admit that Craig Murray made a number of false claims? If he made a mistake trusting unreliable sources or he just flat out lied is not important. What is important is that his claims are false. You come very close to a full confession that Craig Murray lied (made mistakes, couldn’t tell up from down, relied on unreliable sources or whatever you like). But you are not Craig Murray. Let’s hear it from the long nosed man himself. The silent bigot that hates lesbians pretending he is a “Human rights activist”.

    Now let’s look at something else you write:

    The idea to form a Swedish defense committee of celebrities, around “no to extradition to the US” was good, but it was implemented much too late and leaked to the press before people had been asked, obviously disastrous. I believe that this idea originally came from Paul Ronge, a PR- consultant with a background in student activism, not from Al Burke.

    You write “I believe”. That means to me that you don’t know. You just would like people to think that Paul Ronge was behind the idea of a defence committee. Why don’t you check with Paul Ronge to find out? If you would have done so, you would have found out he is not the originator. If it is Al Burke or Harald Ullman I don’t know. But I think you will find out if you ask Harald Ullman. Hint, hint.

    Blixt, a new commentator of Pinocchio statue, believes I was behind the idea. I can tell you I was not. I had a totally different idea of how to defend Julian Assange. But neither Julian Assange or Harald Ullman was interested. Julian Assange thought it was a better idea to find a broom closet at 3 Hans Crescent. I am not in any way hinting that he thought he could find a Harold Potter broom in there. But I don’t think it was a wise decision.

  86. I see not much point in responding to something which is not moving discussions forward, only manages in insulting people, calling them names.

  87. Axel,

    You don’t have to respond. I would like to a response from that man that is the originator of the false claims, Craig Murray.

  88. Let’s face it Goran. You had your chance to put your case and it fell flat. You’ve become the noisy clown in the rodeo and people are no longer interested in your antics. Your silly claims always rotate around a completely unimportant point of contention.

    Booooooorrrrrrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnnggggggggg!!!!!

  89. Oh my goodness, it sounds as if the case for Assange’s safe passage is already with the European Court (of Justice? of Human Rights? – the video doesn’t make it clear which).

    RT’s post-election interview with Rafael Correa (and English transcript):

    “If Assange’s lawyer, Baltasar Garzón, is lucky at the European Court and achieves a safe passage for Assange, who is staying at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the situation will be finally resolved. It is all now in Europe’s hands.”

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/343850

  90. Regarding Ullman-Rudling-Burke-Ronge.

    Ronge was NOT involved in the infamous “famous swedes standing up for Julian”. The origination of this idea was from Sandra Kastås at Ullman PR, that mailed a word.doc list to Al Burke of participance:s, Rudling got to know about this and rushed over to Burke:s house, Mary Leonore Eng has this in in here big file of leaked emails were Rudling for example starts to brag about his penis…. Then both Rudling and Burke ran off with this idea and started to talk to people, the media snapped this up, and Expressen later quoted this list as an attempt to mapping journalists, and Assange and Wikileaks was blamed instead. The not so known fact is also that Rudling/Burke was using an alias on Flashback and there wrote about finding lodging for Julians staff (when he was expected to come back to Sweden), and when writing about this they wrote “please contact Harald Ullman”.., the next day this was headline news in Sweden that Ullman PR was involved, so both Burke and Rudling shot the messanger by making Ullmans name public.

    As you may have seen above here, Rudling avoids to answer the facts of his mother and brothers, he also keeps silent about his former girlfriend Nejdma, and why he was unlisted within Swedish territory for almost 3 years since his former company went bankrupt, he avoided the Swedish IRS by not having a permanent address for 3 years just to avoid people with claims. But he screwed up when he stated Nejdmas address in his witness stand for Assange, and all those details how he “discovered” Ardins lies, is just that all these details was listed on Swedish blog Flashback, so he used these details for his own purposes. He did not make any investigations of his own, he just took all details from Flashback and then mailed Ardin about here lies, and that is the way that Rudling got involved in this matter.

    It should be clear for anyone here that Rudling is in this for a hidden agenda, the quotes of his mother is just a smokescreen, and as he bragged about his own penis to mrs Eng, it makes clearer why he got his dead mom involved in this scam, all facts are on paper, you can check with the Swedish IRS, Mary Leonore engs blog, flashback, emails from Rudling that now can be found on: http://nyheterundermattan.blog.com/2012/10/01/assange-–-handlingar-part-2-1-0/ and much more.

    The fact is that Rudling is and has been the big liar from day 1, but it took a while for people to realize what kind of stuff that Rudling really is made of.

  91. @Blixt
    I had a look at the site, but the links are either dead or redirect to “www.howardkennedyfsi.com”? didn’t check all, though…

  92. @Blixt
    Paul Ronge had his first discussion with Assange in June 2011. As far as I understand there was a discussion about how to organize resistance to extradition to US in those two phone calls. This does not mean that Ronge was involved in the disastrous committee business one year later.
    http://www.paulronge.se/sa-radde-jag-assange-och-han-gjorde-precis-tvartom

    I don’t know much about Al Burke. But I can read what he writes, honestly as far as I can see. I see very little resemblance with Rudling. This is what Burke writes about Rudling:

    “Among other things, it has become increasingly apparent that Mr. Rudling harbours an intense animosity towards Julian Assange, of whom he has very little personal knowledge. He also seems unable or unwilling to grasp the serious threat to Assange posed by the U.S. government and its eager collaborators in the current Swedish government (see Sweden, Assange & USA [PDF] and The Swedish Cult of America). Further, Mr. Rudling is quick to accuse others of lying, on the basis of little or no evidence of intent to deceive. Apparently, there are no honest mistakes in his universe, only lies — at least where Julian Assange and his supporters are concerned.
    http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/quescom.htm

    That quote: “Apparently, there are no honest mistakes in his universe, only lies” is spot on, isn’t it? Which makes me, and many others, wonder about his motives. Or his personality…

  93. @ axel:
    Sources – below the word-doc that contained erased info of “Sandra Kastås”, that was working for Ullman PR = original doc from Ullman/Sandra that was mailed to Burke, that rewritten some parts and then made a pressrelease:

    http://news.cision.com/se/julian-assange-pir/r/pressmeddelande–nu-lanseras-webbplatsen–assange—sverige-,e289401

    The person Sandra has similar background as Anna Ardin:
    http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressroom/ullman_pr/contact_person/view/sandra-kastaas-20941

    Then look for mary leonere Engs big pile of mails:
    http://braingarbagedystopie.blogspot.se/search?q=burke+rudling

    So Burke and Rudling started their own adventures, behind Ullmans back, then outed Ullman on Flashback that made headlines the next day, and then got Wikileaks into trouble with the document that Expressen claimed to be a wiki doc that in fact was Rudling/Burke private adventure.

    There is a red line of “mistakes” from these 2 gentlemen, once is nothing, twice is to much , these guys made at least 3 screwups.

  94. In May Sweden will be hosting a convention on “Internet Freedom for Global Development”. Here’s the programme:

    http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/program/

    They’ve helpfully listed all the participants sorted by country:

    http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/archive/sif2012/participants/

    including this one:

    SHEA, Jamie P. NATO Sweden

    Who he? NATO = Sweden? I don’t think they’ve told the rest of the world yet that Sweden is a member…

  95. I did find this – a NATO report on the “civil dimension of National Security” drafted by Lord Jopling (United Kingdom), their General Rapporteur:

    http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=2443

    They do seem to be very, very exercised about Wikileaks. The first half of the report is almost exclusively about them.

  96. @blixt,

    I did not understand how these links prove anything about any Rudling- Burke collaboration. I read this mail from Rudling to Mary Eng,from July 9th 2012 (your link).

    “It seems like Rick Downes is very influential at WL Central. It means that it is even better today with the story of the Rick’s effort to sue Al Burke. Haven’t heard from him in ages since I disagreed on some of his writings.”

    I don’t know the context exactly, but it seems that any contact between Burke and Rudling had been broken well before the news about the failed Assange support committee was broken by Swedish media. And that Rudling was trying to exploit a conflict between Rick Downes and Al Burke.

    By the way. It seems that Rudling has fallen out with Mary Eng now: https://www.flashback.org/sp42137048

  97. @axel:
    one example – Page 7: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112662628/Not-Interested-in-Sex-Re-Goran-Rudling-on-Assange

    On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Göran Rudling wrote:Hi, I am off to Al Burke within a few minutes. You mentioned the strange visit to a shaman/spirit/healer/psychic or whatever its called.The meeting ended up in some strange document talking about jews and some jewishconspiracy. Do you have that document. Can I read it. Why I am asking is that I’ve started to check on Israel Shamir and I do not like what I see. Göran

    Another – page 3: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112662628/Not-Interested-in-Sex-Re-Goran-Rudling-on-Assange

    On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Göran Rudling wrote:………. I thought you had met Al Burke when you were in Sweden. Or at least had a mail conversationwith him. He does not remember. He knows of you now since I told him of your flight intoStockholm after our mail-contact. I showed him your tweets and he looked pleased when he said “So is this out on the net?”, meaning that Rixstep’s attempt to make trouble for Al Burke isin the common domain. It is perfectly ok for you to tweet and write about it. What I was tryingto say, maybe in a bad way, was please do not tell anybody that we are trying to retaliate.

    Why are you so keen of keeping Burke off Rudling…

  98. @blixt. Thanks for the quotes. They clarify two things for me. 1) Göran Rudling met Al Burke on Feb 19th 2012. 2) The second quote suggests that they might have plotted together against Rixstep. Unclear to me exactly what that is about, or if it is of importance now.

    I am not keen on keeping Burke off Rudling. But they strike me as strange bedfellows, if they ever were. I am keen on understanding how Aftonbladet (on May 27th 2012) managed to break the backbone of any efforts to launch an Assange defense committee in Sweden. Who had provided Aftonbladet with this misleading information, I wonder? I have read Burke’s comment to this which is here:
    http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/quescom.htm

    My view on Burke, for whatever it is worth, is that he has been brave in launching a web-site in Sweden that defends Assange. That does not mean I am uncritical – there are factual mistakes in the chronology of events, for instance.

  99. I think most of you here remember Rudlings quotes of “charge”, that Julian always has been “charged” by the swedish prosecutor, but now – he admits that his english was wrong, the text below is a comment from Rudlings own blog, this gguy is just going weirder and weirder…:

    Rudling swedish > Rudling english
    Kan misstänkas Can be suspected
    Skäligen misstänkt Charged on reasonable grounds
    På sannolika skäl misstänkt Charged with probable cause
    Tillräckliga skäl för åtal Sufficient grounds for prosecution.

    Swedish judical terms > English judicial terms
    Kan misstänkas Be suspected
    Skäligen misstänkt Reasonable suspicion
    På sannolika skäl misstänkt Probable Cause
    Tillräckliga skäl för åtal Sufficient grounds for prosecution.

    Link: http://samtycke.nu/eng/2013/02/swedish-legal-facts-why-mutual-legal-assistance-wasnt-used-in-the-assange-case/#comments

  100. One hundred and seventy days at the Craig Murray asylum.

    When I asked Craig Murray to back up his numerous false claims regarding the Assange case I thought he would admit that he made many serious mistakes. I was wrong. He has not even admitted that he made “honest mistakes” in relying on dubious sources. What a coward.

    Since then Arbed, the self proclaimed commander of the imaginary pro-Assange troops, have called for help. “Goran Rudling’s 14 supposed ‘mistakes’ in Craig’s research can be knocked out of the skies.” Give it a try Arbed. The only “soldier” that seems to have heard the call is Blixt, a man with many aliases. Mostly known as the Flashback detective Rec Tum and captain Stolp Skott. He is also known as the malware duqu. Or DQ, D for Delusional. He is not much of a help since he is so wrapped up in his own delusions.

    Some facts. About a year ago, 11 February 2012, I contacted Al Burke, the editor of Nordic News Network. The reason, there were many serious errors on his website about the Assange case. Among things wrong was Al Burke’s claim that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview. Something he has corrected since.

    On 14 February 2012 Harald Ullman, Julian Assange’s Swedish PR-agent, informed media that a new web-site, “Assange and Sweden”, was started. On 16 February Al Burke contacted me since he experienced problems with a con artist who claimed he owned the copyrights to the English translations of the police files in the Assange case. The con artist wanted them removed from the site Harald Ullman referred to.


    It has come to our attention that the website Nordic News Network, with which you are associated according to Dagens Media, features unattributed copyrighted works, to which we own the copyright.

    The person behind these ridiculous claims was Rick Downes at Rixstep, who else? Why Rixstep wanted to interfere with Harald Ullman’s PR work for Julian Assange I don’t know. Maybe Rick Downes thinks he owns the copyright for PR-work for Assange too. Maybe he’s a bed-fellow with Blixt. What a combo. Blixtstep. Rixstep’s mails to Harald Ullman are here.

    What is interesting with Rick Downes’ copyright claims is that he is a supporter of the Pirate Bay and loves file sharing. As long as the files shared are not his imagined property. How Rick Downes came to the conclusion that he owned the copyrights to the translation of the police files is something detective Rec Tum should look at if he can stop investigating his own bottom.

    I understand from Blixt’s insightful comment I play a central role in everything disastrous that has happened to Julian Assange. Of course I do. Not only was I central in Harald Ullman’s failed PR-campaign involving celebrities. I was also responsible for Julian Assange losing the extradition hearings. I made his legal team use silly legal arguments while I conspired with the Truth Fairy and criticized the legal team on my blog. I also conspired with Al Burke, “using an alias on Flashback and there wrote about finding lodging for Julian’s staff”. But there is more. I had telepathic contact with Julian Assange around 20 August 2010 and made him adopt a defence strategy that has led to an endless series of disasters. I also influenced Rick Downes, wasn’t hard he’s delusional too, to start believing he owned the copyright to the translated police files so he could interfere with Harald Ullman’s PR-campaign. Then I advised Al Burke how to deal with Rixstep. How about that detective Rec Tum? I am everywhere. Have you looked under your bed lately? Boo!

    It is true Blixt. I am the anti-Assange God. By my side is Goliath the Strongman and Professor Atom. You are not delusional. It just looks that way. I know you worry about Wagram and Vizier. Don’t. They are not going to end up in lasagne. Keep your bicorne on. It will keep your miniscule brain warm. And don’t be afraid of the people down by the pond. The ones wearing white four fingered gloves. They are not dangerous. The one that looks like a dog is Goofy. Just like you. Take a rest, take your medicine and talk to your friends the Muppet Show shrinks. I hope you’ll feel better tomorrow. If you do, tell your furry friend Fia that she has to do better about the tweets you claim were originally found on Flashback.

    Hola,

    Captain Spaulding

  101. Goran, have you ever received payment/s from anyone, person or organisation, in support or return for your online commentary or activism regarding Assange and/or wikileaks?

    In anticipation of you asking the same question of me, no I haven’t.

  102. Goran,

    Why you believe I should be obliged to debate with any part-time taxi driver who fancies the idea is something of a mystery to me. Suffice it to say I found some of the nonsense in your post “refuting” my arguments hilarious.

    Your post claims to be a detailed analysis of my own, and contains naturally links to my own. Without following these links your reply would make little sense. And what is the total number of people who have visited my blog through your links – four! You could put your entire readership in your taxi and just drone on at them.

    My favourite was the line that rape trials in Sweden are not secret, as the verdict is public, only the evidence is secret. Silly me!

    Why you persist in the lie that there are no official taping facilities at a major Stockholm police station, or that it is the closest to Ardin’s flat, I have no idea. Plainly they don’t have “the knowledge” in Sweden. Anyway, that is the last you will hear from me. Please feel free to huff and puff as you wish.

  103. Rudling wrote: “Among things wrong was Al Burke’s claim that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview.”

    Many people have claimed that. And there is a very good reason for it. I wonder why you are not helpful in clarifying the situation, rather than calling people liars repeatedly.

    Linda Wassgren is the young police officer who met Anna and Sofia as they arrived to the police station in Klara. She interviewed both women at the same time. This happened more or less as they arrived. Anna Ardin was present when Sofia Wilen told her story to Linda Wassgren. And Anna “filled in with one sentence”. This is the crucial moment, when Linda was convinced that both women had been raped. It is documented in the leaked interviews.

    Linda Wassgren’s interview of the two women, first together, then one by one, is of extreme importance. Don’t gloss over that. It was Linda who communicated with all the necessary people over phone. Finally she talked to the Prosecutor in charge that evening. Linda and the prosecutor agreed, over the phone, that this is rape and that Julian should be arrested. Linda did not provide any written material at all to the prosecutor. Linda’s interviews, which de facto, got Assange arrested, are never written down. A scandal in itself, isn’t it?

    In contrast Irmeli Krans interview with Sofia Wilen had no importance whatsoever for the actual decision to arrest. Krans was in fact not allowed to talk to Linda Wassgren, which she complained about Neither before nor after Linda had spoken to the prosecutor. Krans also complained that the headline “rape” was already fixed when she begun her interview. The original interview by Krans (not the doctored one) was read by Eva Finne the next morning and she immediately closed the rape case.
    The many misunderstandings about Irmeli Krans role is mainly due to Niklas Svensson at Expressen, I believe. He “revealed” half the truth, but “forgot” the most important part of it: It was Linda Wassgren, as the front woman, and a small circle of people which she communicated with via telephone, who pushed through the decision to arrest Assange on August 20th 2010.

  104. Axel,

    I have warned you once. And I will again. If you continue to ask questions you will expose Craig Murray as a serial liar. I don’t think Arbed will be happy if you do.

    Many people have claimed that Anna Ardin was present when Irmeli Krans interviewed Sofia Wilén. There is a reason for it. It suits people that believe in conspiracies. Al Burke has had this opinion but he did correct himself on 7 April 2012. The text below is Al Burke’s words from the link you provided:

    Police interview with Sofia Wilén

    The original version [Al Burke's article] stated that Anna Ardin was present during the police [Irmeli Krans'] interview with Sofia Wilén on 20 August 2010. But information subsequently provided by Göran Rudling indicates that there were at least two separate discussions during the evening in question — one in which Anna Ardin participated and, after that, a formal interview with Sofia Wilén during which Ms. Ardin was not present.

    What’s been discussed here is the false claim by Craig Murray, that Anna Ardin was present during Irmeli Krans interview of Sofia Wilén. Al Burke has realized that is not true. And so has most people.

    You write: “Linda Wassgren’s interview of the two women, first together, then one by one, is of extreme importance.” Why do you think so? If you can answer this question fully maybe I can help you understand the case better.

  105. Goran, there has been some discussion that you have received assistance from the Swedish government to run your online campaign against Assange. Can you clear up this question over your receipt payments for this purpose?

  106. The important point is that Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin were interviewed together when they arrived to the police. And that this joint interview became decisive for the arrest order. It surprises me that Mr Rudling has never understood that simple point.

    Sofia and Anna were interviewed together by Linda Wassgren, not Irmeli Krans. Why is this extremely important? It is extremely important because Linda Wassgren is the one that is allowed to talk to the Duty Prosecutor. Linda’s unrecorded interviews with Sofia and Anna become the basis for the arrest of Assange two hours later. Irmeli Krans’ formal interview with Sofia (original form before it was doctored), on the other hand was the basis for Eva Finnes decision to close that case.

  107. Dear Axel,

    I have warned you twice. But you don’t listen. You just go on. So let’s deal with the points you have raised. It is true that Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén went to the police together and were met by the officer in charge, Linda Wassgren. They also initiated a conversation with her. You are correct. Please note Craig Murray’s claim:

    They [Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén] arrived at 2pm and rather than see another officer, they waited two hours until Krans came on duty.

    You are now confirming that Craig Murray is a liar. I don’t know if this was your intention. Good job anyway.

    Arbed called for help so my arguments could “be knocked out of the skies.” You are helping me to expose Arbed as another man that is making false claims. If you continue you will soon be labeled an enemy to Julian Assange who is financed by the Swedish government. I warned you. Remember?

    Now to one of your claims: “The important point is that Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin were interviewed together when they arrived to the police. And that this joint interview became decisive for the arrest order. It surprises me that Mr Rudling has never understood that simple point.”

    First lets make it clear that Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin were NOT interviewed together by Linda Wassgren. Just read Linda Wassgren’s memo again.

    The initial conversation at the police station is what Donald Boström refers to in his witness statement. It was a conversation between Linda Wassgren, Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin. It was during this conversation that Anna Ardin uttered the well known words that CONVINCED Linda Wassgren to make a decision to separate the women and talk to them one on one. It is the one on one conversations that made Linda Wassgren assume a crime had been committed. After she had checked with her superiors, who agreed with her assumption, she contacted the prosecutor and an arrest order was issued. The initial conversation between the three women was not the basis for the arrest order.

    I am not surprised that you don’t understand this. You are a conspiracy theorist at heart and evidently have a problem with facts. (Please note that this is not to be interpreted as if I am calling you a liar.) Take a cold shower, breath in and out and examine the facts again. Don’t jump to conclusions. Just look at the facts. If there is anything you don’t understand ask me another question. I will help you. But take note. If you fully understand what really happened at the police station you will be regarded as another anti-Assange evil creature.

    Now to another of you claims, made by other Assangeistas:. “Irmeli Krans’ formal interview with Sofia (original form before it was doctored), on the other hand was the basis for Eva Finnes decision to close that case.”

    Please show me evidence that Irmeli Krans’ interview was “doctored”. I do not want to hear Blixt’s, Rec Tum’s, Rick Downes’, Stolp Skott’s, Craig Murray’s, justice4Assange’s, Daddy’s, Marcello Ferrada de Noli’s, Israel Shamir’s, Jennifer Robinson’s, Per E. Samuelsson’s, Michael Ratner’s, Glenn Greenwald’s, Mark Stephens’, Geoffrey Robertson’s, Arbed’s, Helene Bergman’s, Julian Assange’s, Rafael Correa’s ……… opinion. I want the facts. What are the words that are changed in order for you to make a claim that it is “doctored”. You are again showing your “faith”. “There must be a conspiracy behind this since I don’t know the facts”.

    Why don’t you just stop and think for a while. What is the new and “doctored” interview that prosecutor Marianne Ny has, that Eva Finné didn’t have, when she makes her decision? Most hard core Assangeistas think that Irmeli Krans’ interview was doctored? They have missed the elephant in the room.

    Finally. Why are you going on about Eva Finne’s decision to close the case? A higher ranked prosecutor have made a different decision. The higher ranked prosecutor’s decision stands. If a court ruling is appealed and a higher court rules differently, do you go on about the decision in the lower court? And if so, why?

  108. Jemand,

    I’ve read three of your comments. I am not in anyway suggesting you are bi-polar. I just don’t get it. What is boring and what is not? To me it looks like you think facts are boring and imagined conspiracies are not. Please explain what it is you want me to do.

    19 Feb, 2013 – 2:16 pm
    Let’s face it Goran. You had your chance to put your case and it fell flat. You’ve become the noisy clown in the rodeo and people are no longer interested in your antics. Your silly claims always rotate around a completely unimportant point of contention.

    Booooooorrrrrrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnnggggggggg!!!!!

    23 Feb, 2013 – 10:45 am
    Goran, have you ever received payment/s from anyone, person or organisation, in support or return for your online commentary or activism regarding Assange and/or wikileaks?

    In anticipation of you asking the same question of me, no I haven’t.

    23 Feb, 2013 – 3:59 pm
    “Goran, there has been some discussion that you have received assistance from the Swedish government to run your online campaign against Assange. Can you clear up this question over your receipt payments for this purpose?”

    In order for me to respond properly please tell me who are these people talking about me receiving assistance from the Swedish government to run an online campaign against Assange? I understand you are in. Who else? Are Blixt, DQ, Rec Tum, Rick Downes, Arbed, Rico Santin, Craig Murray, Pinocchio, Stolp Skott, Goofy, Al Burke, Napoleon Bonaparte, Capricciosa, the Sugar Man, …. involved?

    Of course I have received assistance from the Swedish and British governments. In order to be more specific please tell me who are the people discussing this and what are the facts they have found so far?

  109. @ axel.

    Friday the 20/8-2010, both woman walked into Klara cops around 14:10. Then – there was a lot of phonecalls and “chitchat” until 16:05 (or 10) before they started to interrogate Wilen, exactly where and when Ardin leaves Klara cops is unclear, but she is with Wilen and “fills in some blanks” when the police are taking memos – this is when they call Källstrand, that then a bit later after having a discussion with the staff decides to issue a arrest warrant on Assange, this is made around 17:00hrs, long before the interrogation of Wilen gets cutoff – as Wilen gets the news that there is an arrest warrant on Assange. This shows that when the interrogation starts, both Ardin and Wilen are on site, were Ardin seems to fluctuate between the cops in the office and the room were Wilen has been taken to, otherwise, Källstrand would not have made such a quick decition. Therefore-no one is right here, Ardin was joining in the beginning, the timing when she leaves is unclear, but both woman are on site when the prosecutor decides to arrest Assange. To make it even more interesting, Wilen sends sms to her friend Marie in this big mess from the police station and it is found on page 78 in the police protocol. The most interesting part is that the interrogation with Marie CONFIRMS the existence of secret sms.

    Police Mats Gehlins asks the following:
    FL frågade om SMS:et då Marie har skrivit att de ska komma på en bra hämnd
    This query from Gehlin confirms that the cops have copied the SMS-traffic on Wilens cellphone that Hurtig later quotes in court but have not been admitted to have copies of in any way, and these sms are vital for this whole charade, so the police-protocol is in its way an evidence that THERE ARE INDEED EXISTING SMS talking about revenge.

  110. Sandra K. Eckersley

    25 Feb, 2013 - 5:51 am

    Can Julian Assange supporters explain why they are out attacking Goran Rudling the man while ignoring the 14 points he makes about misinformation surrounding the Swedish interview situation and how Craig Murray refuses to explain his clear factual mistakes?

    Personal attacks on individuals have become the norm for obscuring huge gaps in the truth surrounding Julian Assange. Why not answer to points raised and stop playing the man and not the ball?

    When Goran Rudling was complaint and onside he was a credible witness FOR Assange but now as positions change he, like Jemima Khan, gets shunted out and morally disassembled. Shame.

    Get over yourselves people and lift the level of this debate out of schoolyard bullying and towards examination of the actual facts.

  111. Dear Craig Murray,

    It took you ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTYNINE days to admit that you cannot and will not back up your false claims regarding the Assange case. Since you are not backing up your claims, or admit that you made mistakes, I think it is fair to call you what you are, an inventor of stories and a certified liar. Something I did in my original comment from 7 September 2012:

    You go on to claim “The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law (it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.” I have not seen anywhere that the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has stated that the interview with Sofia Wilén was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin. I am putting it to you straight. You are making that up. You lie. Until you can show me a statement where prosecutor Marianne Ny says that “the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin,” I will regard you as an inventor of stories and a certified liar.

    Craig Murray. I have not asked you to debate anything because I know you are not good at debates. I just asked you to back up your false claims. Something I just found out you are not very good at either. I cannot say that I am surprised.

    In a post on your blog from 14 October 2012 called “A Real Treat in Store” you write:

    The quote and link above are from an email exchange in which someone called Goran Rudling says he is planning to publish something about me, but it is a secret. I thought it amusing to repost it. I look forward to seeing what Mr Rudling comes up with.

    Are you truthful in your comment? As soon as I posted my article on you, you withdraw into a shell saying you will not back up your false claims and you will not make any further comments. “Anyway, that is the last you will hear from me”. You are overreacting like an old lady in one of those plays that didn’t make it since the line, “Anyway, that is the last you will hear from me” doesn’t really sound like it is from an intelligent being.

    You are the wannabe protagonist of the novel “The Adventures of Julian Assange”. The man that is supposedly chased by all the dark forces in the world. That is the reason he does not tell the truth. You are chased by a “part-time taxi driver” with a keyboard. That makes you jump into a hole for cover desperately typing “Anyway, that is the last you will hear from me.” Why don’t you take up occupancy at 3 Hans Crescent since you are both targeted by evil forces. Imagined dark forces and a real “part-time taxi driver” with a keyboard. Oooh, I am so scared.

    In an effort to save your long nosed face you make some interesting claims in your last comment. If you lie or just make “honest mistakes” is for the reader to decide. You write “Why you persist in the lie that there are no official taping facilities at a major Stockholm police station.”

    I know you have a bad memory, a tendency to make stuff up and claim that people lie. Not a good combination in a debate. If this is because of substance abuse or some genetic defect I don’t know. It is not important. I know you have a tendency to call people liars and that you have no foundation for your claims.

    I have never ever claimed there are no taping facilities at Klara Närpolisstation. Your original false claim is: “a major Stockholm police station that does of course have video-taping facilities.” In my conversations with the officer in charge of the station in question, Anders Lindberg, he has confirmed there are no video-taping facilities at Klara Närpolisstation. You by chance dropped the word video in your last comment. Is that just one of your “honest mistakes”?

    Why you are interested in which police-station is “is the closest to Ardin’s flat” is beyond me. It has nothing to do with your original claim “Ardin did not take Wilen to the nearest police station. She took her right across Stockholm to the police station where Ardin’s friend, lesbian feminist campaigner Irmeli Krans, was serving.” Bad memory or another honest mistake?

    The fact is that Ardin took Wilén to the nearest and most accessible police station from where the women were prior going to the police. I know you are geographically disadvantaged. It is not a secret. Please remember that you claim that I am a “part-time taxi driver” and as such maybe I know better about the geography in Stockholm than you do. I can understand from your last comment, “Anyway, that is the last you will hear from me”, that you do not want to comment any more so people can detect your other disadvantages. I think it is one of your few wise decisions.

    You go on to write about Swedish rape trials: “My favourite was the line that rape trials in Sweden are not secret”. No trials in Sweden are secret. Parts of a rape trial can be behind closed doors. I don’t understand how come you are not familiar with the concept closed doors. You should since you obviously are very familiar with the concept closed mind.

    For those of you that are interested in the article that Craig Murray was really looking forward to here it is.

  112. Sandra K. Eckersley

    25 Feb, 2013 - 6:03 am

    Spelling typo: “compliant”

  113. Blixt a.k.a duqu a.k.a Flushed-back Detective Rec Tum a.k.a Captain Stolp Skott a.k.a ???

    I’ve tried to figure out what your latest comment is all about. It seems like you are of the opinion that there is “evidence that THERE ARE INDEED EXISTING SMS talking about revenge”. Great discovery Detective Rec Tum.

    We all know there are SMS messages talking about revenge. It is in the “Häktningspromemoria”. That is not the issue. How these messages are supposed to be interpreted is the issue.

    Please do not post anything about the fact that Julian Assange was arrested on 20 August 2010. We all know that too.

  114. @Sandra Eckersley, 5.51am

    “Personal attacks on individuals have become the norm” and “lift the level of this debate out of schoolyard bullying”

    So true, couldn’t agree more:

    “@braingarbage
    had a flashback to Goran Rudling threatening to tie me upside down from a tree if i spilled his #assange secrets. at Gondolen one year ago.”

    https://twitter.com/braingarbage/status/302944771087933440

    That sounds like absolutely disgraceful behaviour by somebody who claims to campaign against Violence Against Women and for the rights of rape victims. I think anybody who believes women should not have to live under the threat of violence should distance themselves from Goran Rudling, as he is now utterly discredited.

  115. Rudling wrote: Dear Axel,
    “I have warned you twice. But you don’t listen. You just go on.”
    Response: I don’t give in to bullying. And I am not provoked by cheap insults. It’s pointless.

    Rudling wrote:
    “First let us make it clear that Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin were NOT interviewed together by Linda Wassgren”.
    Response: I don’t agree. Donald Boström’s witness statement concludes “ because she reinforced Sofia’s story with this sentence the case became stronger, as she put it. This is exactly what she said.”

    Let’s go further into Boström’s witness statement. He refers to a telephone conversation with Anna, the same day, after she came back from the police, Friday afternoon or evening.
    Boströms account of what Anna said: “We have been to the police station now and SOFIA TOLD HER STORY AND SINCE I SAT THERE I FILLED IN WITH ONE SENTENCE”.
    Boström continues. “This is very much word by word as I remember her telling the story. OK, I said what was that sentence? Well, that sentence was that I believe that Sofia tells the truth because I experienced something similar, Anna says. And then she told me that thing with the condom, that’s why I think it is true. I don’t know the police technicalities, but Anna explained that BECAUSE WE SUDDENLY WERE TWO WOMEN WHO HAD A STATEMENT ABOUT THE SAME MAN it fell under public prosecution, and thus it became a report of an offence.”
    Suddenly, refers to the point in time when Anna was sitting next to Sofia and filled in with her sentence. Whatever else happened later this is a crucial moment. Sofia told her story and Anna, who was sitting next to her, filled in with her sentence. This is took place under Linda Wassgren’s guidance. Wassgren, not Krans, communicated this information to the Duty Prosecutor. The arrest warrant is built on this conversation, plus a number of Linda’s phone calls. Not on the formal interviews later the same day (of Sofia) and the next day (of Anna).

    Blixt wrote: “Then – there was a lot of phonecalls and “chitchat” until 16:05 (or 10) before they started to interrogate Wilen, exactly where and when Ardin leaves Klara cops is unclear…”
    Response: The last point is important. We don’t know when Ardin left. It could have been by five or it could have been earlier. We only know that she did not stay to support her “sister” who was soon to break down during the interrogation by Irmeli Krans. Instead Anna went out partying with Petra O in the evening.

    Almost all the phone calls that Linda Wassgren made are listed in her memo. I would imagine that one of the unlisted ones is to the Swedish secret service (Säpo).

  116. Axel,

    Thank you for confirming that this statement by Craig Murray is a lie:

    They arrived at 2pm and rather than see another officer, they waited two hours until Krans came on duty.

    To sort out what happened at the police station we have Linda Wassgren’s memo and Donald Boström’s recollection of a telephone conversation with Anna Ardin.

    The women arrived at the police station about 2 pm and were met by Linda Wassgren. After a brief conversation Linda Wassgren assumed some sex crime had been committed and she decided to separate the two women and talk to them one on one in order to find out more.

    After the one on one conversations Linda Wassgren made some phone calls. A criminal investigation was initiated. Sofia Wilén was interrogated. Julian Assange was arrested.

    Now you make the interesting claim that Linda Wassgren’s first conversation with the women, when they were all together, was the most important one. It was the information Linda Wassgren got from this conversation that she later relayed to the prosecutor. The information Linda Wassgren got from the one on one conversations was not at all important.

    I am very sorry Axel. Your reasoning isn’t convincing. It is on par with Blixt’s, Arbed’s and Craig Murray’s.

    We don’t know exactly when Anna Ardin left the police station. I agree. But we know that Anna Ardin was not present during Sofia Wilén’s interrogation. She went to a party with Kajsa B. Not Petra O as you claim. Thank you for confirming that Craig Murray lies when he claims Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview and that she was present when Irmeli Krans documented the interview.

    You claim that Sofia Wilén “was soon to break down during the interrogation by Irmeli Krans”. Please back up this claim with facts. I have no information that Sofia Wilén broke down. If you have any information now is the time to show it.

    I asked you to back up your claim that Irmeli Krans “doctored” the interview with Sofia Wilén. Shall I interpret your silence as if you are doing a Craig Murray? Making a false statement. If you think the interview was doctored please show your evidence.

    I have noted that you think that Linda Wassgren made a phone call to the Swedish Secret police, SÄPO. How come you don’t think that Linda Wassgren called the US Embassy, the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House too?

  117. GR wrote: “After the one on one conversations Linda Wassgren made some phone calls. A criminal investigation was initiated. Sofia Wilén was interrogated. Julian Assange was arrested.”

    The temporal order is wrong here. Assange was arrested before Sofia Wilen was interrogated by Irmeli Krans. Therefore the Duty Prosecutor did not have access to the formal questioning when she took her decision to arrest Assange. In fact, she had no written material whatsoever. The arrest order, which is the privilege of the Duty Prosecutor, is entirely based on an unrecorded oral conversation between two people. It scares me.

    It is misleading, as you do, to see the Irmeli Krans questioning of Sofia Wilen as a part of the causal chain leading to the arrest warrant. The arrest warrant did not need that interview. I doubt that the Duty Prosecutor, MHK, was even aware of the fact that the formal interviews with Anna and Sofia had not yet been taken when she spoke to Linda Wassgren. But Eva Finne saw it in its original (undoctored) variant. It was enough for her to call off the rape case: “No crime is committed”.

    Yes, I believe that there was a contact between some branch of the Swedish secret service and the police at Klara. It would perhaps be more natural for the station officer, Johan Hallberg, to take that contact than for Linda. But Linda did speak to Johan Hallberg as we know.

  118. I repeat:

    “@braingarbage
    had a flashback to Goran Rudling threatening to tie me upside down from a tree if i spilled his #assange secrets. at Gondolen one year ago.”

    https://twitter.com/braingarbage/status/302944771087933440

    That sounds like absolutely disgraceful behaviour by somebody who claims to campaign against Violence Against Women and for the rights of rape victims. I think anybody who believes women should not have to live under the threat of violence should distance themselves from Goran Rudling, as he is now utterly discredited.

  119. Yes Rudling , you are finally right, Blixt writing here is not Blixt at all, and you are the only person to have that knowledge for a specific reason, so let me spell out for the others here whats going here on Craigs blog:

    One month back Flashback got infested by 2 new trolls again, that as before, just made the thread go round in all kinds of attempts to destroy all writings, one of these trolls is a guy called blixxt. Many of the Flashbackers suspected quite early that Ruling could be involved, he has a way of always popping up in someones blog, usually at midnight and mostly with another new name backing his alter ego up just a couple of minutes later, the language,spelling and tone always match.
    A grandios example is just to look above here at date 25 feb, 6 am in the morning, Rudlings friends always popps up just minutes later, standard timezone for the graveyard shift people that got trolling as a hobby.

    So we wanted to see what happens when Rudling gets a taste of his own medicine, just by posting correct information here under the same trollname blixt as the person attacking Flashback with incorrect info, with the only exeption that the name blixxt was spelled blixt…. The only one here that reacted was Rudling, we can therefore be quite shure, that the troll blixxt on Flashback is indeed Rudling. Therefore I´m posting this with the company name that Rudling used before, just to piss him off more, and to show the others here on Craigs blog what kind of stuff Rudling is made off, the enclosed pictures will show a standard example of the term stalking, pay attention to the two laptops in the picture.

    Rudling and Eng doing a copycat: http://bayimg.com/FaJPLaAeO
    The original photo to compare: http://bayimg.com/FaJpMAaEo

    By the way, for 2 months all swedish media has been writing a lot of a new sexual legislation in progress, the number one person to be involved in all this matter should have been Rudling, but he hasn´t written a word in this matter for around 6 months, so it can also be proven that what he states in his blog is just a big smokescreen.

  120. Axel,
    Sofia Wiléns interview was initiated before Julian Assange was arrested.The interview wasn’t finished before the decision to arrest him was made. Irmeli Krans did not have any influence over the decision to arrest Julian. Assangeistas spend too much time trying to depict Irmeli Krans as important in the case. She is not as you correctly point out.

    The information on which Linda Wassgren based her opinion, that a sex crime had been committed, was obtained in the one on one conversations with the two women.

    Please read a prosecutor’s view of the arrest of Julian Assange.

    I am asking you for the third time to produce evidence that Irmeli Krans “doctored” the interview with Sofia Wilén. Are you doing a full Craig Murray?

  121. Tessim, 7.38am

    Thanks for that. Yes, I keep an eye on Flashback myself so I’ve seen blixxt’s obsessive attempts to derail discussion there and push the line that it’s all Assange’s own fault because he didn’t respond to the women’s request for a HIV test and their visit to the police was therefore entirely logical and reasonable. I am glad to see the Flashback regulars rip apart this ‘theory’ over and over again. It’s utter tripe, of course – any woman with half a brain knows the only way to be sure of your own HIV status is to get yourself tested.

    However, I hadn’t fully appreciated that blixxt might be aligned with Rudling. Blixxt’s efforts, to me, read as if they were commissioned by Anna Ardin herself (or friends of hers) to try to build – as it becomes clearer and clearer that the case against Assange is going to collapse – some kind of ‘defence’ strategy against her own prosecution for making false allegations.

    Good catch on the copycat pose – I’ve seen the photo before but hadn’t really taken in that the posing was deliberate. Reveals quite a bit of narcissism, doesn’t it, to do something like that with a straight face?

    I’m not sure why Rudling doesn’t recognise that his efforts here in Craig’s blog are a lost cause. Anyone reading back over the previous pages can see that all of Craig’s readers have already seen through his nonsense. Goran doesn’t seem to understand that the reason he gets no response to his ‘challenges’ is because people have learned to simply skip his posts [it's the down arrow key on the numberpad; takes you straight to the following post - we all use it here]. People here like cogent arguments that are worthy of debate – they’ll respond to those – not verbose and abusive trolling by paid shills. Automatic down arrow key for those, I’m afraid.

    Please keep checking back here from time to time Tessim (and other Flashback visiters). I try to keep this particular thread ‘open’ as a means whereby Flashback can get word out about important news, leaks, discoveries, etc to the English-speaking bloggosphere when needed. All the best, xx Arbed

  122. I’m reposting here something I dropped into the Why I’m Convinced AA is a Liar thread a couple of weeks ago because I’m not sure I made its significance quite clear enough. I’ll spell it out more clearly this time.

    Yesterday Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt arrived in Australia for talks with Australian FM Bob Carr, who has publicly stated that he won’t be raising Assange’s case with Bildt (hmmm… yeah, right). In a televised panel discussion two nights ago, Bob Carr and the US Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich did their damnedest to mislead the Australian public that the Wikileaks Grand Jury didn’t exist, Assange’s asylum had nothing to do with America and the US has no involvement in the Swedish extradition case. This link from my previous post blows that last claim out of the water.

    Smoking gun emails just leaked in Sweden:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130210,00.shtml

    Rixstep helpfully puts the all-important bits in bold, so no one can miss it. And dates, just so everyone’s clear on the order of events.

    Briefly, in late July last year (25 July 2012) the Ecuadorian Ambassador to Sweden showed up unexpectedly at the Swedish FO carrying Ecuador’s formal offer to facilitate Assange’s questioning at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Recent FOI releases in Sweden show that this offer was immediately copied to the America section of the Swedish Foreign Ministry. On the exact same day Assange’s Swedish lawyers wrote to the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny formally making the same offer on behalf of their client. Ny took six days to respond to them and did so in a way which implied she had no knowledge of the Ecuadorians’ formal offer. This might suggest that it’s Carl Bildt’s ministry and its America section who are really running the Swedish investigation/extradition.

    If Bob Carr and Jeffrey Bleich’s claims that the US has no involvement in Sweden’s case are true, can they explain why correspondence concerning Assange’s questioning at a safe venue in London is copied to the Swedish FO America section, when it purportedly has nothing to do with them?

  123. Rudling wrote:
    “ The information on which Linda Wassgren based her opinion, that a sex crime had been committed, was obtained in the one on one conversations with the two women.”

    Response: There is no evidence that the “one on one conversations” were crucial. If you know about any such evidence please let us know. On the contrary there is evidence that the crucial point in Linda’s hearing of Sofia and Anna is when the two of them sit together. I quote again from Donald Boström’s witness statement:

    Anna said: “We have been to the police station now and SOFIA TOLD HER STORY AND SINCE I SAT THERE I FILLED IN WITH ONE SENTENCE”…. Anna explained that BECAUSE WE SUDDENLY WERE TWO WOMEN WHO HAD A STATEMENT ABOUT THE SAME MAN it fell under public prosecution, and thus it became a report of an offence.”

    Thus, the facts are clear: Anna and Sofia were, but should not have been, allowed to spell out their stories together. This happened under Linda Wassgren’s guidance. As far as we know, Linda Wassgren has never written down, or even taped this conversation. Neither has she written down, or taped, her individual hearings of Anna and Sofia. In retrospect it is very clear that the decision to arrest Assange was much too hastily taken by the Duty Prosecutor, pushed through by a small circle of people, represented by a very junior police woman, Linda Wassgren. To make things worse, the whole thing was immediately leaked to Expressen and Assange’s name confirmed to Expressen by the Duty Prosecutor.

    I think it smells.

  124. In the middle of a long typical Rudling diatribe (Feb 25th 5:54) against Craig Murray I found the following:
    “The fact is that Ardin took Wilén to the nearest and most accessible police station from where the women were prior going to the police. I know you are geographically disadvantaged. It is not a secret. Please remember that you claim that I am a “part-time taxi driver” and as such maybe I know better about the geography in Stockholm than you do.”

    As far as we know Sofia Wilen had been to Söder hospital (Södersjukhuset) before the two women went to the police. The nearest police station from Söder Hospital is this one on Torkel Knutssongatan 20: http://www.polisen.se/Stockholms_lan/Kontakta-oss/Polisstationer/Stockholms-lan/City1/Sodermalm/
    It takes 10-12 minutes to walk there from the hospital(we have just tested) and 5 minutes by taxi.

    Walking to Klara Närpolis, at Klarabergsviadukten 49, where they ended up, would take 45 minutes – it was August so a walk would have been feasible. A taxi journey would have taken about 15 minutes. http://www.polisen.se/Kontakta-oss/Polisstationer/Stockholms-lan/City1/Klara/

    Is it possible that Rudling does not know this? I doubt it.

  125. tessim-rectum

    26 Feb, 2013 - 6:15 pm

    Regarding Klara Näpo police-station, you should be aware of the following back in august 2010.

    Opening hrs in august was 08 -16:00CET (heavy vacation period-low staff manning)

    Mats Gehlin is not on Klara, he is at Bergsgtan police station, 20 min walk away, a lot of people still belive that he together with the others cops were sitting in the same station, and thats incorrect.

    Sofia Wilen came in on friday morning and went to Danderyds hospital first- then went direct to SöS Södersjukhuset, and finally to Klara Näpo, that was a bad choice as it was not the nearest if you would go for that detail, but as Anna knew Irmeli at Klara, that explains the choice of station.

    The only mystery is: They came in 14:05-10 at Klara, but the cops didn´t start the process until 16:05 = 2hrs.
    Klara had a low manning-high peak visitors friday afternoon, the cops did not have 2 hrs to chit-chat and usually a claim of rape has a higher priorety than other reports like pickpocket-fighting-narcotics etc, so why did it take over 2 hrs for the cops to start processing a possible claim of rape… and most vital ..friday afternoon just before closing time, who gave the permit for 3-4 cops to work overtime, dayshift usually ends 16:00 to 16:30 for gov-employees, there was no handing over to other police when reading the protocols, the staff in the protocol was on the dayshift….
    But the timing gets more correct if the police at Klara was waiting for other staff to get over from other stations, and in this case there was a big chance that certain “special police” could have arrived in such a sensitive matter that it would explain the lack of recording, Klara has recording units for voice (tapeless digital units), but no-one has been able to give a good reason why there was no recordning, someone quoted that the equipment was “missing”, strange as they started to interrogate just after closing the station down 16:00hrs, did all recorders go missing…..no-way…

  126. Tessim-r wrote:
    “Mats Gehlin is not on Klara, he is at Bergsgtan police station, 20 min walk away, a lot of people still belive that he together with the others cops were sitting in the same station, and that’s incorrect.”
    Response: Indeed. This is why Linda Wassgren contacted him via phone.

    Tess-r wrote: “The only mystery is: They came in 14:05-10 at Klara, but the cops didn´t start the process until 16:05 = 2hrs.”
    Response: Linda Wassgren started her work at once, around 14.00 as is clear from her memo. Her joint hearing of Anna and Sofia, her individual hearing of Sofia and her individual hearing of Anna all took place between 14 and 16, we must conclude. Linda would also had made one or several phone calls to Mats Gehlin on family violence and to the station head, John Hallberg during that time. She might have had to wait for clearance from Johan Hallberg, who may have talked to many people in various places. It could easily have taken two hours. In fact, the way I see it is that all the important events took place before the formal interview of Sofia started at 16.20 (I believe it was 16.20?).

    But there is a mystery. How many, and which, policemen and women were actively involved at the police station before the formal interrogation of Sofia was allowed to start? Apart from Linda Wassgren there was Sara Wennerblom. I assume that the station head, Johan H, must have been present in person also at some point. And as you suggest, “special guests” may have been invited. But it is equally likely that any special guest made their points via telephone.

    Whatever was cooked up, it was ready for the Duty Prosecutor well before 1700.

    One question remains: At what point did Irmeli Krans get involved? I don’t think we know. The Flashback discussion some time ago concluded that it might have been when the station closed, at 1600.

  127. Axel,

    I understand that you want to believe in a conspiracy. But a different conspiracy than the one Craig Murray believes in. You think that Anna Ardin’s presence during Linda Wassgren’s “interview” with Sofia Wilén is important in the decision to arrest Julian Assange. Craig Murray believes that Anna Ardin was present during Irmeli Krans interview of Sofia Wilén and that she did not even talk to the two women. I agree with you that Craig Murray does not have a clue of what happened and that he lies about circumstances.

    According to Donald Boström’s statement Anna Ardin’s words made Linda Wassgren to separate the two women and to talk to them one on one. Now you want me to believe that Linda Wassgren’s one on one conversations with the two women were not important at all. All the information that was important for a decision to arrest Julian Assange was collected before the one on one conversations. If so, why do you think Linda Wassgren decided to separate the two women?

    I am sorry. I think you are a complete idiot. It was the one on one conversations that made Linda Wassgren realize a crime might have been committed. It was what Linda Wassgren had found during the one on one conversations that was the basis for the arrest warrant. And it was what Linda Wassgren had found during the one on one conversation that was the basis for the interview of Anna Ardin on 21 August.

    The decision to arrest Julian Assange was not in any way taken too hastily by the prosecutor. If a foreigner who is likely to leave the country is suspected of a serious crime it is the duty of a prosecutor to make an immediate arrest.

  128. Axel,

    Obviously you know very little of the geography of Stockholm and how to get around town.

    If you arrive in Stockholm at the Central Station and you have to leave from the Central Station the best place to meet anybody before you leave town is at the Central Station. You don’t have to be an expert in transportation to understand that.

    Sofia Wilén was at Södersjukhuset. Anna Ardin was at Sveavägen 68. What is the best meeting place for the women given the fact that one had to leave from the Central Station? The nearest and best place is the Central Station. For Sofia it is a subway ride of four stations and for Anna it is a ride of two stations. Any other alternative is stupid.

    You are trying to tell me that the police station at Torkel Knutssongatan is the nearest to Södersjukhuset. It is true, it is. I have admitted it in a previous comment. But that does not mean it is the nearest and best police station for Anna and Sofia given the fact that Sofia has to leave from the Central Station and Anna is at Sveavägen 68. The nearest and best police station for Anna and Sofia was Klara Närpolisstation at the Central Station.

    The more you try to argue with geography the more you will look like Arbed, Blixt a.k.a duqu a.k.a Rec Tum a.k.a Tessim a.k.a Stolp Skott and Craig Murray.

  129. Göran wrote:

    “According to Donald Boström’s statement Anna Ardin’s words made Linda Wassgren to separate the two women and to talk to them one on one.”

    Really? Could you please post the relevant quote from Boström’s statement, because I can’t find anything at all to support your claim.

    The ONLY reference I can find to these supposed one-on-one talks is in a PM written by Linda Wassgren herself after the chief prosecutor’s dismissal of the allegations, i.e. at a time when both Eva Finné and the press were asking tough questions about the initial handling of the case.

    Wassgren’s PM leaves out crucial details and appears to whitewash events at the police station, maybe in an attempt to cover her own backside. Her words should be treated with caution.

  130. Rudling wrote:
    The decision to arrest Julian Assange was not in any way taken too hastily by the prosecutor. If a foreigner who is likely to leave the country is suspected of a serious crime it is the duty of a prosecutor to make an immediate arrest:

    Response:
    The Duty Prosecutor’s decision was very much premature. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Julian was about to leave the country. On the contrary: he had only a couple of days earlier asked for a permanent permit of residence from the Migration Board (which was of course later denied). The escape risk is a construction to motivate the rushed decision to arrest Assange and to send out police around Stockholm to look out for him. And if she really believed that Assange may be in a rush to leave the country, why did the Duty Prosecutor confirm his name to Expressen?

    Rudling wrote:
    Sofia Wilén was at Södersjukhuset. Anna Ardin was at Sveavägen 68.

    Response. Really? If true this is interesting. I have never seen that information before. Could you please give your sources. Sveavägen 68 is of course the head quarter of the Swedish Social Democratic Party.

    By the way: You have now insulted me a number of times with a variety of names. You keep on insulting everyone else as being a lier, or an idiot, or whatever else you fancy. Is something pressing you?

  131. Rudling is suddenly quiet.

    He drops a bomb. Anna Ardin went to the police station straight from the Social Democratic Party Head Quarters at Sveavägen 68. When challenged for evidence he disappears. I choose not to believe it until I have seen the evidence.

    Johan’s relevant question about Boströms witness statement is left unanswered also.

  132. Goran Rudling, 24 Feb 6:43am :

    “Of course I have received assistance from the Swedish and British governments. In order to be more specific please tell me who are the people discussing this and what are the facts they have found so far?”
    . . .

    Goran, thank you for your reply. You are right, facts are not boring – please pardon my rudeness before.

    And thank you for confirming that you are receiving payments from both the Swedish and British governments to fund your investigations and campaign regarding Assange. I don’t recall the names (online pseudonyms or real names) of those making the claims, nor specific details, as I was following different lines of enquiry at the time. But you can provide the actual details here to remove any possibility of misunderstandings related to this matter.

    Could you please tell us which agencies or departments of the Swedish and British governments have been making payments to you and what conditions they placed on those payments? 

    Thanks in advance

  133. Not anna, but almost

    2 Mar, 2013 - 8:49 pm

    Hi everyone – here´s another….surprise…

    I conducted a test on Rudlings blog, as a Flashbacker here recently reverse engineered a troll-nick with interesting results in this (Craigs) blog .

    Rudlings blog has Swedish and English pages, in the Swedish issue, there´s been no writings since november 16,2012, were´s the last article only had 1 comment made on the 17th of november 2012. On february 26, 2013, there was a second comment made at 20:34CET, that in English spells:

    Have you ceased all your activity…? They have been talking for consensual sex for the last 4 months and you are totally silence – today this emerged”….(link to a tv4-news reel).

    On the 27th of February, around 4-5 hrs after the comment, Rudling issues 2 new articles in a flash which for the first time in 1 year covers consensual sex again, and does not attack Assange, Wikileaks or anything connecting to it, the situation is mind-baffling for any swedish reader, what made him turn 180 degrees in such a short notice, it looked almost as he was following orders, a regular reader expected an answer and not two new articles that also must have been pre-fabricated due to the short timing.

    The answer to this is simple, on the comment made february 26 you can read “Simon”. What you cannot read but Rudling can read as he is admin on his blog is the senders email, and in this case I used Anna Ardins secret alias email-address that she only used for 2 days back in 2010…..

    The comment -scroll to bottom:
    http://samtycke.nu/2012/11/16/bevisen-att-julian-assange-kommer-utlamnas-till-usa/#comments
    How it looks today: http://samtycke.nu/

    I let you decide what to make of this !
    Just to be sure, this has also been saved as screen-dumps, as some erlier comments have gone missing on his blog.

  134. @Not Anna…
    That was a somewhat cryptic message. I will try to spell out what I think it says. Correct me if I am wrong.
    1)Rudlings’s blog has been quite for four months in all non- Assange issues, such as legislation on consensual sex in spite of a heated discussion about this in Swedish media.
    2) You used one of Anna’s old email pseudonymes to post a question about this on Rudling’s blog (!) This resulted in two non-Assange related comments from Rudling the next day.

    Obviously you hit a moot point. I think it means that Rudling is concerned that people may think that his blog is a cover. That Anna used the pseudonym Simon previously is known by a number of people, including Rudling. He could have answered her directly in the blog, but didn’t. Adding two comments to save his blog’s reputation was the important thing.

    In a previous life (almost) Rudling used to state firmly that Anna is a liar, but that does not happen these days. Has their relation changed? Probably not, after all.

  135. Thank you Flashbackers! I shall alert Craig’s readers who are interested in the Swedish case to these new developments.

  136. @arbed
    You could add in that communication that Linda Wassgren’s memo was not known by Björn Hurtig, when he was Assange’s lawyer. It is only after having red about in “Dagens Juridik” that Hurtig was alerted about its existens. Dagens juridik commented in December 2010.
    http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2010/12/globalt-nalsoga-sverige-i-assange-fallet

    Hurtig asked Marianne Ny, formally in writing with reference to the law, to get access to that memo, so far as I know without success.

    The memo was produced only after Eva Finne asked Linda to explain. It is the only written documentation about the crucial phase of events at the police station. These events, under Linda’s guidance, were far more important than the following formal questioning of Sofia by Irmeli Krans. And it is during Linda’s guidance that the two women are questioned together, against all rules.

    Many people, Niklas Svensson of Expressen, nowadays Göran Rudling and previously (but not any more) a number of people on Flashback, have tuned down the importance of Linda’s acivities. I think there are elements of active desinformation in that. The meomo is not known in full yet, only excerpts. The importance of Irmeli Krans interrogation is paramount in the efforts to put the rape case back on the agenda after Finne’s closing of it. They are then centered on the “necessary changes” that were added on the request of Mats Gehlin. Thus a doctored version of the interrogation was instrumental together with new “technical evidence” (including torn condomes) to manage that.

    But the first set of events, under Linda’s guidance, are covered up. It is only this memo that has allowed us to get some insights.

  137. Thanks to @Not Anna for interesting info. I have noticed similar patterns relating to Rudling. Make of this what you will:

    Rudlings site, samtycke.nu, was purportedly set up to campaign for reformed sex laws, specifically for the introduction of the legal concept of consent into Swedish rape legislation. In practice however, the site has been more or less dedicated to the Assange case, and has to date only published a tiny number of articles about rape legislation.

    New proposals from the government recently rekindled the Swedish debate on consent, with several high profile contributions in the media and on the internet. But as usual Rudling has been totally absent from the discussion. Instead, he has devoted all his energy to various Assange flamewars and disinfo campaigns.

    When nick HansLucas pointed this out on Flashback, his post was quickly flushed from the front page by no less than eight (8) consecutive posts by notorious troll “blixxt”, in a text-book example of a technique known as “forum sliding”.

    See https://www.flashback.org/t1275257p4292. (See also http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm for more info on forum flushing and other techniques).

    Fast forward a couple of weeks, and Rudling has suddenly published several new contributions to the – by now more or less dormant – rape debate.

    Not Anna’s new information seems to fit nicely into this chain of events. Why did self-styled sex law campaigner Rudling miss the most vigorous debate on “his” issue for years, only to rush in several weeks too late after being called out on it? Was he afraid that his cover was about to be blown?

  138. Arbed, thanks for alerting me. I try to keep up but I’m busy on so many other issues I hardly get a minute. So I was unaware that Göran Rudling was back on the scene after my outing of him as Anonymouse (though I agree there may be more than one Anonymouse). Now he has been outed again. Very pleased to be one of your troops Arbed. Will get to work on the tasks you’ve given me.

  139. Hi John,

    Ah, bless you, I know how busy you are. I want to congratulate you on the articles you have been putting out recently. They are all excellent, truly excellent.

    Going back to your ‘fight’ with Anonymouse, I don’t know if you remember me telling the board that I had had run-ins with “Anonymouse” on other commenting forums? I caught them referring to “cute Anna” in one of their posts (the subject of our commenting discussion was the DNA-free condom, btw) – a turn of phrase that I felt indicated that Anonymouse and Anna Ardin might be close friends, or at least part of the same social circle.

    I wonder if this would tie in with the information by Not Anna, Axel and Vera above that Goran Rudling and Anna Ardin work together to influence and/or limit the way in which the Swedish case is discussed online and in social media?

  140. resident dissident

    3 Mar, 2013 - 3:54 pm

    Goran

    Many thanks for picking out the many inconsistencies in the case being made by the cult of Assange. What I find interesting how Arbed never replied to my previous post (although she offered pretty rapid responses on everything else) below as to why trial by internet is not appropriate – any thoughts? I think it is also worth noting that the corollary of trying to use the internet to override legal processes to declare someone not guilty is that they have little qualms in declaring someone guilty before a court case as well – as Craig did in his recent posting on the Pistorius case. All this really just demonstrates the type of society that they would favour in the unlikely event that they ever got anywhere near holding power.

    Remember that we are the 99%.

    “Arbed

    I have seen details in respect of the condom many times – it is nothing new and the cult has been using every opprortunity to make it public.

    As I have said many times the internet is not the place to examine evidence in a case and then form views as to innocence or guilt. I think you should consider a few questions:

    1. Is this the only piece of evidence on which the case is based? The answer is almost certainly no.

    2. Have you seen all the evidence that is relevant to the case? The answer to this should be no, especially in respect of a court case, unless you or someone else has acted unethically to make the evidence available,

    3. Are you aware that legal cases are very often decided on more than a single piece of evidence and it is usually the case that evidence presented can point in different directions even though it is possible to reach a final verdict on the balance of the evidence.

    Don’t you think it right that those representing both the accused and defendant should be given the opportunity to question the evidence – especially since they have the appropriate skills (or access to them) and are trained to do so.

    The fact that you continually believe that your partisan approach to evidence (also evidenced by how you ignored Nick Davies response to your attack on him) is sufficient to decide whether or someone has a case to answer really just demonstrates your contempt for how proper legal processes should operate. Of course the corollary of this is that many supporters of the Assange, as often demonstreated by those here, are often only too prepared to proclaim someone’s guilt on the basis of similar techniques. There are good reasons why decent legal systems have such basic processes – and should not be replaced by the summary justice you suggest.

    If the evidence is entirely as you suggest I have little doubt that Assange would be found innocent in a Swedish court – and if the case is as flimsy and one sided then undoubtedly those who initiated the case would have some very difficult questions to answer. But as I have said before these things have to go through proper legal process in a civilised country rather than being judged on the internet. So please do not ask me to comment on detailed evidence again.

    The whole issue of extradition to the US really is something of a red herring – since it is very difficult to see how the position differs between the UK and Sweden, and we don’t even know the basis on which the US might wish to extradite. And I’m afraid that is a view that is shared by many of Assange’s former friends, despite the habitual character assassination that is doled out to them by cult members (which again demonstreates their utter contempt for anything remotely akin to justice). Just look at the insults heaped on poor JK’s head – eventhough her NS article (and also the NS editorial (with which I agreed practically word for word) continued to be very supportive of many of Assanges’s and Wikipedia’s activities and objectives).”

  141. resident dissident

    3 Mar, 2013 - 4:00 pm

    @Arbed

    “I wonder if this would tie in with the information by Not Anna, Axel and Vera above that Goran Rudling and Anna Ardin work together to influence and/or limit the way in which the Swedish case is discussed online and in social media?”

    So people get together to try and discuss how the Assange case is discussed online and in social media – well knock me over with a feather. Of course that never, never happens with the case for defence does it? Many thanks for providing another argument as to why such trials are best conducted in the courts rather than over the internet.

  142. Arbed, you are so kind about my articles. As to Anonymouse I was thinking the same thing some months back when you were hinting at an electronic liaison between the two, Göran Rudling and Anna Ardin. Yes I do recall you mentioning it and consider it to be a valid assumption.

    By the way the big hairy creature under the bridge keeps appearing unexpectedly. Starvation is always the answer, but of course you know that. Hungry bridge sentinels may then start to wonder why nobody feeds them

  143. Axel, 1.22pm

    Indeed, I’ve long been aware of how crucial Linda Wassgren’s memo is to deconstructing how this whole mess came about. I didn’t know that Bjorn Hurtig was unaware of its existence until December 2010, and that he’s been refused access to it – thanks for that.

    If you look back through the pages of comments on this thread you will see that Goran posted here the text of what he claimed was the English translation of the redacted version of Wassgren’s memo (which has since become public in Sweden). Given how uncertain Rudling’s true motives are, could you please take a look at what he claims is an exact English translation of the memo and let us know whether it is indeed accurate? I would hate to think that he’s been attempting to misinform English-speaking followers of the Assange case by seeding a false translation here.

    I have my own personal theory about what an unredacted version of Linda Wassgren’s note might reveal. I’ve set that out in various posts here (longish ones, I’m afraid – I think they’re on pages 3 to 5). Briefly, my theory is that Wilen and Ardin conspired to tell the same story about deliberately damaged condoms. As evidence of this, I look to these supporting facts:

    1. Mats Gehlin’s note on the forensic report that SW had said she heard “pulling balloon” sounds in the night and found a fragment of used condom under the bed where Assange had been.

    2. Uncertainty as to when and where this “piece of condom” evidence was collected from SW. Collected from her home? Passed to the police via one or other of the ‘rape clinic’ hospitals she visited? Submitted by Ardin along with her own “damaged”/faked condom evidence under the same docket number? If either of the latter two scenarios, what on earth was Wilen doing carrying around a “piece of condom” (and not the whole thing) when she claims she only wanted to get HIV tests done? That story does not make sense.

    3. The redacted version of Wassgren’s memo says “rape was mentioned from the start” and “two women were seeking advice about earlier events they were unsure about”. This implies two women giving the same story.

    4. Donald Bostrom’s witness statement outlines how Ardin added one sentence – “I believe Sophia is telling the truth because the same thing happened to me” (or words to that effect) – which turned the whole thing into a formal complaint “because there were two women saying the same thing”. But there really isn’t a strong similarity between Ardin’s complaint and Wilen’s story according to her statement to Irmeli Krans (or, at least, the later doctored version of it we’ve all seen). Where does Ardin talk about being asleep when sex was initiated? Where does she talk about having had unprotected sex? The evidence we have available indicates their experiences weren’t particularly similar. So was their first story – the one they may have agreed on before going to the police station together, and which precipitated the original arrest – quite different from the stories they each later told.

    5. There is no mention whatsoever of “pulling balloon sounds” or damaged condoms in Wilen’s statement to Irmeli Krans. Why not? Gehlin must have heard the information he noted on the forensic report from somewhere. Was it from Wassgren when she telephoned him after she interviewed the two women?

    6. It is possible to deduce from analysis of the statements of Wilen’s other ‘witnesses’ that, bar one, they all may have first heard of Wilen’s “phobia” about HIV on or after Wilen contacted Ardin on 18 August 2010 – or indeed much later even than this. (I did a long post on one of the previous pages here looking at what each of the statements had to say on this “HIV phobia” issue.)

    7. We don’t yet know where Ardin disappeared to the Thursday night before she met up with Wilen to go to the police. She told Assange she stayed out all night visiting a journalist friend. Maybe so, but is it possible she visited Wilen in Enkoping to finalise plans? The following morning Wilen travelled quite some distance to go to a ‘rape clinic’ hospital, despite having already been seen by one hospital several days previously (afternoon/evening of Tuesday 17 August, I believe).

  144. Resident Dissident, 3.54pm

    Not addressed to me, of course, but I’d like to address your points as they seem to be directed at me.

    It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to me that others like yourself might disagree with my approach but one factor you overlook – the one truly unique thing in this case, absolutely not shared with a single other case like it anywhere in the world – is that a very large proportion of the prosecution evidence file has been leaked onto the internet. It is not inappropriate that serious researchers might use this resource to take a deeper look at what is undoubtedly a highly politicised case, or indeed to talk about their findings online. Nature of the beast.

    I don’t understand what you mean by this: “evidenced by how you ignored Nick Davies response to your attack on him”. What attack [of mine] on Nick Davies please? And what response? Are you confusing me with someone else?

    Neither have I attacked Jemima Khan. If you look at the comments to her New Statesman article I’m in there, congratulating her on producing a fair and balanced piece.

  145. Not Anna, But Almost

    3 Mar, 2013 - 6:39 pm

    @ Axel:
    You are perfectly right and my english is bad. The bougus email from Anna is not known in full length in public, and I did not write the fully email-address, only the start of that “name”, only Rudling was able to see the complete email string….

    As some of you suspects a tie between Anna and Rudling, you should be aware of the following interesting detail.

    Previous to Assanges trouble, Anna Ardin was the press spokes person for the Swedish “brotherhood” back in May 2010, when 9 (?) people was killed in the famous “Ship To Gaza-incident”. Back then only one journo was able to jump on the same plane as a bunch of swedes was thrown into with 1 hour prior notice as the were jailed up in Tel-aviv, The name of this journo is the same man as later in august made Assanges name public, does the name Niklas Svensson ring a bell…..?

    There has been some investigation into this leak back in May, and the Swedish foregin-dept did not receive full info of the swedes when they were thrown out of Israel, but someone had to organize a airfare, as Israel does not pay for that, and it was the brotherhood that had to make a very quick booking = Peter Weiderud and Anna Ardin were the persons that had full knowledge of the upcoming deportation. The journa Niklas Svensson claims that he flew down in advance and then asked the booking staff at Ben Gurion airport on which flight they were booked, that has been dismissed as very bad lie due to the extreme security at that airport.

    And in august, just 3 months later Ardin and Svensson is on the front page again. When the info of Assange came out, there were 2 reporters sitting at the Expressen news desk, while Niklas + 1 cameraman, was dining and drinking together with Carl Bildt and the swedish goverment at a place called Harpsund ( approx 2 hr drive from Stockholm). For a very strange reason, the cameraman later quoted that he received sms around 19hrs that Assange was wanted for rape, and that made both him and Niklas drive like crazy back to the newsdesk in central Stockholm (calculated speed to 140km/hr at 55 min driving time). There was no need for Niklas to get back to the newsdesk as there already were 2 reporter, still this is up in the blue why they both raced back, but as we know that civilian police was searching most nightclubs in the center of Stockholm that night, the most common to calculate is that Niklas wanted to have a photo taken when Assange got arrested, and therefore someone in the police was leaking/directing them were they were searching.

  146. Arbed, ResDiss has form, he goes for the person who is asking awkward questions and who connects facts, and to ask chaotic questions is part and parcel of ResDiss repertoire.

    looking at what is crystallising, thanks to Arbed’s most astute, almost judicial in its zest, sleuthing, it looks like Mr. Rudling is carrying out orders as well as AA.
    What’s left? to follow the money?

    How much influence has the Wallenberg empire since they joined the NYSE board? what was the deal? and was Julian Assange’s extradition to the US part of the deal? How much can the judiciary be influenced by economically central figures?

    What is also left is the chance for AA to come clean, the world is asking how much more sub plotting and being discovered at it can you stand Ms. A? And three cheers to the Swedish public who now realises that Goran Rudlings pursuits, or lack of, could raise the question of who is steering him?

  147. @arbed. Some very quick comments to your post:

    Arbed wrote:
    2. Uncertainty as to when and where this “piece of condom” evidence was collected from SW. Collected from her home? Passed to the police via one or other of the ‘rape clinic’ hospitals she visited? Submitted by Ardin along with her own “damaged”/faked condom evidence under the same docket number? If either of the latter two scenarios, what on earth was Wilen doing carrying around a “piece of condom” (and not the whole thing) when she claims she only wanted to get HIV tests done? That story does not make sense.

    Response: Since Anna’s condom was collected at her flat by police Sara Wennerblom I guess that the same thing happened for Sofia a day or two later, certainly before the 25th of August.

    Arbed wrote: 3. The redacted version of Wassgren’s memo says “rape was mentioned from the start” and “two women were seeking advice about earlier events they were unsure about”. This implies two women giving the same story.

    Response: It looks like that. The same story could simply be a story that their common ex-lover was trying to have sex without a condom, or more specifically that he was actually tearing up the condoms. However “rape was mentioned from the start” is a formulation which does not reveal who did the mentioning. Was it one or both women?

    Arbed wrote: 4. Donald Bostrom’s witness statement outlines how Ardin added one sentence – “I believe Sophia is telling the truth because the same thing happened to me” (or words to that effect) – which turned the whole thing into a formal complaint “because there were two women saying the same thing”. But there really isn’t a strong similarity between Ardin’s complaint and Wilen’s story according to her statement to Irmeli Krans (or, at least, the later doctored version of it we’ve all seen). Where does Ardin talk about being asleep when sex was initiated? Where does she talk about having had unprotected sex? The evidence we have available indicates their experiences weren’t particularly similar. So was their first story – the one they may have agreed on before going to the police station together, and which precipitated the original arrest – quite different from the stories they each later told.

    Response: Yes, my impression is that their original stories, made up before they went to the police, were made to look more similar than they actually were. When Sofia is interrogated by Irmeli Krans the similarities start to crack up.

    Arbed wrote: 5. There is no mention whatsoever of “pulling balloon sounds” or damaged condoms in Wilen’s statement to Irmeli Krans. Why not? Gehlin must have heard the information he noted on the forensic report from somewhere. Was it from Wassgren when she telephoned him after she interviewed the two women?

    Response: It seems quite possible that it originates from the story that Linda W took from both women when they sat together. Anna mentions a “sound” in her formal witness statement. Sofia does not. But in his comment to the forensic report Gehlin refers to the “ballon sound” as something Sofia had reported.

    Arbed wrote: 6. It is possible to deduce from analysis of the statements of Wilen’s other ‘witnesses’ that, bar one, they all may have first heard of Wilen’s “phobia” about HIV on or after Wilen contacted Ardin on 18 August 2010 – or indeed much later even than this. (I did a long post on one of the previous pages here looking at what each of the statements had to say on this “HIV phobia” issue.)

    Response: Sofia sent an irritated text message to one of her friends during the night 16/17 that she had to take a HIV-test because Assange had spent so much time on foreplay (!). This text message could have been picked up by the Swedish security services that followed every step of Assange during his visit and probably tapped Anna’s and Sofia’s telephones as well as those of Assange. It would then have been simple to scare Sofia by claiming that Assange was perhaps already HIV-infected. All that was needed was another text message.

    Arbed wrote: 7. We don’t yet know where Ardin disappeared to the Thursday night before she met up with Wilen to go to the police. She told Assange she stayed out all night visiting a journalist friend. Maybe so, but is it possible she visited Wilen in Enkoping to finalise plans? The following morning Wilen travelled quite some distance to go to a ‘rape clinic’ hospital, despite having already been seen by one hospital several days previously (afternoon/evening of Tuesday 17 August, I believe).

    Response: I don’t think Anna went to Enköping on that Thursday, but it is not impossible of course. The speculation (pure speculation) has rather been that she visited her journalist friend Sonja Schwartzenberger who lived nearby. But it seems that the plot did change into a planned assault on Assange that Thursday evening.

  148. Not Anna, but almost

    Thank you very much indeed for all that. I personally already knew of everything you have set out, but that is only because I regularly review the Flashback forum using Google translate. However, due to the UK MSM taking the two-prong approach of either relentless smear against Assange or silence about the underlying facts of the case (I know, same in Swedish MSM…), very few who rely on the English-speaking media know about these things. That is why I have tried hard to keep this particular thread in Craig Murray’s blog open – so that you guys in Flashback had a way of getting your discoveries out into to the wider world. Craig’s blog is apparently the third most popular political blog (not sure whether that’s just in England, across Europe or even wider than that – still it means it’s very widely read). Please keep posting here!!

    Thanks again for getting this info to us, and for setting it out so clearly.

  149. Not Anna, But Almost and others. Trying to analyse Anna Ardin (Also known as Anna Bernardin) and her motivation is very difficult. She is suspected of having worked at the Swedish Embassy in Washington DC as well as the Swedish Embassy in Buenos Aries. CIA operatives are often among the most vocal in support of causes they do not really support. In other words they tell lies, their whole life is one big lie, because they have to create new lies to cover the old ones. They get themselves into the hierarchical positions in the organisations to which they belong by taking on extra work, or work which gets them noticed. Anna offered her flat to Julian Assange. Anna arrived back a day early. It was not Julian who asked her to come back early. Anna deleted texts which she thought might be incriminating to her rape-case, which was concocted days after the event. All these things make me really suspicious as to her role in the ‘Aid to Gaza’ episode. As a pro-Palestinian rights supporter, vegetarian for almost forty years, and a believer in both animal and human rights I ought to be supporting Anna Ardin, who also purports to support these causes. However, there are too many flaws in her character. I suspect she is only paying lip-service to the things I believe in.

    http://www.marthamitchelleffect.org/#/assange-case-aa-cuba/4571327129

    Sofia Wilen also began by doing a favour for Julian which would get her noticed.

  150. Axel,

    Thank you very much for that detailed response to my theory. It seems we both agree pretty closely on which pieces of evidence are required to decide on whether my theory has merit.

    - the docket re the collection of the SW piece of condom
    - unredacted version of Linda Wassgren’s memo
    - the unredacted version of the 20 August Irmeli Krans statement (the undoctored version)

    and, of course

    - the suppressed 100+ SMS text messages between SW, AA and JA. By the way, did you see in John Pilger’s response to Alex Gibney’s New Statesman rant against Assange that he describes having seen this “critical evidence”, or at least some of these SMS? (see update at the bottom of the article):

    http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/02/my-film-doesnt-abuse-julian-assange-story-about-wikileaks-facts-matter

    Yes, that “irritated” text message to her friend was the “bar one” witness I was referring to who had knowledge of SW’s “HIV phobia” prior to, at the earliest, 18 August 2010. I too read this as “irritated” rather than worried – the sort of comment someone who was accustomed to regular HIV checks would make, as if it was akin to a boring chore (and maybe it was, given that Seth Benson had lived for many years in San Francisco?)

    I’m also aware of the level of intelligence surveillance of Assange throughout his time in Sweden (courtesy of a very good Rixstep article on this) and the idea of a text ‘planting’ the rumour that Assange might be HIV-positive to set things off. Very little chance of unearthing further evidence to prove it, though. (Unless it’s in the suppressed SMS, of course… ;) )

    Thanks for the name of Ardin’s journalist friend Sonja Schwartzenberger – that’s new to me.

    Best wishes. Thank you SO much.

  151. Over two years on from when the claimants first made their complaints, there is much about the case that remains unclear and one has to wonder whether cases like this shouldn’t be subject to a media blackout until they are resolved. Whether by design or not, parties on both sides of the argument have been guilty of obfuscation, and this particular bystander no longer knows what to believe.

    But I do know this: the Agreed Statement of Facts (from the UK Supreme Court), states that both AA and SW were worried about the consequences of unprotected sex with Assange and that SW wanted Assange to take an STD test:

    “SW wanted the Appellant to get tested for disease. On 20th August 2010 SW went to the police to seek advice. AA accompanied her for support.”

    This clearly shows that, contrary to what Mr Rudling believes, there was obviously talk of getting Assange tested for STDs.

    The same document (the contents of which were attested to by prosecution and defence) claims that, although the claimants might have been interviewed on separate days, the formal reports from both claimants were filed on the 20th. This would seem to (but not necessarily) undermine Mr Murray’s thesis.

  152. And one other thing. I wonder if Anna’s flat had audio and video surveillance in it. Who goes away and leaves their flat to a stranger? And if it is someone they would like to meet and get to know, they would want to cancel whatever else might interfere with such a union. She is an odd woman. My guess in this respect is that all the video and audio provided was Julian Assange working on his computer day and night. So not having the evidence they sent her back early to get some. Doesn’t she say somewhere in her statement that Julian seemed to want to spend all his time on the computer? Instead of paying her the attention needed to get him banged up for rape.

  153. resident dissident

    3 Mar, 2013 - 8:49 pm

    Arbed

    My original question which I quoted was addressed to you.

    So the prosecution leaked evidence – and it is also pretty clear that the defence and those around Assange have done exactly the same thing. I’m afraid that two wrongs do not make a right – and neitehr is a argument for conducting the case over the internet.

    As for Nick Davies – you originally posted a link to an attack on him, without including one of his response to that attack. I very much doubt given your closeness to all matters on Assange that you were unaware of his response.

    As for JK, I was quite careful not to accuse you of making such an attack, larely because I had neither the time or inclination to go back through your many postings. It would however, be disingenuous to say that other supporters of JA held back from attacking JK.

    Nevermind – I ask awkward questions that go against the prevailing ethos on this blog – if that creates chaos so be it. You may believe that the prevailing ethos here is the one that is asking awkward questions of society as a whole. That is a view to which you are entitled – but it is somewhat arrogant to believe that it should go unchallenged, to say nothing about it being distinctly unhealthy. Perhaps you should read a little Orwell to understand what happens when “revolutionary” views go unchallenged.

  154. Resident Dissident, 3.54pm

    First this:

    “your partisan approach to evidence (also evidenced by how you ignored Nick Davies response to your attack on him)”

    8.49pm

    And then this:

    “As for Nick Davies – you originally posted a link to an attack on him, without including one of his response to that attack”

    I am SO sorry. I was completely unaware that I was obliged to do so. In future, I shall take more care to also provide all comments and responses to the articles to which I link. :)

  155. http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/11/the-uk-supreme-court-susanne-maier-gerge42-and-the-truth/#more-1598

    A comment by Robert Riley to Goran Rudling on the above blog -

    Robert Riley on November 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm said: 
    “In short, if your answers are correct, the investigation phase is on- going and is legally stalled because JA cannot be brought before the prosecutor for interview.” 

    Let us remind ourselves of two very usual caveats: 

    That one has the right to the presumption of innocence, even in Sweden. 

    Under the European Court of Human Rights it is held that the (subject) right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 one wonders just what the power of ‘Interview’ would produce in such a circumstance. If Sweden has a case it would have done well by all concerned to have charged Assange. 

    My kindest regards,
    R. Riley.

    . . . . .

    I have raised this issue twice before, to no avail – ie Assange’s right to silence and therefore the purpose of a prosecution that appears to depend on Assange’s self-incrimination. If Assange remains silent, are the police willing to go on and charge him? Will the prosecutors have enough evidence to win a conviction without Assange’s cooperation?  If the answers are ‘No’, then what is the purpose of an extradition application purporting to facilitate an interview that can yield no incriminating evidence, no charges following that interview and therefore no prospect of a trial and conviction? 

    *sound of crickets*

  156. @arbed March 3rd 8:36

    I read the following in John Pilger’s update at the bottom of the article in New Statesman:
    http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/02/my-film-doesnt-abuse-julian-assange-story-about-wikileaks-facts-matter

    I “have reviewed all the discovered evidence including critical evidence of the women’s SMS exchanges.”

    George Galloway made a similar remark at his Oxford Union talk. He had seen some of the SMS evidence, he claimed.

    Now this surprises me somewhat. Hurtig has seen the SMS, but was not allowed to copy them or talk about them. So I assume that he, at the most, have been able to give an oral summary to Julian Assange. In the Swedish version of the 100-page leaked document there are plenty of references to the text messages (SMSs)scribbled in by hand (by Hurtig probably)in the margins. I don’t know if they are marked in the English translation.

    It should be possible to construct a list of text messages, covering a certain proportion of those, by indirect evidence. Is this what Pilger refers to? Or is there a written assessment of their content based on talk that is circulating?

  157. Hi Axel,

    I note what you say that perhaps what Pilger is referring to is some reconstruction made from Hurtig’s handwritten notes in the margins, but no, I think what Pilger is saying is much, much more definite than that. John Pilger’s reputation as a journalist speaks for itself and if he is stating categorically that he has seen the “critical evidence” of the women’s SMSs then he has, fullstop. Please pass this info back to Flashback – it is a very important new development, in my view.

    You also mention George Galloway’s hints about his knowledge of the Swedish case in his Oxford Union address. Here’s that video again, if you haven’t already got it. His speech was on 19 October 2012:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaeW_A1K7SY&feature=relmfu

    Here’s George Galloway’s earlier podcast – in full – when he first mentioned that he had in his possession the women’s SMSs and they led him to believe “it’s a set-up”. It comes at around the 25 minute mark:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4I5F05jNg

  158. As I mentioned earlier Arbed “the big hairy creature under the bridge keeps appearing unexpectedly. Starvation is always the answer, but of course you know that.” Don’t feed the trolls. Their aim is to disrupt the flow.

  159. Oh, I should have mentioned at 8.49 p.m yesterday. Genuine debate is one thing but disruption for the sake of it another.

  160. Any legal eagles here please? Your assistance would be appreciated.

    A DFAT document recently released under FOI laws in Australia seems to confirm the existence of the infamous sealed indictment/s for Assange and Wikileaks. It depends what exactly the word “pleadings” means in the context of a Grand Jury. Anyway, there’s six of them, they’ve existed since at least November 2011 and the document in question confirms:

    “just cause for the continued sealing of the documents at issue because, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the United States, unsealing of the documents at this time would damage an ongoing criminal investigation”

    The 26-page document (pdf) is linked in this article and the section about the sealed “pleadings” is on pages 10/11 of it:

    http://darkernet.in/aussie-fm-lied-on-tv-show-re-wikileaks-grand-jury-proof/

    Actually, here’s the pdf itself:

    http://darkernet.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/dfat-foi-1212-F4791.pdf

  161. Found out the answer to above query. These six “pleadings” relate to the 10 November 2011 motion to have the Wikileaks Three’s Twitter subpoenas unsealed, which was denied.

    So… that means the sealed indictment for Assange is under paragraph s 22 1(a)(ii) on the previous page – the one with the bloody great X through it and ‘REDACTED’ written across the whole page…

  162. resident dissident

    4 Mar, 2013 - 10:53 pm

    Arbed

    Absolutely right you are not obliged to respond – but that is the reason why trials should take place in court rather than on the internet – and those who present the evidence for one side and who are not prepare to countenance the arguments of the others, or just ignore those that they do not like, should not pretend that they have made a clear cut case. Yes John if you want to make out that you have a clear cut case one way or the other you have to accept a little disruption to the flow.

    I’m afraid I’m still with JK, DAG (as you so kindly call him) and many others in believing that the best way to judge this case is through the Swedish legal process which from everthing I have seen is rather more robust that the kangaroo court processes that are favoured here.

  163. Resident Dissident,

    Do you review Flashback? It’s a very good indication of how Swedish citizens themselves view their nation’s judicial system in these types of cases.

  164. Hi there, long time-no see….
    Some interesting docs has just emerged from the Swedish state dep, it ties some persons within the Swartholm case directly to mr. Assange´s case, you have to use google-translate as most parts are in Swedish- but a lot of stuff is an eye-opener.
    Sorry to see such much of forum-sliding taking place here, but it confirms that this blog in some eyes is getting to close to some details, but the majority here is aware of those dirty tricks.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/126352713/GSW2-pdf read and enjoy

  165. Resi. Dissi. wrote:
    “…the best way to judge this case is through the Swedish legal process which from everything I have seen is rather more robust that the kangaroo court processes that are favoured here”.

    Response:
    It is far from robust. It has been distorted from day 1 when the name of the accused was revealed to the press against the rule book. For the moment the process is stuck and inflexible. It did avoid, for 18 months, the use of Mutual Legal Assistance, which would have been the appropriate action. It lacked proportionality by using instead the EAW and an Interpol red alert. It disregarded, and continues to disregard, the interests of the two complainants, for whom a speedy questioning of Assange would have been so much better. Today it ignores totally the offer by the Ecuadorian government to conduct the questioning in their London Embassy.

    In this way, the present Swedish prosecutor has avoided a decision whether or not to charge Assange. This is the important point. A lot flows from this non-decision. She avoids the question of whether or not any charge would be for crime against one or both women. Neither does she have to reveal for which crime she intends to charge Assange, if she indeed intends to do that at all. By not charging she also avoids showing her evidence, for what it is worth, to the accused or to his lawyers. They have been left in the dark for 2. 5 years now. The recent appeal against her way of conducting the case by two Swedish journalists, to the Justitie Ombudsman, was dismissed with the motivation that the process “is still going on”, in spite of the striking inactivity of the prosecutor. In other words, she protects herself from audit by holding everything at bay. And does sh answers questions from the press? No.

    Derailed is a better characterization of the process than “robust” in this case.

  166. A fierce letter sent last Friday from WikiLeaks ‘ambassador’ Joseph Farrell to Jemima Khan in response to her strange attack on Assange in the New Statesman has been leaked to Pastebin:

    http://pastebin.com/rrhqvJ5Q

    Well, that’s telling her then.

  167. CIA PLAYS ‘PASS THE PARCEL’

    US attorney general, Eric Holder - ”No amount of distance or time will weaken our resolve to bring America’s enemies to justice.” 

    Sulaiman Abu Ghaith Rendered to US
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/07/bin-laden-son-in-law-detained-jordan

  168. https://twitter.com/therealardin/status/309451183964164096/photo/1

    Must be some kind of coping mechanism for handling the stress of it all.

  169. Re: Arbed (Ardin matter)

    She erased her pictures and twitter (as usual) so your link is now incorrect and not working. But as we on Flashback keeps our eyes open we also saves matters that we know is in a risk to be deleted. So f you still want to see the porn picture, here you are:

    http://bayimg.com/dAkAKaAEH

    Btw, she have an account on “happypancake.se” (dating site), I think that photo should be her official dating profile as a corrupt swedish feminist, but that is another story….

  170. Thanks for the post I really appreciate it it was very useful

  171. Thanks Duqu.

    Glad that one’s recorded for posterity.

    http://bayimg.com/dAkAKaAEH

    It angers me really (hence my sarcasm above). Anna Ardin’s antics and her self-imposed ‘victim’ status give genuine rape victims a very bad name. Meanwhile, of course, Assange has been bankrupted and driven to refugee status because of this woman’s lies.

  172. I think the above photograph posted by Arbed and Duqu speaks volumes about the type of woman she is. I have never seen or heard anything so crude come from the Julian Assange stable.

    I will do a short blog on it.

  173. Hey Duqu and Flashbackers,

    Not sure about any of the details yet, ie. date, but I hear that there’s going to be a demonstration by Assange supporters later this month outside the Swedish embassy in London, with maybe a letter to the Swedish ambassador handed in.

    Any of you guys fancy a daytrip over to London? I believe there’s a couple of Swedish people based over here helping out with banners and stuff but the more, the merrier…

  174. Re: @arbed > demonstration.

    Interesting, do you have any contact-info that I can post on Flashback for those that may be interested to swing over….
    Hopefully-someone puts it up on Bambuser or somewere else so those that cannot travel could join via internet.
    One thought directly, I think 4 corners in Australia would be very pleased to gain some footage over that event, and one
    crazy suggestion would be a huge paper blowup of Ardins shoes with the text, swedish justice keeps walking down the ditch….

  175. Hi Duqu,

    I just learned about it this morning. I haven’t got any details on the date or anything yet, but I will certainly let you know as soon as I can. It’s being organised by the good people who maintain a daily vigil outside of the Ecuadorian embassy, so I suppose you could try them. Their twitter account is @LONFowl.

    I posted the info below on another of Craig’s threads this morning. Do you think there’s anything that can be done with it?

    The latest news out of Sweden is that the Ecuadorian offer to interrogate Assange in the London embassy that was hand-delivered by the Ecuadorian ambassador in Stockholm on 25 July 2012 was not only passed by the Swedish FO to their “America section” but also to the official within the Swedish Justice Department responsible for Mutual Legal Assistance.

    This link says there was some kind of marginal mark “For further action”. They did nothing, of course. It’s also debatable whether either the FO or the Justice Department even bothered to pass this offer to the Chief Investigator of the case, Marianne Ny.

    http://twitlonger.com/show/l8anr8

    And they say the case has nothing to do with the Swedish government, it’s “purely a judicial matter”. Pull the other one.

    This shows two things:

    1) contrary to Carl Bildt’s statement last year that to question Assange in London would be ‘unconstitutional’ for Sweden (he said this in person to Jennifer Robinson but was quickly shot down about it by Swedish legal experts), the Swedish Justice Ministry does have a section dealing with the use of Mutual Legal Assistance to questions suspects abroad; and

    2) the case is being controlled over there by the Justice Ministry, not the case prosecutor. Interestingly, one of the points raised in the UK Supreme Court hearing over whether a prosecutor was an appropriate ‘judicial authority’ for the purposes of an EAW was that a Minister of Justice, being part of the executive, was certainly not. It should be in the transcript of the hearing somewhere. I’ll try to dig it out.

  176. It’s interesting to observe what Australia’s Foreign Minister is and isn’t prepared to do for some Australians but not for others.

    Bob Carr makes political representations and promises for gaoled Australian -
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/corbys-parole-no-guarantee-despite-carrs-promise-20130310-2ftoq.html

  177. resident dissident

    10 Mar, 2013 - 10:10 am

    Axel

    I would have thought that most prosecutors in most reputable legal systems would hold on making a charge until they had the opportunity to question the accused. I don’t pretend to argue that all in the Swedish legal process is robust – I doubt that could be said of any legal system – but it is certainly more robust than trial by internet. And if you need evidence of that latter statement perhaps you might just want to look at the character assassination of Ardin that has taken place this week – do you really beleive that any of that would be considered admissible evidence in a robust legal system?

  178. @Resi Dissi,
    There has been many opportunities to question Assange, first in Sweden, then for 18 months during house arrest when he visited the British police every day, now in the Ecuadorian Embassy. “A reputable system” would have used these opportunities. I am sure you know about Mutual Legal Assistance in European Law.

    In fact, Assange has already been questioned in Stockholm once about the Anna Ardin accusations. That should have been enough for a decision to charge or not charge regarding those accusations. It seems that the Prosecutor does not want to show her hand.

    A trial by internet is not pretty, I agree on that. A trial by media is even uglier. That is why the inaction of the Swedish prosecutor is immoral. The best you can say to her defense is that it might not any longer be her own decisions whether to proceed or not.

    The note from the Ecuadorian embassy, of July 25th 2012, with an assurance that the Ecuadorian government would do everything in its power to facilitate the questioning of Assange, was never forwarded to the Prosecutor, Marianne Ny. The foreign office forwarded it, the same day, to Per Hedvall at the Ministry of Justice. His unit, BIRS, deals with European Arrest Warrants and Mutual Legal Assistance. They were in fact the people that certified the EAW, which Marianne Ny handed in to the British legal system in December 2010. Why did they not let Marianne Ny see the note this time? We know this because she wrote to Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Samuelsson, that she heard rumours in the media about an offer to question him at the embassy. Very embarrassing for her. It suggests strongly that she is not in charge any more. I conclude that either there is a war between the Prosecutor and the Ministry, or the Prosecutor is not an independent judiciary any more.

    Can’t you see that the whole process is derailed long ago.

  179. @Resident Dissident

    Why would the Swedish prosecutors hold back on charging Assange if they already have enough evidence to prosecute? What do they hope to accomplish by interviewing Assange if he will not incriminate himself? Indeed, he has the right to remain silent without any prejudice, has he not? The prosecutors have had plenty of time to investigate and to lay charges if they have sufficient evidence but so far they have chosen not to. Quite obviously, they don’t have a case.

    I’m not sure why you object to people discussing this case on the internet. There is no trial here, no legal outcomes from the dozens of opinions that float around in cyberspace. The Swedish police started the public discussion when they leaked details to the media. Why did they do that? It’s a conversation about a highly suspicious matter involving a very important person. Even Putin has weighed in with his opinion. But if you do object, why are you participating in it?

  180. resident dissident

    10 Mar, 2013 - 3:19 pm

    Jemand/Axel

    I am most pointedly not participating in the trial by internet – I have not expressed any view whatsoever on the guilt of Assange or the others involved in the case. You may have formed the view that there is no case to answer – that was not the view of the UK or Swedish Courts, or of those former Assange supporters who believe that Assange should go back to Sweden to answer the case against him. You are obviously interested parties who are only prepared to see one side of the argument.

    I can see quite legitimate reasons why the Swedish legal system is not prepared to take evidence outside its jurisdiction – and why the Swedish Govt take the view that it should support its own legal system. I think what is going on here is rather more than discussion of the case – but is rather a very attempt to present a partial view of a case often organised by those who are close to Assange and his legal advisers. There is very little in the way of allowing those with alternative views to present their case and/or cross examine the case being put by the defence. Many have already been led into expressing views on innocnce/guilt of the various parties on the basis of what is at best incomplete evidence.

    BTW Putin’s view on legal cases, especially those involving someone who is one of his employee, carry very little weight in my opinion, given that man’s near total disregard for proper legal processes.

  181. Resident Dissident.

    There is no internet trial. It’s a discussion full of lots of different opinions. For better or worse, Putin’s is just one of many. The internet has dozens of websites that report and blog about the case, like this one, and you are more or less free to participate in the various overlapping discussions that are taking place on those sites. Whether you like me to observe this fact or not, you are indeed participating in a discussion.

    I don’t think that either the UK or Swedish courts have made judgements about there being a case to answer. My understanding, correct me if I am wrong, is that the UK courts only judged the validity of the EAW. It never examined the validity of charges, probably because charges have not been laid. Whether there exists a case to answer is normally determined by a preliminary hearing after charges have been laid and the defendent is in custody and able to be presented to the court (so-called habeus corpus). So far, there is no statement from the Swedish courts that there is a case to answer. 

    Maybe you will agree with me, but Assange has a right to the presumption of innocence and when you understand what that means you might agree that he then has the right to demand fair treatment regardless of what powers the law provides prosecutors. I don’t think it is fair that he should be held incommunicado for extensible periods of time that amount to indefinite detention. He has every right to resist unfair treatment.

    You didn’t explain what the Swedes hope to accomplish by interviewing a man who will not incriminate himself or exercise his right to silence. If they have enough evidence without his cooperation surely they should be preparing to charge him.

  182. Resident Dissident wrote:
    “I think what is going on here is rather more than discussion of the case – but is rather a very attempt to present a partial view of a case often organised by those who are close to Assange and his legal advisers.”

    Response: I can assure you that you are wrong on this point. I am not close to Assange in any way, never met him, seen him or been in touch in any other way. The same would be true for the majority of the critics in Sweden. But I am, and many others are, impressed by his work with Wikileaks. Assange asked, August 18th 2010, for permanent residence in Sweden to establish Sweden as a base for Wikileaks publishing activities, protected by Swedish constitution. This was denied, of course.

    My motive is an embarrassment with the way the Swedish legal system has been handling the accusations from the two women. It is also motivated by the way the Swedish political system has dealt with US pressures against Wikileaks establishing itself in Sweden. Both processes are intertwined; has been from day 1. It smells of corruption. So far no-one of authority is interfering to put things right. It is as simple as that. Surely, we must dig out the facts.

  183. resident dissident

    10 Mar, 2013 - 8:09 pm

    Jemand

    I’m sorry I don’t buy your argument – saying that there is a presumption of innocence is not the same as saying that someone has a right to avoid an appearance before the legal authorities – even if they exercise their right to remain silence. Otherwise – anyone could avoid helping the police/prosecuting authority with their enquires. The only person holding Assange incommunicado at present is Assange himself.

    Axel

    I’m glad you are not connected with Assange’s legal defence – would others be prepared to offer that assurance?
    Of course you are entitled to your view that the Swedish legal system is incapable of acting independently from the political system which in turn is not capable of operating independently from the US political system. This would of course be an argument that many others could employ to avoid prosecution whenever they could demonstrate a link to the US – I don’t think you have thought through the consequences of European legal systems of allowing such a defence e.g. who would define which cases qualify and which don’t? Would common assault/burglary/acts of terrorism against US targets in Europe in effect become crimes for which you could avoid arrest/questioning? I should also point out that many have pointed out that Assange’s situation vis-a-vis a prosecution from the US for his Wikileaks activity is little different whether or not he choses to face the music in Stockholm – and actually my guess is that it would be significantly strengthened if he were to go to Sweden and prove the accusations to be as baseless as you and his many supporters believe them to be.

  184. This was a reply to someone’s query on another thread but I’m reproducing it here as I know there are some readers who probably only read this thread. The article linked within it contains some useful statistics of a general nature, as well as a couple of comments specific to the Assange case.

    Ok, this article contains a goodly selection of statistics on the subject of false rape reports. As you will see, there is no conclusive answer on the matter but, before you object to the author’s comments regarding Assange’s case, please bear in mind that it was written on 23 August 2010, at which date the case against him had “been dismissed as groundless by the Swedish authorities, who are still investigating the charge of sexual assault, The Times reports today (p 25)”, as the article reports. I’m afraid there are no statistics compiled that directly relate to your query about the production of false physical evidence, as opposed to merely making false statements – a sign perhaps that this course of action is indeed very, very rare.

    http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-common

    However, one does not need statistics to point out the logical fallacy in your argument that genuine rape victims sometimes hand in false evidence to the police (and remember we are talking about false physical evidence here – a condom which has been manipulated to appear used and ‘torn’ but which, on forensic examination, contains no DNA whatsoever, not even the woman’s own DNA) – if the story you are telling is true, you do not need to fabricate evidence.

  185. Resident Dissident, 8.09pm

    many have pointed out that Assange’s situation vis-a-vis a prosecution from the US for his Wikileaks activity is little different whether or not he choses to face the music in Stockholm – and actually my guess is that it would be significantly strengthened if he were to go to Sweden

    Not if the Swedish government’s latest move – to expand their current laws regarding “foreign espionage” – are successful:

    http://www.expressen.se/debatt/krigsjournalistik-maste-fa-vara-fri/

    Even the Swedish MSM are extremely worried about this latest announcement and seem to see it as especially worrisome for journalists. Here’s Flashback’s full discussion of the implications for Assange of this new legal push, in which they set out chapter and verse with how it fits in with Sweden’s extradition laws:

    https://www.flashback.org/t1275257p4339

    You’ll have to use Google translate for both links – sorry about that – although perhaps either Axel or Duqu would be kind enough to provide us with a better English translation?

  186. Resi Dissi wrote:
    “Of course you are entitled to your view that the Swedish legal system is incapable of acting independently from the political system which in turn is not capable of operating independently from the US political system. This would of course be an argument that many others could employ to avoid prosecution whenever they could demonstrate a link to the US – I don’t think you have thought through the consequences of European legal systems of allowing such a defence…”

    Response: Thank you for allowing me to hold such a view. It is based on knowledge, rather than speculation. US exercised heavy pressure on Sweden in the weeks before the rape case exploded. The prime minister was asked on television of whether he was ready to resist such pressure. Let me also point out to you that Sweden was (and still is) brother-in-arms with the US and Britain in Afghanistan, a very controversial issue in the parliamentary election that took place in Sweden a couple of weeks after the sex allegations were made. The topic of Assange’s seminar in Stockholm was exactly on this issue: the afghan war. Its title: “the first casualty in war is truth”.

    I am only giving you this background (which I think you are unaware of) to make you understand that the political pressures surrounding the legal process were immense. They also provide the most logical way of explaining its many unexpected turns and twists.

  187. Duqu, 9 Mar 4.23pm

    More details on the demo:

    A one-off demonstration outside the Sweden embassy in London – 11 Montagu Place, London W1H 2AL – in support of Julian Assange, and to demand that he be questioned by the Swedish authorities here, will start from 3pm on Tuesday 19th March. (I expect it will last until at least 6pm to give some people a chance to come down after work – if they work in the city, that is.)

    Anyone who wants further details can email LonFoWL@outlook.com

    I’m going myself. It would be great if a couple of people from Flashback could come over to show that disgust at the way in which this investigation is being run is shared by Swedish people too. Please can you repost this notice in the forum? Many thanks.

  188. Thanks for your info – its out on Flashback as well, we got your or whoever it was -message there as well.
    Duqu

  189. A very clear explanation from Flashback of how what happened to the 25 July 2012 hand-delivered Ecuadorian offer to facilitate Assange’s interrogation at their embassy – and particularly Marianne Ny’s seeming exclusion from the Swedish response to that – shows that the UK Supreme Court’s decision that a Swedish prosecutor is an independent and “impartial judicial authority”, and not part of the executive, was completely and utterly wrong.

    https://www.flashback.org/sp42419603

  190. I thought I would copy these parts of a conversation on another thread to here, because they are so revealing of the kind of misunderstanding of Assange’s case in the UK (due principally to misreporting by the UK press):

    Yes, it’s very curious, isn’t it, that despite the fact that Marianne Ny’s EAW is dated 6 December 2010 she chose to submit to the UK court the unsigned version of SW’s statement (the one Irmeli Krans entered into the police computer system, as instructed “with the necessary changes”, on 26 August 2010). It was Bjorn Hurtig (might have been Claus Borgstrom too) who confirmed that a further statement was taken from SW on 2 September 2010 (which presumably she did sign) – and yet Ms Ny chose to present the earlier, unsigned version to the UK court. She would only confirm – not under oath, of course, because she didn’t attend the hearing herself – that the later, signed statement “said substantially the same thing”…

    Hmm. Nothing fishy about that, is there? It’s not as if 2 September to 6 December is a particularly long timescale for a prosecutor to get her court filings together, is it?

    CE

    “I strongly doubt that the kind of unsigned statement to which you refer would have been allowed to pass through numerous courts of law without objection.”

    CE,

    Wanna know how it happened?

    18 November 2010 – Swedish District Court looked at a one-page summary presented by Marianne Ny to grant the domestic arrest warrant she requested. The court hearing took 1 hour, 45 minutes.

    24 November 2010 – The Svea Court of Appeal refused to hear Assange’s appeal.

    February 2011 – Justice Howard Riddle at Belmarsh Magistrates Court granted the extradition appeal, based solely on the wording of the EAW warrant. See my comment above about it being the unsigned version of SW’s statement dated 26 August 2010 which was submitted as part of the prosecution file. If you wish, I will try to dig out a link confirming the quote from Marianne Ny I give above concerning her reasons for not using the later, signed statement from SW (although this was known to exist). Riddle made it clear in his judgment that under the terms of the EAW Framework Directive it was not within the requesting state’s remit to examine the “underlying evidence” so he did not look at any of it. Indeed, these are the rules of the EAW extradition process – under it the UK courts do not seek to establish whether there is a prima facie case to answer.

    July 2011 – Justices Thomas and Ouesley (spelling?) did look at the women’s statements during Assange’s High Court appeal but again, in accordance with the rules of the EAW Framework Directive, they were not allowed to take any of the underlying evidence into account in their decision. They were, in fact, concerned with only two issues: whether Assange was a ‘suspect’ or an ‘accused’ for the purposes of an EAW and whether an investigating prosecutor was a proper ‘judicial authority’ to issue an EAW.

    February 2012 – UK Supreme Court did not look at the case itself at all. They accepted to hear Assange appeal solely for the purposes of a point law of “great public importance” – the issue of whether an investigating prosecutor was a proper ‘judicial authority’ in accordance with the UK’s Extradition Act 2003. Astonishingly, this had never come up in an English court before so there were no prior legal authorities on the question, hence the Supreme Court felt it an urgent point of law to deliberate. They decided, scandalously in my view – and Craig’s, if you recall – that a Swedish case Chief Investigator/prosecutor is a suitably impartial judicial figure. Nonsense, of course, but there you have it. We can all be extradited at the whim of foreign policemen now thanks to the precedent the Supreme Court set with Assange’s case.

    So, you see, an unsigned witness statement managed to make it through five courts without a single peep from anyone. All totally legal and following the ‘proper’ processes. All boxes ticked and correct. A marvellous thing, our legal system, isn’t it?

    “that a Swedish case Chief Investigator/prosecutor is a suitably impartial judicial figure. Nonsense, of course, but there you have it. We can all be extradited at the whim of foreign policemen now thanks to the precedent the Supreme Court set with Assange’s case.”

    Rubbish Swedish prosecutors are not policemen – a simple search of Wikipedia or even an episode of Wallander would demonstrate that this is not the case. they are officers of the court employed by a separate prosecuting authority. Many European countries employ a similar system.

    Resident Dissident, 9.39am

    Rubbish Swedish prosecutors are not policemen – a simple search of Wikipedia or even an episode of Wallander would demonstrate that this is not the case

    But a better source might be the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s own website in English, where it is set out very clearly that Swedish prosecutors do indeed have a dual role: investigators of preliminary investigations (though the police are usually in sole charge of very minor offences) and/or prosecutors as the case moves from preliminary investigation to an actual prosecution:

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Preliminary-investigation/Police-or-prosecutor/

    The Swedish Prosecution Authority themselves admit this peculiar arrangement whereby the prosecutor is both policeman [therefore part of the State executive] and the judicial figure deciding on prosecution matters (there are only two European countries which have this prosecutorial dual role, Sweden being one of them) can lead to acccusations of a lack of impartiality in the Swedish judicial system. They have therefore built-in a legal obligation on prosecutors – called the Objectivity Demand – to take into account any evidence favourable to the suspect in their decision-making:

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Objectivity-demand/

    Of course, Assange’s supporters point out that Marianne Ny’s self-elected role as Chief Investigator on this particular preliminary investigation, in which the strongest of the allegations is labelled “[minor] rape less serious offence”, would ordinarily be left with the police, and her ‘overlooking’ of a forensic report showing no DNA on the condom evidence handed in by one of the complainants which she had in her possession at least three weeks before writing out an international arrest warrant for a suspect’s extradition does not meet either of these requirements of the Swedish judicial system.

    You are probably unaware of this Resident Dissident but there are a lot of clear miscarriages of justice in the Swedish system. Thomas Quick is currently the most famous example, but there are plenty of others.

  191. Here you go, Res Dis – some recent UK statistics on the prevailance of false rape allegations. Around 5 per cent, according to this BBC report:

    False rape claims ‘devastating’ say wrongly accused
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016808

  192. The view from Sweden…

    First, back in January 2011, on Marianne Ny’s dubious use of an EAW warrant:

    http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsmill.se%2Fartikel%2F2010%2F12%2F17%2Futl-mning-av-assange-svenskt-r-ttsv-sen-p-svartfisketur

    and, in July 2012, on the British government’s extraordinary invitation that the Swedish prosecutor could partake in her extradition case against Assange in London, not as a witness or to make statements under oath, but undercover:

    http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fnyheter%2Finrikes%2Faklagare-erbjods-tackmantel-i-london_7339304.svd

  193. The offer to Marianne Ny from the British Crown Prosecution Service to attend the British Court, disguised as a young law student, is hilarious. She is approaching 60 and must have been flattered.

    More seriously, where people not asked to show an ID when entering these proceedings. Or does the CPS provide false ID:s? :-)

  194. Axel,

    Rudling is suddenly quiet.

    I am not quiet. It is Craig Murray that thinks he can keep me out of this debate by blocking my IP address. Craig, the great defender of free speech, is using censorship again.

  195. Axel,

    Your comments makes me convinced you are as interested in the truth about the Assange case as Arbed, duqu, Jemand and the grand wizard of the Assange Klan, the coward Craig Murray (and some other mental midgets).

    Regarding Craig Murray’s false claim that Anna Ardin took Sofia Wilén across town to Klara Närpolisstation. A few weeks ago I told you that the best and nearest police station for the two women involved, one at Södersjukhuset and the other at Sveavägen 68, was Klara Närpolisstation. (Axel, it is the best and nearest police station for two heterosexual men too, can you believe it?) And it is the only choice considering that one of the women had to leave for Enköping by train after the visit. What is your response apart from saying “I have never seen that information before”? Nothing really.

    Let’s look at your argument. You think that the best and nearest police station is the one at Torkel Knutssongatan. In order for you to come to this conclusion you have to make the assumption that Anna Ardin was at her home before she went to the police. Is there anything in the official documents that support this assumption? No. Nothing. The truth is actually contrary to your assumption. Anna Ardin and Julian Assange have confirmed in their police statements that Anna was not at home during the hours prior to the visit to the police station. So your assumption is just as stupid as Craig Murray’s.

    Where was Anna prior to the visit to the police station? According to my sources she was at work. At Sveavägen 68. The police documents support she wasn’t at home. So your assumption is simply wrong. What do you do when your assumption is obviously false? You maintain your argument Craig Murray style. No matter what the facts are you just go on and on and on.

    Axel. Please. Just tell me if one person is at Södersjukhuset and another is at Sveavägen 68 and they have to meet before one of them is taking off for Enköping by train, where is the best place to meet?

    When you answer this question we can advance this discussion.

  196. Arbed,

    I wonder if this would tie in with the information by Not Anna, Axel and Vera above that Goran Rudling and Anna Ardin work together to influence and/or limit the way in which the Swedish case is discussed online and in social media?

    For you and your idiot friend Jemand. I am paid by many governments (UK, US, Iran, North Korea, Sweden, Japan, Norway, Andorra) and the Boy Scouts of Canada to discuss the case online.

Leave a Reply


two × = six

Comments will be closed on May 7, 2014.

Basic formatting: <strong>Bold</strong>   <em>Italics</em>  <blockquote>Indented/quoted</blockquote>  <a href="http://example.com/link">Link text</a>

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted by Expathos