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

1,961 Comments

  1. Wonderful that Arbed. I think the ho, ho, ho factor is worth republishing on this page.

    http://www.thelocal.se/42954/20120901

    I noticed yesterday that Saatchi appear to hosting some of Sofia Wilen’s photographs none of which are for sale. This could be the way they are rewarding her.

    http://www.saatchionline.com/sofialinnea

  2. And it is the same artist as this link confirms. The first photograph in the Saatchi collection is the last one in this.

    http://www.free-range.org.uk/cgi-bin/portfolio.pl?yearID=12&memberID=9949

  3. Anyway I blogged on Sofia Wilén.

  4. Thanks for the links, John. It looks like we can email Sofia at her hotmail account, as displayed in your free-range link. Although, I’m not sure how one would, should or could go about engaging with her. Maybe just put a rudely blunt question to her – “What in hell is going on?”

  5. Bob Carr not interested in Assange, Donation to Wikileaks Party Blocked -
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/assange-no-concern-of-ours-says-carr-20130606-2nt5t.html

  6. @jemand 7.58

    you wrote:It looks like we can email Sofia at her hotmail account, as displayed in your free-range link. Although, I’m not sure how one would, should or could go about engaging with her…

    response: Be polite. Ask her to save herself by coming out in an interview speaking the truth. And then visit Julian at the embassy.

    It is unlikely that you will succeed, but I see no better message to give her.

  7. Alex Gibney’s tendentious doco “We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks” isn’t doing all that well at the box office. I don’t think the dvd will do well either. What a shame.

    Gross to date : ~$93K, Budget unavailable
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=westealsecrets.htm

    From Wiki -
    Alexa O’Brien, the journalist who for her coverage of the Bradley Manning pre-trial was short listed for the 2013 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, reviewed the film. She wrote, “If We Steal Secrets or the subsequent Q & A with director, Alex Gibney, revealed anything, it’s that the filmmaker is quite uninformed about the trial of Bradley Manning. He can barely speak on the topic or on that of the largest criminal probe of a publisher and its source in history.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Steal_Secrets:_The_Story_of_WikiLeaks

    From movie’s facebook page, a comment -
    “Moral code? Its about the freedom of the press. You guys do realize Wikileaks is a legitimate news source and are currently the only organization with the balls to report the fucked up things governments do and get away with! Its for accountability.”

    https://www.facebook.com/WeStealSecrets
    . . . .

    @Axel – I don’t normally email strangers under such circumstances and wouldn’t know how to phrase my question above to Ms Wilen. And I guess we can’t know for sure if she set up this account.

  8. So, GCHQ is plugged into PRISM, eh?

    Well, that adds a certain something to this story from a couple of weeks back:

    Julian Assange reveals GCHQ messages discussing Swedish extradition:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/20/julian-assange-gchq-messages-extradition

    Not quite so easy to dismiss now as the gossip of a couple of office cleaners around the GCHQ water cooler.

  9. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/343183267215859712

    If I am reading this tweet correctly, Sofia Wilen’s lawyer – shared with the Swedish Prime Minister – has been co-ordinating directly with non-Swedish media in her recent statements about her client. These have included:

    1. That her client is a “victim” who is suffering deep pyschological damage as a result of an “extremely serious assault”.

    2. Confirmation that her client did indeed originally intend to report a rape to police, and was not therefore “railroaded” by anyone or merely seeking “advice” about HIV.

    3. Demands for political and diplomatic intervention from the Swedish government to bring pressure on the government of Ecuador to over-ride their decision to award political asylum to Julian Assange and force his extradition to Sweden for questioning.

    Given that in Sweden all plaintiff’s counsels are directly funded by the State, and given Elizabeth Massi Fritz’ close personal connection to the Swedish Prime Minister and his family, does this direct co-ordination with foreign media amount to a State-run PR campaign over (and political interference in) the preliminary stages of a criminal investigation?

    Answers, please.

  10. I should just note that point 2. above completely contradicts everything Sofia Wilen’s friends and work colleagues report in their witness statements to police that she told them at the time. In fact, her own witness statement says she had no idea she’d been the victim of a crime until she had spoken to her friends. Very odd then that instead of accepting a senior prosecutor’s decision that her testimony indicated “that no crime has been committed” she phoned Claes Borgstrom the same day Eva Finne closed the case and worked with him to get it re-opened…

    Hmm… how to square that circle? Completely influenced and “railroaded” by others vs not affected AT ALL by investigators’ assessments, mediation attempts by legal luminaries such as Gareth Pierce, Helena Kennedy and even the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, not to mention international public opinion about the very real threat of lifelong incarceration Julian Assange faces.

    What a Mixed-up, Muddled-up, Shook-up Girl our little Lola is…

  11. Julian Assange interview with CBS. His cool, calm and collected demeanour was not appreciated by the rude and overtly hostile panel of CBS journalist-wannabees.

    Julian Assange +1, American Corporate Media -1.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57588187/julian-assange-nsa-fbi-programs-amount-to-mass-spying-on-americans/

  12. Here’s a better one, Jemand – by AFP in the Ecuadorian embassy. Very short – only a couple of minutes – but an extremely clear message about the NSA/PRISM revelations and its connection with the precedent the US Govt is attempting in Bradley Manning’s trial:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZuAYiPArw

  13. Arbed, thanks for the link. I think this precedent that JA speaks of is an option the US Gov seeks in order to allow it to selectively prosecute publishers (fringe US and foreign media) that fall outside the well managed and compliant mainstream US media. Majors like the NY Times and Wash Post will always be safe, provided that they stick to sanitised versions of breaking stories.

  14. John, I cannot find your blog about Sofia. Link, please

  15. Thanks Abc for including the link. Actually if you click on the highlighted blue name under my photo it also brings up my blog. Arbed points out “all plaintiffs cases are funded by the state” but the question is, assume this was not political, would an ordinary Swedish woman have access to the prime minister’s family lawyer in a complaint against a non-celebrity who was accused but not charged with any offence? That is one other reason why this case can only ever be seen as political, and why the Ecuadorian embassy should never throw Julian Assange to the Swedish wolves before being transferred to their US vampire masters.

    As to her email address as a form of contact, I did consider it, as a journalist, to ask if she would do an interview. After some consideration I dismissed the idea as being impractical. Her legal team will have told her not to speak to anybody, particularly journalists. In fact that email address may no longer go directly to her. As Arbed points out her opinions at the time are considerably at odds with what Elisabeth Massi Fritz says they are now. Of course to have any credibility whatsoever they would need to be much stronger. Lawyers are not beyond putting words into a client’s mouth. The person to ask is Elisabeth Massi Fritz. But she won’t give us an answer.

  16. @Abc and John,
    Thanks for the links. I don’t know much about her previous clients. She does not only take rich people. But her cases are often high profile.

    http://www.advokatfritz.com/

    Good luck with trying to interview her. I am convinced she wants to be known internationally.

  17. Re: John Goss and Sofia Wilen.

    I read your blog just now, there is one error, when you are a victim of a rape-crime, the state sponsors you with a lawyer of your choice, but the lawyer must have a fixed fee in this matter. Further more , the prosecutor is in a way the victims laywer so an additional lawyer is usually just a talking head cashing in money on the taxpayers expense.

    But the info of http://www.saatchi.se/‎ was interesting and a good job from you.

    best regards¨
    Duqu

  18. Hi Duqu,

    Very best of luck in your endeavours, and thank you so much. I have been enjoying watching your ever-changing avatar. It is fascinating and I have not laughed so hard in ages – you naughty minx, you! ;)

    xx
    Arbed

  19. Julian Assange on ABC’s Lateline program talking about Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, Bob Carr, Wikileaks Party and Jemima Khan. Video about 20min.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-10/assanges-political-ambition/4744972

  20. Thanks Duqu, Axel et al, for correcting some of my misunderstandings.

    I have written to Elisabeth Massi Fritz today, to try and find out if she helped Sofia Wilen change her statement in an attempt to make it more convincing, or whether it was all Sofia’s own work. I asked a few other pertinent questions too.

  21. John, Very much looking forward to read about her reply here or in your blogg.

  22. Important interview with Ricardo Patino, in Spanish but significantly (I think) on the BBC World Service:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2013/06/130610_entrevista_canciller_de_ecuador_bd.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Ecuador’s new legal document that he’s going to present to the UK’s William Hague will apparently show that the EU Framework Directive governing EAWs does not allow an obligation to extradite (the UK’s current position) to top an obligation to protect an asylee’s human rights. Oh, and take-away quote: “it is an act of discrimination absolutely unacceptable” that Sweden refuses to take JA’s statement at the Ecuadorian embassy.

    You tell them, Ricardo!

  23. ASSANGE IN SWEDEN: KINDLE EDITION

    ‘Offering an opinion, without being familiar with the facts, is indefensible.’

    ‘What we wanted was an impartial work of reference for those researching the case, not only as it concerns Assange, but more importantly as it concerns Swedish jurisprudence. Offering an opinion in the matter without being familiar with the facts, all too common both on social media sites and with the mainstream press, is indefensible.’

    ‘So many things have come to light since this story broke. The idealistic view of Sweden simply doesn’t hold under closer scrutiny.’

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130611,00.shtml

  24. Hat-tip to Julian Assange… ;)

    I posted a link earlier [to another thread] about a 1997 NSA patent for “machine speech transcription” and this article seems to pull out what’s particularly significant about it:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130614,00.shtml

    The NSA patent was originally discovered by Julian Assange in 1999. The above article bears careful reading, especially by any US visitors to this blog, and especially in light of General Keith Alexander’s remarks in the Senate. He told them:

    “Intelligence officials have insisted agents do not listen in on Americans’ telephone conversations. And they maintain the internet communications surveillance programme, reportedly code-named Prism, targeted only non-Americans located outside the US.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22884566

    Yes, well he can just about get away with that porkie: Humans may not be listening to all voice calls at any one time, but the NSA machines are listening all the time.

    All the Patriot Act does is give them blanket authority for an NSA agent to intercept whoever they damn well please and don the headphones…

    And they’ve been doing it for at least 14 years.

    To clarify the above:

    It’s NOT just metadata, folks. The rolling warrant from the FISA court for Verizon records (and, presumably, every other US telecoms provider) may be for metadata but that’s in addition to what they’ve already been up to. The metadata, as this brilliant piece on Finding Paul Revere shows, is just another analysis tool in their arsenal, one that allows them to graph social relationships.

    Using Metadata to Find Paul Revere:
    http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

  25. Wilens new laywer Massi Fritz constructed 2 pressreleases, the 1st one is dated may 22, the 2nd is dated may 21, where the text has difference in the language of the charges agaisnt JA. A journo named Anna Sjögren constructed the pdf-file dated as may 21 that in reality was the 2nd issue, this is very close to forged docs. The full story at Flashback

  26. A full explanation of what happened with Wilens new laywer enclosed in English, cred to Rixstep:
    http://rixstep.com/1/20130614,01.shtml

  27. An important difference is that version 2, created June 4 (but ante-dated to May 21) does not contain the claim that it was Sofia who wanted to report a rape.

    @John. This could be something to ask Fritz about if you get any response from her.

  28. Thanks to Flashbackers above for the story of Wilen’s lawyer’s tricks with their press releases. Do you think this was done because they suddenly realised how damaging to Wilen’s case the first one was, ie. that it flatly contradicted her own previous testimony (also evidenced in the witness statements of her friends)?

    Meanwhile, sign and share (please):

    Avaaz petition: Interview Julian #Assange now! Sign the petition to the Swedish Director of Prosecutions
    https://twitter.com/SomersetBean/status/345325541454385154

  29. OMG, something might be happening at last on the Swedish side. Google translated from the Swedish Prosecution Authority website, a “progress update” dated 14 June 2013 (significantly, this is only on the Swedish version of the site and not its English version):

    Status report in Assangeärendet 2013-06-14A brief progress report will be given here due to it being a lot of questions about what is happening in Assangeärendet.On 14 June 2012, the UK Supreme Court, The Supreme Court decision that Julian Assange would be handed over to Sweden in accordance with the regulations of the European arrest warrant.To handover to Sweden to be executed is required in practice to Julian Assange surrenders to British police. According to the regulations of the European arrest warrant is the transferring State (Great Britain) to notify the receiving state (Sweden) where and when to be retrieved. This assumes that the person to be handed over is available to the transferring State. Julian Assange is inside the Ecuadorian Embassy beyond the reach of British authorities.From the Swedish prosecutor’s point of view has nothing happened in the case since the decision of The Supreme Court in June last year.The prospects for closing the fileUnder the Code, an investigation be closed when there is no need to complete it. The responsible prosecutor must continuously make such judgments. One reason to shut down a criminal investigation may be that the suspect escaped or otherwise disappeared, and that there is reason to believe that he will come back. In this case there is a decision to be handed Assange from the UK under the European Arrest Warrant. He therefore expected to come to Sweden.Why can not Assange questioned in Britain?One question that often comes is why the prosecutor can not interrogate Assange in Britain. The question has been answered before, see link in the right column.Responsible prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has previously stated that she does not give interviews while the case was going on in Britain. Since the process in the UK could not be completed, it is not possible to give interviews.

    http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Lagesrapport-i-Assangearendet/

    That’s the first time anything at all about closing a case has been mentioned.

  30. Arbed,

    I am pleasantly surprised that one of Oz’s conservative premiers has signed the Avaaz petition. Good for him.

  31. Arbed, have signed the Avaaz petition and posted to Facebook. When I get a minute, probably this afternoon, I’ll start sharing.

    Axel no response from Fritz and her five working days are up at about 10 a.m. tomorrow, after which plan B will be put into operation. Thanks for the further information.

  32. Duqu, Rixstep is so good. I see you get a mention too!

    Arbed, as regards NSA interceptions of communications of all descriptions, the UK is collecting the data of US citizens and the US collecting the data of UK citizens for 30 years. All governments put out misinformation all the time about what they are not doing, when they are, for example they have only recently admitted to killing US citizens abroad as covered in a recent piece I wrote.

    http://newsjunkiepost.com/2013/06/04/the-united-states-of-extra-judicial-murder-and-imprisonment/

    Bob Cryer, former MP for Keighley, and a former teacher of mine, was asking in the House of Commons in 1994 why we (the UK) have a US telephone-tapping station at Menwith Hill which has no parliamentary consent. He likened it to the pervert in a raincoat peeping in at the keyhole. 17 days later he was dead in a car accident. A rather convenient death don’t you think? Bob Cryer has gone but Menwith Hill is still there. There will be an annual protest on July 4th outside Menwith Hill, an “Independence from America Day” and I shall be there, not least to show my respect for Bob.

  33. John, Rixstep is good but sometimes they are too much in a hurry. They publish both statements by Massi Fritz here. But they mix up which was first and which was the second.
    http://rixstep.com/1/20130614,01.shtml

    The first released statement is the one to the right, containing the information that Sofia herself reported a rape. The statement to the left is released later (June 4th) and ante-dated to May 21st. The claim that Sofia herself reported to the police is gone in this version.

    Why is it gone in the second statement? Perhaps, and this is only my guess, this changed the perception of Sofia in many people’s eyes. Sofia herself might have objected.

  34. Axel, thanks for that comment. Sometimes we all behave impetuously in search of the truth. Before I read it I wrote to Ms Massi Fritz asking her to clarify which message was released by whom when. However, as she did not respond to my last email I publish it here first though I have let others have copies before.

    “Dear Ms Fritz

    As the legal representative of Sofia Wilen would you please be good enough to answer some questions about the how the Swedish legal system works with regard to this high-profile case? I notice you have been talking to the press a lot more than Claes Borgstrom ever did. As a journalist I welcome that.

    Has Sofia Wilen been advised to change her lawyer because it has been revealed that Borgstrom’s firm and Sweden’s ambassador to Australia, Mr Sven Olof Petersson, were implicated by having knowledge of the rendition and torture of Egyptians from Sweden Mr Ahmed Agiza and Mr Muhammed al-Zery? Through this revelation Mr Borgstrom has been discredited as much as his other client Anna Ardin with deleted tweets and her deleted blog about seven legal steps to revenge against men who dump their lovers. So I realise that Sofia is the only plaintiff with any degree of credibility.

    I, and many others, believe this case is more about politics, and how the United States wants to stop Wikileaks telling the truth, than a personal, and what should in fact be a private affair, between two lovers. Would your client not agree with that? Would you not agree with it?

    Before these allegations Julian Assange had been around for nearly 40 years without any charge of rape or sexual misdemeanour made against him, and then, like a number 11 bus in Birmingham where I live, two come along at once. Does that not appear to be something of a coincidence to you?

    The original police statement made by Sofia Wilen, the one she did not sign, is significantly different from what you say she is saying now. In the UK we had a Dr David Kelly (sadly dead now) who told the truth that our government had ‘sexed up’ a dossier on Saddam Hussein’s capability of having weapons of mass destruction in order to take us into an illegal war. The phrase ‘sexed up’ has as much to do with sex as the Swedish word for ‘rape’ appears have to do with rape (forceful and painful penetration without consent) and what the phrase actually means is that the dossier had been embellished to make a stronger case for war. Have you, Ms Fritz, embellished or advised Sofia Wilen to embellish her original statement to make a stronger case?

    If you have embellished the statement, or helped her do it, could not the stress you say she is under actually be caused by you?

    Has your client any idea who illegally leaked the ‘rape’ story to the press? Because that’s one of the reasons I believe this is political rather than personal.

    Why do you not come to the UK to interview Julian Assange about the allegations or at least guarantee that Sweden would not extradite Assange to the US? Then it would be over for both your client and for Mr Assange, who is also suffering.

    If you answer these questions please be assured I will publish your answers. If you don’t I will just publish the questions on their own. I will forward this email letter to a trusted friend and allow you five working days to respond.

    I thank you in anticipation of your keenness to share stories with the press.

    Yours sincerely,

    John Goss”

  35. I wish I could claim credit for this, but it was probably just a good prediction.

    http://www.technewsdaily.com/18368-wikileaks-film-flop-scores-on-bittorrent-sites.html

  36. Jemand, good news at the box-office, unless you invested in this tosh.

  37. John, yes. Jemima Khan will be terribly disappointed that she backed the wrong horse. Laura Poitras has a movie coming out later this year with Assange’s cooperaton. I hope we can get up some support for this film and that it succeeds for the film’s producers.

    Regarding your contact with Wilen’s lawyer, Massi Fritz, I trust you will keep her informed of the eroding support in the Anglosphere the prosecution has for their case against JA.

  38. Massi Fritz is going into politics – and she doesn´t care if SW gets burned, so whatever john Goss write´s, she don´t care.
    But if John Goss writes to the head of the swedish bar association, there´s another ballgame, try the following mail : Anne.Ramberg@advokatsamfundet.se she is the head of the bar association.
    http://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Advokatsamfundet/Kansli/ homepage
    She is forced to answer your mails.

  39. Anne Ramberg and Claes Borgström are not the best of friends. Borgström has demanded her resignation, because she is looking into his bad behaviour in the aftermath to the Quick affair. Anne Ramberg is a principled woman with high integrity. She has defended the idea that whistleblowers, such as Wikileaks, are important. Here:

    http://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Advokaten/Tidningsnummer/2011/Nr-1-2011-Argang-77/Sta-upp-for-det-fria-ordet/

  40. I agree Axel, Anne Ramberg seems a principled lawyer. I hope she brings down Borgström who will hopefully one day be judged on the company he keeps.

  41. you’re in point of fact a excellent webmaster. The web site loading speed is incredible. It seems that you’re doing
    any unique trick. Also, The contents are masterpiece.

    you’ve performed a great activity in this matter!

  42. Hi there this is kinda of off topic but I was wondering
    if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with
    HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding skills so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience. Any help would be enormously appreciated!

  43. Here’s a bit of confirmation that indicates the Wikileaks Grand Jury is set on “conspiracy to commit espionage” charges (probably already in a sealed indictment):

    This article is about the recently unsealed subpoenas for the Gmail accounts of Smari McCarthy and Herbert Snorrson:

    http://mashable.com/2013/06/22/google-wikileaks/

    Key quote from the article: “The information seized is a vast trove of metadata going as far back as Nov. 1, 2009.” – That date is the one that US prosecutors in Bradley Manning’s trial have insisted on for the Garani video being sent to Wikileaks (despite clear evidence to the contrary that Bradley sent it in April 2010), because otherwise they can’t say Wikileaks’ tweet of 8 January 2010 about their receipt of an Afghani airstrike amounts to evidence of a conspiracy.

  44. Hey there are using WordPress for your site platform? I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying to
    get started and create my own. Do you need any html coding expertise to make
    your own blog? Any help would be really appreciated!

  45. My family every time say that I am killing my time here at web, except I know I am getting experience
    all the time by reading such good content.

  46. My letters to Elisabeth Massi Fritz to which I got no reply were published on the Professors Blogg with my rationale for writing them.

    http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/letter-to-new-legal-representative-of.html

    Can the mods please have a look at some of the spam comments. Thanks.

  47. Good letters, John – Flashback have had quite a lot to say about them. All good stuff – it’s made them wonder again at what point the Swedish Ombudsman and their Bar Association will finally be able to conduct a decent investigation of wrongdoing during the course of this investigation.

    Slightly O/T, but still connected. I was struck by these comments by White House press spokesman Jay Carney on Edward Snowden’s escape from their clutches in Hong Kong:

    Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, was sharply critical of Hong Kong’s decision to allow Snowden to leave. He said the administration did not believe the explanation that it was a “technical” decision by Hong Kong immigration authorities. “The Hong Kong authorities were advised of the status of Mr Snowden’s travel documents in plenty of time to have prohibited his travel as appropriate. We do not buy the suggestion that China could not have taken action.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/us-urges-russia-edward-snowden-pursuit

    Contrast that with Marianne Ny’s secret 27 September 2010 arrest warrant for Julian Assange, which was issued by her at 2.45pm on that day (without informing Assange’s lawyers of its existence until 30 September) but which still failed to prevent him from boarding his flight for Berlin (for a pre-arranged meeting with Der Spiegel journalists), which took off at 5.20pm that same afternoon.

    I have always believed that that arrest warrant was something of a legal fig leaf, and was in fact accompanied by some form of instruction to border control – “do not detain” – in order to enable a situation whereby the Swedish authorities could resort to the far heavier detainment provisions of Interpol warrants designed for “fugitives” and extradition orders, because she simply didn’t have a case to warrant his detention in Sweden if she had interviewed while he was still there and learned nothing new from that interview.

  48. Am currently watching “We Steal Secrets”.

  49. Arbed, you make some very good points, especially the Snowden/Assange arrest warrant comparisons. If there is an arrest warrant for someone all the airports are notified. There is no way Assange could have got past check-in if they really wanted him. Like you say it’s a fig-leaf. My guess is that they did not want to arrest Assange because they did not have a case against him. I believe they do not have a case against him now, and never have had.

    Snowden though is a slightly different whistle-blower and up to now the ‘dirty tricks’ brigade have not been able to set him up in any kind of trap because they were not expecting his revelation, which must have come as quite a shock to them. They will stop his money.

    I think the Russians will help him. He is a bright young man who I assume must have made some contingency plan (like safe-storage of his data-pool) before embarking on this life-changing decision to reveal the pure evil of US foreign and internal policy to spy on the general populace of all countries. Hopefully Snowden can evade the Feds and find safe-haven in Ecuador, or some other decent country.

  50. Almost straight after I wrote the above comment I came across this. I must be psychic.

    http://rt.com/usa/snowden-greenwald-encrypted-copies-227/

  51. Hi John,

    From that RT article you linked:

    “When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”

    You’re aware, I assume, that Assange had three laptops stolen from his luggage on that flight from Arlanda airport on 27 September 2010? How very deja vu all this stuff going on around the US attempts to nab Snowden must seem to Assange, eh? Like I said, I’m sure the figleaf arrest warrant that day came with other instructions attached – maybe not just “do not detain”…

  52. WikiLeaks Volunteer, Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson, Was a Paid Informant for the FBI:
    “Thordarson was long time volunteer for WikiLeaks with direct access to Assange and a key position as an organizer in the group. With his cold war-style embassy walk-in, he became something else: the first known FBI informant inside WikiLeaks. For the next three months, Thordarson served two masters, working for the secret-spilling website and simultaneously spilling its secrets to the U.S. government in exchange, he says, for a total of about $5,000. The FBI flew him internationally four times for debriefings, including one trip to Washington D.C., and on the last meeting obtained from Thordarson eight hard drives packed with chat logs, video and other data from WikiLeaks.”

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/wikileaks-mole/

  53. Arbed, yes I was aware of Assange’s laptops being stolen. Hopefully all the data was so well password protected and encrypted that they got nothing from the theft. Only the USA and its proxy (I almost wrote poxey) partners are guilty of any crime in the Assange and Snowden cases.

    Abc, thanks. I saw that about Thordason. You can’t trust anyone these days. To be a whistle-blower by exposing the truth is one thing. To be a traitor by exposing those who tell the truth sinks below the cesspit water-line.

  54. @arbed.
    Good point about the secret Sept 27 2010 arrest of Julian Assange. He left Stockholm for Berlin three hours after the arrest was issued. He was not stopped at the airport, and his laptops were stolen on the journey, presumably already at Arlanda airport in Stockholm.

    A strong indication that there is something fishy going on, is that the Swedish Prosecutor, Åklagarmyndigheten, still does not publish the date of the arrest in September. In their chronology exact dates are given for most, if not all events. But for the arrest order it is only given as “September”. See here:

    http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Assangearendet/Kronologi-i-Assangearendet/

  55. It’s an interesting development, this withdrawal of travel documents issued by Ecuador to Snowden ostensibly because of a perceived usurping of the process by Assange. They have stated that he needs to be on Ecuadorean soil to apply for asylum. It comes after intense US pressure threatening the suspension of trade preferences benefitting Ecuador. 

    Now I read that Russia will decide where Snowden is to travel. It seems to me that Russia wants to relieve Ecuador of some the ‘diplomatic’ pressure. We shouldn’t expect this matter to unfold any faster than the time both Russia and Ecuador need to assess their options, all compliant with international law and conventions, to avoid a runaway diplomatic rift with the US. In monetary terms alone, these rifts can be costly.

    For each of them, this is a public relations opportunity playing out on the world stage. The US is now being seen as an oppressor of people, its beacon of “Freedom and Democracy” dimming with each scandal and its inspirational calls to dissident struggles in oppressive countries sounding ever more hollow.

    Whatever secrets Snowden has revealed, Russia would certainly have already been aware of most of them. So it is unlikely to be interested in much, if any, of Snowden’s ‘secrets’. More valuable, by far, is the slow torture of the contrived image of American liberty, moral superiority and good international citizenship. Defanging the US will make diplomatic negotiations somewhat easier in respect of the outstanding bilateral issues between the US and Russia.

    What happens next? Nothing. It’s a waiting game. Snowden will stay at a hotel in the airport, taking advice from Wikileaks. Wikileaks will reveal more US secrets. Russia will drag the process out for as long as it tortures the US. Ecuador will patiently consult all stakeholders with a view to doing the right thing under international law and enjoy its raised profile in Latin America and around the world.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/snowden-hiding-in-a-moscow-airport-hotel.html

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/russia-to-decide-fate-of-fugitive-snowden/story-e6frg6so-1226672117053

  56. I have just given thought to the possibility that the reported unauthorised issuance and subsequent withdrawl of travel documents to Snowden was contrived to allow him to exit Hong Kong for travel to a safe port. The withdrawal of the documents relieves Ecuador from pressure to act on something over which they no longer have any control, and Russia from obligations to compel Snowden to leave the country – although he is not *formally* in Russia.

    Quite clever, I think. 

  57. This is the first article I think I’ve seen which reproduces in English a key page of evidence from the forensic report in the Swedish police protocol:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130630,00.shtml

    Has an excellent video of an interview with Julian Assange by Swedish channel stv back in September 2010 in which he directly addresses the allegations.

    As regards the rather startling evidence regarding what Sofia Wilen really told police, and the fragment of condom with Assange’s DNA on it “found” and sent to the forensics lab, two things which seem significant in relation to it. 1. Sofia Wilen was interviewed again by police on the day after Mats Gehlin made the notes on the forensic file (25 October 2010) that Rixstep reproduces:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130328,00.shtml
    (note: wherever this article refers to “Ardin”, substitute “Wilen”; it was written before anyone had figured out that it was Wilen who elected to (urgently) change counsel. Wilen = Complainant A on Claes Borgstrom’s final invoice.)

    and 2. the day after that – so, 27 October 2010 – Mats Gehlin interviewed the last of Sofia Wilen’s witness friends, Marie Thorne:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,03.shtml

    It is extremely important to note that Mats Gehlin focuses a great deal on the content of SMS text messages between Sofia Wilen and Marie Thorne.

    I do not know whether these particular messages – SW to/from MT – are part of the trove of approx. 100 said to be between SW, AA and Julian Assange which are still being withheld by prosecutor Marianne Ny, and which she refused Bjorn Hurtig to even make copies of. He has said these 100 are extremely strong exculpatory evidence. However, the SW/MT texts are not part of the protocol leaked at the end of January 2011, and I don’t believe they’ve made available to Assange’s defence team either.

    Final point. Look at the sentence highlighted in bold in the transcript of Marie Thorne’s witness testimony:

    The chief interrogator asked about the SMS message when I wrote that they have to figure out a good plan of revenge.

    I wonder if that was the whole purpose of Mats Gehlin phoning this particular witness on that day, reflecting his thought processes as he noted down what he already knew about Sofia Wilen’s condom evidence on the forensic report that he had only just received back with its surprising discovery that Anna Ardin’s condom evidence had no DNA on it at all and therefore appeared to be fake?

  58. Blimey, just as I was saying that article in my last post was the first time I’d seen the forensics report in English, look what I’ve found now:

    Assange in Sweden: The Lab Results:
    http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/07/01/the-lab-results/

    There’s a lot to look into in this document. Here’s the three things that leap out at me:

    1. In my reading of these English translations, it is clear the scientists had a high degree of confidence (Grade +2 is explained as The possibility of achieving these results if another hypothesis is true is assessed to be small) that their results for both Anna Ardin’s “torn” condom (the image that’s about 90mm long) and the fragment from Sofia Wilen (the image that’s about 40mm long) their conclusion is that the damage in both pieces of “evidence” match their test “tears” by “ripping” rather than by knife or scissors.

    Verrrry interesting then that in the kabuki theatre section of the UK High Court’s judgment in Assange’s unsuccessful extradition appeal where the judges attempt to show they have considered the underlying evidence in the case (although EAW law forbids them from taking any of it into consideration, so why bother?), paragraph 94 has them clearly state that the forensic report they have looked at indicates the tear in the condom was “caused by wear and tear”:

    “The evidence in the file showed that the condom was examined by the Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Science. The conclusion of the expert was that there was nothing to indicate that a tool had been used, but that the damage to the condom was created by the wear and tear of the condom”

    Overlooked evidence in the Assange trial:
    http://wlcentral.org/node/2325

    Hmmm. Oh well, as if I didn’t already know the UK courts were corrupted in this case…

    2. The forensic report states: “Vaginal swabs from complainant 1 [Wilén] had DNA from complainant 1 and a man.” – How likely is it that DNA from Julian Assange would still be present if these swabs were taken when Sofia Wilen was at the hospital on Friday, 20th August just before going to the police station with Anna Ardin? Perhaps then these swabs are from the earlier hospital visit Sofia Wilen made on 17 August? Perhaps that’s why Wilen went to that first hospital in the first place? Because that was before she had really spoken to many of her friends (a close reading of all their statements indicate most of them only heard about Sofia’s allegations against Assange on 18 August, or later) – yet she blamed “talking with friends” in her formal statement for having convinced her that she had been the victim of a crime. Perhaps the true purpose of the 17 August visit to a hospital – not a local one, mind, but one two hours’ journey away that had a specialised rape clinic – was to get a good sample preserved while she set about setting up the rest of her plan (phoning AA, phoning other friends with a tale of HIV phobia, calling Seth, etc)?

    3. The other thing is this: “Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.” – So this does not relate at all to the morning incident after shopping and breakfast, when it would certainly have been daylight, and which is supposedly – according to her formal statement to Irmeli Krans – the only incident of sex that Sofia Wilen was troubled by, Assange not having a condom on when she was not quite fully awake.

  59. @arbed.
    Your point three is a good observation. The balloon sound condome episode has nothing to do with the alleged “rape”, since the “rape” event was a condom-less event. The latter took place just before nine in the morning when it would have been broad daylight in Sweden (On August the 17th the sun would have risen well before 6 in the morning.)

    The darkness event, the balloon sound event, is another event entirely. It is not mentioned by Sofia when she was formally questioned. I can only guess that Gehlin (and Wilen?) was trying to create another point of accusation against Assange. It would perhaps explain why Gehlin interviewed Sofia immediately after the forensic lab report of October 25th. To get confirmation about the balloon sound…? Fishy.

  60. Johan Cruisburgen

    1 Jul, 2013 - 10:26 pm

    Does anyone find Anna very attractive? IMO she is, and much more than Sofia. Question why would man with good taste swap nice sexy lady for somehow dull Sofia? Anna was jealous clearly, she enjoyed Assange as mucj as humanly possible, but not his betray. Sofia is totally boring creature. Craig don’t you think so? wouldn’t you mind to rock a bed with Anna?

  61. Jemand “Russia will drag the process out for as long as it tortures the US.”

    Made me laugh, I know I should’t.

    Arbed, I agree with Axel, point three is a very astute observation. What has a condom that might have DNA on it, which might even be Julian Assange’s DNA, have anything to do with an alleged rape that allegedly took place without a condom? If I was Elisabeth Massi Fritz I’d get out now.

    My own theory, and it has been for some time, is that Anna Ardin did actually keep a condom (why would anybody other than an agent who wanted somebody’s DNA keep a condom?) and then passed this on to the Swedish (or US – same thing) secret services.

    I am not an expert in condom technology but my experience is that they are, were even in my day, pretty robust things. Yes, they did burst occasionally. But very rarely. Here is a confession. I have tried (not recently) to tear a condom. The rubber is stronger than in balloons, and lubricated. It is not something that would enter my mind in the course of a new relationship. But we are all different.

    Anna Ardin, if my memory serves, said she heard what sounded like the deliberate tear of a condom. Even in one’s prime it is hard to imagine that by concentrating on trying to tear a condom the aim of the main objective might be lost. My further theory is that Anna probably supplied SS forensics with a condom containing JA’s sperm. They probably don’t know what to do with this any more as it’s not much use to them at all.

    Perhaps Sofia is innocent in this, though I have never been convinced she is. I hope she proves me wrong. What she needs to do is show it is a political plot by stating to somebody that she is being coerced into testifying against Julian Assange. If she contacts me I would be happy to run her side of the story. After all relationships, even short ones, have two sides to them, but short relationships that last but a few days are and do not work out are generally put down to experience by most of us.

  62. Hi John,

    No, I’m sorry but you have it all backwards, I’m afraid. The only comment about sound in Anna Ardin’s statement is: “From the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange had removed the condom”. She did, of course, fake a completely DNA-free “torn” condom, but that has nothing to do with the other condom fragment supplied by Sofia – along with the report of “pulling balloon sounds” she heard in the dark (so therefore claims she could not see Assange actually damage a condom) – which does contain Assange’s DNA.

    I think many people have been fooled by the reports of others that Ms Wilen is somehow “dumb” or “not all there” and a wish to see her as the vulnerable, “used” party. However, the most logical conclusion from the evidence given by Mats Gehlin on this forensic report is that she was the instigator of the whole thing, telling a story – and producing a condom fragment the lab found had clearly been deliberately torn – of “rape” by deliberately damaged condoms. No doubt, as it was she who contacted Anna Ardin and not the other way round, she found some way to rope Ardin into the scheme, and accompany her to the police station to lend credence to the report with her own tall tale of deliberately broken (DNA-free) condoms.

  63. PS. In other words, this story of “not notic[ing] that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom” is the one that Sofia Wilen told Linda Wassgren, the first policewoman the women spoke to when they first arrived at Klara station, with Anna Ardin chipping in “I believe Sofia is telling the truth because a similar thing happened to me”. This, Anna told Donald Bostrum – and he quotes her verbatim – was the KEY sentence which changed their inital “enquiry for advice” (if you believe that) into a formal complaint. Hence, Linda Wassgren made the phone calls which led to an arrest warrant for “double rape” being issued.

    Then Anna Ardin left the police station to go off partying and Sofia Wilen went into her formal interview with Irmeli Krans, in which she changed her story entirely to “soften” her allegations to the point of non-existence, for one of two possible reasons I can think of: to avoid any potential liability for making false allegations (punishable by two years in prison), or – if you are conspiratorially minded – to make any resulting case or charges so weak as to be easily dropped further down the line in favour of a US extradition request.

  64. John Goss, condoms do break through normal use and I can vouch for that having happened several times. I think it is interesting that the two complainants never even claimed to raise the subject of hearing condoms being manually torn and subsequently discovering them to have been torn, with Assange after sex. Surely if they *insisted* on condoms being used, then *definitely* heard rubber tearing, then *discovering* that the condoms tore, they would have formed the idea at the time of the event that Assange tore the condoms manually. 

    Why did they not complain to him or otherwise raise questions about their suspicions of him deliberately tearing condoms? Ardin is evidently no shrinking violet, so I find her failure to clarify the matter with Assange, especially when there was some expectation of continued sexual relations, rather suspicious.
    . . . .

    Arbed’s last paragraph in last comment seems quite plausible. 

    To think we all (except for maybe Arbed) thought that Sofia Wilen was some kind of ingenue dragged into a storm of politics, sex and intrigue.
    . . . . 

    After seeing “We Steal Secrets”, I am completely unimpressed with Anna Ardin. I have no kind words for her on this blog. Her presentation in the film is one of determined vindictiveness. The film wasn’t as bad on Assange as I expected it to be, although it was clearly unsympathetic and reluctant to grant any benefit of doubt to him, especially in relation to a discredited account of a conversation regarding the redaction of the names of US informants.

    The opening title screen shows a graphic of Manning and Assange with the words “We Steal Secrets”. It’s only much later into the film that we hear the words being spoken by former Director of the NSA, General Michael V. Hayden.

    James Ball struck me as being the kind of person that others accuse Assange of being – smug, attention seeking, untrustworthy etc. Adrian Lamo presented like a mental patient on medication. I originally despised him but now sympathise a little – he’s a bit of a basket case. Bradley Manning is depicted as a mentally unstable transvestite.

    Gibney claimed that the chat text in the film, between Manning and Lamo, was a significant omission from the leaked version of the transcript. I can safely say that while the chat text is interesting, it does not change the tone of the leaked transcript and that criticisms of the film are perfectly valid without the chat text.

    I am looking forward to the Wikileaks authorised documentary later this year.

  65. Hi Arbed, Jemand et al

    It seems I could have put my theory better because it has been misunderstood. In essence it is this. Nobody would save a condom. Would they? But Anna Ardin told police she might have the one Assange allegedly used. Yes she did take a condom with no DNA into the police station but that is not the one I had in mind. My theory is that because her own claim of rape was beginning to look flimsy, or because of her known work with Swedish embassies abroad, the authorities ‘found’ a condom under Sofia Wilen’s bed (if I recall correctly) and if my speculation is correct that this was the one that agent Ardin supplied the secret-services with, which did actually contain Assange’s DNA. An agent would certainly save a target’s DNA to use against that target then or even refrigerated and used in the future to discredit the target.

    Of course this does not fit in with the ‘not using a condom’ claim of rape, as Arbed points out, and only really sets out to establish that Assange had sex with Wilen, which he has never denied. It is only speculation. I do not trust Anna (agent) Ardin one little bit. But the strangest thing to my mind is what it is with Swedes that they do not dispose of used condoms. I find this unhygienic and almost unbelievable but every time I see a condom when out walking the dogs I think of the bedrooms of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen, which are probably cluttered with the things, and reminds me of the unusual Swedish habit of keeping condoms for days on end, if not weeks.

  66. This is from Rixstep’s translation of Anna’s statement.

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

    And Wilen’s alleged statement;

    “She’d earlier got the condoms and put them on the floor by the bed. He reluctantly agreed to use a condom even if he muttered something about preferring her to latex.”

    and

    “They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he’d put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked ‘are you wearing anything’ and he answered ‘you’. She told him ‘you better not have HIV’ and he replied ‘of course not’. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn’t be bothered telling him again. She’d been nagging about condoms all night long. She’s never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn’t say when he’d done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards.”

    No mention of a tear. So why a fragment and not the whole thing?

  67. Hi John,

    “An agent would certainly save a target’s DNA to use against that target then or even refrigerated and used in the future to discredit the target.”

    Yes, and why could this not also apply to Wilen? She is the one, after all, who lives within walking distance of the Swedish military’s Psyops headquarters in Enkoping, and who claims to have bumped into her brother at 8am while waiting for her local shop to open (an equal distance from her flat to that of the HQ) although he lives the other side of town. This, of course, is shortly before her claimed time-sequence of phoning/texting several friends, getting a lift home with her brother, eating breakfast, serving breakfast in bed to Assange, talking, taking off clothes, having sex with half-on condom, falling asleep and then waking at 9am to the non-protected penetration attempt. Do you find that time-sequence at all plausible? (Not to mention this whole other story about hearing a condom break in the dark – which has to make it at least before 5am, I’d say) and a fragment of condom with Assange’s DNA on it being found under her bed which she has apparently told police at some point. Look again at that forensics report. They did not test the hypothesis “old or partially perished condom splits”; they tested three scenarios: cut with knife, cut with scissors, and “ripped at the back part”. Their finding is definitely that Sofia Wilen’s condom fragment (with Assange’s DNA on it, remember) was deliberately “ripped”.)

    “So, why a fragment and not the whole thing?”

    Now you’re asking the right questions!!

  68. “Why a fragment and not the whole thing”?

    The only reason I can think of is to fit into the story that both women had the same experience. If the torn condom from Sofa had actually been torn before use, it would hardly have been able to survive in that shape. Therefore it is likely that we see one torn condom which was never used (Anna) and another one which was torn after use (Sofia).

    The surprising and unhygienic habit of keeping a used condom a week or so is absolutely not typical of Swedes. Most people would dispose of immediately. Which add to the oddity of the whole thing.

  69. “The only reason I can think of is to fit into the story that both women had the same experience.”

    Axel, you have no idea how much your post is music to my ears. I have been trying to get people to realise the significance of the information on the forensic file about the “pulling on a balloon” story for months and months.

    Are you a Flashbacker, by any chance? I’m not, but I would dearly love for my posts of 1st July, 3.54pm and 7.53pm (complete with their bolding, so people don’t miss it) to get in there, for them to chew over…

  70. Re: Arbed and posts at Flashback.
    Done !

  71. Wow! Arbed I must apologise. I did not read your included links until now after the comments you wanted posting on Flashback which Duqu kindly obliged and then I went back to them. I thought what is Arbed going on about? I don’t remember reading anything about Sofia hearing “pulling balloon sounds” and one of the Rixstep links I clicked on I had already read. So apologies for missing these great links and let me congratulate you on a great piece of detective work, especially the lab results. Now everything is starting to make sense.

    This is great news! If I were Sofia Wilen, or Anna Ardin, I would pull out now from this case. But my understanding is that a prosecution in Sweden can go ahead regardless of whether the complainant or complainants want it or not. Can people refuse to testify in Sweden? If it was the USA there would be the fifth amendment they could take.

    One thing that occurs to me now, is because of Edward Snowden’s revelations, which most of us who are abreast of the activities of the secret services worldwide knew about anyway, however most ordinary people do not know about them and it will not sit easily on the consciences of the general Swedish public to know that the US has been intercepting all their electronic communications for at least 20 years. This is something that needs ramming home in the case of Julian Assange, in my opinion.

  72. Axel, I’m sure most Swedes, if not all Swedes except agents, dispose of their condoms straight away, as we do in England, or in my case used to do. And my facetious comment was not an attack on Swedes but an attempt to show just how ludicrous this whole affair is.

    Although not a Catholic myself here now is a confession. In my forties I wrote comedies to detract from the boring life of being a technical author, a profession which Adam Osborne, inventor of the first personal computer, described as “the armpit of the industry”. The first lay “Something Fishy” was produced at the Midlands Arts Centre (1997), and its sequel “Ice Cold in Alaska” at the Australian Bar (1998). Both plays, with the same cast of three (a married couple and Uncle Tom) are quite involved in condoms, since Uncle Tom made his wealth from the manufacture of condoms.

    “Ice Cold in Alaska” has the three of them rehearsing at home a play within a play. (Don’t know where I got that idea from). Anyway set in a gold-mining town of Alaska the plot has Vivien (played by Tom’s wife Helen) prostituting herself without his approval for gold soldiers to the townsfolk of Caribou. The gold soldiers are moulded by the blacksmith of the town. To produce the gold soldiers for the play we used ‘Plaster of Paris’ moulded in condoms, which were painted gold when they dried. Oh. it’s a wonderful comedy. Believe me.

    http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsG/goss-john.html#47653

    Don’t know why I shared this tangential information except all this condom business is nonsense when a man’s freedom has been taken from him by vindictive people, and sometime a little levity helps, together with a near finished bottle of French Cabernet-Syrah which is going down rather well.

  73. Interesting tweet yesterday:

    @georgegalloway

    US led conspiracy against Assange/Snowden/progressive leaders in Latin America being unmasked layer by layer. Which side are you on?

    https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/352610666948984832

    Come on George, release those SMS you have! It’s time. You know you want to…

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

    Watch, 25-minute mark in.

  74. @arbed.
    He is actually saying that he has got those text messages, at least part of them. I wasn’t quite aware of that. I believe that the publication of all, or part of them, would change the ball game, at least the Sweden part of it. What’s stopping him?

  75. Hi Axel,

    Who knows what’s been stopping him? Waiting for the most opportune moment, politically? A sourcing issue? Or perhaps – this is an assumption on my part – Galloway doesn’t speak Swedish, presumably, so maybe he has English translations of them – less valuable as evidence than the originals; people could accuse that they are fakes? Still, it would then be very interesting to see who exactly did that accusing, and how they claim to know what the originals say, wouldn’t you agree?

  76. PS:

    To Duqu, and other at Flashback – thank you so much for reposting my posts of 1st July, 3.54pm and 7.53pm into Flashback. It is SO frustrating that nobody looked at them because they were hidden in spoilers – especially as the forum WAS particularly interested in the Sofia Wilen 17 August 2010 timeline when they were reposted in Flashback. It could have kicked off a good discussion, particularly as I had highlighted in bold:

    “Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.” – So this does not relate at all to the morning incident after shopping and breakfast, when it would certainly have been daylight, and which is supposedly – according to her formal statement to Irmeli Krans – the only incident of sex that Sofia Wilen was troubled by, Assange not having a condom on when she was not quite fully awake.

    The only thing that happened was 84,000 posts from the troll moderator Carlito to knock the forum off-track again. It occurs to me that perhaps the troll was the only one who bothered to open the spoiler view and read my posts…

    Can we try again please? Without putting these posts in spoilers, and also reproducing the highlighting that I’ve put in? – I’ve found over the months that no one seems to pick up on what I’m telling them, what’s there in black and white in front of their eyes if only they could see, unless I really spell it out for them:

    Rixstep 26/4/13: Something has to explain…
    http://rixstep.com/1/20130426,00.shtml

    (What Rixstep reproduces there is written by me, by the way – he must have picked it up from here in Craig’s blog.)

  77. Done it again, this time, I added a lot of court docs and other info just to knock the thread back on track again.

  78. Bless you, Duqu. Hopefully, it’ll get some response this time.

  79. Arbed and Duqu. You are both doing a very good job.

    Arbed at 5.32 pm on the glorious 4th of July. Do you know how long the reports now available in English were available in Swedish first? I ask just in case some of the Flashbackers are already aware. But I suspect what you say is the proper cause, troll intervention. I’m not on Flashback. But I think I can read some of the messages and even understand those in English.

  80. Another issue that comes to mind is that, as the Overlooked Evidence in the Assange Trial article linked above makes clear, not only did the Swedish prosecutor have the Lab Report to hand which clearly indicates faked evidence from one woman (Ardin’s DNA-free “used” condom) and that the other woman has told different stories at different times but so did the UK High Court judges.

    http://wlcentral.org/node/2325

    For them to make their (false) remarks that the lab tests indicated the damage to Wilen’s and Ardin’s condom “evidence” was “created by wear and tear of the condom” they have to have seen English translations of the Lab Report in the first place. Yet they studiously ignore its most obvious finding:

    The condom from the residence of complainant 2 [Ardin] had no traces of DNA.

    Now, this quote is from Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensic report, which we know he wrote there on 20 October 2010 at 3.08pm (timestamped) after a phone call to the lab. When the actual report comes through on 25 October 2010, it seems he set about making further enquires, in this order:

    1. Re-interviews Sofia Wilen the next day (and possibly Ardin too, but we don’t know about that as Ardin is still with Claes Borgstrom as her ‘plaintiff’s counsel’ – we therefore don’t yet have a final invoice listing dates of her police interviews from him).

    2. Interviews the last of Sofia Wilen’s witness friends, Marie Thorn, the day after that, focusing particularly on SMS text messages about Wilen’s motives – revenge, making money from selling the story, that Wilen had been contacted by an American newspaper, etc.

    3. Phones back the lab to speak to another technician about any possible reasons why there would be a finding of no DNA on a used condom. The reasons listed in his notes dated 28 October 2010 sound highly implausible from a scientific perspective, so there may have been some misunderstanding here.

    The Lab Report mentions that the actual DNA results themselves were sent under separate cover, and these are not in the police protocol leaked in January 2011. As what leaked at that time was the police protocol that had been sent to Assange’s defence team – and therefore the one seen by the UK courts (District and High Court) – maybe we can conclude that the UK High Court judges did not mention the lack of DNA on Ardin’s condom because the DNA results were deliberately withheld from the UK courts by Marianne Ny in her zeal to win an extradition that she knew EU law did not allow, and would in any case fail if any judge worth his salt took one look at the forensic evidence she had.

    Corruption of the highest order. Marianne Ny could probably by prosecuted in the UK for perjury or malicious prosecution.

  81. Hi John,

    The lab results – at least the part of them now in English (the actual DNA results were sent under different cover, and not leaked) – have been available in Swedish for a long time. That Overlooked Evidence in Assange Trial article (which includes a pdf of the full Swedish police protocol, including the pages about the forensics) was written back in November 2011.

    People have just not been looking in the right places… :(

  82. So, next question – which will, in my mind, settle the question of whether the UK High Court judges themselves been corrupt, or merely hoodwinked – did the police protocol leaked in January 2011 (which was in Swedish and got leaked on its way from Bjorn Hurtig to Jennifer Robinson) include the page of the forensics report that carried Mats Gehlin’s notes on 20 October 2010? The Overlooked Evidence article includes a pdf of the Swedish FUP which includes it, but we don’t know where the author of that article sourced it from. Is it the same version as the Hurtig/Robinson leak one, or not?

    This is rather crucial info, as without that particular page with Gehlin’s notes of 20 October, the UK judges wouldn’t have a clue that the DNA evidence suggested Ardin handed in fake evidence and Wilen told two different stories (one of them indicating that she too faked evidence).

    If they did have that page, their judgment turning down Assange’s appeal against extradition is corrupt.

  83. Arbed wrote:
    “Who knows what’s been stopping him? Waiting for the most opportune moment, politically? A sourcing issue? Or perhaps – this is an assumption on my part – Galloway doesn’t speak Swedish, presumably, so maybe he has English translations of them – less valuable as evidence than the originals; people could accuse that they are fakes? Still, it would then be very interesting to see who exactly did that accusing, and how they claim to know what the originals say, wouldn’t you agree?”

    I agree 100%. I would hope that he actually has the original text messages in Swedish. Whichever, the release of that information would change the ball game. Any chance that you, or you and some else, could go and see him? Explain to him that he should let go of that information now.

  84. @arbed. On your posts of July 5th. As far as I understand, this is the situation: the 100 page document that was presented to the Swedish court before the EAW included Mats Gehlin´s two memos of Oct 20th and October 28th. I have a leaked copy of the document sent from Hurtig to Jennifer Robinson- it includes these two memos. The first one with the text that no DNA was found etc…But it does not include the formal lab report, “sent under separat cover”, reporting this unexpected finding.

    My intuition, for what it is worth, tells me that the formal lab report on the DNA test was not delivered to the Swedish court for the November 18th proceedings. The second labtest for DNA (if there indeed was one) was probably not presented to the Swedish courts either.

    I doubt that any formal lab test for DNA was ever seen by the British court. But they did see the wear and tear report from SKL. And they must (?) have seen Mats Gehlin’s two memos, unless the document was “edited” by Marianne Ny.

  85. As others have pointed out Sweden is getting a very bad name. It has become a laughing-stock worldwide, which is such a shame because as well as giving us ABBA, it gave us the much more important SIPRI (the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). It was a country of peace. But the good leaders, Olof Palme, Bernt Carlsson (who was assassinated in the Lockerbie mid-air explosion while he was in the process of internationally prosecuting Namibian uranium and diamond companies – cases dropped after his death) and Anna Lindh were all assassinated. It left a free path for Public Relations companies to dominate politicians and policy with chequebook diplomacy. My suspicion is if you search around the masonic lodges of Stockholm you will find the people behind this, some of Karl Rove’s friends like, Billy McCormac junior.

  86. Regarding what emails or electronic texts are in the possession of George Galloway do we know that these are not Anna Ardin’s tweets that she deleted, which we all know about but the general public does not. Or does he really have extra information not in the public domain? I do not know how to contact him, though I get his newsletters. I might be able to make contact through a third party.

  87. Hi John,

    No, you’re barking up the wrong tree there. If you watch the video podcast I supplied, Galloway makes it perfectly clear that he is talking about SMS “between the two women” and “between the women and Julian Assange”.

  88. John, you are right about the changing perception of Sweden in the world today. It is depressing to see how the ruling circles in Sweden are ruining our reputation.

    The present subservient mentality is so different from what we saw during the Vietnam war. Sweden then spoke freely. It took almost 500 American refuseniks, soldiers that deserted the war. They were protected by both public opinion and the law and many of the deserters have stayed until today.

    It has been a 100% turnaround in international politics. It will not last, I hope.

  89. Arbed, I’ve privately messaged a friend who is acquainted with George Galloway with a link to your 4 Jul, 2013 – 3:50 pm comment. Hopefully he can get a response. It would be good to have George Galloway join the debate on here. Will keep you posted on any progress.

    Axel, I hope it will not last too.

  90. Oz ABC’s ‘At The Movies’, review of “We Steal Secrets”
    http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s3780164.htm

    Comments are moderated.

  91. Wow! Some pretty heavy censorship going on at the Independent’s article today about Edward Snowden’s and Julian Assange’s “stateless” plight. This article:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/in-depth-julian-assange-and-edward-snowden–enemies-of-the-state-take-flight-8692598.html

    had a lively Disqus discussion going on all day – 200+ posts – but the WHOLE Disqus section has now been REMOVED entirely. I suspect this was because a lot of the discussion was about what is revealed by the case forensic report (now available in English).

    So, I’ve reposted the forensic report to the comments section of an Al-Jazeera article instead – view in Newest first, for best results ;) . Let’s see how long it lasts there:

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2013/07/2013761037537873.html?utm_content=automate&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=NewSocialFlow&utm_term=plustweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount

    What is censorship a sign of?

    Fear.

  92. Arbed, is it because people are mentioning the names of Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilen and Irmeli Krans. Craig mentioned in another blog that there were names that could not be mentioned. As to your reference on the current blog I think it is unlikely they have a take-down time but more likely if a Neocon-Zionist plant (sorry moderator) sees it it tells its master and down will come cradle, baby and all. But they must be worried that everybody is getting to know the truth slowly and the government case is on its knees. I hear from a Wikileaks colleague that the Julian Assange political campaign is going well. It needs more money if there are any comfortable potential benefactors.

    https://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/forms/credit-card-payment.html

  93. No John, not a single post in the entire 220+ in the comments column (last time I looked) mentioned either woman by name.

    I strongly suspect the Independent received a formal take-down notice.

  94. “I suspect this was because a lot of the discussion was about what is revealed by the case forensic report (now available in English). ”

    If that is the case then as it will be relevant to any forthcoming court case it could be that the Independent feared it might be “sub judice”.

  95. Hi Kempe,

    Interesting point you make there. We have been told on umpteen occasions that Assange “has exhausted all legal recourse in the UK” – the case has already been through the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. So, no possibility of being sub judice here then. And Assange is wanted for questioning in a preliminary investigation in its early stages in a foreign jurisdiction. The case is so weak most Swedish jurists who’ve reviewed the case material say it could never actually reach the courts; it simply isn’t strong enough. And Assange is now a political refugee living in Ecuador (strictly speaking). All told, it looks like there is never going to be a trial.

    But, aside from all that, since when could publication in the UK be counted as sub judice on a faint possibility of a trial in the courts of another nation? Has sovereignty broken down entirely, do you think?

  96. @kempe at 1.29 July 8th: “I suspect this was because a lot of the discussion was about what is revealed by the case forensic report (now available in English). ”

    If this is potentially important material in the UK it may explain something that has been going on at Flashback recently. We have seen a very aggressive denial of the Gehlin memo statement that “no DNA was found” by a certain person on Flashback. The signature “Carlito Brigante”, always in favour of the official Swedish prosecutor position, has used more than a 100 postings to deny the report. He/she claims that we know nothing, since we have not access to the actual forensic report, only to Gehlin’s memo.

    The forensic report is probably very sensitive and damaging material for the Swedish prosecutor’s case.

  97. My comment posted on Oz ABC’s movie review program website wasn’t published. I’ve posted it below to give it some gasping life beyond its intended audience.

    - – -
    Not your best review, Margaret and David.

    “Double standards”? – Assange advocated for transparency of democratic institutions, not private organisations and people.

    “Narcissism”? – Assange is acknowledged as intelligent, his work as groundbreaking and women (Swedish et al) apparently want to bed him. How does that amount to “narcissism”?

    I’ve seen the movie and can say I’ve read a much better and more detailed review here -

    http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html

    Apparently, this film is bombing at the box office because of its availability on the internet and the general disinclination of cinema-goers to spend money on faux documentaries – except for Spinal Tap, which totally rocks!

  98. Arbed, I see no comments on the Aljazeera site you linked to. A message “Disqus seems to be taking longer than usual. Reload?” appears instead.

    Seems a bit odd to me (feigning naivity)…..?!!?!?

  99. Hi Jemand,

    No, the Al-Jazeera comments are still there. Disqus sometimes does that slow loading thing. Refresh, or wait a while, usually solves it.

    Interestingly, someone else has picked up on it. Look at this:

    UK news site censors discussion of Sofia Wilén
    http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

    They’ve even filched my answer to Kempe’s comments about sub judice earlier in this thread too, cheeky blighters. I think Axel’s right (3.08pm) – this is a hot issue (hotter than July, haha – sheesh today was hot here) and someone – or maybe many interested parties – are watching it like a hawk.

  100. Alex, 3.08pm

    “He/she claims that we know nothing, since we have not access to the actual forensic report”

    but that’s not quite true, is it? We do have access to the report, of which Gehlin’s memo forms part. We just don’t have access to the DNA results themselves, sent under separate cover (and clearly suppressed by the prosecutor). By the way, I didn’t say thank you for your post explaining that the UK courts are almost certain to have seen Gehlin’s memo – so they’ve no excuse for waving through what they must have known was an illegimate extradition request.

  101. Thanks Arbed.

    It seems your discussion on this point has hit a sensitive spot. So it is probably worth pursuing with vigour despite the pulldowns.

    But I should point out that this issue would be a very hard read for casual followers, most of whom are quite unfamiliar with most of the fine details. Connecting the dots is a bit of a brain pain. I recommend developing a cogent summary version to make it easier for them to digest the significance with the more elaborate version in following discussion. As we all appreciate, ordinary folk are an essential part of public opinion and we need to give them the gist first – I think.

    I also think the kid gloves can be removed now with discussions of AA and SW. They both, individually, appear to have acted outside of that zone of conduct in which we expect alleged victims of crime to act to appear credible. Although discretion is still advised in order to maintain the dignity of criticisms and not become quotable instances of online harrassment. AA made a complaint in Gibney’s doco regarding criticisms by Assange supporters and falsely accused Assange of having power to quell the worst of them – absolutely ridiculous, but you see how some criticisms can be used as ammunition against supporters as a whole.

    Anyway, both of my ABC movie review comments were not published, the second one being quite modest. I’ll post a complaint about censorship and see if there is any response.

    Keep up the good work.

  102. Rastafari - Sweden

    9 Jul, 2013 - 10:58 am

    Dear Arbed / Jemand / Axel / John Goss and others

    I truly admire the compact dignity with which you address this outrageous behaviour of the swedish authorities, a case which the world can see is nothing more than a holding case for extradition to the US, as exemplified in the UK / Sweden role in blocking further EU investigation of US mass surveillance. Carl Bildt normally tweets about bullshit like the colour of his tie in between remarks on international affairs. He has notably on the Snowden case, never uttered a single word or tweet. What a slimy thug !!.

    Sweden as a country is paying a high price for this “condom affair”. People are watching their actions globally. It is a gross violation of human rights for Mr. Assange to be subjected to house arrest for the past year, without access to fresh air and sunlight. This is the international behavior of a country that prides itself on human rights and the Nobel prizes etc. The hypocrisy in this country runs through the veins, don´t forget Sweden allowed two million Nazi troops to transit Sweden on occupation duty in Norway, under the guise of neutrality. Where was swedish law in the cases of illegal renditions and illegal over flights in the past decade?

    Its time for an international boycott call in terms of trade and cultural exchange, hopefully the courageous South American ALBA countries can start this call. Sweden has for the past decade been actively involved in destabilising the ALBA countries and install pro US right wing thugs in this countries.

    Interestingly, so called human rights orientated Sweden is not among the 21 countries selected by Edward Snowden for asylum. Some idiot geo political experts in Sweden expressed in press remarks that Snowden should apply for asylum in Sweden. These so called experts don´t realise that this country is seen globally as nothing more than a US lapdog and has nothing to do with proclaimed neutrality.

    The so-called sexual allegations against Assange have all the hallmarks of a set up and can´t stand a chance in any court of law in any civilized country. Any trial in Sweden would make them the laughing stock of the civilized world. No doubt they are aware of this and are fence sitting for time and tide. Therefore a call for a trade and cultural boycott must be given priority, diplomacy is getting not producing results.

  103. Arbed, your comment ”

    “but that’s not quite true, is it? We do have access to the report, of which Gehlin’s memo forms part. We just don’t have access to the DNA results themselves, sent under separate cover (and clearly suppressed by the prosecutor).”

    is of course correct.

    Note that the report mentions that the first DNA-test is “sent under separate cover”. Gehlin, on getting the results from the first DNA/test supposedly asked for a second test (“it could be done in two weeks”). This second report is not leaked or known either, although some journalists in Sweden has reported, on Flashback, that it revealed mitochondrial DNA.

    Your question about what the UK court did know is relevant for Sweden also: did the two Swedish courts that cleared the way for an EAW ever saw the DNA-report no 1, or the DNA-report no 2? I doubt it.

  104. Hi Axel,

    Yes, I know about the second DNA testing. Of course, it is a complete red herring, whatever its findings. Any condom which shows zero chromosonal DNA on first testing is NOT going to find quantities of same sufficient for the condom to have actually been used. Not going to happen.

    Mitochondrial DNA would be interesting, though. My understanding is that mDNA is the non-nucleic variety – passed down through the maternal line only – and is therefore not an accurate marker of identity, only a clue to family membership, etc. Also, I believe that when mDNA is found but there is no chromosonal DNA present it can ONLY have come from hair or nails. Which would tend to back up a theory that Anna Ardin faked her condom evidence by sticking an unused one on a dildo – or a vase or similar-shaped object (maybe even a pair of shoes, in her case ;) ) – while wearing surgical gloves, but had to remove one glove to pierce the top of the condom with her fingernail to form the tear.

    Just a theory, of course. Pure guesswork on my part; nothing to base it on.

  105. “maybe even a pair of shoes ..”

    Both shoes? Hah! I know which ones you mean – the ‘high’ heels.

  106. Is anyone here on Twitter who can help push this article out by retweeting it?

    https://twitter.com/wl_central/status/354343994928537601

    I think it contains some key facts that could help get the Swedish case closed down if they became more widely known. Of course, you’ll need to something juicy from the article in your tweet to get people to bite, but there’s plenty of those:

    Assange accuser Wilen re-interrogated 7 times, inc day after police receive forensics report: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

    “The chief interrogator asked abt the SMS when [Witness I] wrote that they have to figure out a good plan of revenge” http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

    Assange accuser Wilen’s new lawyer altered presser/switched dates to hide revealing gaffe: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

    [Sofia Wilén's new lawyer] Elisabeth Massi Fritz is Swedish PM Fredrik Reinfeldt’s “family” lawyer: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

    Event suggests Sofia Wilen enjoys the power to influence a major UK publication: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848 Who’s helping her?

    The condom submitted by Anna Ardin showed no traces whatsoever of chromosomal (genomic) DNA http://wlcentral.org/node/2848 More: http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/07/01/the-lab-results/

    That kind of thing…

    Or just post the article in a blog somewhere?

  107. Rastafari - Sweden

    10 Jul, 2013 - 3:37 pm

    Arbed, will do so. Excellent work. The final buck is with the swedish government that is complicit in this case, with Foreign Minister Carl Bildt at the helm.

  108. As I seem to be suffering a nasty bout of MSM censorship at the moment, I’m re-posting here something I’ve just put in the Guardian (which I suspect may ‘disappear’ imminently), for preservation.

    11 July 2013 12:20pm
    Recommend
    0

    How very odd. I’ve had two comments removed – both directly responding to you. The first I can understand, as I carelessly used one of the women’s names in it. The second – in which I linked to a BBC article about Theresa May’s proposal to opt back in to the EAW only if it excluded any extradition prior to a decision to charge being made (as has happened in Assange’s case), and a link to the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s website showing the Objectivity Principle their prosecutors must follow, and that no decision to charge has been made by Assange’s prosecutor – has been removed without leaving a stub to show that it was once there.

    Never mind, perhaps here I can challenge something else you say: that the UK courts had deemed that the offences Assange is accused of have had a thorough review in our courts and been found to meet dual criminality. Now, this is interesting. Take, for example, allegation No 3, sexual molestation (the “deliberately torn” condom incident). In their judgment, the High Court judges make it clear in paragraph 94 that they have reviewed the forensic report of the case, and that the report found the condom tear to be “created by the wear and tear of the condom”. All well and good, but now look at the placement of that paragraph 94. It is contained within a long section – about 40 paragraphs long – in which they analyse this incident, as described in the complainant’s witness statement, against various previous cases of rape in English case law where “rape by deception” is found to have taken place. On the basis of this long argument, the High Court judges reach the conclusion that the offence Assange is accused of meets the criteria of sexual molestation/rape by deception in English law.

    Do you see the problem here? I mean, leaving aside the problem that the judges would also have seen the findings that there is no DNA on the condom evidence from this woman, and just focusing on the forensic finding that the tear resulted from “wear and tear”, how on God’s sweet earth can anyone who is qualified to practice law reach a conclusion that “wear and tear” = “deception”?

    The only sensible conclusion is that they didn’t; that the decision of the UK High Court to uphold Assange’s extradition was never a matter of legal criteria, but was a politically expedient decision all along. And that this whole section of the judgment was mere kabuki theatre designed to disguise that fact.

    Julian Assange stakeout at Ecuadorean embassy costs Met police £3.8m:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/10/julian-assange-ecuadorian-embassy-police-cost#comment-25043639

    Let’s see. The article has been up a full day or so, so the moderators may not notice this latest contribution of mine. The first removed comment was basically a couple of the twitter links above at 10.28am; the second I’ve described within this last comment. Both were responding to “Sybil Sanderson”, a notorious anti-Assange troll who defies all logic or evidence presented to her in the usual way of trolls.

    By the way, this exact same problem I describe above – the censorship of comments in the Guardian in such a way as to obscure that they ever existed in the first place – has happened to me before and, note, in relation to the same “Sybil Sanderson” persona. I wonder – but can’t prove it – if “she” has links to the Guardian CIF moderation team (ie. her trolling is, as it were, an “inside job”). Can’t prove it. I just suspect that may be the case.

  109. Postscript.

    The troll has responded to my comment – on an article that’s been up for a full 24 hours and is therefore well outside the modern-day “news cycle” – within 9 minutes of its posting. I have a sneaking feeling that “Sybil” must be internal to the Guardian CIF moderation team to be able to keep that close an eye on particular topics and articles.

  110. Post-postscript.

    11 July 2013 12:20pm

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

    Well, there you go then. My comment removed, Ms Sybil’s reply, and my response to that.

    Her reply said basically “All irrelevant, from para 93 onward issue is consent [not true, btw]. No condom = no consent. No consent in every part = rape in every country of the world.”

    I had replied that she had spectacularly missed the point I was making. There was a condom. Assange had used one. There was no argument about that. The woman had said the condom broke, she felt deliberately. The judges and the forensic scientists had found the condom broke through wear and tear. Therefore Assange was not guilty of deception, per the judges’ analysis, wouldn’t she agree?

    This was an argument Sybil could not win, therefore her chums in the moderating team removed the whole conversation.

    Ahh, the Guardian – bastions of liberal free speech, don’tcha just love ‘em…?

  111. Just for fun, I’ve now posted this to the same article, directly above the stub of the removed conversation:

    Entire conversation below preserved elsewhere. Because I believe that the “Sybil Sanderson” persona – with its extreme anti-Assange agenda – might be an “inside job”.

    Let’s see.

  112. Hi Trenterx – I know you read this thread, so can I ask a favour of you please? I need the help of Flashbackers to do a bit more digging, but they seem a bit unable to see the core issues as regards Sofia Wilen. So I thought if I spelt things out really, really clearly that might jog them in the right direction.

    So, my favour is: could you repost the following in Flashback, exactly as it appears here please?

    #Assange case: Forensic report shows Assange accuser told police two different stories: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848
    https://twitter.com/Liberte_info/status/354924933060636672

    #Assange accuser SW re-interrogated by police 7 times, including day after forensic report is back: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848
    https://twitter.com/Liberte_info/status/354925216226492417 “The chief interrogator asked abt the SMS when [Witness I] wrote that they have to figure out a good plan of revenge” http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

    Assange accuser Wilen’s new lawyer altered presser/switched dates to hide revealing gaffe: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

    [Sofia Wilén's new lawyer] Elisabeth Massi Fritz is Swedish PM Fredrik Reinfeldt’s “family” lawyer: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

    Event suggests Sofia Wilen enjoys the power to influence a major UK publication: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848 Who’s helping her?

    Discuss.

  113. Sorry Trenterx,

    I screwed up the spacing in that post, there should be an extra line space after the liberte-info tweet.

    But you get what I mean, I hope. The thing that nobody at Flashback is looking at – at all – is that Sofia Wilen has told the police two different stories. This is one:

    “Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.”

    and the other one, as we all know, is the one she told to Irmeli Krans and all her other friends – she was phobic about HIV and “woke up” to an attempt at unprotected sex.

    If Flashback can dig to get more details on Story 1 (the damaged “balloon noise” story) – ie. chain of custody for when that condom fragment arrived in police hands; which hospital visit were the swabs from (because the timing speaks to SW’s intent about reporting “rape” on Tuesday 17 August maybe); and anything else that might be useful…

  114. Arbed, Rastafari, Axel, Jemand, this is brilliant. At last it is looking like a breakthrough can be made regarding the forensic reports. I’ve been working on something concerned with the lack of inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly – the tenth anniversary of his death is next Thursday (18th) and a vigil will take place outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London on that day. I’ll try and write something about the forensic reports if I get time. That article is brilliant.

    http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

  115. Hi Trenterx,

    Me again! Firstly, thank you SO much.

    I saw your post about what date the police picked up Sofia’s condom fragment, and you suggest a possibility that it was picked up in the evening of Saturday, 21 August, just after Sara Wennerblom picked up Anna Ardin’s.

    I had a think about that. It’s certainly possible it was done then, but didn’t Eva Finne basically close down the case formally on 23 August, with the exception of the allegation of AA’s “molestation” – which Gehlin specified in his interrogation of Assange did mean the deliberately torn condom incident (although that could have been his own deviation from her instructions if he couldn’t understand why Finne had closed down the investigation, because he’d heard SW’s “pulling on a balloon” story and still believed it).

    Do we know for sure whether Finne kept that part of the investigation open because AA had said she might have the condom around somewhere, so there was still evidence to be looked at? If so, then if the SW condom fragment had already been collected before 23 August wouldn’t Finne have kept that case open too?

  116. PS.

    I had thought that Molok would be particularly interested in this, because he is particularly interested in the fact that Sofia Wilen’s timeline doesn’t work

    and this

    ““Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.”

    is very, very clearly a completely different timeline. I understand it would have to be about 5am in the morning for the room to be dark enough to not be able to see during a Swedish summer. In the 4 Corners documentary there are shots of Sofia Wilen’s apartment showing thin white blinds on the windows. At 09:59, 10:26, 25:48 in the video:

    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/23/3549280.htm

  117. Hah! Again, many thanks Trenterx for pushing the Flashbackers to think through the evidence as regards Sofia Wilen’s “balloon noise” story – and particularly for getting them to question their assumption that Mats Gehlin’s 20 October 2010 note is just him getting confused.

    What they must remember is what the forensic report shows us:

    We have TWO condoms – one complete, the other a fragment – which the scientists found had tears which matched their test of deliberately “ripping” the back of the condom. That is, TWO condoms are deliberately ripped, and at least one of them we know cannot have been used for sex.

    We have TWO condoms – collected separately but sent together to the lab at a very early stage of the investigation, 25 August 2010, under the same case number (because a prosecutor who had seen Sofia Wilen’s “official” statement to Irmeli Krans, which mentioned nothing about “balloon noises”, closed her case).

    We have TWO timelines – one, a story of “balloon noises in the dark” before 5am, and another, around 9am, telling of a different type of sexual assault entirely, and the physical “evidence” from the former is found in under-bed space that Anna Ardin doesn’t have.

    We have TWO women – BOTH producing physical “torn condom” evidence – who turn up at a police station together.

    And we have TWO women telling the same story to Linda Wassgren. To quote Donald Bostrum’s statement, where he quotes Anna Ardin verbatim:

    And then Anna rings again and says now we’ve been with the police and Sofia told her story and, yeah because I sat there so I added a comment of my own. This is very ‘word for word’ and as I remember her telling me. Uh, aha I say, and what was that comment. Yeah that comment was that I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar Anna says then. And then she told me that bit about the condom then, so that’s why I think it’s true. And I don’t know anything about police technicalities but then Anna says, because we suddenly were two women who had a statement about, about the same man so it became a crime against the state and so it became a complaint even though we didn’t file a complaint.

    This is Anna telling Donald Bostrum that the comment she adds after Sofia has spoken to Linda Wassgren about something she experienced – “I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar” – is the KEY statement which turns their visit into a crime report. Anna then makes it clear that she is talking about her “deliberately torn” condom incident. The obvious inference is that Sofia was also telling Wassgren about a deliberately damaged condom – “a noise like someone pulling on a balloon in the dark” – she claims she experienced too. Remember, Wassgren was so convinced by what she heard that she initiated a process which ended in a duty prosecutor issuing a warrant for “double rape” prior to either women giving their formal statements.

    I’ve just found another section of Donald Bostrum’s statement which is a bit ambiguous. There is an inaudible moment here, but is it possible that the “other occasion” being referred to here is with Sofia, not Anna – at least in the mind of Mats Gehlin? He doesn’t seem to clarify with Bostrum which woman is being talked about. 20 September, so about a month before he’s spoken to the forensics lab about the no DNA finding. How many interrogations of Wilen had been conducted at this point?

    WF: And, and then he says only that, he had ordinary sex. And what leaked out to the media that we joked about what we’d name the baby and like that.

    MG: Yeah.

    WF: So that’s well, more than that he didn’t say but that we had sex and continued even though…

    MG: Did he say whether he had a condom or not?

    WF: On that occasion with Sofia, no condom.

    MG: Hmmm.

    WF: Uh, on the other occasion, (inaudible) why the condom broke. And then, then he said no, he hadn’t broken it. That is he meant that we continued as usual.

    MG: But did you…

    EO: With or without a condom?

    WF: As I understood it, with a condom. In other words it was protected sex on that occasion.

    MG: Yes.

    WF: Consensual protected sex and so he didn’t at all break… That’s his version, to me.

  118. Missed a bit of bolding there. Try this:

    (from the same section of Donald Bostrum’s statement where Anna is explaining her interjection into Linda Wassgren’s interview of Sofia Wilen)

    that comment was that “I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something” similar, Anna says then. And then she told me that bit about the condom then, so “that’s why I think it’s true”.

    I’ve added in quotation marks so people can see more clearly what Anna is saying.

  119. Trenterx,

    If people somehow interpret the above to mean there’s a possibility that Assange DID actually deliberately damage condoms with two different women, remind them of a few things:

    1. One of those women has handed in fake evidence.

    2. The other woman has for some reason mentioned nothing of the “damaged condom” in her formal statement, or to any of her friends. Two possibilities: got cold feet and wanted to avoid being prosecuted for false allegations; or toned it down so that any eventual case would be so weak it could be dropped easily in favour of a US extradition request.

    3. Sofia Wilen went to a hospital rape clinic (when there was a much closer hospital with an STD clinic) before contacting Anna Ardin – and possibly before speaking to any of her friends about the incident (this can be checked by re-reading their statements for clues about dates/timings of when they first learned about things). Sofia Wilen contacted Anna Ardin, not the other way around.

    Then get them to read up on the practice of “cold reading” someone. It’s how these “psychics” convince vulnerable people that the psychic “knows” something that individual thinks is something that only they themselves could know. People do not understand how much they give away in body language, figures of speech, how susceptible they are to someone “fishing” for clues. Not that I am saying Anna Ardin is “vulnerable”, but she does seem hot-headed and easily manipulated.

  120. Rastafari - Sweden

    13 Jul, 2013 - 10:05 am

    Excellent article by swedish based American journalist Al Burke. Pity that google translate does not do the article justice.

    Sweden´s hounding of Assange by Nordic based American journalist Al Burke:
    http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdebatt.svt.se%2F2013%2F07%2F12%2Fassange-jobbar-vidare-trots-hetsjakten%2F

  121. The next Wikileaks dramatisation to come out is “The Fifth Estate”, based on a book by self-promoting saboteur and traitor, Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Trailers can be viewed online. I wonder if a good quality copy will be available for download off of a bit torrent site like isohunt.

  122. Regaring Al Burkes article in SvT/Debatt it should be known that approx 98% of the comments was removed by the moderator for a unknown reason, so we can expect tha we already has a swedish type of “injuction” in action.

    Another mindblowing detail is the aftermath of Michael Hastings that gets even more chilling, as “someone” decided to cremate his body against his widows wich….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=21WnsubYFps#at=15

  123. A longer version of Al Burke’s article is to be found here:
    http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assan

    There are still 209 comments to his article on SVT/Debatt, so there is still a bit to go before total removal.

  124. Re axel:

    A majority of the 209 comments are as follows:

    Guest 5 days ago
    comment removed.

    Guest 5 days ago answer to Guest
    comment removed.

    Guest 5 days ago answer to Guest
    comment removed.

    Guest 5 days ago
    comment removed.

    and so one-on-on….

    Then there is about 4 persons occupying most of the thread-we have seen the same stuff at Flashback.
    But there are some left, but hte good ones are gone…
    Also, the article was made short at SvT compared with the original one, Al Burke writes about that in the bottom
    of the commentary field and encloses a link to his homepage.

  125. @duqu
    Thanks for correcting med.I was fooled by the headline about 209 contributions.

  126. There’s been some interesting developments in Sweden that may have a bearing on the Assange case.

    Recent documents released via FOI show how a guy called Alexander Akhlaghi in the Americas section of Sweden’s Foreign Ministry was a central co-ordinator of pre-agreed responses to Ecuador’s decision on granting asylum to Julian Assange in August 2012. Such responses are meant to follow what the Swedes call “language rules” – aka media messaging/propaganda.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/152679308/Allmanna-handlingar-Assange-2013

    The correspondence has thrown up quite a lot. Not just that public statements from Sweden were very prescriptive (and evasive of some core questions) but also a crucial conflict of interest of Akhlaghi himself. Alexander Akhlaghi is a fellow board member along with Anna Ardin of the “Heart” organisation within the Christian/Social Democrats party. Further, Akhlaghi is a frequent [overnight] visitor to Anna Ardin’s apartment and has been spotted there seated by the window in his boxer shorts:

    https://www.flashback.org/sp44366207 (use Google translate)

    More: https://www.flashback.org/sp43055386

  127. As Akhlaghi clearly has access to high-level political and diplomatic correspondence about the case there is obviously huge conflict of interest here and it’s entirely possible Ardin has been using her friend to gain advance notice of significant developments as regards both the status of the Swedish investigation and Assange’s safe passage negotiations.

  128. At the very end of the FOI release are two documents that are almost 100% redacted. The first is an email dated 21 May 2013 from Asa Hindborg – Akhlaghi’s boss in the Americas section of Sweden’s Foreign Ministry – to the Swedish ambassador in Bogota (Sweden has no embassy in Ecuador, so all Ecuadorian matters are handled by Bogota). The second is the reply from Bogota to the Americas FO section dated 6 June 2013. Again, 100% censored.

    Flashback have pointed out that the first date matches that of Elisabeth Massi Fritz’ (Sofia Wilen’s new lawyer – and, it’s important to note, also the Swedish PM’s family lawyer) press release demanding that “Sweden pressures Ecuador” on behalf of her client. It’s already known that although Massi Fritz’ website dates this press release 21 May 2013, it is in fact a version written a few days later which had had embarrassing gaffes removed and the document backdated. More info on that, and the extent of Sofia Wilen’s political influence/ability to censor, here:

    http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

    Flashback speculates that the changes made to the embarrassing press release probably followed the Swedish FO’s “language rules” quite closely.

  129. Notice too in that Flashback link – https://www.flashback.org/sp44366207 – that there is some connection between Alexander Akhlaghi and Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Either Akhlaghi or his sister were invited to the Swedish (?) launch of DDB’s scurrilous book about Wikileaks. This is something really worth investigating further, in my view, if anyone is able to do that or supply more details.

    I have always felt that it was too much of a coincidence that DDB chose to commit his first act of sabotage at Wikileaks – disabling the mail server – on 25 August 2010. This is, of course, the same day that Eva Finne formally closed the case against Assange (leaving only a misdemeanour “molestation” offence still to be investigated – obviously too minor to warrant arrest or detainment of the Wikileaks boss). It’s also the day Mats Gehlin sent both women’s condom evidence to the lab under Ardin’s case number. DDB was caught red-handed and suspended from the organisation that day. What a busy, busy, happening day 25 August 2010 was, eh? I have always had a gut feeling DDB’s sabotage was spurred by the news coming out of Sweden that Assange was basically off the hook. Please if anyone can explore this and provide any relevant info I would be most grateful.

    This is also worth reading – Assange’s statement following the destruction of unpublished whistleblower docs by DDB in August 2011 about the intelligence warnings about DDB he’d received the previous year:

    http://wlcentral.org/node/2170

    (I’ll come back to the issue of actions by other parties that I interpret as seemingly triggered – ie. as a panic response – to unexpected developments in the Swedish investigation in separate post below.)

  130. On Elisabeth Massi Fritz’ website – http://www.advokatfritz.com/?page_id=684 – there are now three links concerning the Assange case:

    The undoctored version of her press release (dated here 22 May but we know it has been backdated). It states that Sofia Wilen “reported a rape” on 20 August, intentionally and not simply as an unfortunate consequence of seeking advice about HIV – which completely contradicts the witness statements of Sofia’s friends and family, and the press statements of Anna Ardin: http://www.advokatfritz.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Pressmeddelande-Assange.pdf (use Google translate)

    A link to an Australian article dated 23 May reporting the press release – missing the above howler and altogether more in line with the approved Swedish “language rules” talking points:
    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/assange-accuser-calls-for-swedish-pressure/story-e6frfkui-1226648801549

    And an article from the Daily Beast written by Guardian journalist and ex-Wikileaks intern James Ball. This contains every smear you can think of ever produced against Julian Assange. It was written in response to the release by Wikileaks of an annotated transcript of Alex Gibney’s docu-smear “We Steal Secrets” in which Wikileaks provided proof that James Ball had told many lies in his interviews for the film:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/exclusive-former-wikileaks-employee-james-ball-describes-working-with-julian-assange.html

    Several points:

    1. What kind of lawyer places an article like this on their official website? I believe it is actually a criminal offence in Sweden for a lawyer to make statements that are prejudicial to the “other side” before a trial verdict is handed down. Can anyone confirm?

    2. The Daily Beast article contains this very ambiguous statement:

    “Two women accused Assange of sexual assaults, relating to either tearing a condom or initiating unprotected sex while his partner was sleeping.”

    It’s that “either” which is ambiguous. How many women accuse Assange of tearing a condom here? Does Massi Fritz use this article on her website because her client has accused Assange of BOTH tearing a condom AND initiating unprotected sex with a half-asleep partner? See also: http://wlcentral.org/node/2848

    3. These are the accusations that the Daily Beast article is intended to discredit. They are clearly substantial and shred James Ball’s professional reputation: http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html#4004

    These accusations make me think that something that should be looked into much more is Nick Davies’ source for the leaked 68-page police protocol on which he based his extremely skewed 17 December 2010 article “10 Days in Sweden”. This was the article that really started the smear campaign against Assange about the Swedish allegations in the English-speaking world. Wikileaks’ transcript notes make it clear that James Ball was at Wikileaks from 23 November 2010 to 15 December 2010 and imply that he stole “documents” from a Wikileaks email account while Assange was held in prison between 7 December to 16 December. Nick Davies is a Guardian journalist and, after a theft from Wikileaks by James Ball – hey presto – James Ball becomes a Guardian journalist too. (It probably doesn’t need stressing how coveted a job at the Guardian newspaper would be to any UK journalism student.) Look at the dates in this paragraph, and factor in a couple of days for Nick Davies to get his leak translated. What does it look like to you?

  131. And this wasn’t the only smear run by the Guardian on that day, 17 December. Their Sweden-based religious correspondent Andrew Brown also produced an article that looks designed to discredit the strongest witness in Assange’s favour, Johannes Wahlstrom. Looks to be a “rush job” too and Brown even apologises for not having time to translate all his links from the Swedish language:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-israel-shamir-russia-scandinavia

    Johannes Wahlstrom is also the only witness to have been alone together with Julian Assange and Sofia Wilen after the lunch following the seminar on 14 August 2010 she inviegled her way into. Expressen newspaper mysteriously knew – and published the following day – details of Assange and Wilen’s itinerary after they left Wahlstrom that not even he knew about.

    The Guardian newspaper also commissioned Expressen’s Karin Olsson to write “Julian Assange: From Hero to Zero” to be published on the day the High Court refused his extradition appeal. Their reach into Sweden obviously goes quite deep.

    One of the things people say to poo-pooh the idea that Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin’s allegations might be a “CIA honeytrap” is that an intelligence-led operation would not have been carried out with such incompetence; there would have been a much stronger case and Assange banged up immediately. But unexpected things do happen; things do fall apart, requiring “corrective” actions to put things back on course. Four examples from this case: a senior prosecutor closing down the case almost immediately; a forensics lab doing a DNA test that they hadn’t been asked to do; Assange being granted bail from Wandsworth prison; Assange decamps to the Ecuadorian embassy (Karin Rosinder to the UK CPS 20 June 2012: “Mon Dieu!” ;) )

    25 August 2010 – Eva Finne closes case/DDB sabotages Wikileaks mail server
    16 December 2010 – Assange released from Wandsworth/17 December 2010 – Guardian smears against both Assange and Johannes Wahlstrom.

    The two things there really was no “recovery” from: the Lab Results – http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/07/01/the-lab-results/ – and the political asylum. Or can anyone think of “corrective actions” taken shortly after 20-25 October 2010, 19 June and 16 August 2012?

  132. Sorry, I think perhaps I didn’t make this clear enough:

    Wikileaks’ transcript notes make it clear that James Ball was at Wikileaks from 23 November 2010 to 15 December 2010 and imply that he stole “documents” from a Wikileaks email account while Assange was held in prison between 7 December to 16 December.

    The Wikileaks transcript notes specifically state that the “documents” they allege James Ball stole from their email server “subsequently appeared in the Guardian”.

  133. Rastafari - Sweden

    20 Jul, 2013 - 9:46 am

    Excellent work Arbed. The swedish political establishment is involved in this dirt the whole way through. Recent developments in the Manning / Snowden / Evo Morales incidents show clearly why Julian Assange is correct in demanding water tight guarantees to ever set foot in Sweden. The entire international community can see through this farce.

    Agree with John Goss that Elisabeth Massi Fritz must be reported to the swedish bar association.

  134. Rastafari - Sweden

    20 Jul, 2013 - 10:12 am

    Sweden based American journalist Al Burke´s excellent summary of the current media status quo with focus on the swedish media. It goes to show what vile vermin we have to deal with. Thank god, nobody internationally is buying the Sweden – Alexander Hague shit: House niggers like Obama and Eric Holder should spend time in Sweden to see what a paradise liberal democracy this is. These house niggers would thank the day they were born in the new world and on the other side of the Atlantic.

    http://nnn.se/nordic/assange/productive.pdf

  135. Hi Rastafari,

    “Agree with John Goss that Elisabeth Massi Fritz must be reported to the swedish bar association”

    I believe you are a publisher, or have access to getting things published. Are you able to kick this process off – reporting Massi Fritz to the Bar Association, I mean?

  136. Rastafari - Sweden

    20 Jul, 2013 - 4:42 pm

    Hi Arbed, will most definitely look into it as priority, will counsel with experts in the field.

  137. Rastafari, please keep me informed of any developments regarding reporting Elisabeth Massi Fritz to the Swedish Bar Counsel. Thanks.

  138. Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs is so disinterested in Julian Assange that they send diplomats to Bradley Manning’s trial to report back to the department at length on references to Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

    Huh??

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-diplomats-reporting-at-length-on-manning-trial-20130722-2qeaw.html

  139. Snowden given pass to leave Moscow airport.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23437059

  140. Catching Big Fish

    It becomes a whole lot clearer now that the US military prosecution of Bradley Manning was drawn out not to ensure that his anticipated conviction was secure but to more firmly establish, and more clearly define, the relationship between him, Assange and Wikileaks in the formal legal narrative. The purpose of which is to provide the foundations for subsequent charges to be contrived against Assange and Co. Time is a precious resource and Sweden’s disingenuous case against Assange helps the US DoJ buy time to carefully construct their false charges.

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/assange-a-bigger-fish-for-manning-prosecutors-20130726-2qq1h.html

  141. brenda leonard

    29 Jul, 2013 - 2:19 am

    Can we all agree that a condom law is utterly ridiculous? How many men in Sweden could be accused of rape at this very minute because of that law? Then you have these women falling in bed with someone they didn’t know except as a celebrity. How stupid is that even? I guess not too stupid when it turned out to be the perfect set up. It is too bad an investigation could not have followed the money and the connections to see the true background of these women.

  142. I can agree with that, Brenda. The issues of rape and sexual harrassment is now so mangled with power politics that it’s hard to have a rational conversation over all the shouting. So a broken condom is called rape because, as I have read elsewhere, “rape is rape is rape”. ?

  143. Manning trial in deliberation -

    http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2013/07/28/news/nation_and_world/doc51f4d44fbc5a2871544225.txt

    The most serious charge is one of “aiding the enemy”. I’d like to see that charge (as a popular accusation) levelled at the US government as it funds and arms militant groups around the globe. Let’s turn the charge around on Obama.

  144. Some of you may know that I have been waging a one-woman campaign against Alex Gibney’s excretable We Steal Secrets documentary, by commenting under every review of the film I saw published that I thought it was disgraceful to show a photo of Anna Ardin’s “torn” condom from the police forensics file and then NOT tell his viewers that forensics found it had no DNA at all on it.

    And now, look! – Jonathan Cook, no less, has joined in.

    The Assassination of Julian Assange:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/29/the-assassination-of-julian-assange/

  145. Thanks for that link Arbed.

    I’d like to post a very long comment here that I have been intending to post for some time now in the hope of countering some of the hysteria of public comments in response to rape allegations in general and those against in Assange in particular. Hopefully it contains something/s of value to explore further. Open to criticism.
    . . . . . .

    Rape is not rape. Rape is not special.

    All types of crime are unique in as much as they are different from other types of crime, and each instance of one type of crime is unique from other instances of the same type of crime. Being unique does not make a crime ‘special’, otherwise all crimes are ‘special’.

    All instances of actual crimes consist of all of the following elements :

    * Actual harm or actual loss, either material, bodily, psychological, abstract;
    * At least one victim (real person or corporate);
    * An unwillingness of a victim to suffer an actual harm or actual loss;
    * At least one perpetrator (real person or corporate);
    * An intention of a perpetrator to cause or fail to prevent harm or loss to occur.

    A victim is not required to be concious of the existence of a crime or aware of the actual harm or actual loss, but does need to *experience* an actual harm or actual loss. For example, someone whose life is cut short through the unwitting ingestion of a deliberately administered poison that accelerates his death from a natural known cause, is unaware of the intentional shortening of his life but still experiences the harm or loss from what is certainly a crime of murder.

    Without any one of the above elements, an actual crime has not taken place. Actual crimes need to be distinguished from associated or supportive criminal offences such as conspiracy, threats, possession of prohibited materials or equipment, incitement to commit an offence and post facto support in concealing an offence or evading justice. Associated crimes do not exist without relation to the existence of a more serious actual crime.

    In the case of rape, with its contentious definition, there must be an unwilling victim who suffers some harm caused by a perpetrator who had an intention to cause or disregard probable harm to the victim. In the traditional, popular conception of the crime of rape, we consider a concious person who is threatened with physical force or violence to unwillingly yield to having sexual intercourse with another person.

    But this concept of rape has been obfuscated by manifold variations, ommissions and additions of details, to the point where one instance of alleged rape bears striking differences with other instances to the extent that both culpability and harm are respectively not equivalent. Similarly, some instances of coercive sexual intercourse bear the markings of an actual crime with lesser or no legal recourse or popular sympathy.

    For example, if a woman were to submit to having sexual intercourse with a man who threatens her with termination of employment unless she accedes to his demands, this would not be considered rape by any common legal defintion. Certainly she may be equally as unwilling as another woman who is threatened with violence, and in every other respect might be equally a sexual victim suffering the same psychological ill-effects. But it is not rape by any popular conception or legal definition.

    On the other hand, a woman who is paralytically drunk and unwittingly experiences sexual intercourse with a male, might awake the next day having no memory of the event and suffering no ill-effects for the act that is certainly both popularly considered and legally treated as a sexual assault and, for many, as rape.

    So it can be seen that two starkly different but surely common scenarios do not sit comfortably with the thought-terminating, feminist slogan “rape is rape is rape”.

    An important point in all crimes is the moment that intent to cause harm and actual harm coincide. When related to an alleged instance of rape in a situation where two people are engaging or have engaged in otherwise consensual sexual intercourse, the often rapidly changing states of mind of the two people are relevant to ascertaining if and when a crime took place, and by whom.

    This is probably best exemplified by an infamous case in Australia known as the “30 Second Rapist” case. In short, a man was convicted of rape for having failed to withdraw his penis, within a reasonable period of time, from the vagina of a woman with whom he was engaged in consensual sex but who withdrew her consent during intercourse. It was agreed by all sides that the sex started as consensual, the woman withdrew consent and the man ceased sexual penetration after about thirty seconds. He was convicted, went to prison but was later acquitted.

    It can be seen in the above real example, that (ostensibly for all points) the woman became unwilling and communicated this state of mind to the man, that he formed an intent to cause or wilfully disregard any actual harm or actual loss that would probably be caused to the woman, and that she did suffer actual harm or an actual loss – in this case, mental distress, psychological ill-effects and so on.

    The fact that both the victim (an acquaintence) and perpetrator’s wife later admitted to having set the man up for this outcome is not relevant to the point that is being made here. The point is that the states of mind of both victim and perpetrator, as expressed by fleeting verbal communication and bodily action in a complex, emotionally intense and physically intimate interaction determined who suffered harm and who caused that suffering.

    It is conceivable that, if the woman was on top of the man, each facing each other with her moving her pelvis to effect sexual intercourse, and he communicated a withdrawal of consent by saying “This is wrong, please stop”, and she continued for thirty seconds before complying with his wish, then we would have had a complete reversal of the victim and perpetrator roles.

    It is equally conceivable that a similar scenario, involving two consenting adults commencing sexual intercourse in good faith, could have one or the other spontaneously experience a change of mind as a result of an anxiety attack or intense conflict of emotions, withdraw consent with no expression of alarm or urgency and experience a lag in response as the message is received, understood and translated into a compliant action by the other person. In such circumstances, who could predict that it would eventuate in a man, or woman, being imprisoned for rape?

    Can such a scenario really share the same description, public outrage and legal penalty as the traditional concept of rape as we once thought we understood the term to mean?

    The now internationally reported Swedish case of two women alleging sexual offences against Julian Assange has, in English language translations within the mainstream media and on private blogs, been depicted as incidents of “rape”. The particulars of the case have been more accurately reported by individuals who are interested in justice than those participating in the eclectic mix of political harrassment, radical feminism and personal assassination.

    When certain particulars of the Swedish case are examined alongside those elements of crime that I described above and the nature of rape as we know it, it is quite clear that the complaints against Assange are without the essential foundations required for a crime of rape to have been considered as having taken place. The intercourse between Assange and the two women was overtly consensual, there was no withdrawal of consent in any of their relations, there was no communication of unwillingness, no threats of violence or physical force to effect intercourse, there was no actual harm or actual loss suffered by the alleged victims and the incidents bear absolutely no other resemblance to the crime of rape as we have known it for hundreds of years up to this day.

    Whatever problems Assange and each of the two Swedish women respectively experienced in their dealings with one another do not amount to any incident of rape. For an accusation of rape to be true, you would need to redefine the word to mean something that it does not. But changing the meaning of a word is not really the issue. The issue is crime and crime is based on the intentional cause or allowance of harm to an unwilling victim. The only harm being done in this case is to Assange. He is the victim and the two Swedish women are wilful perpetrators in his suffering.

    Like in the case of the “30 Second Rapist”, the roles of victim and perpetrator have been inverted just as the crime of rape was inverted to that of rape-fixing.

    . . . .

    “30 Second Rapist” acquitted of rape -
    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s265381.htm

  146. Thanks Jemand, for that extremely powerful and thought-provoking contribution. There is so much to consider in it, I find it quite difficult to get my head around it all.

    First though, your conclusion with regard to the Swedish case is spot on. The only person who has been raped in this situation is Julian Assange – he has been utterly betrayed and victimised. And, as you say, it amounts to the same perp/victim role reversal you outline in the “30 Second Rapist” case.

    I had only vaguely heard about this particular case before and didn’t know the details. In fact, when I read this line:

    The fact that both the victim (an acquaintence) and perpetrator’s wife later admitted to having set the man up for this outcome is not relevant to the point that is being made here.

    I physically gasped. Of course I understand your logic in separating out associated crimes – conspiracy, threats, etc – from actual crimes, but the irony is that, in this “30-second” case and in Assange’s case, that is where the true crime, the true violence and victimisation, resides.

    Rape is an extraordinary nomansland of a crime. It’s incredibly difficult in some instances to fit it into the sort of neat legal tick-boxes which work perfectly well (ok, reasonably well) for other crimes of violence. And, IMHO, rape does always contain violence, albeit physical violence may be absent.

    I don’t think any of the legal definitions of rape work particularly well, but I like your intent/harm-based model as I think this would be something that could offer protection in situations such as S&M sex that are quite often wrongly prosecuted as rape.

    My own personal, this-is-how-I-judge-it definition/benchmark for rape is: the knowing [complete and utter] sexual violation of someone else’s will, with the bit in square brackets serving as a sort of culpability gradient. I use the word ‘will’ to help me focus on the fact that in all human interactions every person must take at least some responsibility for their own choices and responses. Unfortunately, that approach often gets screamed down as victim-blaming in today’s climate. (I’m female by the way, if you didn’t know already, and was myself a victim of rape.)

  147. Thanks so much for the reply, Arbed.

    Yes, you are right, an important similarity exists between the 30SR and Assange cases that I didn’t expound on because my comment was getting pretty long. It’s important for people to understand that criminal legislation needs to be constructed with safeguards against misuse as is guaranteed to happen, like in both of these cases, apparently.

    I am also aware (didn’t forget from previous mentions) about your own experiences and have been unsure of advising you on whether to make those experiences known to other people as I was concerned about you protecting your identity (to avoid possible harrassment).

    With regard to deconstructing and analysing sexual assault, I think we can compare it to stealing – where the thing stolen is sex with various physical, emotional and psychological effects. In the same way as robbery is stealing with a threat of violence, I consider rape to be stealing sex with a threat of violence.

    I’m sure it’s not a perfect analogy but different instances of sexual assault can be graded according to an equivalent crime of stealing. A person owns their body and can keep it under lock and key, hire it out or lend use of it, for sex, labour, entertainment etc. Stealing use of their body, or deceiving them into handing over its use, is a crime. Rape is an especially intimate violation, attacking a person’s sense of power over their own wellbeing. So false charges of rape, attacks a persons reputation and standing in the community.
    . . . .

    Anyway, we are now awaiting the verdict in the Manning trial and it should come as no surprise to you or me that the Judge doesn’t need or want to deliberate for a couple of weeks on the verdict but hand down the one that the Pentagon has preordained. The US media might be holding back on expressing its misgivings about the case, and I’m sure they will have more to say well after the verdict and sentence is handed down.

  148. Manning’s conviction seen as making prosecution of WikiLeaks’ Assange likely -

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2013/07/30/79746700-f94f-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_story.html

  149. In a major case of hissy fit, Obama cancels his upcoming visit to Russia because of Snowden’s asylum. Decides to pop in on Sweden in early September instead.

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/obama-cancels-putin-meeting-over-snowden-row-131324295.html#OP3SsWL

    Hmm. Anyone know when was the last time a US Prez visited Sweden? I know that when Hillary Clinton anticipated the verdict of the UK Supreme Court by announcing a visit to Sweden the day after the Court said they’d hand down the verdict in 5 days’ time (just don’t mention the words “NSA snooping”, ya hear?), that was the first visit for 37 years of a US Secretary of State. I’m guessing a visit from the US Prez is an even rarer event.

    I wonder if US gummint has a fixation about asylum-seekers at the moment…?

    And when is the sentencing part of Bradley Manning’s trial due to finish…? Oh! Early September, you say? My, my – isn’t that when Assange’s lawyers guess the Grand Jury indictment gets unsealed?

    (If anyone thinks I’m exaggerating, thinking everything revolves around Julian Assange, yadda, yadda, I’m not. Just look at how they behaved over Snowden! Never mind their two-month “get Snowden at all costs” campaign, the US govt’s “get Assange” campaign has been going for more than three years now, and it’s HUGE. Even the Australian DFAT FOI releases have called it “unprecedented in both scale and nature”.)

  150. Last visit was George Bush in Gothenburgh, when Sweden was hosting a EU-summit, it resulted in severe riots from european protesters that made the town look like a war-zone, so we can expect some similar in Stockholm. Link enclosed:
    http://www.daysofdissent.org.uk/gothenburg.htm

  151. Ask Assange a question -

    http://oursay.org/ask-assange

    Not much time left, I think. There are several hostile questions that have been contrived to embarrass Assange so I hope commentators here will visit and help correct the imbalance.

  152. Here’s the official FCO statement confirming Hague’s visit to Sweden on 28-29 August.

    “The invitation for the visit was formally offered by Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt in a Twitter conversation with Mr Hague today.”

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-william-hague-announces-visit-to-sweden

    Well, as Carl Bildt’s “Twitter invitation” is timestamped 6 hours ago as at the time of writing this, and Hague’s Twitter “acceptance” is timestamped 3 hours ago, what busy, busy bees they are at the FCO to set all this up in record time. Wonder what prompted this blue-arse fly level of activity…?

    Carl Bildt Verified account
    @carlbildt

    We will welcome President Obama to Sweden September 4th. Remarkable, but it will be first truly bilateral visit by a US President to Sweden

    announced Wednesday 7 August… Kempe couldn’t see what I saw in this tweet when I first posted it here and pooh-poohed it a bit as wild speculation, but it all seems so blatant, so obvious, to me.

    Hope this works:

    Swedish MD Files Police Complaint Against Barack Obama for War Crimes http://rixstep.com/1/20130809,00.shtml
    http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=95&artikel=5612748

  153. Warning !
    Some of these companies writing here like “Ion Discover Dj Software Download” are affected with viruses, this latest is infected by Stuxnet, I´m amazed that a computer software company doesn´t keep track of their own systems…

    Otherwise – Lon Snowden is heading for Moscow- he and his laywer got a visa, departure date is secret to avoid frenzy press, and Obama may be in trouble now since CIA in someway revealed that they are not sure at all who gets killed in a dron strike, story below:
    http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18781930-exclusive-cia-didnt-always-know-who-it-was-killing-in-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show?lite

    As Obama will visit Sweden sept 4-5, a doctor has already made a policereport against Obama, and this makes me think what would happened if ALBA makes an enquiry to Eurocontrol to shut down airspace for Air force 1 in the same matter as when Morales was grounded in Europe for much less as having a possible “snowden” onboard…..

  154. EU warrant opt-out ‘could free Julian Assange’: Campaigners warn of four-month loophole before UK rejoins treaty:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-warrant-optout-could-free-julian-assange-campaigners-warn-of-fourmonth-loophole-before-uk-rejoins-treaty-8744948.html

    I’m wondering something… If this 4-month gap means that the present EAW from Sweden will no longer be valid, how does it get revalidated once the opt-back-in has happened? I’m wondering this because, as far as I can see, the Swedish EAW will be invalid under at least one of the two specific conditions Theresa May has announced in parliament for the opt-in: EAWs can no longer be used for trivial offences and that A DECISION TO CHARGE must have already been taken. Under Swedish law it is forbidden for a prosecutor to TAKE THE DECISION on whether to prosecute until the preliminary investigation, including all questioning, has been completed. As the Swedish prosecutor has clarified on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s own website that the preliminary investigation is still in the early stages and, she thinks, several rounds of questioning may be necessary before any decision can even be reached, I’d assume any new EAW she submits to the UK will have to be honest (this time) that he is only wanted for questioning.

    It is my belief that this peculiar opt-out /opt-back-in business with the EAW was in fact CAUSED by the Assange case, because the rulings in his case introduced two very dangerous new precedents which put all UK citizens at risk. Anyone can now be extradited to Europe merely for questioning, whereas before EAWs could not be used if there were no charges. And secondly, extradition can be demanded by a prosecutor in charge of investigating a case (therefore not impartial at all) rather than by a judge, which was the previous rule. By trying so hard to get Assange off its shores before the US tried to extradite him from here for conspiracy to commit journalism – which would be political dynamite – the UK has got itself into a huge human rights mess – hence the opt-out and opt-back-in to the EAW when the safeguards his case stripped out of UK law are put back in.

  155. @arbed

    I hope an opportunity to unlock the deadlock will occur during that period.

    But I worry when I read this text below on the Government’s webpage:

    “Addressing lengthy and avoidable pre-trial detention by amending the UK Extradition Act so that a person in the UK can only be extradited under the EAW when the requesting State has made a decision to charge – and also to try – that individual, unless that person’s presence is required in that jurisdiction for those decisions to be made.

    But perhaps this new text has no importance during the opt out/opt in transition?
    /
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-opt-out-of-eu-crime-and-justice-measures
    http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm86/8671/8671.pdf

  156. Hi Axel,

    I think you are right to be worried by that wording, but demanding that someone be extradited purely for the purpose of questioning purely for the express purpose of being able to decide whether to charge them (particularly when that person has a dual investigator/prosecutor role, ie. dual executive/judicial role!) is going to conflict directly with the MLA protocols. So, unless they are saying the MLA protocols are better scraped as they will no longer be needed…

    I’m trying to think under what circumstances someone’s presence in a country is (legitimately) required in order to decide whether to charge them. Can you think of any?

  157. Arbed wrote:
    “I’m trying to think under what circumstances someone’s presence in a country is (legitimately) required in order to decide whether to charge them. Can you think of any?”

    Response:
    Hardly any. Maybe you can construct a case with some imagination: If the accused need to be confronted with some evidence that cannot be moved out of the country? Whatever that might be.

    In the case of Assange I cannot imagine any such circumstances. This is of course why Marianne Ny has always been very vague in her motivations for refusing to question Assange in London, whether by MLA or by invitation from the Ecuadorian Embassy. He is needed in Stockholm. Full stop. No reason given.

  158. “It is my belief that this peculiar opt-out /opt-back-in business with the EAW was in fact CAUSED by the Assange case, because the rulings in his case introduced two very dangerous new precedents which put all UK citizens at risk. Anyone can now be extradited to Europe merely for questioning, whereas before EAWs could not be used if there were no charges. And secondly, extradition can be demanded by a prosecutor in charge of investigating a case (therefore not impartial at all) rather than by a judge, which was the previous rule. By trying so hard to get Assange off its shores before the US tried to extradite him from here for conspiracy to commit journalism – which would be political dynamite – the UK has got itself into a huge human rights mess – hence the opt-out and opt-back-in to the EAW when the safeguards his case stripped out of UK law are put back in.”

    Arbed if you are sure that before EAWs could not be issued without a charge doesn’t the fact that the EAW issued for Assange’s arrest was illegal under European law and thus has no standing?

    Meanwhile Julian Assange talks to Eddie McGuire.

    http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/breaking-news/blog/2013/8/julian-assange-interview-eddie-mcguire-on-election-wikileaks-and-secretive-governments/

  159. Hi John,

    Yes, absolutely sure. Prior to Assange’s case EAW’s in the UK were invalid. It was mentioned at the High Court appeal that there had been 60 previous appeals on the basis that the subject had not been charged. I don’t know the details of those appeals – whether they had succeeded or failed – but Justice Thomas just waved his hand and refused permission for that aspect of the case to be taken to the Supreme Court. That’s why only the issue of whether an investigating prosecutor was an impartial judicial authority was considered “a point of general public importance”, because that question had simply never come up in previous appeals.

    But, yes, I am 100% certain that Assange’s case set new precedents on both issues. Arbitrary (and decidedly twisted) decision-making by the UK courts in this highly politicised case is precisely what gives these new precedents ‘standing’.

    Contrast with Ireland’s Supreme Court, who refused to extradite Ian Bailey on this exact issue. He was wanted in France for questioning and had not been charged. The Irish court therefore ruled that an EAW could not be used against him:

    http://nolet.com/article/bailey-case-highlights-extradition-flaws

  160. were invalid < for questioning only. Sorry.

  161. Thanks for that information Arbed and thanks for the link concerning Ian Bailey.

  162. Looks like Obamas choice of going to Sweden, as a protest against Russia and Snowden, is a big lie.

    It got public on the 7 of August, Carl Bildt claims that he spoke to Obama a couple of days before.
    Today, swedish military is placing mobile radar-stations in the center of Stockholm, to protect Obama.

    But there is a catch, swedish military was checking the same position on july 2 for it´s radarsystem, as choosen today to protect his hotel from being attacked by missiles. It was recorded in july 2nd by an amatur:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouc1MBLQVck
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SMpR0rUDAk

    So we can rule out Snowden as the source for Obamas late re-arragement, its gets more chilling that the Syrian conflict may was planned way ahead of what we know so far.

  163. Here’s hoping Obama gets a little surprise during his visit to Stockholm on Wednesday…

    Today Wikileaks announced that it is filing a lawsuit in Sweden demanding an investigation into illegal FBI/intelligence activities against Wikileaks, and will be filing a further three similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions. There’s an 186-page affidavit by Julian Assange, of which so far they’ve made public the first 50-odd pages (without the appendices):

    http://wikileaks.org/Press-Release-WikiLeaks-Launches.html

    Affidavit:
    Pdf: http://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/Swedish_Unlawful_Seizure_Complaint2013.pdf

    Online: http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html

    Only managed a brief skim through as yet, but at the end the affidavit requests Swedish police to use the opportunity of Obama’s visit to question him and/or US Govt officials in his delegation about the illegal intelligence operations. Hah! Now that’s what I call chutzpah.

    There’s also explosive stuff about the Swedish investigation in it. I’ll put the most obvious bit (well, obvious to me after a brief look, anyway) in a separate post below.

  164. Ok, here we go. Paragraph 97 of Assange’s affidavit – http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html – contains translations of Sofia Wilen’s SMS messages from the police station on the day the women first visited police to get advice about HIV tests, or so they say. A footnote explains that his Swedish lawyers were allowed to view, but not copy, this suppressed evidence and these translations are taken direct from his lawyers email of 8 December 2011.

    While the younger woman was at the police station on 20 August 2010, her phone records show that she wrote that she:

    did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him (sv: få tag på honom) (14:26);

    and that

    she was “chocked [sic: shocked] when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test (17:06)”.

    What in hell was going on at Klara police station on 20 August? AFAIK, the women arrived at 2pm and Sofia Wilen’s formal interrogation with Irmeli Krans did not start until 4.21pm – and the only person we *know* the women talked to between those times is Linda Wassgren – yet here is Wilen saying at 2.26pm TWO HOURS BEFORE she is formally interviewed she “did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him”… ?

    Sorry, but this sounds like bullshit to me. It’s only 20 minutes after she first walked into the station. (How long does it take for a policeman to say “sorry love, the police can’t force someone to take HIV tests”?) Believe me, reporting a rape is an arduous and lengthy business and the police do NOT generally start taking the whole thing uber-seriously within the first 20 minutes. And she could easily have walked straight out the station before any formal i/v if she genuinely wanted to avoid “putting any charges on JA” and could see the police were taking things further than she wanted.

    I’ve just noticed something else. If Sofia Wilen’s 2.26pm SMS is deeply suspect because it was 2 hours before her formal interview, well the second SMS makes no sense at all. The time of the SMS given in this affidavit is 17.06. The duty prosecutor issued the warrant for Assange at 5pm precisely (see the UK Supreme Court’s Agreed Facts for confirmation of this) but Wilen’s interview with Krans was not terminated until 18.42 – directly after someone stuck their head round the door to inform them FOR THE FIRST TIME that the warrant had been issued. At that point, so Krans records on the witness statement Wilen became too “distressed” at this news to continue the interview. How, therefore, can she send an SMS only minutes after a warrant is issued in another part of the building (I’m assuming her formal Krans interview would be conducted in a private interview room rather than directly in front of the duty prosecutor’s desk…) where she says she ALREADY KNOWS ABOUT THIS WARRANT. Wilen’s interview started at 16.21pm and continued until 18.42pm – so, unless she was given breaks to wander around the police station and text her friends, it is impossible that SW would know about the warrant until at least 18.30ish.

    My personal view is that both of these SMSs are part of Sofia Wilen setting up her alibi against false allegation charges. It’s all of a piece with other inconsistencies in her story: saying that she didn’t know she’d been a victim of a crime (that’s in her Krans statement) until speaking to friends, but she seems not to have phoned any of them until AFTER she had visited TWO hospitals on Tuesday 17 August (why? surely the first one gave her HIV test or morning-after pill, if that’s all she was after. And why go to a hospital AGAIN on the Friday morning, 20 August); phoning her old boyfriend Seth up “out of the blue” specifically to talk about Assange and “rape”; etc etc I still believe she told Linda Wassgren, the first police officer the women spoke to, Assange had deliberately torn a condom – the “popping balloon sounds in the night” Mats Gehlin notes on the forensic report that Wilen had reported at some point – and Anna Ardin backed her up (as she tells Donald Bostrum, according to his statement) then she changed her story for Krans, and got out the station fast via playacting “distress” on hearing about the warrant.

    It’s great that these SMSs have come out. They add a whole new layer of inconsistency to the very, very start of the story – the actual report of the women to the police. I wonder if George Galloway can be pursuaded to now release the rest of the 22 that he says he’s got?

  165. Yes, the texts at 14.26 and 17.06 are oddly timed. Could there be something wrong with the timing? The texts must be given in local Swedish time, surely?

    The content of the first text seem inconsistent with Linda Wassgren’s memo, which claims that everyone was very much in agreement that it was rape. Or, it is possible, that it took half an hour to convince Sofia to be in agreement?

    The second, if the time is correct must mean that Irmeli Krans interrupted the questioning to let Sofia send her text. Odd. Very odd. If the text is correctly reported (in the mail from the lawyer) it means we have got something very wrong.

    Could the second mail have been fabricated by someone else in some way to give her a better story to tell afterwards…

  166. Hi Axel,

    Good questions. Personally, I’m pretty sure that if Assange is including these SMS in an formal affidavit in a lawsuit (to be presented to the Swedish police by the very same lawyers who wrote that email, having seen the SMS evidence) that they will be damn sure they’ve got the times the SMS were sent right.

    On your point about Linda Wassgren’s memo, two things: it doesn’t give precise timings, IIRC, and “everyone agreed it was rape” DOES fit my theory that Sofia Wilen DID deliberately intend to report rape (as her new lawyer Massi Fritz accidentally let slip) by telling her story of “the sound of someone pulling on a balloon” and finding a condom fragment under the bed. That, of course, does not exclude that Sofia Wilen might also at the same time have been furiously sending “decoy” SMSs to her friends claiming innocence and being “railroaded” by police in order to avoid eventual prosecution for making false allegations.

  167. Well, the whole story stinks !

    the text one more below:
    did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him (14:26)
    she was “chocked when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test (17:06)”
    she wrote at 07:27 on 21 August 2010 that she “did not want to accuse JA for anything”;
    and at 22:25 that “it was the police who made up the charges”

    The interview was conducted 14:43 till 18:40CET by Irmeli Krans, where Irmeli states that she ended it as Sofia got so upset over Julians arrest. Sofia knew by the sms at 17:06 that Julian was to be arrested but she continued the hearing until 18:40CET, thats 1 hr and 34 minutes AFTER she gets the info. This also means that the police informed here during the hearing directly of the upcoming arrest, 17:06 matches the internal paperwork from the police.

    Both the policewoman Irmeli Krans and Sofia are lying in this matter.
    If Julian had released these timings erlier, it could have helped him a lot !

  168. Hi Duqu

    “17:06 matches the internal paperwork from the police.”

    Can you explain a bit more exactly what you mean by this? Which bits of internal police paperwork confirm this timing please?

  169. Duqu,

    Yes, I agree the timing of the second SMS – the 17.06 one – does allow for the possibility of collusion between Sofia Wilen and the police (or the intelligence services??), but it is also possible that Sofia somehow surrepticiously sent a short text message without Irmeli Krans necessarily being aware of what she was writing. The main question either way is “How did Sofia Wilen know that the duty prosecutor had issued a warrant six minutes after the fact?”

    How is news of these SMS timings being viewed in Flashback? Can I ask my usual favour please – can you repost my 11.13pm post [not in spoilers - they'll ignore it] into Flashback, to fire up the discussion a bit?

  170. Another juicy morsel from Julian Assange’s affidavit – http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html – requesting a criminal investigation in Sweden.

    In paragraph 115, Assange describes arriving at Arlanda airport “shortly after noon” on 27 September 2010. He goes on to say in the following paragraphs that he could not get a ticket for the early afternoon flight and was forced to hang around for the flight at 17.25, despite knowing that the airport was likely monitored by intelligence agencies (para 118). Check-in for that later flight would not have opened until approx 15.25 and Assange sets out how, as part of his personal counter-intelligence practices, he doesn’t buy his flight tickets until the very last moment.

    Guy Sim’s book Julian Assange in Sweden – what really happened details how Marianne Ny herself confirmed the timing of the arrest warrant she issued on 27 September in response to an email query (the arrest warrant that, notoriously, the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s website is extremely coy about – their timeline for the whole of September 2010 simply reads “September 2010. Julian Assange arrested in his absence. The investigation continues.”):

    So the first Flashback contributor tried again. He sent another e-mail to the Prosecutors’ Office, and was able to report on 1 September that he had received a reply, and it was from Marianne Ny herself. He commented, “Marianne Ny didn’t dally with sending an acidic volley in my direction.” Marianne Ny’s reply read as follows. “It is correct that the correct date is 27 September. The fact that it is September and not August is of course obvious when checking the chronological order of the case on the Prosecutor Authority’s website, but I apologise for the fact that the typing error was not noticed before the reply was sent. Yours sincerely, Marianne Ny.”

    The Flashback contributor then e-mailed again to ask at what time of day the order was issued, and got this reply. “The time for the decision to arrest Julian Assange in absentia was 14.15 on 27 September 2010.” The e-mail was signed by, ‘Britt Svensson, Administrator, Prosecution Authority Development Centre, Gothenburg’.
    pgs 33-34 http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/233304

    Paragraph 74 of Julian Assange’s affidavit deals with the Australian government’s public confirmation that they would explore the possibility of cancelling his passport, but that this idea was ultimately rejected. The accompanying footnote (87) says:

    [Australian Attorney-General] Mr McClelland also said the Australian government had considered cancelling Mr Assange’s passport, but there were “issues in respect of serving a notice of cancellation”:

    “More importantly, there (are) issues as to whether it would be constructive or counter-productive to the law enforcement,” he said.

    Assange’s passport would set off alarms if presented at an airport, and Mr McClelland questioned “whether it would be counter-productive to remove the identification that would in fact trigger the law-enforcement process”. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/australia-to-help-us-over-assange-20101204-18k3w.html

    So, at 15.25pm or thereabouts, Assange’s passport at the check-in counter would have “set off alarms” and would have “triggered” a law enforcement process, ie in this case prompt arrest. Except it didn’t. Instead it seems to have “triggered” an intelligence operation which deleted all trace of his luggage from the baggage-handling computer systems. I wonder if that 14.15 arrest warrant was meant to trigger that latter process?

    Flashbackers, other interested Swedish folk – is there any kind of Freedom of Information request you can think of which might draw out what was written on this arrest warrant? What FOI requests have been put in so far?

  171. Another interesting juxtaposition to emerge fairly clearly in Assange’s affidavit is this:

    Paragraph 89:
    On 13 August 2010 one of the main Swedish newspapers, Svenska Dagbladet, published an article entitled ‘Defence ministry prepared for the next leak’, which detailed that a group within the Swedish Ministry of Defence was preparing for WikiLeaks’ next publication and had analysed 76,000 previous publications from WikiLeaks in relation to Swedish troops in Afghanistan.
    http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#5

    The following day, 14 August, Assange gave a talk at a seminar about Wikileaks Afghan War Diaries publications. Sofia Wilen attended the seminar, although no one can quite work out how she managed to get a ticket as the seminar was already sold out. Assange accompanies her to her apartment on 17 August, refusing her suggestion that they go to a hotel instead.

    Paragraph 90:
    18 August 2010 – Swedish state television published a segment entitled ‘We risk United States relationship deteriorating’, which argued that the presence of WikiLeaks in Sweden would negatively affect the strategic relationship between Sweden and the United States.

    and the following day

    Paragraph 93:
    Through an intelligence source, I became aware that on 19 August 2010, the Swedish Security Service (SÄPO) requested information about me from an Australian intelligence organisation. The Australian intelligence organisation responded to the request with information about me on 21 August 2010.

    18 August 2010, it must be remembered, was the day that Assange applied for Swedish residency, something that was required in order to register Wikileaks as a Swedish publication and thereby gain protection under Sweden’s exemplary source protection laws.

    The affidavit goes on

    Paragraph 108:
    8 September 2010 – The head of the Swedish military intelligence service (“MUST”) publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled ‘WikiLeaks a threat to our soldiers’. I became increasingly concerned about Sweden’s close relationship to the US in military and intelligence matters.

    Paragraph 109:
    Around this time I was warned by a trusted intelligence source that the Swedish intelligence service SÄPO had been privately told by its US counterparts that US–Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be “cut off” if Sweden was viewed to be sheltering me. This is consistent with the reports I had read in the US press outlined above. I considered my continued presence in Sweden to be a serious risk to my personal safety and a risk to WikiLeaks’ continued publications. I asked my lawyer to request permission for me to leave Sweden to attend planned engagements.

    On 18 October 2010 Assange’s residency request was turned down by the National Migration Board, very usually and without explanation. There’s an error in this report concerning the identity of various prosecutors but the facts about the residency permit are correct:

    http://www.thelocal.se/29684/20101018/

    Not really hard to guess which Swedish institutions applied pressure on the Migration Board regarding Assange’s application. The real puzzle is where – or if – Sofia Wilen’s (mis)adventures fit into this.

  172. Through an intelligence source, I became aware that on 19 August 2010, the Swedish Security Service (SÄPO) requested information about me from an Australian intelligence organisation. The Australian intelligence organisation responded to the request with information about me on 21 August 2010.

    We all know what happened on 20 August 2010. But we still don’t know whether it was Wednesday 18 August or Thursday 19 August when Sofia Wilen first phoned up Anna Ardin and talked her into accompanying her to the police station.

  173. Breaking news.

    Remember the kerfuffle when Sofia Wilen’s new lawyer Elizabeth Massi Fritz (also the Swedish Prime Minister’s ‘family’ lawyer) released a strongly worded press release to the international media demanding that Sweden get tough with Ecuador to force Assange’s extradition for questioning? Then, embarrassingly, it was noticed there were actually two press releases, saying contradictory things. The second press release – the one stating that Sofia Wilen HAD originally intended to file a rape report – was ante-dated and the international and domestic versions of the presser swapped.

    Well, now that – even more embarrassingly – some of Sofia Wilen’s text messages from the Klara police station on the actual day of her visit – have come into the public domain via Assange’s affidavit concerning the illegal seizure of his luggage from Arlanda airport that second press release has been removed from Massi Fritz’ website entirely. Here’s a Google translate of a post by the sharp-eyed Flashbacker who first noticed it:

    SWs SMS in a little summary:

    SW did not want to put any charges on YES … but the police were keen on getting a grip on him … she was chocked When They arrested YES Because she only wanted him to take a test.

    Press releas from EMF law firm’s website: 

    My client has a right to obtain redress for the rape that she has filed a police report and that Assange today is suspected. She has a right to a civil action to get a trial at a customary manner, in accordance with Swedish law. The rape that Assange is suspected of left deep scars and has led to a serious violation of her privacy. The violation has been very serious and the psychological symptoms are there every day. Assange’s behavior and procrastination of the investigation in this case complicates the suffering of my client when the preliminary investigation does not go forward. The wait is long and the suffering big.Speculation in the media have been many and clearly erroneous. This investigation involves allegations of rape in the part relating to my client. 

    Version: May 22, 2013

    Sensation 1: Version # 1 is back and her assistant AS’s backdated and manipulated are away from their website!

    Sensation 2: The press release contradicts fully SWs own text! If something deeply influenced by psychological symptoms in her so it must be the police and prosecutors conduct orskat it, nothing else! 

    Speculation now seems more correct than press release!

    https://www.flashback.org/sp45074241

    See my post above – 2nd Sept, 11.13pm – for what Sofia Wilen’s SMS messages reveal she said on the day. Here are two more she sent the following day, also reproduced in the affidavit:

    98. The woman concerned told a friend that she felt that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”, according to the latter’s police statement.
    99. According to the younger woman’s phone records, who the ‘rape’ allegation is associated to, she wrote at 07:27 on 21 August 2010 that she “did not want to accuse JA for anything”; and at 22:25 that “it was the police who made up the charges”.
    http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#5

    Quite the contrast! Perhaps Sofia Wilen’s new lawyer should have a word with her client, so they can get her story straight?

  174. One of the best articles on the latest Wikileaks release, Spy Files 3, from PrivacySOS. This one actually explains in simple terms what some of the products these security contractors sell to governments and corporations actually do:

    http://privacysos.org/node/1172

    What I find most interesting in this Wikileaks release is the new(?) WLCIU – the Wikileaks CounterIntelligence Unit, busy tracking which countries these private security contractors’ salesmen visit – repressive regimes and (supposed) democracies alike. Aside from the delicious irony of the spooky types who are selling out entire populations getting a taste of their own medicine, it’s interesting stuff to see who visited where and when, and how that correlates with forthcoming elections, sudden and massive interference with net access in particular countries, and such like. The WLCIU data released in the Spy Files 3 seems to have been acquired via cell phone tracking done by Bugged Planet. That’s Andy Muller-Muguhn’s (co-founder of the CCC) outfit, IIRC.

  175. Very good work, Arbed. Look at this:

    https://twitter.com/rixstepnews/status/375589473951551490

  176. The picture is getting very clear now. US- UK- Sweden work closely together in global surveillance of people and governments.

    Of course Assange was always a threat to this. Of course, the Swedish Government under Reinfeldt/Bildt tried to stop him from settling down in Sweden in 2010.

    http://www.thelocal.se/50096/20130906/
    http://www.thelocal.se/50102/20130906/
    http://www.thelocal.se/50114/20130906/

  177. The Swedish police have now confirmed that they are opening a formal police investigation into the suspected illegal seizure by an intelligence agency/ies of Wikileaks encrypted laptops containing evidence of a US war crime from Assange as he was leaving Sweden (with permission) on 27 September 2010.

    Swedish police have opened a formal preliminary investigation into the seizure of WikiLeaks property on 27 September 2010, which contained evidence of a war crime. Julian Assange filed a criminal complaint at Arlanda police on 3 September 2013 via his lawyer Per E. Samuelson.

    Julian Assange said: “The Swedish police has decided to open an investigation. I hope this investigation is given the independence to go wherever it needs to, and no official is considered above the law. The police should be supported in their investigation. The WikiLeaks material that was seized contained evidence of a US war crime committed as part of the Afghan military campaign.”

    The criminal complaint is opened under case number 0201 K 268906-13.

    Link to press release regarding the filing of the criminal complaint: http://wikileaks.org/Updated-Press-Release-WikiLeaks.html

    A separate complaint was filed in Germany with the federal prosecutor that same day. http://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-Files-Second-Criminal.html

    http://wikileaks.org/Sweden-Formally-Initiates.html

  178. Flashbackers / Swedish peeps

    Can anyone find out for me who is the prosecutor in charge of this new investigation into the missing laptops? (I assume this preliminary investigation is not one where the suspected crime is deemed minor enough for the police themselves to lead the investigation and a prosecutor will be in charge.)

    Also, I understand that various people who were prominent in the 20 August preliminary investigation have now moved/been moved from their original jobs. It would be really handy to know where the following people are now, and what are their current job titles:

    Mats Gehlin
    On-duty prosecutor Marie Kjellstrand
    Linda Wassgren
    Ewa Olofsson
    Sara Wennerblom

    Anyone else who’s moved since? I believe Eva Finne now has a new role too; remind me what that is, please. And where’s Irmeli Krans nowadays?

  179. If I’m reading this link correctly (supplied by Flashbacker Groink – use Google translate), then under Swedish law, if Assange is to be prosecuted (all prosecutions? – even ones based in the US?) he must be notified if any evidence has been obtained by surveillance/interception. However, there are a whole heap of exemptions – “terrorist” crimes, “major” crimes, etc. The outcome of the Swedish investigation into the suspected seizure of Assange’s laptops at Arlanda airport may render any evidence obtained that way that winds its way through to the US Wikileaks Grand Jury inadmissable in court.

    http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19420740.HTM#K27P31

    Groink’s post on the matter: https://www.flashback.org/sp45142379

    I think that may be right. On the advice of his US lawyers, Assange’s affidavit already confidently asserts that the Icelandic evidence obtained by the FBI through ‘Siggi’ is inadmissable, because the Icelandic Parliament has already declared the FBI actions there “illegal”.

    And the same thing is said about the possible outcome of the German affidavit – Martin Hosbrough’s evidence against Chelsea Manning will be used in Manning’s appeal against her “wanton publishing” conviction if, as a result of Germany’s investigation of Assange’s lawsuit, Hosbrough’s surveillance of Assange at the 2009 CCC convention is deemed illegal under German law. That would make it inadmissable under US law and it should not have been used in Manning’s case.

    Damn, they’ve thought through the effects of these affidavits very, very carefully. I’m impressed. Can’t wait for the other two still to come. :)

  180. Question:

    Even if the formal Swedish preliminary investigation now opened is closed down again promptly with a “no result” (ie. opening one is a purely face-saving manoeuvre), doesn’t the mere fact that the issue has been formally raised in a lawsuit affidavit make it impossible for the US DoJ to use any evidence obtained via clandestine seizure at Arlanda in any US court action further down the line, because they will have to disclose how they came by it – and then this affidavit about the admissability of that evidence kicks in?

    If so, clever – very clever.

  181. Good article on the inconsistencies in Sofia Wilen’s story and evidence:

    http://www.marthamitchelleffect.org/censoringthelastparagraph/4579229896

    I hope this gets a decent amount of pick-up, or gets tweeted widely – it gives a good overview of the switch-and-bait that [both SW and] Marianne Ny did when she took this “investigation” international. It is not only an international readership that has been misled by Marianne Ny’s characterisation of the case on the EAW but, in deliberately ignoring this evidence she already had on the desk in front of her, the international courts too.

  182. Coo-ee, Flashback! I think I’ve turned up something interesting. There was an article about the Fifth Estate movie in Buzzfeed yesterday:

    Why The Benedict Cumberbatch-Julian Assange Movie Doesn’t Address The Rape Case
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakarin/the-fifth-estate-bill-condon-julian-assange-movie-rape

    I want to draw your attention to a discussion I got into in the comments underneath the article with someone called “nalnlaus” [here’s their full contribution, for ease of reference: http://www.buzzfeed.com/nafnlaus. I’ll highlight the bit I think is particularly interesting.

    SW and AA walked into the police station and told them that Assange had committed rape (“I, inspector Linda Wassgren was temporarily on duty in the reception at Klara Närpo, normally I am on duty outside at the same station. At around 14:00 the same day two women came into the station to talk and get some advice on two earlier events and they were a little insecure on how to proceed. Initially the crime rape was mentioned and both of the women were victimized.”). Of the three investigating officers (two, Wassgren and Gehlen) wanted Assange charged for 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x molestation, and 2x rape. One, Krans, wanted 1x, 2x, 1x. The first prosecutor opened the case for 1x, 2x, 2x, but then later changed it to 1x, 2x, 0x.

    Is this the first confirmation that we have had that Linda Wassgren and Mats Gehlin heard the same story at the same time (ie. TWO women, TWO “deliberately torn”/”noises like someone pulling a balloon” condoms – AA tells us it was the fact that, after her one-sentence intervention, two women had a “similar” story about the same man that made it a “formal complaint”), and prior to the formal interview by Irmeli Krans?

    This commenter is quite specific about the order of decisions in their post, and is definitely asserting that Wassgren and Gehlin reached the same decision together. Did we previously know that Mats Gehlin was an “investigating officer” this early in events? – I had thought he was in the Family Violence Unit and was consulted by telephone, not that he was an on-the-spot investigator alongside Linda Wassgren.

    As you can see by the link to Nafnlaus’ comments above, they have a very, very detailed knowledge of the Swedish investigation. I am trying to think who else might know these kind of details of the exact events and personnel present during the very early hours of the women’s visit to Klara station, other than someone who was on the spot at the time… ;)

    There’s definitely something radical changing in the allegations between Wassgren/Gehlin, then Krans, then Finne for them all to reach such different conclusions – and the changes are specifically to do with the number of “rapes”.

    By the way, I think nafnlaus is attempting a little sleight of hand here, as they conflate the “first” (ie. duty) prosecutor – 1x, 2x, 2x – with the other “first” prosecutor (ie Eva Finne) – 1x, 2x, 0x. And that last bit is also a lie, of course – Eva Finne reduced the investigation to one count of molestation only, which I guess would be 0x, 1x, 0x.

  183. And then there is, of course, the oddity of which allegation, exactly, Eva Finne had in mind with that final 1x count of “molestation, non-sexual”. It has never made sense that when Mats Gehlin interrogated Julian Assange he focused exclusively on the ripped condom incident – the incident alleged by Ardin could never be described as “non-sexual”; Eva Finne’s outstanding matter to be investigated was more likely “molestation-ripped the necklace from my throat”, or something.

    But Mats Gehlin’s thinking makes a lot more sense if the first story he heard was The Tale of Two Broken Condoms. He’s a policeman, so a “policeman’s nose” might tell him the first story he heard is likely to be closest to the truth and, if he’d been sufficiently convinced by the women’s “enquiry” as Linda’s Wassgren’s fellow “investigating officer” during those first two hours on 20 August, all his subsequent actions have some logical sense:

    1. He’s confused by Eva Finne dropping the case. He writes a memo grumbling about her telling him to drop it. (Is it possible that he doesn’t even see Wilen’s formal statement to Krans before it gets biked to Finne’s country cottage over the weekend and the first time he sees how different Sofia Wilen’s formal statement turned out from the Tale of Two Broken Condoms he heard is days later?)

    2. He sends Wilen’s 20 August statement to Claes Borgstrom on 25 August for the “necessary changes” to be made, and orders Irmeli Krans to input them to Durtva the next day (under protest, we know). This doesn’t sound quite so corrupt if we consider he may be just baffled that Wilen has “forgotten” to mention what to him was the most crucial incident – the “sound like someone pulling on a balloon, she didn’t see the condom broke because it was dark in the room” – in the middle of her night with Assange. He’s expecting Borgstrom to fill in these details to his client’s statement. I believe it’s quite legal for counsel to “correct” mistakes in statements in this way in Sweden.

    3. He sends Sofia Wilen’s condom fragment along to the lab with Ardin’s “torn” condoms the same day he makes Wilen’s statement available to Borgstrom, 25 August. Quite logical, to him – never mind that Finne closed it down because of the “mistake” of Wilen “forgetting” her popping balloon noises – it’s still the same case: The Tale of the Two Broken Condoms. The most important thing to find out is WHEN and WHERE the Wilen condom came into the police custody chain. On the form sending them to the lab Ardin’s condom says “produced/location/time”, Wilen’s just says “produced” with nothing else.

    4. Despite now knowing the “necessary changes”/26 August version of Wilen’s statement still doesn’t include Wilen’s story indicating Assange is some weirdo who deliberately “rapes” women by damaging condoms, Gehlin’s “policeman’s nose” still tells him that’s the heart of the story and when he interrogates Assange on 30 August about Ardin’s torn-condom allegation (not a “molestation, non-sexual” matter, I’d say) he twice asks about a “sound” he claims Ardin heard, though her statement simply says “from the sound, she thinks he removed the condom” – not exactly enough to make Gehlin say “sorry to nag, but I want to go back to the ‘sound’ thing” (paraphrase from JA witness statement). Gehlin is clearly trying to elicit any information he can get about “popping balloon” or other weird rubbery noises.

    5. It’s not until he phones the SKL forensics lab on 20 October and hears that there’s no trace of DNA on Ardin’s condom he starts wondering some more about the Tale of Two Broken Condoms he first heard two months earlier. He immediately jots down his recollection of what Complainant 1 [Wilen] said about the “sound of someone pulling a balloon, but she didn’t see a condom broke as it was dark in the room”, and where the condom fragment was found. The day after the results themselves come back Wilen is reinterviewed yet again, 26 October (by Gehlin? do we have any confirmation about who interviewed her on this occasion?), and the day after that Gehlin interviews Wilen’s friend Marie Thorne, mainly about SMS text messages mentioning going to the newspapers, making money and revenge (27 October).

    I’ll repeat: The most important thing to find out is WHEN and WHERE the Wilen condom came into the police custody chain. On the form sending them to the lab, Ardin’s condom says “produced/location/time”, Wilen’s just says “produced” with nothing else. In his notes on the forensics report Gehlin says the condom fragment was “found under the bed” – but is that Wilen saying she found it there, or the police did? Surely, if it was the police who either found it in Wilen’s apartment, or received it from her there, there would be the same “produced/location/time” details noted as for Ardin’s condom when sending it off to the lab?

    Does just “produced” for Wilen’s fragment mean she herself handed it in to Wassgren/Gehlin at Klara on 20 August, but that neither of them thought to tell Finne about this physical evidence because they both assumed it would be mentioned in Wilen’s statement biked over to her? But it wasn’t. So, by the time Gehlin sends Wilen’s condom fragment off for analysis, Finne has closed Wilen’s case and he can’t therefore put too many details against it because it’s on Ardin’s ticket.

  184. Actually, missed a bit

    4.a – When Marianne Ny is giving Bjorn Hurtig all that run-around between 8 and 21 September as he’s trying to fix up a time for Assange to be interviewed about the resurrected Wilen/Ardin allegations, is the fact that she insists there is only one policeman able to conduct it, and he’s off sick, related to the fact he’s the ONLY senior “investigating officer” who actually heard The Tale of Two Broken Condoms from BOTH Wilen and Ardin on 20 August, ie Wilen’s report of the mysterious “pulling balloon” noises? What if the two of them, Gehlin and Ny, each for their own reasons – Gehlin, because that’s what he first heard; Ny, because Wilen/Ardin’s matching ‘torn condom’ allegations are exotic enough to make a great test case for her Sex Crimes Development project – are keen to push The Tale of Two Broken Condoms as the basis of the case, but they are frustrated/baffled because they have nothing much on it anywhere else in the documented evidence (at least at that stage in early September 2010). But they know what Gehlin heard… Perhaps there’s something in the unredacted version of Linda Wassgren’s 22 August memo to Eva Finne, but that’s quite short so there’s likely not much about Wilen’s “balloon noises” there either.

    If Wilen has omitted the “pulling balloons” incident from her statement to Krans, then from the “necessary changes” to the 26 August version, then refused to confirm it in her 2 September statement (Ny to UK court: “it says essentially the same thing as the earlier statement”), and there’s no mention of it in any of her friends’ statements or her phone/text records (which we know were requisitioned on 10 September), then they have a problem that only Mats Gehlin is ‘qualified’ to tease out of any interview with Assange about Wilen.

    The four SMS messages from Wilen on 20 and 21 August from Marianne Ny’s suppressed trove of 100 that have now come out in Assange’s laptops seizure affidavit would seem to indicate that Wilen was using text messages as “decoys” from her actual intent to maliciously report Assange for “rape” and to set up her “I was only asking about HIV” alibi. So, I think the above idea that Gehlin/Ny were stumped between 8th and 21st September by the lack of evidence to prove The Tale of the Two Broken Condoms in the file documentation is a fair guess. And that’s why she’s putting off interviewing Assange.

    We also know that Wilen was interrogated one more time around this 8-21 Sept period, when Ny appears to be hedging. On 10 September Wilen is interrogated at Claes Borgstrom’s office (by which police officer, we don’t know) but then, on the same day, she goes to a police station with Claes “for conversation with chief investigator and to submit mobile phone” < that must be Mats Gehlin.

    She is also interrogated again on 11th October, just over a week before Mats Gehlin makes his phone call to the SKL lab on 20 October. It seems unlikely that Wilen has said anything substantial about the torn condom fragment/ "pulling balloons noises" in the 10 September interrogation (perhaps she's back-tracking as much as possible while still sounding reasonably consistent, or play-acting dumb "cashmere girl", by this stage?), otherwise Ny would not have felt compelled to give Assange permission on 15 September to leave the country. It's possible she did say something to Gehlin about the condom fragment in her 11 October interview, and hence it's fairly fresh in his mind when he jots his notes on his file report on his conversation with the lab: http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/07/01/the-lab-results/

    I wondered whether I made a mistake in my previous post, and it was actually 24 August, not 25 August, when Mats Gehlin made Sofia's statement to Krans available to Borgstrom? But I see I was correct after all. This line:

    "2010-08-25 Review of interrogation 2010-08-26"

    is Borgstrom reviewing the 20 August statement on the 25th and returning it to be input and dated 2010-08-26 the next day. So, what's this, do you think?

    "2010-08-24 Review of complaint from 2010-08-20 with attachments"

    Some kind of log of the visit to the station that is given to people, with a crime number and telephone contact number on it? What would the "attachments" be? Do we already have this document, or has anyone tried obtaining it under a Freedom of Information query?

    ****

    2010-08-23 Preparation for and visit by Complainant A
    2010-08-24 Write to lower court regarding appointment as legal representative
    2010-08-24 Review of complaint from 2010-08-20 with attachments
    2010-08-24 Review of police memo 2010-08-22
    2010-08-25 Review of decision of prosecution authority
    2010-08-25 Review of interrogation 2010-08-26
    2010-09-01 Review of prosecutor’s decision in petition to reopen case
    2010-09-01 Review of interrogation 2010-08-30 of Julian Assange
    2010-09-02 Preparation for and conversation with Complainant A before and after police interrogation and representation during interrogation
    2010-09-10 Preparation for and conversation with Complainant A before and after police interrogation and representation during interrogation (in my offices)
    2010-09-10 Visit together with Complainant A to police for conversation with chief investigator and to submit mobile phone
    2010-09-20 Visit by Complainant A
    2010-10-11 Preparation for and conversation with Complainant A before and after police interrogation and representation during interrogation
    2010-10-13 Review mail from Complainant A
    2010-10-18 Write mail reply to Complainant A
    2010-10-26 Preparation for and conversation with Complainant A before and after police interrogation
    2010-10-26 Preparation for representation of Complainant A before and after police interrogation (in my offices)

    http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/03/28/anna-ardin-no-longer-wants-the-services-of-claes-borgstrom/

  185. What happened on 22 September that Marianne Ny decided she DID want an interview after all? Can’t have been all that urgent at that stage if she suggested six days later, the 28 September… Can anyone remind me what was happening external to the investigation around 22 September? Anything to do with Assange’s known plans, Wikileaks’ news, statements by US Govt figures? In Assange’s affidavit he speaks of cancelling his plans to remain in Sweden to clear his name, but no specifics. Other than that, there’s this:

    para 128 – “Mr Muller-Maguhn’s affidavit estimates that the meetings were set up in early September 2010 (Appendix C). The meeting with Stefania Maurizi was arranged over open email, which meant that this correspondence was interceptable.”

  186. Arbed quoted the affidavit: “para 128 – “Mr Muller-Maguhn’s affidavit estimates that the meetings were set up in early September 2010 (Appendix C). The meeting with Stefania Maurizi was arranged over open email, which meant that this correspondence was interceptable.”

    Is it possible that Marianne Ny already know, on September 22nd, about Assange’s coming meeting in Berlin on September 28th? Perhaps she suggested September the 28 for the questioning of Assange to stop this meeting (where new material was going to be delivered to Stefania Maurizi, his Italian press partner)? If so, it is not surprising that Assange’s computers were stolen at Arlanda airport: to stop Assange from deliver material to his Italian partners.

    Of course, this suggests that Marianne Ny, or her superiors, work hand in glove with Swedish and/or American security forces.

  187. Nice one, Axel!

    Hey, are you Swedish? We really need Swedish people lobbing in a few more Freedom of Information requests, to see if we can wheedle any more documentation re the investigation [see above posts for specific questions that could be asked].

  188. Holding post to keep thread open. Bit busy at the moment. [Mods: you can delete this one once proper posts are made]

  189. Arbed, no worries. I’ve reset this post so it stays open for a month after the last comment, but if you ever find a thread closed and wish to comment on it, just ping me in the latest thread, and I’ll sort it out.

  190. I am still trying to get my head round Swedish laws on what violates a person’s rights, since the man masturbating on the beach had not got anyone’s consent, whereas Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin both had consensual sex with Julian Assange. Oh well.

    http://www.thelocal.se/50392/20130923/

  191. Don’t bother even trying to get your head around it John, Sophie Wilen’s lawyer Elisabeth Massi Fritz has just explained how Sweden’s sex crimes laws “are a lottery”:

    Advokat: Våldtäktsdomar är ett lotteri
    http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/advokat-valdtaktsdomar-ar-ett-lotteri (use Google translate)

    I – and others – wonder whether articles like this by Sophia’s PR-focused lawyer are a way of prepping the ground because she knows her client’s allegations could well get thrown out of court.

  192. Found this and thought it worth passing on. Unfortunately, it’s in Swedish and Google translate mangles it a bit but the basic message comes through ok, I think. One thing to bear in mind is that this contributor to Flashback is a high court judge themselves, speaking anonymously. (That status is not referred to in this comment, though.) She/he says that what Julian Assange is accused of is not even a crime in Sweden, and that the allegations/arrest warrant against Assange have no legal basis in Swedish law. In fact, she/he says the entire way he has been treated has no legal basis in law in Sweden.

    https://www.flashback.org/sp45549543

    Note: the bit about “a promiscuous woman drawn to Islam” is a reference to Anna Ardin having now gone back to university and become heavily involved in supporting Omar Mustafa of the Swedish Muslim Brotherhood, who is accused of extremist views about women under sharia law and of funding jihadists. As with her adventures in Latin America and Cuba, she seems to have a talent for getting involved with extremist opposition groups.

  193. There’s also this, about a recent Svea Appeal Court decision regarding the concept of “helpless state” (widened in July 2013 to “particularly vulnerable situation”) in rape cases:

    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http://www.svea.se/Uppmarksammat-avgorande-i-valdtaktsmal/

    Again, the meaning gets a little mangled in translation but I think the court’s decision was to dismiss a case of aggravated rape by a group of teenage boys of a 15-year-old girl that involved intoxication and a threatening situation (something about a door being locked at one point) on the grounds that “helpless state” had to be interpreted narrowly.

  194. Anyone watch the BBC’s excretable By Any Means last night? The propaganda was so crude I thought I was watching William Hague’s wet dream. I was waiting for the cum shot but, well, I guess ‘dysfunction’ is a word that easily came to mind re Mr Hague… But it had all the correct ingredients needed for little Willy’s nocturnal imaginings: based in the Columbian embassy, Ecuadorian-style flag draped outside the building; monstrously egotistical villain claiming diplomatic asylum for non-political crimes; police entering an embassy lobby to seize villain, then having to stand down, curses!; it even had a balcony speech. MI5 saves the day with their oh-so-clever surveillance tricks and bugs in the embassy walls. Hurrah!

    Really hokey plot and the dialogue was terrible, but there were so many UK government wish-list bits in it. I thought the scenes showing the Columbian ambassador didn’t really want his guest around and couldn’t wait to get rid of him were a nice touch. Hmm, maybe they were dear Willy’s cum shots…? Like I said, really crude propaganda but the UK public didn’t seem to have much difficulty getting the message:

    “By Any Means is to taking the p**s out of Assange’s situation … LOVING IT”
    https://twitter.com/hab318princess/status/386951753746247680

    “I hope David Cameron and William Hague are watching By Any Means, could teach them how to get Assange out of th embassy.”
    https://twitter.com/matthewshev/status/386952059763040256

    “If only MI5 had gone after Julian Assange the way this lot on #ByAnyMeans have captured their man. *rollseyes*”
    https://twitter.com/scotbot/status/386957877736259584

    “Just finished watching #ByAnyMeans Let it be a lesson for Assange…”
    https://twitter.com/accra71/status/386975931287343104

  195. Arbed wrote at 6 Oct 2013 9:25 am:
    “One thing to bear in mind is that this contributor to Flashback is a high court judge themselves, speaking anonymously. (That status is not referred to in this comment, though.)”

    My question:
    Arbed, are you sure? This is new to me. Or are you mixing this Flashback contributor (“Vresrosen”) up with another legal expert writing under pseudonyme: “Tuscana”.

  196. Hi Axel,

    Yes, I think I am mixing them up. Thanks.

  197. Yes, I agree with many other posters. It is best if this goes to court. But it unfortunately seem like the Swedes have little or no interest in that ever happening. The whole thing stinks to hell and high waters and JA knows that if he ever sets foot on Swedish soil, he will be on the next Westbound CIA Learjet pumped full of drugs and wearing diapers. That is how “sovereign” and “independent” the Kingdom of Sweden really is. There was a reason why Snowden never wanted to go anywhere near Swedish territory. This whole thing is a setup.

  198. Duncan Cambell’s witness statement in the European parliament revealed that Swedish FRA works hand in glove with GCHQ and NSA. The EU parliament has called for the director of FRA to come to Brussels to be questioned. FRA refuses, supported by the Swedish government. Everything is done according to Swedish law a FRA spokesman responds, ignoring the fact that there are obvious breaks of European law and the European convention on human rights. The committee should call the prime minister to witness now.

    http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/it_telekom/allmant/article3779597.ece

Leave a Reply


five × = thirty five

Comments will be closed on October 17, 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