Anna Ardin’s Police Statement 153

If Assange is ever extradited to Sweden, the danger is that the evidence against him will be held entirely in secret. ALthough published in Sweden, the evidence so far has not been published in the UK except for some extremely selective quotes designed to damage Assange as much as possible.

This is (in translation) the full Swedish police statement arising from Ardin’s interrogation and approved by Anna Ardin. I gave it here without comment. Some further analysis of Ardin will follow in a later post, along with Sofia Wilen’s full statement.

I will however note here the fact that, following this statement, Ardin did produce a condom split across the top to police as evidence. However forensic examination showed not only that there was none of Assange’s DNA on the condom, but that it had never been worn by anybody.

It is impossible to put on a condom and leave no microscopic traces of the fact.

That does not of itself make Ardin’s story untrue. This is her statement:

The chief interrogator rings claimant Anna Ardin (hereafter ‘Anna’) for the purpose of conducting an interrogation because of the event described above (‘rape or sexual molestation at Tjurbergsgatan 36 up to 2010-08-14 12:00’).

Anna says she’s worked as a press secretary and political secretary for Sweden’s christian social democrats – the brotherhood movement. Anna says she was involved in organising a seminar that was to take place on 14 August where Julian Assange had been invited in as a lecturer.

Because Anna would be out of town 11 – 14 August she lent her flat to Assange. But Anna returned to Stockholm already Friday 13 August because she had a lot of work to do for the seminar. Anna and Assange have never before met personally but only had contact via mail and the telephone.

The Friday in question Assange and Anna went out and ate dinner together. They’d agreed that Assange would go on living in Anna’s flat despite her coming home a day early. After their dinner on the town they went back to Anna’s flat and drank tea.

In answer to a question Anna says that neither she nor Assange drank alcohol that evening. When they sat and drank tea Assange began caressing her leg. In answer to a question Anna says Assange earlier in the evening had not made any physical approaches save now which Anna initially welcomed. But it felt ‘uncomfortable from the get-go’ as Assange was rough and impatient. According to Anna, ‘everything happened so fast’. He ripped off her clothes and in conjunction with this pulled at and broke her necklace. Anna tried to put some clothes back on again because things were going too fast and it felt uncomfortable but Assange immediately took her clothes off again. Anna says that she thought she actually didn’t want to go any further but it was too late to say ‘stop’ to Assange when she’d ‘gone along with it this far’. She thought she ‘could blame herself’. So she let Assange fully undress her.

Then they lay in the bed. Anna was on her back and Assange was on top of her. Anna thought Assange wanted to immediately put his penis in her vagina which she didn’t want as he didn’t have a condom on. So she tried to twist her hips to the side and squeeze her legs together to prevent a penetration. Anna tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange stopped her from doing by holding her arms and prying open her legs and trying nevertheless to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Anna says that in the end she was ready to cry because she was pinned and couldn’t reach a condom and thought ‘this might not end well’. In answer to a question Anna says Assange must have known she was trying to reach for a condom and he was holding her arms to stop her.

Assange asked after a while what Anna was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Assange released her arms and put on the condom Anna got for him. Anna felt a huge unexpressed reluctance from Assange to using a condom which led to her getting the feeling he didn’t put on the condom she’d given him. She therefore reached down with her hand to Assange’s penis to check if he’d really put the condom on. She could feel that the edge of the condom was where it should be at the root of Assange’s penis. Anna and Assange resumed having sex and Anna says she thought ‘hope it’s over soon’.

Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off. He entered her again and continued the act. Anna again checked his penis with her hand and again felt the edge of the condom where it should be and so let the sex continue.

After a while Assange ejaculates inside her and thereafter withdraws. Anna saw that the condom didn’t have semen in it when Assange took it off. When Anna began moving her body she noticed how things were running out of her vagina. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange’s semen. She pointed this out for Assange but he denied this and told her it was she who was wet with her own juices. Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broken 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.

After the above mentioned incident Anna says she and Assange didn’t have any more sex. Yet Assange went on living with her up to and including Friday 20 August. According to Anna Assange made sexual overtures every day after that evening when they’d had sex. For example by touching her breasts. Anna rebuffed Assange on all these occasions and Assange accepted it. On one occasion, Wednesday 18 August, he’d suddenly removed all his clothing on his lower body and thereafter rubbed his lower body and his erect penis against Anna. Anna says she thought this was strange behaviour and uncomfortable and had therefore moved down to a mattress on the floor and slept there instead of up in the bed with Assange. The next night Anna stayed with a friend because she didn’t want to be around Assange because of his strange behaviour. She even pointed out after Wednesday 18 August that she didn’t want Assange staying any longer in her flat which he didn’t respond to until Friday when he took his things and returned her flat key.

In answer to a question Anna says Assange lived with her but they hardly slept together because Assange was up at night working with his computer. She mostly got up in the morning about 07:00 when he went to sleep.

In answer to a question Anna says she knew of Sofia when she’d been in contact with Anna before the above mentioned seminar and been part of the audience. According to Anna Sofia had purchased electrical cables for Assange and been with Anna and Assange at the lunch after the seminar. Anna noticed Assange flirted with Sofia during the lunch and understood that they’d afterwards begun some sort of relationship when Assange rang Sofia later in the evening when he was at Anna’s at the crayfish party.

She received an email message from Sofia Friday 20 August where she wonders if she can reach Assange as she had something important to tell him. Anna understood immediately what it was about and contacted Sofia who then told her what had happened to her, that she and Assange had had sex and that he didn’t want to use a condom etc. Sofia wanted to follow this up with the police and Anna decided to follow along, foremost as support.

Anna says she already heard from several sources that Assange ‘chases all women who cross his path’. Considering Assange’s reputation Anna felt it very important that they used a condom the time they had sex, that is the day before the seminar.

Anna says she’s felt terrible after the occasion when she and Assange had sex. Foremost because of the worry she’d been infected by HIV or some other STD. Anna says she freely consented to have sex with Assange but she couldn’t have let it happen if she’d known he didn’t have a condom. Anna has been in contact with the health centre and been given a time for tests next week. Anna approves of the police having the results of these tests.

Anna does not want any help from the crime victims unit but will get back to us if she feels it’s necessary.

Interrogation read back and approved.

153 thoughts on “Anna Ardin’s Police Statement

1 2 3 4 6
  • Jives


    “You are reading a story published by a government intelligence agency. You should stop reading and start writing what you think they are trying to achieve.”

    It’s best to read before you write a reply Tony, that way to better understand and direct what you’re writing about, I’d suggest.

  • Tony0pmoc

    I am 100% convinced that many of the stories published as news occasionally bear some resemblance to the truth, and that some are complete fabrications. This matters because over 90% of us tell the truth over 90% of the time, and we expect better standards from our media and those in authority over us,than what we achieve.

    When we realise that they are lying most of the time, we know that we us ordinary people are better than them, and that we will have to change their minds. They are our paid servants and they are spitting propaganda in our food which they present with a smile.

    They are not nice people. They are liars.


  • Tony0pmoc


    Most people who think I am stupid, have failed to understand what I am trying to communicate. I accept that sometimes this is a failure on my part. Sorry. But compared to some people I have worked with, I am stupid, so I asked them to explain again in more detail, and they were very patient with me and taught me until I UNDERSTOOD.


  • David Landy

    Here’s a “google translate” version of the first part of the report (English translation first, Swedish text follows).

    — English ———————————-

    The condom AB/7525-10/G001 had a through injury front. Injury edges were examined under a microscope. These were not observed any traces appeared to be deposited with the tool. However, slight scratches were observed in the area near the damage, in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the damage.

    In the rear part of the condom provides grain sample damage with a knife with a scissors, and that the rear portion of the condom is torn off. Area of ​​lesions resembled nearest the severed damage, whereas with the tool resulting surface showed some very thin report. The appearance of the front, damaged part of the condom shown in Figure 1.

    The results speak for the damage in the front part of the condom AB/7525-10/G001 have been created by the condom has torn (Grade +2).

    Condoms ‘Condom’ was the front of a condom, see figure 2. The district’s edge were examined under a microscope. The edges were not observed any traces appeared to be deposited with the tool. Small scratches observed in some areas close to the separation edge, with a direction perpendicular to the dividing edge. The appearance of the split edge reminiscent of sharing edge of those worn by the laboratory.

    The results speak for the pitch surface of the condom part ‘Condom’ has arisen through the part has been torn (Grade +2).

    — Swedish ———————————-

    Kondomen AB/7525-10/G001 hade en genomgående skada främre delen. Skadans kanter granskades i mikroskop. I dessa iakttogs inte några spår som syntes vara avsatta med verktyg. Däremot iakttogs små repor i området nära skadan, i riktning vinkelrät mot skadans längdriktning.

    I den bakre delen av kondomen åstadkorns provskador med en kniv och med en sax samt att den bakre delen av kondomen slets av. Skadeytan liknade nårmast den avslitna skadan, medan de med verktyg erhållna ytorna uppvisade en del mycket tunna report. Utseendet på den främre, skadade delen av kondomen framgår av bild 1.

    Resultaten talar for att skadan i den främre delen av kondomen AB/7525-10/G001 har uppkommit genom att kondomen har slitits sönder (Grad +2).

    Kondomen ‘Kondom’ utgjorde främre delen av en kondom, se bild 2. Delens kant granskades i mikroskop. I kanterna iakttogs intenågra spår som syntes vara avsatta med verktyg. Små repor iakttogs i vissa områden nära delningskanten, med en riktning vinkelrätt mot delningskanten. Utseendet på delningskanten påminde om delningskanten hos de som slitits av vid laboratoriet.

    Resultaten talar for att delningsytan hos kondomdelen ‘Kondom’ har uppkommit genom att delen har slitits sönder (Grad +2).

  • Courtenay Barnett

    In the 1930s in the south of the United States of America there was a “stitch up” case of two white women alleging that some black boys had raped them on a train. The boys were tried in a day and sentenced to death (one – being 12 and not of age for the death penalty). One of the women withdrew her allegation. The case reached the US Supreme Court as Powell v. State of Alabama. The details of the case, known otherwise as the ‘Scottsboro boys case’ can be found at this link:-
    Now, it is one thing to say that the foregoing case was back in the racist bad old days in the US south, and quite another in 2012 to seek advance of a case where the condom produced as evidence does not have any DNA of the person accused of sexual misconduct in relation to said condom. Likewise, one is going to permit someone who allegedly sexually misconducted himself with you to continue staying in your apartment after that misconduct? And you are going to have a crayfish party for the same man and be happily smiling there with the accused man present?
    I recall Derek Bentley’s case, from the 1950s, heard by the perverted Lord Goddard – a gross miscarriage of justice in the British justice system, if one ever exsited.
    What strikes me is that in 2012 we are going through a farce and travesty of justice when one considers the nature of the allegations, the evidence and the legal hip-hops between Sweden and Britain. Surely, an interview by the Swedish police of Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy, which he is prepared to give, would be a logical step. But, maybe the Swedish justice system at the highest levels is minded that if they did, and Assange’s version in his police interview fully exposes the inconsistencies and weak and unsustainable nature of the evidence, then the case would be thrown out so as not to make the Swedish justice system appear not just partially but totally ridiculous. In the interview with Petra Ornstein, it is reported in the interview that Ardin saw the condom rolled back to the base of Assange’s penis. Now the evidence produced, as that condom, has a slit to the top of the condom, no DNA, and surely does not look like a condom busted in the act of sexual intercourse. Petra did not get the impression that Anna was afraid of Julian ( see Petra’s statement) – and this is the person who sexually molested you her and is worthy of being convicted for his “criminal wrongdoing”?

    Sophia Wilen’s interview can be found here:-

    (Did she sign and approve the interview? Compare and contrast her interview with the other interviews – see bottom of the page of the interview.)

    What is the substance of her complaint; where is the criminal wrongdoing?

    The Scottsboro boys case did involve a racist judicial system in one country, the US. There is no element of “race” in the Assange matter, but these members of the “international community” are doing a pretty good job, in a manner similar to the Scottsboro boys case, of compromising and debasing the process of justice, where the weak, unreliable and strained nature of the “evidence” would not permit a charge to be laid in any fair and decent justice system.
    One of the points in extradition matters is the duality of the offence, being recognised as a criminal offence in both jurisdictions – the country seeking the extradition and the one requesting extradition.
    While the Scottsboro boys case was a national tragedy, the Julian Assange matter is an international conspiratorial scandal which debases both the British and Swedish justice systems. Assange is being framed to shut him up.

  • Tony0pmoc


    You as most, are concentrating on the detail of the story, whilst subliminally accepting it as true, which it maybe, whilst missing the agenda which you think you already understand. This results in you and other highly intelligent people not questioning the real agenda, and beyond that demanding control from these horrible people.

    We are all drowning in bullshit instead of cleaning up our own mess and leaving a planet fit for our children.


  • Fedup

    Who was the philosopher whom maintained;

    “Women have no brains. They have no bell-end to carry it in!”

    This case ought to be Ardin v Condom manufacturer. and the fact that she kept reaching to feel the condom was in place; left, right, and centre, is a good enough case for any jury to reach a verdict of her finger nails wot done it and let the manufacturer off the hook.

    However Assange can be guilty of many things including bad taste in choice of women, and an easy to bed sort of a chap, who will jump into bed with anything that has a pulse, and further he can be charged with excessive patience and willingness to comply. As well as an idiot who could see a set up and still carried on , but rape he cannot be charged with.

    I have gone on record, I don’t particularity like the chap for his naivety to believe he could drink soup with 5msm because he had a long enough spoon, and stay immune from their poison.

  • Ben Franklin

    The message for the wiser whistleblowers is; Don’t fuck around. Sexual misconduct is the most popular method for discrediting the messenger. Even if it’s all above board; learn how to avoid compromising situations….especially crayfish parties.

  • Jane Glover

    > but rape he cannot be charged with.
    Since you (nor I) was in the room at the time of this sexual encounter, that’s not something that you can say with any certainty. I’m sure there are hundreds of men that are not considered possible rapists, which is why so many men get away with it ! It’s for the courts to decide whether Assange is guilty or not, not you or I.

    As for that blog entry; it read like very badly written porn !

  • CE

    Courtenay Barnett

    4 Sep, 2012 – 10:57 pm

    Hideously inappropriate and false comparison.

    So that’s Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and The Scottsboro Boys we’ve had JA compared to today. Who’ll it be tomorrow, Mother Teresa, Che Guvera and Rosa Parks?

    I can understand people having concerns with the Swedish investigation but some of the hero worship is way OTT and slightly worrying.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    @ CE,
    You say:-
    “Hideously inappropriate and false comparison. ”
    I chose the cases carefully:-
    – Scottsboro boys case; and
    – Derek Bentley’s case
    My point being one of fabrication and miscarriages of justice. There is perfect consistency when one simply reads the police interviews, considers the evidence and comes to rational conclusions.
    The questions I posed relate to the details that the so-called “victims” placed in a recorded formal manner, save and except that one of the two did not sign and approve.
    Then you proceed:-
    “So that’s Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and The Scottsboro Boys we’ve had JA compared to today. Who’ll it be tomorrow, Mother Teresa, Che Guvera and Rosa Parks?”
    Not my point, so direct that comment at others, and be fair and don’t juxtapose in this way. And you accuse me of “false comparison”?
    My reasons are stated and related to the actual interviews.
    Deal with the facts stated and then try to discredit the logic of what I had posted, and be specific.
    Kind regards – keep the debate going.

  • Fritz

    @ Courtenay Barnett:

    you should know better, CE is NEVER “specific” and only very rarely does he/she “deal with the facts”. Don’t waste your time answering him.

  • CE

    Hi Courtenay,

    Apologies for grouping your argument with some other (what I felt were false) comparisons with JA’s Case. You’re correct you didn’t make all of them, and I shouldn’t have used them against yours.

    But there just seems to be a slight, rose tinted, hero worship theme running with some posters, which I feel you have continued when comparing JA to The Scottsboro Boys. I find it deeply inappropriate to compare the gross miscarriages of justice and institutional racism that the Scottsboro Boys had to endure to the somewhat concerning treatment JA has received from the Swedish Judicial System.

  • Captain Cook

    Brief comment on CE’s post of 1.18am, above :

    1st para : pseudo-Olympian, pompous, condescending

    2nd Para : cheap and inaccurate sneer, lower-4th form standard

    3rd para : good of you to understand, but do try not to worry too much,, dear.

  • Fritz

    @ Courtenay Barnett

    now he’s trying to butter you up (it wasn’t you I meant, guv, it was them others…).

    keep ignoring him!

  • Jives

    ” I’m sure there are hundreds of men that are not considered possible rapists, which is why so many men get away with it! ”

    Oh well as long as you’re sure Jane eh? Given that there’s 3 billion or so men in the world; I’m so glad you surmise that only hundreds are NOT deemed possible rapists in your deeply disturbing worldview.

    It must be truly depressing to live inside your warped mind, Jane.

  • kingfelix

    “seeking oral attention in a state of dubious menstrual hygiene. Ugh!”
    Believe me, you’ve gotten off lightly. Count your blessings.

  • kingfelix

    I understand that the world’s pharmacies are full of condoms that have never been used by Julian Assange. Truly, his days are numbered.

  • Jemand

    5 Sep, 2012. 1.18am

    “Hideously inappropriate” – exaggerated moral indignation, as if your sensibilities were the issue here.

    “Who’ll it be tomorrow, Mother Teresa, Che Guvera and Rosa Parks?”  – Sarcastic, rhetorical question based on fictious scenario.

    “.. but some of the hero worship is way OTT and slightly worrying.” – more exaggeration (“worship”) spliced with deliberate understatment (“slightly”) to convey faux measure in tone.

    If it looks like a troll, walks like a troll and quacks like a troll, guess what? It is a troll.

    Let’s try to stick to the facts, apply sound reason and put the ad hominem back in the bag, please.

  • Jemand

    So if this is an accurate record of Anna Ardin’s statement to police, how are we to consider her internal monologue? Apparently, she struggled with Assange in the belief that he was to have sex with her without using a condom despite the fact he “must have known” that she wanted him to use one. It seems she can read his mind and, in turn, he is expected to read hers.

    I don’t think this is really a case of he says, she says. More like a case of he thinks, she thinks.

  • Komodo

    Thx, DonnyDarko and David Landy. To trouble you further, can you see if the DNA test is reported? If the condom was torn by someone not wearing gloves, DNA would have been left on it. Anecdotally, no DNA was found. But the tearer’s should have been detectable (or the tearer wore gloves, which is not something I normally do in bed, at any rate…)

    I do think Tony Opmoc has a point here, incidentally. Since 2010, an astonishing amount of information on this case has leaked from the Swedish police, and others. I am cautious about taking it at face value.

  • Komodo

    Fragment from Viva Ecuador’s Blair link above:

    Quartet Representative Tony Blair said: “The goal of this development agenda, again, is to catalyse significant economic change on the ground to give greater oxygen to the political negotiation process. So the ‘ground-up’ economic agenda will continue to provide critical support to the ‘top-down’ political process.”…

    So that will be hydrogen peroxide + metallic silver*, Tone? Careful you don’t turn the whole area into a “blown-up” clusterfuck, or at best a mixed metaphor, then.

    *Arts grads: refers to catalytic decomposition of H2O2 to water and oxygen.

  • nevermind

    Also note the by the by mentioning of the crayfish party, it sounds as if the significance of it is underplayed, barely mentioned, why? when it is the pinnacle of Swedish outdoor entertaining.

    Have we not looked at it close enough? were those at the party assembled deliberately and was Julian the bait for her networking and information gathering?

    Lets mention it again, so Jane does not have to come back to this ‘badly written porn’, one wonders what spurns her attraction to come back here.

    Only 6% of rape in this country ever gets prosecuted, there is an systemic failure by the judiciary to see rape for what it is. Jane’s bluster is misdirected, she should try barking at the Bar association, judges and politicians. But its always easier to look at someone’s else and divert from one’s own inadequacies.

1 2 3 4 6

Comments are closed.