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.
Britain’s Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party back extradition of Assange.
“What unites all of these media commentators, the ex-left included, is an insistence that the allegations (no charges have been laid) against Assange are grave and must be taken seriously. By “seriously” they mean entirely uncritically and, above all, without reference to the context in which they were made. To do otherwise, they insist, is to somehow question not only his two accusers, but to endorse the exploitation of womankind by predatory males everywhere.
This endlessly repeated injunction must be rejected. It is only in the deeply disoriented circles to which the Guardian, Independent, et al. cater, of which the SWP and SP are an essential component, that the presumption of innocence can be replaced by an insistence that all women tell the truth and all men are liars and sexual predators.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/assa-a27.shtml
Thanks Komodo. From the homepage of that link, it seems that Visa and Mastercard can now again be used to support Wikileaks. It is thought that Washington will try to pressure payment processors to close down this loophole, but as far as I can tell, if you donate whilst it is open, the money will definitely get to WL:
http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate
Mark, thanks. If true – and I note the piece is sadly missing hyperlinks/refs – then that’s a shocking indictment of the state of the Left in the UK.
Well, here’s the piece from the SP, which might be the basis for the above article. Here’s an extract:
That seems sensible to me, so long as any decision to prosecute is done in the open (as of course it is otherwise hugely open to corruption).
Villager, the Sex, Lies and No Videotapes link is thorough, as you say. However it fails to mention the relationship between the police interrogator, Irmeli Krans, and Anna Ardin, and why the two women visited a police station at which Krans worked rather than one nearer their homes. Krans could not take Ardin’s statement because she knew Ardin. And the fact that Ardin was present at the time of Wilen’s interview is most improper. Just as improper is the alteration to Wilen’s statement a week after it was taken.
I’m afraid that many “leftists” haven’t the foggiest clue what the critical approach is all about. Nor do they understand economics.
.
Much of what passes for leftism is no more than simplistic binaries – goodies and baddies.
.
It was the same during the post war height of leftism. Few read Marx or anything else. The rich were bad. The poor were good.
.
You see the same manichean drivel in popular feminism.
.
It also explains why you often have to look to conservatives for the protection of civil liberties.
.
The debate between Burke and Paine lives on.
Here’s a reference to the SWP position, which is rather depressing:
I agree that Patino’s comments are inappropriate – rape allegations cannot be hilarious even if they are obviously false (of course this could be a mistranslation). To be fair, I’m sure that there are some “Assange supporters” somewhere in the world whose position on rape is appalling.
But “Assange … [has] refused to take the rape allegations seriously” is entirely at odds with repeated statements from his legal team, and is worthy of a MSM smear piece. Also, the use of the phrase “conspiracy theories” can only be construed in the popular sense, which is ‘here is a theory we wish to discredit’.
John, i’m aware of the Krans connection after having read so much information on the ‘case’ around the net where i’m at the point of exhaustion. The whole situation is just rife with inconsistencies and improprieties. Goran Rudlings witness statement at the February hearing can be found at http://justice4assange.com/Investigation.html#EDOJ
Very interesting detail on Ardin’s tweets. He was the one who discovered her attempts to destroy evidence.
He may have omitted the Krans connection because he came to the conclusion that Wilen’s statement reflected no crime. He does however make the point somewhere that the police failed to investigate the the full extent of the relationship between A and W and the circumstances that brought them together. Further that both statements should have been video recorded or taped at the very least.
Sweden, for a little country, that couldn’t solve in all these years the open public assassination of its Prime Minister in downtown Stockholm, leaves me with the impression that they are utterly incompetent in the investigation dept.
Thank you Villager. I have now read the statement of Göran Rudling. It is amazing. It is probably the strongest proof of a police and political cover-up imaginable. Göran Rudling describes himself as a law reform activist. He is particularly interested in rape cases because his mother was raped by her step-father. As might be expected he is concerned that rapists are prosecuted. But he also believes in justice and realising there was something wrong in the prosecution case.
As you say, he discovered Anna Ardin’s tweet deletions, and her 7 step revenge on men who dump their women, which Ardin also tried to delete. From his statement it appears that he persistently sent information to the Swedish police that they have been unable to locate. He is a very credible and reliable witness which shows this case to have been flawed from the start, with clear political objectives. The UK media is disgusting in not presenting this to the public.
I’ve tweeted John Pilger twice to see whether a fund could be started among supporters for Julian Assange to ensure those who put up bail do not go out of pocket suggesting small donations of say £5. The trouble is Pilger probably gets too much traffic to respond. Anybody have a direct line?
@Vague Hague – I’m of the view that (well-read) Marxists know capitalism better than the capitalists, but agree that Leftists aren’t always familiar with such material. But the binary nature of politics tends to infect the further edges of the Right as well as the Left – see UKIP and the BNP in the UK as examples.
In the UK at least, I’d have no idea who would be the natural home of civil liberties – the Conservatives are looking for real-time access to Internet logs, which is a step further than the authoritarianism of New Labour. Maybe you’re asserting, then, that the Conservatives are not at all conservative, in the sense you mean that word?
(By the way, you no longer need dots in comments to obtain paragraphing – we fixed that).
@John Goss, well done. If JP doesn’t respond, try other members of the surety group. Jemima Goldsmith was amongst them, she’s on Twitter; there are probably others with a public profile also.
Jon, I’ve tweeted a Jemima Goldsmith before discovering that she tweets at Jemima_khan. So I’ve retweeted.
I was completely mystified by the idea that servers in a nuclear bunker would be more secure. Certainly not from hacking. Was someone expecting a nuclear attack on the servers?
That would be from USA, UK or Israel perhaps?
😉
Our civil liberties were mostly bourgeois in origin. The left didn’t really have much to do with that, other than the left as a middle class movement. In any event, the vehicle for leftism is gone, as is the capitalist class. It’s all oligarchs and their servant managers these days.
We’d all probably be better off acquainting ourselves with feudalism these days with a view to the future through the past.
Marx can be helpful here too.
R.I.P. dots
Obama campaign brags about its whistleblower persecutions
‘Excuse me if I don’t join in Democrats’ sycophantic cheerleading for an Obama presidency that has shredded laws and liberties’
Glenn Greenwald
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/obama-campaign-brags-about-whistleblower-persecutions
‘Media professor Christian Christensen wrote about four fundamental mistakes made by journalists in their attacks on Julian Assange, including an ill-founded belief in U.S. justice, and how Mr Assange’s fears of U.S. prosecution are justified.’
http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2012/09/05/covering-assange/
Christian Christensen is Professor in the Department of Informatics and Media at Uppsala University, Sweden.
@John Goss – Any fund you want to set up should be in consultation with Assange’s lawyers and the Wikileaks defence fund. I also don’t think it will be allowed. Bail or surety, I believe, is not just about money but also an expression of confidence from a reputable person that someone will front court. The money they put up is supposed to reflect their confidence and if others insure this amount, then the person’s confidence would be appear less credible. The American system is quite different, turning the whole bail system into a pawn shop.
Still, it is worth looking into. I’d chip in a couple of dollars. And I wouldn’t expect to get it back – Hah!
Regarding the British Left’s failure to support Assange, it’s worth noting that left wingers generally are not libertarian in nature. Indeed, they have historically been authoritarian. Assange is on the southern end of the political compass, opposite those who would like a heavy handed, centrally controlled bureacracy. Add to this, the infiltration and embedding of New Left principles of Feminism and their typically aggressive response to the subject of r-pe. This subject is emblematic of their identity as victims of men.
Also, the British Left think they owe nothing to Assange. He’s not one of them. He doesn’t work within their political frameworks. He’s a Johnny-come-lately outsider, an interloper, the new kid on the block. The space taken up on the front covers of newspapers with Assange and Wikileaks is space stolen from traditional left wing issues and the current line-up of personalities.
Hence, the Left are jealous and mistrusting of Assange. They want him gone.
@komodo:
Part 1 of 3
The first doc says:
Swe: Undersökning beträffande DNA redovisas separat.
Eng: Study on DNA reported separately.
@komodo:
Part 2 of 3
The second doc says:
— English —————————
Mats Gehlin 28/10/10 15:24
Calls with SKL
Conversed with forensiker Anders Nilsson at SKL to get a clarification on DNA samples.
In previous PM, I have written to the condom used at Anna Ardin, they had not found the DNA.
It is not true according to Anders Nilsson. He said that they see “something” but that it goes into deciphering. It has been chosen to analyze the sample in a more refined method. This method takes about. two weeks. At the previous PM et was into Anders Nilsson I spoke with.
Anders Nilsson explained that into the amount of DNA that always determines whether they can see the DNA. There are many reasons that they fade get a clear picture.
– Somewhat disturbing analysis such as dirt, etc..
– Small amounts of DNA
– People will emit different amounts of DNA
– The study material has been affected by the use, for example, washed, dried off.
This was some of the things that can affect the analysis of DNA, but there are more factors that influence.
Mats Gehlin
— Swedish —————————
Mats Gehlin 28.10.10 15:24
Samtal med SKL
Samtalade med forensiker Anders Nilsson vid SKL för att få ett förtydligande kring DNA proverna.
I tidigare PM har jag skrivit att på kondomen som använts hos Anna Ardin hade de inte hittat DNA.
Dette stämmer inte enligt Anders Nilsson. Han sade att de ser “något” men att det into går att tyda. Det har valt att analysera provet i en mer förfinad metod. Denna metod tar ca. två veckor. Vid det förra PM et var det into Anders Nilsson jag talade med.
Anders Nilsson förklarade att det into är mängden DNA som alltid avgör huruvida de kan se DNA. Det finns många anledningar till att de into får en tydlig bild.
– Något stör analysen såsom smuts mm.
– Små mängder DNA
– Människor ger ifrån sig olika mängder DNA
– Att undersökningsmaterialet har påverkats efter användandet, t.ex. tvättats, torkats av.
Detta var några exempel på vad som kan påverka analysen av DNA men det finns fler faktorer som påverkar.
Mats Gehlin
@komodo:
Part 3 of 3
The third doc says:
— English —————————–
Mats Gehlin 20/10/10 15:08
In conversations with SKL up came the following.
On the condom from MA2 home has not found any DNA.
On vaginal swabs from MA1 found DNA from MA1 and DNA from a man.
The condom bit that was found in the MA1’s apartment found DNA from MA1 and from the same man who was on the vaginal swab.
MA1 have not noticed that some condoms have been broken when it was dark in the room and she heard that the suspect put on the condom it was part sounds like he pulled a balloon. Condom piece found under the bed, under the part of the bed that suspect was then put on the condom.
— Swedish —————————–
Mats Gehlin 20.10.10 15:08
Vid samtal med SKL fram kom följande.
På kondom från MÄ2 bostad har det inte hittats något DNA.
På vaginaltops från MÄ1 hittades DNA från MÄ1 och DNA från en man.
På kondom bit som hittades i MÄ1 s lägenhet hittades DNA från MÄ1 och från samme man som fanns på vaginaltops.
MÄ1 har inte märkt att någon kondom har gjorts sönder då det var mörkt i rummet och hon hörde att då misstänkt tog på sig kondomen var det en del ljud som om han drog i en ballong. Kondombiten hittades under sängen, under den del av sängen som misstänkt låg då tog på sig kondomen.
So, ‘The Left’ (as though it were a monolith) is being slammed for supporting Assange (“rape apologists!!”) and slammed for not supporting Assange (“femi-nazis!!”).
Jon quoted correctly from the article in a socialist ‘paper, and it presented a pretty balanced picture, more or less similar to that which Craig presented.
People have differing opinions – but perhaps the convenient whipping-post of ‘The Left’ now will be slammed for not being monolithic enough (yet somehow also anti-Libertarian). Here is a Lib Dem blogger merrily joining in the multi-pronged attack on ‘The Left’ (of course, to some extent, it depends what one means by ‘The Left’, eg. the Labour Party now is a Centre Right organisation, etc.). Progressive people have been successfully divided on this issue, just as Craig wrote suggested:
http://danielfurr.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/the-british-left-moral-equivalence-and-the-cult-of-julian-assange/
And again:
http://300wordtheses.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/julian-assange-and-silence-of-left.html
And again:
http://soupyone.wordpress.com/tag/british-left/
This kind of thing is all over the web and across social media too. And largely, it’s the Right using this as an opportunity; they suddenly can pose as ‘defenders of women’! What a joke.
Meanwhile, over in the Techiesphere, an interesting one:
http://www.itpro.co.uk/642676/pro-assange-protesters-hit-mi5-and-mi6-websites
Julian Assange’s name cropped up again in an introduction to a radio programme, this time on Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty.
Witness
Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty: 15 years in a foreign Embassy
Media : Listen now (10 minutes)
Last broadcast today, 03:50 on BBC World Service (see all broadcasts).
Next on : Saturday, 22:50 on BBC World Service
Synopsis
In 1956 a Hungarian Cardinal sought refuge in the US Embassy in Budapest.
Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty had been imprisoned by the communists in 1948.
Released during the uprising against Soviet rule he faced re-arrest when Moscow ordered tanks into Budapest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00xfqff
The saddest part was at the very end when we were told that he was taken back to Rome where he published his memoirs written during his time at the US Embassy. Then the Vatican stripped him of his title after he refused to retire as Primate of Hungary. He died in exile in Vienna. Bastards.
A new Pink Panther series based in Sweden would be timely. i wonder how Inspector Clouseau would come off sounding in a Swedish accent. I can imagine him having a lot of fun popping condoms like balloons, investigating Phantom’s DNA and arresting his culprit after kissing him goodbye at the Stockholm airport on a sunny September afternoon.
I can’t fathom that this circus is taking place in a European country. It all sounds more than unprofessional–cosy, clubby, bordering on the parochial. Or are we seeing the paranoia borne out of decades of conditioning of ultra-feminism? I don’t know, but i’m asking. It’d be interesting to hear from some Swedes on that.
Why we need whistleblowers, reason No.432:
‘Human Rights Watch accuses US of covering up extent of waterboarding’
The organisation alleges that opponents of Muammar Gaddafi were subjected to the torture at secret CIA prisons
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/06/human-rights-watch-us-waterboarding
Mary, his exile etc was apparently not quite like that. Read up in Wiki.
“The Hungarian government allowed Mindszenty to leave the country on 28 September 1971. Beginning on October 23, 1971, he lived in Vienna, Austria, as he took offence at Rome’s advice that he should resign from the primacy of the Catholic Church in Hungary in exchange for a Vatican-backed uncensored publication of his memoirs. Although most bishops retire at or near age 75, Mindszenty continuously denied rumors of his resignation and he was not canonically required to step down at the time.
In December 1973, at the age of 81, Mindszenty was stripped of his titles by the Pope, who declared the Hungarian cardinal’s seat officially vacated, but refused to fill the seat while Mindszenty was still alive. Mindszenty died on May 6, 1975, at the age of 83, in exile in Vienna. In early 1976, the Pope made Bishop László Lékai the primate of Hungary, ending a long struggle with the communist government. Lékai turned out to be quite cordial towards the Kádár government.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/József_Mindszenty
BBC’s soundbites?
John Pilger writes
The Liberal Way To Run The World — “Improve” Or We’ll Kill You
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-liberal-way-to-run-the-world-improve-or-well-kill-you-by-john-pilger
It’s also in the New Statesman. Can’t believe he is still connected to the NS.
‘Liberalism’s old world order
What is the impeccable logic of the liberal way to run the world? “Improve” your form, the west tells the peoples of the world, or we’ll kill you.
{http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/09/liberalism%E2%80%99s-old-world-order}
An exchange on Medialens with their deputy editor.
Further Exchange with Helen Lewis – New Statesman deputy editor
Posted by emersberger on September 6, 2012, 12:52 pm, in reply to “Exchange with Helen Lewis – New Statesman deputy editor”
Thanks for your additional note, Helen.
I am aware that the NewStatesman publishes some fine work. You regularly publish John Pilger for example which is very much to your credit.
I think we can safely assume that your readers are generally aware that the USA has employed kidnapping and torture on a vast scale (i.e. “renditions”). Your readers are probably aware that Sweden has in the past colloborated in some way with the USA on “renditions”.
But are your readers aware that two Egyptian men were raped and tortured in Stockholm by US and Egyptian agents? Are your readers aware that rape and torture took place in the presence of Swedish officials who were already accomplices by virtue of the fact that they handed the victims over to those foreign agents? Are your readers aware that none of the perpertators (or their accomplices) of rape and torture that took place in Stockholm have been convicted or even prosecuted by Sweden?
David Allen Green downplayed the relevance of this case to Assange’s case. I should not have to spell out whay that was outrageous.
Who will be saying that to your readers? Who will be balancing David Allen Green’s calls for “due process” for Assange wilh equally persistent calls for the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators of rape and torture in Stockholm?
Joe
—- Original Message —-
From: Helen Lewis
To: David Allen Green ; jemersberger
Sent: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 4:55 am
Subject: RE: Is David Allen Green a Rape Apologist?
Dear Joe,
You may be interested in the series of articles that the New Statesman
ran in 2006/7, by Stephen Grey, which are widely credited with helping
expose the entire issue of extraordinary rendition:
newstatesman.com/writers/stephen_grey
Best wishes,
Helen
Also with a hat-tip to MediaLens, this interesting comment;
“The condom in question was handed in to police by Anne Ardin on 25 August 2010 (12 days after the event to which it relates) as evidence of her claims that Assange “did something” to deliberately tear it halfway through sex. The condom was sent by police to the SKL (Sweden’s National Forensic lab) the same day. The first set of results could find no chromosonal DNA – male or female – on it at all, although it did have a tear in it and look ‘used’ (there are pictures, if you really must…). The lab did find a tiny speck of ‘something’ on it so the police requested a second test. Apparently this tiny speck did contain mitochondrial DNA but bear in mind two things: 1) Mitochondrial DNA, if there is no chromosonal DNA present, can ONLY come from hair or nails, 2) any condom used for sex should be awash with chromosonal DNA from both parties. I will forego saying what I personally think this lab result does to the credibility of Anne Ardin’s allegations and instead restrict myself to what it does to the credibility of the Swedish prosecutor’s action. The 2nd set of results arrived back from the lab on 25 October 2010, at least three weeks before the Swedish prosecutor described the ‘deliberate tearing’ of this condom on the EAW extradition warrant (18 November) as the offence of “sexual molestation”.
As regards one of Anne Ardin’s other allegations – the ‘forced pinning down’ to stop her from reaching a condom as she twisted her legs sideways to prevent penetration – described on the EAW extradition warrant as sexual assault and coersion, what seems to have been overlooked is that the very next sentence of her witness statement describes Assange asking what on Earth she was doing. She explained for the first time that she wanted him to use a condom. He let go. She fetched one. He put it on and they resumed.
The second woman’s witness statement describes being “half asleep”, which the prosecutor has bumped up to “fully asleep” on the extradition warrant.
Stop trying to make the stories of two individual women stand in for ALL women’s experiences of sexual violence. Stop believing that because women routinely experience sexual violence all over the world and are generally poorly served by the courts in getting justice that individual women can NEVER be being untruthful if they make such claims. I am a woman. I was raped. I went to the police although the case never reached the courts. But I never lied about my experience and I didn’t hand in any false evidence.
Turn your anger onto the Swedish prosecutor who has abused due legal process in this case and has lied to and misled the UK courts. She should be investigated because she has done a great disservice to ALL true victims of rape.”
Too fucked for love
Two wrongs don’t make a right
No matter the reason for a fight
Two wars won’t make a Peace
No matter how short or long their lease
Two Red C’s won’t have enough food
No matter how much good they would
Two B’s won’t produce a harmless fly
No matter their trip of delusions and lies
Two elections won’t make a Democracy
No matter how many roam power hungry
Two or twenty hoods won’t snap a man’s Dignity
No matter if he’s the devil or just plain guilty
Two leaders won’t inject into a country its Freedom
No matter if their tongues are adorned with condoms
Two armies and allies won’t conjure a Love
So what in the fuck are we dreaming of?
( Copyright Vijay Sahni 2006–all rights reserved, except to kill another human being.)
One thing that jumped out at me from the translations is that it seems that the two condoms are from different people, referred to only as “MA1” and “MA2”.
I can only think that the DNA-less condom was supplied by SW, who was less willing to cooperate with a prosecution?
And the condom tip (with DNA) is from AA.