Statement of Irmeli Krans 391

This statement was written by Irmeli Krans, a Swedish police officer, on 20 August 2010 and amended on 26 August 2010. It purports to be the record of an interview with Sofia Wilen, but Sofia Wilen refused to sign the statement and has not done so to this day.

It is nevertheless this unsigned statement which the British High Court stated contains an allegation which would, if true, amount to rape. Some may recall that fact being triumphantly and aggressively read out to me on Newsnight by Gavin Esler, with no mention that the statement referred to had never been signed by the “complainant”.

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

Contrary to police protocol in virtually every developed country, including Sweden, the interrogation although in a police station had neither been audio recorded nor video recorded. Irmeli Krans has claimed she could not find a working dictaphone – in a major Stockholm police station that does of course have video-taping facilities.

Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin had known each other for at least two years before they were present together at the police interview of Sofia Wilen. They had been on the same ballot paper as candidates for the same political party in a council election. They were facebook friends and had exchanged messages on a relevant subject, the abuse of power by white men:

Irmeli Krans to Anna Ardin April 2009:

Hello! Thanks for the compliment. And like you say, white men must always defend the right to use abusive words. Then they of course deny that these very words are part of a system that keeps their group at the top of the social ladder.

I will analyse Anna Ardin’s behaviour in detail in a further post in a few days. According to Ardim, Sofia Wilen contacted her concerned that unprotected sex with Assange may have given her a sexually transmitted disease. Rather than take her to a medical facility, Ardin took Wilen to a police station, under the pretext that the police might be able to compel Assange to take an STD test – which even in Sweden must be an extraordinary proposition.

Ardin did not take Wilen to the nearest police station. She took her right across Stockholm to the police station where Ardin’s friend, lesbian feminist campaigner Irmeli Krans, was serving. They arrived at 2pm and rather than see another officer, they waited two hours until Krans came on duty. Then Ardin was present throughtout Krans’ interview of Wilen – which appears to have very much informed Ardin’s presentation of her own subsequent allegation against Assange. Ardin’s “assault” by Assange took place several days before the Wilen “assault”, but was not reported by Ardin until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.

And always remember, Wilen refused to sign the resulting statement, given here, as a fair account of what occurred.

Statement of Irmeli Krans

Following is Krans’ interrogation of Sofia Wilén 20 August 2010, subsequently modified by Krans 26 August 2010.


Sofia says she saw an interview a few weeks ago on TV with Julian Assange who is known to be behind the WikiLeaks publication of US military documents from Afghanistan. Sofia thought he was interesting, courageous, and admirable. For the next two weeks she watched the news carefully, she read a lot of articles, and saw interviews. One evening when she sat at home and Googled the name Julian Assange she discovered he was invited to Sweden to hold a lecture arranged by the social democrat brotherhood movement. She posted a message to the brotherhood press secretary Anna Ardin whose contact details she found on their website and asked if he would be coming to Sweden and if she in such case could attend his lecture. She offered to help out with practical details in return. Anna Ardin replied that she’d forward her message to those in charge.

But Sofia got no further reply and suddenly one day she saw an ad with the time and place for the lecture. The lecture was to be held in ‘LO-borgen’ at Norra Bantorget Saturday 14 August. She rang those in charge on Friday and asked if it was OK to attend. She was told she was one of the first to apply and it’d be OK. She took the day off from work and went to LO-borgen on Saturday. She saw a woman who she presumed was Anna Ardin standing outside LO-borgen and went up to her and introduced herself. Anna told Sofia that she was on the list so she was welcome to attend. At the same time the lecturer himself, Julian Assange, approached with a man in his 30s. She got the impression the man was Julian’s press secretary or something similar. Julian looked at Sofia as if he was amused. She got the feeling he thought she didn’t belong there in her shocking pink cashmere jumper amongst all the other gray journalists.

The Lecture

She sat at the far right front when she entered the venue, the lecturer would stand all the way to the left. The room seemed full of journalists. A half hour before the lecture was to begin, Anna approached Sofia and asked if she could help buy a cable for Julian’s computer. They needed a cable and Sofia had offered to help out. Sofia went up to Julian to ask what type of cable he needed. He explained what he needed and then wrote it down on a small piece of paper. She took the paper and placed it immediately in her pocket. Julian looked contemptibly at her and said ‘you didn’t even look at the note’. She told him she didn’t need to as he’d already explained what type of cable he needed.

She took a cab to the ‘Webhallen’ boutique on Sveavägen but they were closed. The time was 10:30 and the store would open first at 11:00. But that’s also when the lecture was scheduled to begin, so Sofia started feeling stressed. The cabbie drove her instead to the Haymarket where she purchaed two types of cable for safety’s sake. She got back in time, she had the right type of cable, but she wasn’t thanked for her help by Julian. The lecture went well.

The Lunch

There were many journalists who wanted to interview Julian after the lecture. Sofia stayed around because she too wanted to speak with him. She asked Anna if this was possible and Anna said Julian would stand outside the entrance to LO-borgen to be accessible to the public in case anyone wanted to ask him questions. Sofia went out and sat in the shade and waited for the interviews to be over. There were more interviews outside. Sofia approached LO-borgen again and overheard that the brotherhood people were going to treat Julian to lunch. Sofia asked if she could come along too, after all she’d helped them with the cable. She was invited and went together with Anna, Julian and his entourage, and two members of the brotherhood to a restaurant on Drottninggatan across from the Central Bathhouse. She ended up next to Julian and started talking with him. He looked at her now and again during the lunch. On one occasion when he put cheese on his knäckebröd she asked him if it tasted good and then he reached over with his sandwich and fed her with it. Later during lunch he said he needed a charger for his laptop. She said she could get one for him, after all she’d got the cable for him earlier. He put his arm around her and said ‘yes you gave me the cable’. Sofia thought this was flattering for it was obvious he was now flirting with her.

The others left after lunch, leaving only Sofia, Julian, and Julian’s companion. They went off together to buy an electric cable for Julian’s computer. ‘Kjell & Co’ didn’t have the product, so they went on to Webhallen but it was closed again. They walked back on Sveavägen towards the Haymarket and talked about what they’d do next. Julian’s companion asked him if he wanted to come along and help move furniture for his parents and Sofia offered Julian a visit at the natural history museum where she worked. It was decided Julian would accompany Sofia to the museum and his companion left them. Julian and Sofia went into the Haymarket subway station where she purchased a blue access card good for the day as he didn’t have the monthly commuter card and no money either as he said. They took the train towards Mörby Centrum and stepped off at the university stop. A man in the subway recognised Julian and told him how much he admired him.

The Natural History Museum

On the way from the university subway station Julian stopped to pet a few dogs, which Sofia thought was charming. In the museum they went to the staff room where Julian sat down and starting surfing the net, he was looking for tweets about himself. They sat there waiting for a film that was to be shown at Cosmonova at 18:00.

They were let into the cinema by Sofia’s colleague and Julian held Sofia’s hand. In the darkness of the cinema he started kissing her. A few latecomers arrived and sat behind them and so they moved to a row at the back. Julian continued kissing her, touched her breasts under her jumper, undid her bra, unbuttoned her pants, caressed her buttocks, and sucked her nipples. He muttered about the armrest being in the way. She was sitting in his lap when the lights went on and he tried to put her bra back on. She thought it embarrassing to sit there in view of her colleagues who she knew could have seen it all.

They went out through the inner courtyard and she went to the toilet. When she came out, he was lying on his back on a picnic table resting, he said he was very tired. He was supposed to be at a crayfish party at 20:00 and wanted to sleep 20 minutes before leaving. They lay down together in the grass next to each other and he had his arm around her. He fell asleep and she woke him twenty minutes later. Then they promenaded over lawns, passed cows and Canadian geese, he held her hand, it was wonderful in all possible ways and he told her ‘you’re very attractive to me’. He’d also told her in the cinema she had pretty breasts. She asked him if they’d meet again. He said of course they would, they’d meet after the crayfish party.

She accompanied him to the Zinkensdamm subway station where he caught a cab back to Anna Ardin’s where the party was to take place. He gave her a hug and said he didn’t want to part from her and encouraged her to charge her cellphone. She went home to Enköping, arriving at home at 23:00. She had a voice message waiting from Julian from 22:55 when she’d recharged her phone, telling her to ring him when her phone was working again. She rang back at 23:15, realising he was still at the party. She’d developed a stomach cramp from a sandwich she’d eaten on the way home and told him she wanted to go to bed. He insinuated it wasn’t about stomach cramps as much as a feeling of guilt.

On Monday

She rang Julian twice on Sunday but his phone was turned off. She told her colleagues at work on Monday what had happened at the weekend. They told her Julian felt dumped and therefore hadn’t rung back so that the ball was in her court. She rang him and he answered. She asked if they should do something together. He said he’d be at a meeting which could take a long time up until 20:30 but he could ring her back later. He also asked about her stomach cramps. He insinuated she’d lied about her cramps and he used the third person to tell her. She promised to wait for him so after she finished work at 19:00 she went to Kungshallarna and had sushi. Afterwards she strolled about town and ended up in the old town where she rang him back at 21:00 when he still hadn’t got back to her, asking what was going on. He said he was in a meeting in Hornsgatan and he wanted her to come there. She got the address and went there. She couldn’t find the address when she arrived, rang Julian, and spoke with a man who spoke Swedish who explained she was to get in through a side entrance. She stood there and waited for him when he came out together with a another man, they said goodbye to one another and looked very happy.

Julian and Sofia walked up Hornsgatan towards Slussen and from there to the old town. They sat by the water at Munkbroleden and he commented on girls who sat there as ‘lonely and abandoned’ and who ‘probably need saving’. They lay down and starting making out, heavily. Amongst other things he put his hands under her jumper and when they left the area she noticed people were looking at them. They decided to go home to her place. They went into the subway where his card was now invalid and she got him through by swiping her own card twice. They took the train to Enköping from the central station, she paid for the tickets, SEK 107 (~$10) each. He claimed he didn’t want to use his credit card, he didn’t want to be traced. They sat in the direction the train would move all the way back in the car. Julian connected his computer and started reading about himself on Twitter on the computer and on the phone. He devoted more attention to the computer than he did to her. She’d suggested they take in at a hotel but he said he wanted to see ‘girls in their natural habitat’.

To Enköping

It was dark when they got off the train and they passed old industry buildings where he went off to pee. She also took a pee. When they arrived at her flat she went in before him into the bedroom to clean up a bit before he saw it. They took off their shoes and the relationship between them didn’t feel warm anymore. The passion and excitement had disappeared. They made out in the bedroom but she wanted to brush her teeth. It was midnight, pitch black outside, and they brushed their teeth together – it felt banal and boring.

When they want back in the bedroom Julian stood in front of Sofia and grabbed her hips and pushed her demonstratively down on the bed, as if he were a real man. He took off his clothes and they had foreplay on the bed. They were naked and he rubbed his penis against her nether regions without penetrating her but he got closer and closer to her slit. She squeezed her legs together because she didn’t want sex with him without protection. They carried on for hours and Julian couldn’t get a full erection. Julian had no interest in using a condom.

Suddenly Julian said he was going to go to sleep. She felt rejected and shocked. It came so suddenly, they’d had a really long foreplay and then nothing. She asked what was wrong, she didn’t understand. He pulled the blanket over himself, turned away from her, and fell asleep. She went out and got her fleece blanket because she was cold. She lay awake a long time wondering what had happened and exchanged SMS messages with her friends. He lay beside her snoring. She must have fallen asleep for later she woke up and they had sex. 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. He no longer had an erection problem. At one point when he mounted her from behind, she turned to look at him and smiled and he asked her why she was smiling, what she had to smile about. She didn’t like the tone in his voice.

They fell asleep and when they woke up they could have had sex again, she’s not really sure. He ordered her to get water and orange juice. She didn’t like being ordered in her own home but thought ‘whatever’ and got the water and juice anyway. He wanted her to go out and buy more breakfast. She didn’t want to leave him alone in the flat, she didn’t know him well enough, but she did it anyway. When she left the flat he lay naked in her bed and was working with his phones. Before she left she said ‘be good’. He replied ‘don’t worry, I’m always bad’. When she returned she served him oatmeal, milk, and juice. She’d already eaten before he woke up and spoken with a friend on the phone.

The Assault

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.

She told him what happens if she gets pregnant. He replied that Sweden was a good country for raising children. She told him jokingly that if she got pregnant then he’d have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he’d told her he’d slept in Anna Ardin’s bed after the crayfish party. She asked if he’d had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, she was lesbian. But now she knows he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him how many times he’d had sex but he said he hadn’t counted. He also said he’d had a HIV test three months earlier and he’d had sex with a girl afterwards and that girl had also taken a HIV test and wasn’t infected. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone. She thinks she got the idea of taking the drama out of what had happened, he in turn didn’t seem to care. When he found out how big her student loan was he said if he paid her so much money she’d have to give birth to the baby. They joked that they’d name the baby Afghanistan. He also said that he should always carry abortion pills that actually were sugar pills.

His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet on Tuesday at noon. She explained to him that he’d not make the meeting on time and he pushed his entire schedule forward an hour. Then they rode her bicycle to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they parted he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he’d ring her and he said he would.


She rode her bicycle home, showered, and washed her bed sheets. Because she hadn’t made it to work she called in sick and stayed home the whole day. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the bed sheets, she thought it was disgusting. She went to the chemist’s and bought a ‘morning after’ pill.

When she talked with her friends afterwards she understood she was the victim of a crime. She went into Danderyd hospital and went from there to the Söder hospital. There she was examined and they even took samples with a so-called ‘rape kit’.

Forensic Certificate

Sofia gives her permission for obtaining a forensic certificate.

Claimant Counsel

Sofia desires a claimant counsel she will identify later.


Julian says his name is Julian Paul Assange and was born 31 December 1971.

Interrogator’s Comments

Sofia and I were notified during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. Sofia had difficulty concentrating after that news, whereby I made the judgement it was best to terminate the interrogation. But Sofia had time anyway to explain that Assange was angry with her. I didn’t have time to get any further details about why he was angry with her or how this manifested itself. And we didn’t have time to get into what else happened afterwards. The interrogation was neither read back to Sofia nor reviewed for approval by her but Sofia was told she had the opportunity

to do this later.

391 thoughts on “Statement of Irmeli Krans

1 2 3 14
  • Jon

    Have journalists tried to contact SW? It seems that this side of the allegations could be cleared up very easily with the right questions. Can the Swedish authorities persist with her complaint if she would not defend it? I believe in British law they could not (or would not) do so, since the complainant would be unlikely to come to court.

    I wonder if she has been instructed by Swedish (or other) authorities not to speak on the subject?

  • Fritz

    I’m opening a book on how long it’ll be before notre ami CE steps in on this thread. Any takers?

  • craig Post author


    She now has the same lawyer as Anna Ardin, another person who has made a fat living from pro-feminist campaigning and who remarked that Sofia Wilen did not realise she had been raped as she “was not a qualified jurist”. I very much fear that Wilen has subsequently been counselled/indoctrinated into believing the Krans account is what happened.

    For me the Krans voice shines through in the above “Wilen” statement most clearly in this (frankly irrelevant) statement:

    There was semen on the bed sheets, she thought it was disgusting.

  • Jon

    By the way, I think there’s a copy-and-paste error in the text. These blocks appeared to be repeated:

    Background, The Lecture, The Lunch, The Natural History Museum

  • Jon

    Yes. I would imagine such indoctrination didn’t go quite far enough if she would not sign the interview, but it’s certainly a possibility.

    I should say as an aside that the anonymity requirements around SW are, to be fair to her, different to AA, since (as far as I am aware) SW has not approached the media or otherwise waived her privacy. But there is still an important balance to be drawn against the very real possibility that her testimony would be used to carry out a miscarriage of justice.

  • craig Post author


    I agree, and as I think I have indicated before, I feel sorry for Wilen as she seems to have been exploited, in different ways, by everybody. She strikes me as a rather gullible individual. On the anonymity point, I think the stable door argument applies here; it is farcical to pretend her name is not already all over the internet.

  • CC

    If only SW was as readily contactable as AA…
    A google search on her turns up very little, much of what was present has been deleted.

    A clarification on SWs intent to press charges would clear up whether there is any actual rape accusation in this case; AA’s own accusation was not deemed serious enough to issue an arrest warrant.

    SW’s case was initially thrown out by Eva Finne, then rewritten (again without approval of SW) to contain a stronger depiction of rape, and resubmitted to Marianne Ny, a different prosecutor. Without that revision an arrest warrant could not have been issued and the situation would have been very different for the last two years.

    Irmeli Krans’ involvement and flagrant abuse of procedure looks like the most obvious smoking-gun of political interference in this case, which is perhaps also why her name is banned from use on the BBC.

    Also to be considered are the other police witness statements:

    SW’s Brother: “Sofia has later said that she didn’t want to file a complaint against Julian but only wanted him to test himself. She went & sought the police for advice (re STD test) and the police filed a complaint.”

    SW’s Work Colleague: “I want to point out that when Sofia was at the hospital and went to the police, things didn’t turn out as Sofia wanted. She only wanted Julian to test himself. She felt she’d been overrun by the police and others around her.”

    The media debate has fruitlessly focussed on definition of rape, whereas the most visible flaw in this case is that there was never a complaint.

  • CM

    It seems completely opaque as to whether Sophia Wilens is currently making formal allegations against JA or not. This is surely something the Swdish prosecution should be obliged to clarify. It is also immensely frustrating that none of the msm appeal willing to pick up on the huge anomalies in this case.

    If she is refusing to sign the statement, then it follows the prosecution is against her will.
    As no-one else was present then it is simply her word against his. There are no witnesses and no evidence to corroberate her story (and the ‘torn condom’ evidence of AA has already been shown by the police lab as almost certainly fabricated).

    I fail to see how this could possibly amount to something a prosecutor could justify pursuing.

    I wonder if some of JAs wealthy supporters could be persuuaded to take out a full page ad in one of the main broadsheets, outlining the key points, and so forcing the msm to start reporting the real story.

  • Jon

    Craig, indeed. However on anonymity, I should have clarified – I meant for it to include “protection from intrusion”, journalists included. Which is why I was finding it difficult to balance that with the likelihood that her testimony is being abused, and the need for her to put the record straight to the press.

    She may have ducked for cover, feeling guilty of what she has started, but not emotionally strong enough to approach the media to clarify her statement. I would quite understand if this was the case. Assuming Assange is being set up, if she were simply to approach the police, the misuse of her testimony would continue.

  • Anon

    Craig. Don’t want to disrupt this thread but could you check the end of the previous LMU thread for info about claims murdered man in France was ex Iraqi nuclear scientist known to be at risk. Are the claims about massive FO involvement in investigation true?

  • John Goss

    I’ve thought for some time that Krans herself and the doctoring of Wilen’s unsigned statement are the weak links. Thank you Craig Murray for giving this the publicity it deserves when most journalists of the UK media, who Julian Assange has liberally fed with stories for a decade, never came to his assistance in his hour of need. It is despicable. There are however notable exceptions to this, John Pilger being a shining example.

  • Anon

    And so far nobody seems to be able to track down or even name the “ex-RAF” cyclist who saved the life of the 8 year old girl (and presumed witness to the killings) by applying immediate life-saving measures according to police.

  • CE

    Hi Craig,

    Kudos to you for printing the statement as it doesn’t read well at all for JA. Especially the Enkopping incident , with serious allegations of at the very least, serious sexual assault. A few mentions of Ms Krans sexuality, do you believe this to be relevant to the case?

    Maybe SW didn’t sign her statement because

    a) She realised the gravity of what JA had done to her, and with SW being a firm supporter and believer in the wikileaks movement, she did not want to be seen as ‘betraying the cause’.

    b) She had a fear (proven right), that the complaint would generate a huge amount of international publicity and attention, which in turn would lead to her being attacked and smeared by supporters of JA.


    You have criticised AA for giving media interviews, now you do the same to SW for ‘ducking for cover’. Is there any way in which the alleged victims could behave that would satisfy you?

  • Fritz

    apologies for another hijack – Craig, this might be worth a separate thread depending on how it develops, shall we see?

    Problem is, Anon, that if the “ex-RAF” bloke was part of a dirty operation, why should he save the girl’s life rather than finishing her off for good? I suspect that it will turn out that the “ex-Raf” bloke probably doesn’t exist.

  • Fritz

    Well, notre ami CE didn’t take long to surface, did he/she?


  • Anon


    I wasn’t thinking the “ex RAF” guy was part of any kill squad but maybe he was part of a team keeping a low level watch (not well enough if so). Claim by “Manchester Journalist” there is a “D Notice” in effect on this story. See end of previous LMU post. Also curious about background of murdered French cyclist who had been seen earlier (alive) by the ex RAF guy.

  • CE


    Thankfully I don’t see your name at the top of the blog. Craig and Jon have told me I am very welcome here. If they wish me to stop contributing all they need to do is ask.

  • Michael

    Hi Craig (especially) and all,
    don’t want to go through all the arguments I had with different people on previous threads again, so just one very specific question, and I’d be grateful for a specific answer:

    Why did you write above that Krans is lesbian? Do you believe it is relevant to the case in any way? If so, yes? If no, do you usually write “heterosexual” in front of other names? (that’s a rhetorical question)

    Just curious, really

  • Michael

    Sorry, the one short sentence in my comment above should of course read “If so, why?” not “If so, yes?”

  • Jon


    I think you are applying a very specific filter on everything to do with this case, including things I say. I’ve never criticised AA for giving interviews, but I do find the fact that she has done so relevant to third-party suggestions she is now deserving of anonymity.

    On SW, I speculated that she was ducking for cover, but it was not a criticism; in fact, to underscore this, I said “I would quite understand if [she was not not emotionally strong enough to approach the media]”.

    It is important to look at reasons why she may not have signed her statement from your perspective, as well as from ours. But I think she is an awkward position – either she backs up her interview and signs the statement, or she talks to the media and retracts her statement. My hope is that she is not bounced into signing if she doesn’t independently believe she was assaulted.

    I am not sympathetic to the view that talking about SW, or about her statement that resulted in the extradition request, is the same as “smearing” her case. Just as there is a non-zero possibility that she was sexually assaulted (which the MSM are very happy to talk about) there is a non-zero possibility that JA is being set up (which gets much less airtime).

  • Anon

    France shooting: ‘He had no enemies. He’s no Tinker Sailor Soldier Spy’ –

    His neighbours in Claygate, Surrey, said Mr Al Hilli worked on a freelance basis for a satellite and aerospace technology company in Guildford, Surrey, attached to Surrey University.

    They insisted the devoted family man, who was born in Baghdad, Iraq, and fled Saddam Hussein’s regime, had no enemies.

    George Aicolina, a neighbour, said: “This doesn’t add up. He had no enemies. He’s no Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. I very much doubt the Establishment would want to get rid of him.”

    Curious headline that in The Telegraph considering there has been no media speculation about him being a spy at all.

  • Villager

    Krans: “He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn’t say when he’d done it but he did it.”

    That statement also, Craig, seems to have Krans’s (lesbian) voice shine through. How would she know when, when she hasn’t had it?!

  • Jon

    @Michael – that’s a question for Craig. My guess would be that if someone is involved in LBGT causes, they might be more likely to be of feminist views, possibly strengthening the theory that JA is being “taught a lesson”. I don’t know how relevant it is, although there is some reportage available that suggests the two women were quite hostile to men in their feminist politics. I don’t know how fair that assessment is, mind.

    If your theory is that the mention of her sexuality arises from an appeal to homophobia, I am quite certain you’d be barking up the wrong tree 🙂

  • CE

    Again mention of Kran’s sexuality? Why is her sexuality relevant and how does it impact on her professional conduct?

  • Jon

    @Villager – to be fair, I think we can read any bias “shining through” a written piece. A lesbian may have had a relationship with a man in the past – people do change their mind about these things!

  • Villager

    Come on, Michael, grow-up!

    This is a serious frickin case–EVERYTHING is important here and needs to be placed under a forensic microscope for The Truth to eventually see the light.

    The investigators need to be investigated. Human beings are handling this. In case you haven’t noticed, we humans are very insecure, nasty, ambitious, competitive, greedy, vulnerable, frail, psychologically disordered, angry, violent.

    Just wonder, where are you living?


    QUERY – I have the long pdf document outlining the case in detail that was linked to previously. In the corrections at the end the author talks about there being two interviews at the police station – one when AA was present with SW and IK and a later – perhaps the official one – when it was just SW and IK. Is this correct? It certainly seems strange procedure.

    Also – SW is believed to have made another statement on 3rd Sept 2010. This text is not ‘out’. Did she sign this one I wonder?

    SW is clearly keeping out of the public eye for some reason. It’s hard to fathom why exactly but there could be any number of valid or suspicious reasons for this. It’s frustrating because if she would clarify a few details a lot of speculation could be avoided. But it is certainly up to her.

    I think anyone studying the case will feel sympathy for SW. She seems to have been treated badly by everyone involved and while AA looks vindictive and duplicitous SW merely looks naiive and rather foolish.

    I can imagine SW getting a very rough cross-examination in a UK court and coming out of it feeling worse than she did in August 2010. AA would get utterly torn to shreds by a competent defence barrister, but expect she could handle it rather better.

    I understand the Swedish system affords complainants rather more protection from harsh questioning.

    Numerous events in the early investigation are highly suspect and need to be publicised as widely as possible. It’s all out there but as Chomsky has it – you have to look. The main stream media so often attempts to hide the truth or distract us from it. We have seen a great deal of this in the Assange case.

1 2 3 14

Comments are closed.