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.

Background

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.

Afterwards

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.

Sundry

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 11 12 13 14
  • Göran Rudling

    VivaEcuador,

    In this case, wouldn’t the “intelligent” thing to do be for the Swedish govt. to extract a public pledge from the United States that it will not seek the extradition of Julian Assange, full stop?”

    First you write this. I answer that I do not understand why Sweden would get involved in any thing like it. You write “intelligent” in quotation marks. I respond and say no it is not an intelligent thing, it is a stupid idea as a direct response. You then go into some spin because I called your idea not intelligent. You accuse me of am shouting “stupid idea”. Are you sure you are all right? See below.

    “What Mr. Rudling?!? No legal razzle-dazzle this time? When out of ammunition, just shout “stupid idea”, right? It obviously never occurred to you that Sweden would not be “interfering” but asking a favour from its ally the United States, ie. can you please confirm that you have no intention to seek JA’s extradition? Surely this would help to convince the Ecuadorian govt. that JA’s life was not in danger. Like I said, where is the “evidence” that the Swedish govt. is seriously trying to end this stand-off?”

    Please explain how “extract a public pledge from the United States” is asking a favour from the US. I cannot see it like that. I am sorry. I can only see it as asking the US to make a public pledge that they cannot seek Julian’s extradition, that is limit their freedom in seeking extraditions. Which is interfering with the US right to ask for extraditions. So it is interfering in the US internal affairs. End of story.

    “Surely this would help to convince the Ecuadorian govt. that JA’s life was not in danger.”
    Excuse me. In what way is Julian’s life in danger? The Ecuadorian govt. is delusional too.

    Julian and his lawyers have a long list of demands on the Australian government. I will post the link below. Please tell me which demands you think are reasonable for the Australian government to meet.

    http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/dem-aus.pdf

  • Göran Rudling

    Dear Craig,

    Your response is telling. You write an article that mostly is factually incorrect. In order for you to support your opinion you fabricate events. A list of your fabrications is below.

    You claimed “Sofia Wilen refused to sign the statement and has not done so to this day.”

    You claimed “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.”

    You claimed that “Ardin did not take Wilen to the nearest police station.”

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

    You claimed “Then Ardin was present throughout Krans’ interview of Wilen”

    You claimed “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.”

    You claimed that Klara Närpolissation “does of course have video-taping facilities.”.

    When I call you a liar because of your extensive fabrications you remain quiet for a long time. When I finally refer to you as a person that may have as your favorite sport going round calling people lesbians without foundation you respond “There is however a great deal of material on the net that indicates that she is [lesbian], for example” and reveal a source, daddys blog. A big problem for you is that the article you refer does not contain any material that indicates that Irmeli Krans is a lesbian. Secondly, the sexual orientation of the police officer involved is not relevant.

    In your response I think I can detect what is wrong with you. You write “You also continually called me a liar for saying Krans is a lesbian. In fact that is not true either. You are making it up. Fabricating again. As far as I can remember I have only once written about it. To me once is far from continually. What is your opinion?

    What I wrote is below:
    “I incorrectly assumed that anybody that without any evidence puts this in a blog post “lesbian feminist campaigner Irmeli Krans” is not only homophobic but involved in posting lies.”

    In your response you go on to say “You state that you cannot see any particular use of emotive or biased language against Assange in the statement Kraus wrote. I would say that shows you are completely hopeless at textual analysis. Now you are back in the old Craig again, throwing accusations. Please show what the emotive or biased language there is in the interview. It is possible I made a mistake, but please point it out. Please show some facts.

    What it is all about
    Let’s get to the main argument. I know you make stuff up. You say you don’t. What I want you to do now is to support your claims below with facts. You either have them or you don’t.

    1) That Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement

    2) That Sofia Wilén have not signed her statement to this day

    3) That the prosecutor told the British High Court that Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans were witnesses to Sofia’s interview.

    4) That Anna Ardin did not take Sofia to the nearest and best police station.

    5) That rather than see another officer, the two women waited two hours until Krans came on duty.

    6) That Anna Ardin was present throughout Krans’ interview of Wilen

    7) That Anna Ardin did not report Julian until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.

    8) That the Klara Närpolisstation does have video-taping facilities.

    I will leave out your claim that Irmeli Krans is lesbian because it obviously makes you emotionally upset when I insinuate that you are sexist and homophobic.

    I can understand that it is difficult for you to admit that you have no foundations for your claims above. But that is the way it is. Are you afraid of admitting it. Do you want me to offer you a guarantee that I will not write about your fabrications on my blog. I can guarantee I will not if you admit that you “made a mistake of not checking facts”. Seven words Craig.

    I know that you have opinions. And that you fabricate stuff to support your opinions. You are not alone. There are many people that support Julian Assange that are involved in that kind of behavior. I does not help him.

    I really like your last sentence

    “Indeed you make numerous statements with an air of great authority, which all evaporate upon inspection.”

    I think we can leave to the reader to decide that.

    Many years ago I learned something very important from a wise Scotsmans,”When you end up in a hole, stop digging.”

  • Göran Rudling

    @AAMVN,

    I’m curious about why Bjorn Hurtig was fired if anyone has details – and why GR thinks it was a mistake.

    I do not know why Björn Hurtig was fired. I think it has to do with that some people regarded him as not active enough, that is talking to the media.

    But I can tell you my view on lawyers. Mark Stephens was involved talking to the media. As if he believed that media actually made the decision in the extradition case. Mark Stephens made a number of erroneous claims. It was obvious he did not understand Swedish law and the legal process in Sweden. If you don’t know the law it does not help how high you scream outside the court.

    Björn Hurtig is not as public as Mark Stephens. He operates inside the court as I would expect a lawyer would. He wins cases. What about Per E. Samuelsson and Thomas Olsson that are Julian’s present lawyers? I do not think it was clever to try to get Sofia Wilén’s statement thrown out as Per E. wanted. I don’t think Per E.’s comments on 4Corners show that he knows the case. I don’t think it is particularly smart to repeat lies. That is trying to convince the world that Julian was available for interviews in September. From judge Riddle’s ruling:

    “It is not necessary for me to determine for current purposes whether Mr Assange deliberately fled the country to avoid further proceedings. That has not been specifically alleged. What is clear however is that he has not made himself available for interview in Sweden.”

    Thomas Olsson is as far as I know a good lawyer. At least he has not made any strange comments about the case yet.

    I am not an expert on lawyers. I just don’t think it is good for a lawyer to lie about events. If the lawyer is lying it tends to rub off onto the client.

  • VivaEcuador

    Mr. Rudling:

    You say:

    Please explain how “extract a public pledge from the United States” is asking a favour from the US. I cannot see it like that. I am sorry. I can only see it as asking the US to make a public pledge that they cannot seek Julian’s extradition, that is limit their freedom in seeking extraditions. Which is interfering with the US right to ask for extraditions. So it is interfering in the US internal affairs. End of story.

    You skipped over my later comment which clarified what I meant by “extracting a pledge”, ie. asking the United States Justice Department to confirm whether they intend to pursue the extradition of Julian Assange and if not, to make this fact public because it would eliminate the excuse the Ecuadorian government is using to harbour JA. This is what I mean when I say asking a favour of the American government. It is in no way interference in the affairs of the United States (which is an ironic charge since it is the US govt. that regularly interferes in other nation’s affairs).

    If the US confirms this publicly, then the ball is squarely in the JA/Ecuadorian court, so to speak.

    If the US refuses to do this, then given that there is no chance of extraditing Assange under espionage charges, it obviously raises the question of whether the US govt. has another card up their sleeve. In which case it would be wise for JA to remain in this embassy until such a statement of no intention to seek extraditioin is forthcoming.

    As I have said, it is foolish to pretend that this is a pure legal battle. The real war is being fought at the PR level.

    To summarise – you have presented no legal reasons why this could not be done. Only that it is a “stupid idea” because it would be “interference” which is far from the case, as I have demonstrated.

    Over to you.

  • Göran Rudling

    Dear Craig Murray,

    In order to help you get out of the mess you have put yourself into here are two documents that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that four of your claims are fabrications.

    “5) That rather than see another officer, the two women waited two hours until Krans came on duty.”

    A memorandum from police officer Linda Wassgren (sexual orientation unknown) explains in detail what happened at the police station when the two women arrived. The name Linda Wassgren means it is not the same person as Irmeli Krans. This document proves your claim five is a fabrication.

    http://samtycke.nu/doc/police_pm_p29.pdf

    “7) That Anna Ardin did not report Julian until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.”

    Below is a link to the actual “Brottsanmälan” from 20 August 2010. It is evident that Anna Ardin reported the crime to Linda Wassgren (still unknown sexual orientation) at the day and at the same time when Sofia Wilén was interviewed proving that your claim seven is a fabrication.

    If you bother to look at the time when the “Brottsanmälan” was entered in the police computer it says 16:31. The interview with Sofia Wilén started 16:21. This proves that your claim six also is a fabrication.

    http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass-anna-brott-long.pdf

    Your eight claim, that Klara Närpolisstation was equipped with video-facilities is a fabrication too. Not a serious one though, because one would expect a major police station would have video-facilities.

    I have put it to you that you have fabricated 8 events to support your opinion that there is something fishy in the Assange investigation. I have now proven to you that you have most definitely fabricated four out of these events. So I made you job easier. Now you only have to show me facts that support four of your claims.

    1) That Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement

    2) That Sofia Wilén have not signed her statement to this day

    3) That the prosecutor told the British High Court that Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans were witnesses to Sofia’s interview.

    4) That Anna Ardin did not take Sofia to the nearest and best police station.

    When I first commented on your blog I was critical of two of your claims. It is not until your strange response that I read your article closer. Now I know that you have fabricated eight events in one article. Still you have not admitted fabrication of one. Your behavior makes me think that you are into fabrication in a greater scale than is evident from this article. What is it that makes you think that you can lie about events and nobody will check you? Is it because most of the people on this blog are pro-Assange and will eat any lie as long as it helps him?

    Before today I thought I only heard one delusional speaker on 19 August. And that speaker had happened to lock himself into an embassy and lost the key. He stood on a balcony close to Harrods giving advice to the President of the United States Barack Obama as if it was a cartoon in Mad magazine. Now I know there were more.

  • Göran Rudling

    VivaEcuador,

    “If the US refuses to do this, then given that there is no chance of extraditing Assange under espionage charges”

    I don’t know how many times I have to say this to make you understand. Sweden does not extradite people that are charged with espionage. Sweden does not extradite people that are charged with espionage. Sweden does not extradite people that are charged with espionage. Please understand. There is no chance to get Julian extradited for espionage.

    We all know that the Ecuadorian government have no grounds for granting Julian Assange asylum. They did it anyway. They claim there is a real risk that Julian Assange’s life is in danger without proving it with any facts. One can say that Rafael Correa is doing a Craig Murray or Naomi Wolf.

    Most of us know that Ecuador is using the extradition risk as an excuse. I agree with you. Issuing a guarantee won’t change that. Because Ecuador will argue that Julian’s life was in danger until the guarantee was issued.

    The ball is in Assange’s court and has been since day one. He has proven to the world that he is not a ball player. He is just complaining about the rules all the time. And some of his legal friends cannot play ball either. What kind of a ball player are you if you cannot discriminate between a Red and Orange notice from Interpol? And what kind of ball player are you if you cannot discriminate between sending someone back to his home country and an extradition? And if you cannot tell the difference between Egypt and the USA, should you be allowed to touch a ball?

  • VivaEcuador

    Mr. Rudling:

    You are evading the question. You did not answer a single point that I raised, only to carp on about how JA cannot be extradited from Sweden on espionage charges which I have conceded time and time again. Nor have you provided any convincing legal reasons why my suggestion could not work.

    Most of us know that Ecuador is using the extradition risk as an excuse. I agree with you.

    Liar. Fabricator. Prove that point.

    You’re all washed up, Mr. Rudling.

    Checkmate.

  • Göran Rudling

    VivaEcuador

    “In which case it would be wise for JA to remain in this embassy until such a statement of no intention to seek extradition is forthcoming.”

    Now it gets really silly. Julian Assange, the information hero, wants guarantees from the US that they will not seek his extradition or else he will remain in the embassy. I don’t understand why you are unable to see the comedy here. Julian claims the US is out to get him since he’s been publishing secret documents. To avoid whatever Julian has locked himself into an embassy. Now he is asking the US for a key to get out. You must be joking. The loud laughter you hear in the background is from the White House.

    Remain in the embassy is my advice. No such guarantees are coming. Not even from Australia.

    I asked you earlier a question of Julian’s demands on the Australian government. Se link below. What I would like you to do is have look at the list of demands and tell me which one’s you think it is reasonable that the Australian government should meet. I personally don’t see any as Australia also did. And I can tell you that I lost all my respect for Gareth Peirce when I saw that she was the sender of the mail.

    http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/dem-aus.pdf

    P.S. It is even sillier that you and I are talking about it.

  • Jemand

    I’d like to know what “consular assistance” means. Especially the type that Australia always claims to offer those of its citizens who find themselves in trouble overseas.

    Is it money? Living expenses? Accomodation? Food or clothing? Real legal advice? Diplomatic representation? Useful information? Mediation?

    Or is it the occasional phone call asking, “Are you okay? Do you require consular assistance?”

  • Villager

    I find myself in the same position as AAMVN:

    “But we don’t do Assange any good by repeating things that are proven to be false or at best in grave doubt. It doesn’t help to claim SW refused to sign a statement. She didn’t sign it at the time but we can’t know why. Which police station is closest is a red herring too. The women may have had good reason to go to the one they chose or it may be to meet IK. If they did wait 2 hours to speak to IK that’s more significant but still not decisive. IK shouldn’t have taken the case but that is not SW’s fault.

    GR is right in pressing his point that all this belongs in the Swedish court (however flawed it might be) and not in appeals of an EAW or a PR battle.”

    and

    ” I have done a complete 180 degree turn on the EAW appeals. I used to think Assange had been mistreated and the EAWs should have been obviously struck down. But I was basing my opinion on a number of facts that were not true or selectively cherry picked by various parties supporting Assange.

    I now think the EAW was valid and fair and should stand. It’s a cruddy piece of legislation that needs reforming, but it is the only way the Swedes could apprehend Assange in London and compel him to undergo the interview. I now believe he was avoiding interview deliberately.”

    With regard to the ongoing diplomatic negotiations, i wonder what levers exist in favour of Assange/Ecuador? I have read the latter has the option to go to the ICJ. OK, Sweden would rather get the case heard and done with asap, but thats of relatively minor leverage to Assange. Could he counter-sue AA for her lies? (But wouldn’t that require his presence?) What leverage truly exists? Craig, can you help with that? Goran? Anyone?

    And Goran, a last question. Realising that Sweden may not be at all interested in giving any kind of assurance whatsoever re extradition to the US, nevertheless in your opinion, would it be legally feasible for the Govt to issue some sort of a CONTINGENT guarantee or even a a strong political/diplomatic statement of assurance?

  • Göran Rudling

    VivaEcuador,

    A long time ago I came to the conclusion that Anna Ardin is likely making a false allegation. Sofia is not, she is reporting events as she saw them. This is my opinion and has no value as long as the case is in extradition phase. This is only important when the case is in Sweden. (I’ve read Craig Murray’s analysis and I think he is wrong.)

    What Julian does not understand is that a rape accusation is very serious. And that is what Sofia is accusing him of. Anna’s accusations are serious too. It is a totally different matter if Anna accusations are true. Even if Anna’s allegations are false, he has to face them in a police interview first and maybe in court later.

    People say a lot of this case. I can say one thing that really sticks out. I have never ever in my whole life seen a suspect behave as stupidly as Julian. Not even close. From the minute he opened his mouth on 21 August 2010 until today.

    When I met Julian Assange in February 2011 I informed him of an elegant and simple way to finish the case. He was not interested. Julian could, at an earlier stage, have claimed that Anna was making a false allegation and asked the police to investigate. He could ask the police to reveal the investigation the police did after my police report. I asked him to do so. He thought it better to talk about black boxes and dark forces. I thought he was way out, and so his English lawyers.

    What I would suggest you to do is read what Julian and his lawyers said when the Swedish PM Fredrik Reinfeldt said something about the case on 8 February 2011. I was in a taxi cab when Jennifer Robinson got the news. I know the lawyers Reinfeldt’s speech completely wrong. If you are having problems finding legal documents I can help you look for them. My account below. Google will translate it for you.

    http://samtycke.nu/2011/02/09/nar-man-vet-nagot-mer-an-statsministern-maste-man-saga-nagot/

    I cannot see there is any legal way the government can issue a guarantee. I am sorry, I can’t. It is like pardon someone that is not even accused. It is like a “get-out-of-jail-card”. It doesn’t make sense. (That does not mean I think you are stupid). Makes me believe Glenn Greenwald is still playing Monopoly. I don’t say this to be rude. This is just the way I see it and the way I think it is.

    When I showed you that Julian and is lawyers asked to see the full police investigation prior to accept being interviewed, I think you said it was a strategic blunder. The guarantee thing is the same. To ask for a guarantee is an even greater strategic blunder.
    I can only interpret the guarantee talk as another way of saying I will never go. Because that is what it effectively means.

    If my tone have offended you I am very sorry. Please understand that every single time I say something that I know has factual support I am a troll, government agent, fascist, Assange-hater, state-feminist, secret lesbian, bed-mate with Karl Rove ….. etc. Nobody has ever said that I was in the same boy scouts as Carl Bildt. OK?

  • VivaEcuador

    Villager:

    Imagine if the following written statement were issued:

    “The United States Justice Department confirms that the Wikileaks investigation provides no grounds for an eventual request for extradition under Swedish law. Moreover, there is no other investigation underway that could lead to a request for extradition. Neither has the Justice Department any plans to initiate any legal process that could result in a request for extradition”.

    Note that this is not a “guarantee” but a simple statement of fact. Can anyone please explain why this would be impossible?

  • Göran Rudling

    Tired. Sorry. Should reaD

    I was in a taxi cab with Jennifer Robinson when she got the news. I know the lawyers interpreted Reinfeldt’s speech completely wrong.

    Note.
    When Swedish PM Reinfeldt commented on the case a little, there was an opening for communication. The English lawyers quickly closed that door and barricaded themselves with the help of clowns like Marcello Ferrada de Noli.

  • Göran Rudling

    VivaEcuador,

    I’ve been in sales in almost all my life. I’ve helped hundreds of sales people understand simple things. You can’t force people to buy things. If you can help them understand what they will benefit they will buy much more than you can ever think.

    Nobody gives a shit about Julian in the DOP and DOJ. What would DOJ benefit from issuing guarantee? Nothing. Instead of trying to find things that would benefit Julian try to find something that is a benefit for the DOJ. If you can find the DOJ benefit you solved the problem. I am telling you there is no simple DOJ benefit.

    See it like this. You are the DOJ. You don’t like Julian. You are happy he has locked himself into Ecuadors embassy, since it is just like jail. What do you have to do to keep him there forever? Keep the grand-jury meeting once in a while and never finish. Rent some actors that will play FBI-agents that talk to WikiLeaks volunteers once in a while. Please understand that Julian has done everything the DOJ would want him to do without them having to do anything. Now they can go back to their cock-tails. Problem fixed. And the more scared Julian is the higher he screams and the more he will scare other people thinking about publishing secrets.

    Talking football. Julian has kicked the ball in his own net so many times the DOJ has lost count. I am sorry. But step away for a minute and look at this from the DOJ side and I think you get the picture. Julian lost. A long time ago.

  • Göran Rudling

    VivaEcuador,

    Forgot. If it is correct that Anna Ardin is making a false accusation she must be celebrating now. She managed to destroy him completely. But I don’t think Anna Ardin is responsible for his down-fall. It is his own imagination. Anna just started it. 98% what is done is what he has done to himself.

    “Imagined fears are bigger than real fears.”

  • CE

    Thanks again Goran,

    Some really fascinating and educational information again today. And you seemed to have toned down the rhetoric a tad! 😉

    If even half of what you have told is true there can be no doubt JA is the architect of his own downfall.

  • VivaEcuador

    Mr. Rudling:

    If what you say is correct, then it will boomerang and only increase support for a man under siege. People will say that American silence on extradition is proof that the US has evil plans for JA. Nor will it help Sweden resolve the case. In the end, the US will end up looking extremely vindictive. The DoJ “strategy” that you outlined, if true, will carry a heavy price in terms of America’s reputation. This is what I meant earlier by the PR war. It will re-inforce JA’s standing as a martyr.

    I could be wrong but I very much doubt that this is what the United States wants.

  • Sunflower

    @Göran “I think we can leave to the reader to decide that.”

    I decide you are a troll. What is actually your motive here? To state that all circumstances surrounding the JA/AA/SW affair are normal? That the police, prosecutors, lawyers and all others involved have been behaving according to normal protocol?

    I’m sorry you are not credible.

  • Göran Rudling

    CE

    You are most welcome. If you have any direct questions you can get into contact through my website. The more questions you ask the better we will get to know the case.
    http://samtycke.nu/eng/contact/

    VivaEcuador,

    That goes for you too.

    You may be right. “People will say that American silence on extradition is proof that the US has evil plans for JA. This is what I meant earlier by the PR war. It will re-inforce JA’s standing as a martyr.”

    I am of a different opinion. I do believe that in the end the truth will come out. And when it does I think the verdict will be very different. Julian will be seen as a “rättshaverist”, a rechthaber. Someone who’s spending time in numerous courts, losing again and again but maintaining the courts are corrupt and he is right anyway. Something of a “legal fool”. The sad part is he dragged WikiLeaks down with him.

    Now I am most interested in hearing what Craig Murray has to say about of the four remaining fabricated facts.

    Where are the facts that support these four of your claims.

    1) That Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement

    2) That Sofia Wilén have not signed her statement to this day

    3) That the prosecutor told the British High Court that Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans were witnesses to Sofia’s interview.

    4) That Anna Ardin did not take Sofia to the nearest and best police station.

  • Göran Rudling

    Dearest and Sweetest Sunflower,

    Are you sure I am a troll? Not a lesbian state-feminist troll? Or a CIA troll? Or a psy-ops troll? Or a troll-troll with a hidden agenda? As said earlier you can throw whatever you like, won’t stick. Teflon coat.

    You ask if “all circumstances surrounding the JA/AA/SW affair are normal?” You are correct. They are not. Let me repeat myself. There is one thing that really sticks out in this case. That is not normal in a case like this. I have never ever in my whole life seen a suspect behave as stupidly as Julian Assange. Not even close. From the minute he opened his mouth on 21 August 2010 until today.

    There are mistakes made by the prosecutors and the police. I have pointed out a few. But they don’t come close the number and severity of the mistakes made by Julian Assange. But don’t take my word for it. I’m just a poor troll or whatever you think I am.

  • Sunflower

    Just to set things in a bit of perspective. Göran Rudling is a Taxi-driver in Stockholm. Nothing wrong in that. He is also a rabid feminist. Nothing wrong with that either, well… that could be debated. He is very actively involved in the JA-case is a way that as an onlooker you could question his mental status. My opinion is that not everything is wired the right way upstairs. But I’m a layman in the medical sciences so I couldn’t really tell.

    Point is, don’t waste your time with this guy Craig. You have more important stuff to attend.

    Here is a link, run it through Google translate http://debatt.svt.se/2012/02/12/taxiforbundet-ljuger-de-har-inte-gjort-nagot-for-att-hindra-sexforbrytare-fran-att-kora-taxi/

  • CE

    Rabid feminist. Lol. Feminism is now a dirty word among the Cult of JA.

    Do wish to take up Goran on any of his points\arguments or are you just going to attempt smears and slurs?

  • Sunflower

    I normally do not feed trolls, but GR can not produce the signature of SW. The case is run by the Swedish authorities not the alleged victim. And yes, GR is just another radical political activist that happened to find this forum, we have fifteen on a dozen of shot-gun feminizts in Sweden.

    Your assumption that I belong to some JA-cult is wrong, I think he is a crook, but he is not a rapist in this case.

  • Göran Rudling

    AAMVN,

    “Could the Swedish government offer Assange political asylum from the United States? Would this be a way around the constitutional deadlock? Perhaps a silly question.”we

    Firstly. There are no silly questions. “Silly” questions many times lead to remarkable discoveries.

    I assume you mean that Assange ended up in the US. Swedish government would have problems offering Assange political asylum if was Assange in the US. He had to be in the Swedish Embassy first to apply. If Sweden gave Assange political asylum it would mean nothing. Even if Sweden gave Assange immediate citizenship if would mean nothing. He is in the jurisdiction of the US and US laws apply.

    Julian would get a fair trial. No question about it.

    The EAW is misused. Not by UK, not by Sweden. But by Poland. Why bring the poles into this?d

    I do not agree that the police and the prosecutors have mishandled the case. The mistake that was made was not to immediately arrest Julian Assange on 1 September. The second mistake is made by UK authorities. It was a mistake to offer him bail given his history of fleeing.

    I do not know where you get your informations of leaks. The only leak that I know of is from Julian Assange’s lawyers. There are no leaks in this case. Not one leak except the one from Marks Stephens’ office.

    I don’t think you understand what the Mutual Legal Assistence is about. It is one way that is open if the prosecutor so decides. Like the use of police dogs and fingerprints. There are is no “establishe system” of how Mutual Legal Assistence is supposed to be used.

  • Göran Rudling

    Phil the frog

    “Sweden is seeking the extradition of the Pirate Bay founder on a hacking charge rather than any copyright infringement laws.

    It is tempting to see a parallel here with Assange – in that Sweden is pursuing those the US government wants stopped, on charges not directly related to the real issue.

    I know your inclination and that you have a difficulty with temptations. Thank you for sharing. Your description of the case is as claims by Mr Murray made up from thin air. Please look at facts of a case before you offer your so called opinion.

  • Göran Rudling

    “Goran, do you have any alternative hypotheses as to why SW did not approve her statement on that Friday evening? Did she approve it subsequently?”

    I’ve already told you about my alternative hypotheses as to why SW did not approve her statement on that Friday evening? The statement wasn’t typed out at the time Irmeli Krans decided to end the interview. At the time it was not necessary to get Sofia’s approval. She could approve it later as is stated in the interview.

    The lack of approval is just a zombie-fact. Am I unfair in saying that zombies are repeating this over and over again?

  • Göran Rudling

    Villager,

    “As for Per E, is it normal/acceptable procedure in Sweden to summon an accused to the Police Station via text messages? I wonder if in the UK that would be considered formal notice. Anyone?

    More importantly would you agree that it was very strange for Ny to allow or create, in a “rape” case like this (especially where the accused is a temporary visitor to the country), a delay of 21 days before inviting Assange in for questioning? In the interim, as i understand it, on or around 14 Sept she had indicated to Per E that Assange was free to travel?I wonder if in the UK that would be considered formal notice. Anyone?

    More importantly would you agree that it was very strange for Ny to allow or create, in a “rape” case like this (especially where the accused is a temporary visitor to the country), a delay of 21 days before inviting Assange in for questioning? In the interim, as i understand it, on or around 14 Sept she had indicated to Per E that Assange was free to travel?”

    Please, please, please, please. You write “is it normal/acceptable procedure in Sweden to summon an accused to the Police Station via text messages?” as if an accused was summoned by text messages. Who was the recipient of the text messages? Answer, Björn Hurtig. Was Björn Hurtig the accused?

    Regarding your second issue of the delay. I have been critical of this too. Now I am of a different opinion. The prosecutors were too nice to Mr Assange. They did everything to make sure Mr Assange would not be interfered with trusting his word that he would like to get the issue sorted out.

    I think the Swedish police were silly in trusting Mr Assange. As I think the UK court made an error in releasing him on bail. I have now, within the hour, come to the understanding that people who have a tendency to lie should be treated differently than people that are honest. Julian Assange should have been detained on 1 September.

  • Göran Rudling

    Village R People,

    Besides, with my lawyer not sitting next to me, i have to watch my p’s and q’s with you

    Don’t get it. Explain please.

    By the way. Who is the Indian? And why isn’t Assange depicted in leather? My lovely friend is next to me licking my ear and whispering g and t. Hope your lawyer is not licking your ear while getting involved in letter combinations. Please don’t reveal your inclination.

  • johan

    Göran wrote:

    I do not agree that the police and the prosecutors have mishandled the case.

    Göran, this is the opposite of your previous stated position:

    It is debatable whether Julian Assange can get a fair trial in Sweden.

    What we have seen in the detention memorandum and previously released documents, and what emerged from talks in London on 7-8 February suggest that the police decided that Julian Assange is guilty. And that they spent time trying to find evidence that this is the case.

    Now we know that it is not only the investigation that is biased. One of the investigators, Irmeli Krans is apparently biased.

    The police have done a really bad investigation.

    By the looks of it, prosecutors and investigators have completely failed the test of objectivity.

    Why are police and prosecutors hiding information suggesting that Julian Assange is not guilty of everything he is accused of?

    http://is.gd/LBsOF3 and http://is.gd/dSaOdf (Google Translate)

    Do you still stand by these articles? If not, what made you change your mind?

  • Villager

    Goran, most people have left this thread.

    “Goran, do you have any alternative hypotheses as to why SW did not approve her statement on that Friday evening? Did she approve it subsequently?”

    Ur reply

    ” I’ve already told you about my alternative hypotheses as to why SW did not approve her statement on that Friday evening? The statement wasn’t typed out at the time Irmeli Krans decided to end the interview. At the time it was not necessary to get Sofia’s approval. She could approve it later as is stated in the interview.

    The lack of approval is just a zombie-fact. Am I unfair in saying that zombies are repeating this over and over again?

    yes u r being unfair because ur picking up on an outdated comment.

    Why don’t we continue on the more recent thread where u and Clark had an exchange earlier today. Have left u a couple of questions there. Pls respond in a friendly manner, despite ur g & t’s.

    By the way p’s and q’s means picking and choosing our words carefully. Hope we’ve all grown a few inches taller in the last couple of days so the dialogue can be smoother.

    Sleep in peace.

1 11 12 13 14

Comments are closed.