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.
Arbed,
Apologies, I thought you meant he hadn’t been questioned at all, my mistake. You are correct he has yet to be questioned on the more serious charges resulting from SW’s statement, but JA had the chance to be interrogated and a provisional date was agreed before he left Sweden. They obviously can’t question him now until he is forcibly returned under the EAW.
14. On 21st September 2010, the prosecutor contacted the Appellant’s
counsel by text message to ask whether the Appellant could be made
available for an interrogation on 28th September 2010. The date was
provisionally agreed.
15. On 27th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel advised the
prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The
prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that
day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested.
17. On 30th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel was advised of the
existence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the
Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27th
September 2010.
Quick scan of the “Edinburgh Eye” piece which appears to be a highly partisan account of an ambushing of Naomi Wolf on Mumsnet. This is a classic “TL;DR” – Wolf, a feminist for 23 years, is a “rape apologist”, apparently. Which of course is such nonsense that it ends up obscuring a sensible debate.
I do take issue with your language here, @CE: Wolf being “owned”* is “fabulous”, you say. I think we would all do well to remember this isn’t the playground, nor is this a trivial spat between children. Hopefully with the seriousness that is required of an international case of this kind, we need to draw a very careful balance between the rights of people alleging sexual abuse, and the rights of people alleging malicious prosecution. There is nothing fabulous here for either side.
* The English word “owned” in this context in probably Hackish in origin, and refers to the successful hacking or cracking of a computer system. Of late it has widened to mean “beaten” in a debate or a fight. It has been popularised of late by “script kiddies”, i.e. tweenagers whose technical skills sometimes outweigh their restraint and maturity.
@technicolour, yes. And, of course, Manning.
Esler has a history of attacking those that disagree with the “party line”.
That’s maybe why he has such an exalted postition in the state media.
@Jon, my pleasure. Just to clarify, my post was not aimed at the Swedish judicial system as such, even if I believe many things indicate that it at least in some areas and aspects does have problems, and I think, suffers and faces tough challenges to adapt with and to the future.
I have not enough knowledge to compare judicial systems and practices between countries, but I believe I have some senses of changes over time in Sweden. It is almost certainly not the worst judicial system there is, but neither is it without weaknesses and flaws, and that, is my concern here.
I think it is very important that cases of alleged sexual crimes, are handled with all possible care, respect and consideration, but also that we never waver in the principle of presumption of innocence and requirement of evidence.
And also that we are not naïve, and alert, so we never ever, for any reason or cause let it be used as a weapon for personal gain or to hurt and destroy another human being.
As a society I think we need to balance and secure all of these aspects, something that is really questionable in this case.
That said, I am unfortunately not the most qualified person to answer you legal questions, so I would primarily guide you to other sources that are, but very briefly,
“My understanding is that it would be a “closed” court”
Yes, this is, I believe very probable. It is a very common practice in Sweden today, and if my memory does not fail me, I believe this is so for a majority of the cases concerning rape.
“lay prosecutors” who are politically appointed
Yes, Sweden uses lay judges in the lower courts, who are politically nominated by the municipal council, or county councils, and all votes have the same weight. They are in practice very often old party functionaries.
“there would be no jury,”
No, Sweden does not use the jury system, the equivalent function is supposed to be carried out by the lay judges. That is the rationale anyway, and it can also be one small example of the chasm between the “image” and “reality” in Sweden today. In an ideal world, it could work ok, (and did work decent i believe) in a time when every 4th person was a member of a political party. Today that ratio is approx 1/35.
In a big survey performed in June this year of all court of appeal managers (professional judges) in Sweden 6 of 10 wanted the system abolished, and consider it legally unsafe, and that the lay judges express explicit political ideologies in their decisions.
“I should also be interested in what Swedes think about this kind of case generally”
Very hard to give an estimates of relative sizes in regards to opinions, and I can’t recollect that I have ever seen any opinion poll. There definitely exist a lot of people who feel both troubled and ashamed or sad (like I do), but media coverage in Sweden has been very biased against Assange, which has angered many.
Some very interesting stuff is coming out here. The circular argument about ‘wanted for prosecuation and wanted for investigation’ is glaring.
It seems very much that the appeal against the EAW has been very unfairly handled initially and subsequently. Judge Riddle? What a name – you can’t make this stuff up.
It seems clear to me that Assange should be interviewed in London about the allegations of SW. If after that point they have enough to proceed they could reasonable apply for an EAW. Assange’s EAW was abused for some malicious purpose or simply out of laziness.
I have read [http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Fair-Trial-for-Julian-Assange.html] that the Swedish system uses long term remand as a means to break suspects and make them confess. If they have the right to hold a suspect for months on end with limited access to their lawyers, in solitary, with few books and no newspapers, without visitors and on suicide watch then I’m not surprised many break down and just plead guilty. Conveniently avoiding a messy trial where shoddy police work and flimsy evidence would be exposed. Bail is seldom allowed for Swedish suspects and never for foreigners.
Trials can be closed (and I’m sure for Assange would be).
It’s a cruddy system that has been criticised by EHCR and other bodies before Assane set foot in Sweden.
I was especially interested to read lastbluebell and KAG’s posts.
Jon,
Thanks for your detailed and well structured post, a lot to take in. I will concede to you the narrow point of a perception of proportionality and that the use of the MLA could have resulted in JA answering questions on SW a long time ago.
Sorry, hands up about the mumsnet link it is rather childish and puerile. NW has spouted a lot of nonsense about this case though. Probably even more than me! 🙂
CE 9.54pm – Thanks for those snippets. I was aware of that information. You missed a bit, though – 15 September 2010 Assange counsel confirms with Swedish Prosecutor’s office that he has permission to leave Sweden. She duly confirms he is not wanted for questioning and he is free to leave. Once you take that into account, the fact she changed her mind on 21 September but his counsel was unable to contact him means no, he didn’t have “the chance to be interrogated” before he left. He had no idea Ny had changed her mind.
Interesting fact for you. Curiously, the day he booked his flight to leave for a pre-arranged business meeting in Berlin with Der Spiegel/L’Espresso journalists to discuss the publications of the Iraq War Logs was the exact same day Ms Ny raised an arrest warrant to detain him. Time of issue 2.45pm 27 September 2010 – confirmed by Swedish Prosecution Authority – and Assange’s flight was around 5pm. It’s been accepted by the UK Supreme Court that he could not have known about the existence of this warrant. But here’s the curious thing. Notice of an arrest warrant should reach all national border points almost instantly and yet no border security personnel stopped him from boarding his flight… Oooh, what’s that smell? Ewww, fishy…
@Jemand:
I appreciate you mean well, in the sense you’re agreeing with Craig, but you appear to be going one further and tarring all lesbians with the same brush. The Assange case aside, I don’t think it is at all reasonable to believe that “lesbians are biased against men” – it is such a sweeping generalisation that it is, as a statement on its own, quite untrue.
The point that Craig was making was that, in the case of Krans, her sexual identity may be relevant, since this appears to have had a bearing on her particular kind of feminism. Which, if reports are true, are worryingly misandrist.
But let me try to persuade you that lesbianism in itself is not “man hating” or “anti-male”; it’s just a trait, like eye colour.
I think the ‘no condom sex’ could be rape if a condom was a condition of consent. The question here is how reliable SWs statement is. Was she asleep or half asleep. Why didn’t she expressly ask Assange to stop and put on a condom rather the ‘let him continue’. Was she afraid? It could be rape but she has to answer these points at some stage.
If SW won’t stand by the statement above (as seems to be the case) then there is no case to answer – or at least not in the UK. Besides, Assange may simply deny her version and give a totally different account.
People often start having sex using condoms and later continue without. This may be unwise but it is not uncommon.
The fact that no harm was intended and no lasting harm done would have to be mitigating circumstances in any sentencing.
I suspect SW is thoroughly sick of the whole thing and just wants it to be over with. I doubt she wants to see Assange punished in this way.
AA has I believe used SW in some kind of revenge plot to get back at Assange. AA’s allegations seem incredible, as there is no normal motive for anyone doing what she alleges Assange did. Men do remove condoms surreptitiously or continue with condoms they know to have fallen off or broken. Perhaps some break the condom in the manner described hoping it will roll back and not cut the sensation, but I suspect even a slightly damaged condom will do that after just a few thrusts. The photograph of the condom allegedly used and damaged by Assange is very unconvincing and looks fabricated.
I don’t rule out a CIA inspired honeytrap with AA in it from the start – but it seems the least likely scenario. I am sure they are pretty happy about it all anyway. Assange has been severely hampered from operating wikileaks (though not altogether stopped) and it has served as a warning to others not to annoy the US in this manner.
@Lastbluebell – thanks for all those points. Most interesting.
Aside from the predictable establishment/neoconservative perspectives, I wonder whether the bias in the Swedish media is due in some part to national pride? Writers/editors see a “cheeky upstart” in Assange, and they feel that a defeat of their EAW would now be embarrassing for the whole country. Position on “the world stage” and all that stuff, I suppose.
Although I’m not saying jury trials are infallible – we’ve had a fair few unsafe convictions here in England – the 6/10 of appeal judges wanting the legal system changed is most worrying. I had no idea. As you say, back when party membership was at its height, it was safer – we have the same trend of fast-diminishing party membership rates. (There’s probably a lesson here about what ordinary Europeans think of party democracy as it currently stands)!
One of my concerns about the willingness of the UK to enforce the EAW, and of Sweden for issuing it, is the point I made to @CE earlier – it is of critical importance that any well-established legal system does not appear vulnerable to the political pressure of an external superpower, and yet they seem both to be failing this test. Not only that, but the individuals in both countries responsible for pushing ahead appear not to care about that perception, which is also worrying.
Sorry if this is OT, but some interesting correspondence between the Swedish Prosecution Authority and the CPS can be found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105251315/KR-CPS
Among other things, the documents show how, because of their reluctance to face the media, the Swedish prosecutors entertained the possibility of attending the Supreme Court hearings undercover. In the end they decided not to attend at all.
@ Neil 11.28pm
Interesting, isn’t it, that the Swedish Prosecutor would like to travel to England to participate in Assange’s extradition hearing, but not to question him about the allegations?
And what’s with our Crown Prosecution Service colluding with the Swedish Prosecutor to attend a UK court hearing undercover? Surely there is potential there for improper interference in the proceedings?
Very interesting indeed Neil. I wonder how those e-mails got out! They must be annoyed in Sweden as some elements do make them look like slimey cowards!
@AAMVN 12.02am
The emails between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Swedish Prosecution Authority came out as a result of a Swedish FOI request. Interestingly, there were 11 emails which pertained to the FOI but only 4 were released by the SPA. The others were retained on the basis that to release them “would harm the prosecution”. Make of that what you will.
Indeed. The more we dig away at this, the more the prosecution in Sweden falls apart – evidentially, professionally and morally.
I repeat it is a howling injustice the initial appeal was not upheld, but I gather Judge Riddle has a record of upholding EAWs as a matter of course.
I can’t find it now but somewhere in those emails is a Swede writing – “Why can’t they just take our word for it!” or something like that. This is indicative of their self righteous attitude – we are Swedish – we are good people, how dare you even question our EAW!
It’s also ironic they used Clare Montgomery.
It is very obvious to any outside observer that there is a huge amount of comment on this matter.
People need to be well aware of the following:-
If the interview was not recorded or videotaped – or signed – then the prosecution don’t have a leg to stand on whatsoever – and cannot bring a case against Julian in any shape or form.
The only thing that matters is the truth. It is abundantly clear that the whole thing is a set-up from start to finish – with the U.S. trademarks all over it.
Further speculation in this forum is counter productive to seeing justice done – when the big picture is viewed in it’s proper context. In order to see this in it’s proper context – and who the real criminals are – people need to view – #unspeakableevil@TheGlobalFund – in 4 parts – view in HD. Keypoint – Osama Bin Laden had nothing whatsoever to do with 911.
If all of the people who have contributed to this forum – REALLY – want to do something about fixing all of this – make sure that you do your part to ensure that people worldwide speak with one voice on these matters.
To make this happen – we need to reach critical mass on the Internet by having at least 2 billion followers worldwide of – @TheGlobalFund.
The people referred to in this production need to be stopped – before they end up starting on Iran and triggering WORLD WAR 3. This – IS NOT – a joke – and I ask that each and every one of you ask yourself this question – before it is too late.
” Did I do my part to prevent this from happening?”
You can prevent this from happening – in complete anonymity – SIMPLY – by becoming one of those 2 billion people to follow – @TheGlobalFund.
Thank you.
Clayton.
I’ve checked and it’s the illustrius Paul who says ‘why can’t they just take our word for it.’
Perhaps cos they know you’re lying through your lawyerly teeth at every cut and turn?
@Arbed – Correct.
According to one of the trolls here, who is an untiring apologist for the bizarre Swedish Justice System, Assange is not wanted for questioning, he is wanted for charging and prosecution. This would make sense – ie they’re not interested in hearing what JA has to say, they want him behind bars indefinitely for onward extradition to the US. A good 20 years in the slammer will sort him out and send a message to others who have silly ideas about government accountability.
As a side note, I want to highlight an important fact regarding human behaviour and the naive assumption that ordinary people are decent and wise. The last century saw many tragic events that continue to cause us to ask how it was all possible, how did so many people allow these things to happen, why did they not prevent them. When I read the comments here, I understand how and why. Collaborators.
They look like us, smile when we share a joke and sometimes say something we agree with. But they have not a whisper of a care for true justice or concepts of good governance. They are the ones who thew the bricks through shop windows, spied on their neighbours, informed to the police and fired up the ovens, all as directed by the architects of destruction. People haven’t changed.
And we know who they are here, so I have to ask – why is this happening again?
@Jon – re Lesbians.
No Jon, Lesbianism is not an arbitrary attribute like eye colour. If that were true, why are there no communities of people who have hazel coloured eyes but there are lesbian night clubs that deny entry to men?
I shouldn’t have to state the obvious and say that not all feminists are lesbians. But let me ask you, how many lesbians (with feminist friends) are not feminists? By definition, feminism neccessarily positions women in relation to men as victims of male power. I call that an intrinsically biased perception that manifests itself in those who identify as feminist.
So while you are quite correct (technically) in saying that being a lesbian doesn’t prove that she is a feminist, and being a feminist doesn’t prove that she is biased against men – I would argue that 19yo youth wearing doc martins and sporting a freshly shaven head doesn’t prove that he’s a skinhead and that doesn’t prove he’s a violent racist. But would you invite him to your next cocktail party and introduce him to your black friends?
Generalisations can be perfectly valid and my statement re lesbians was reasonable and justified, especially in this context. But it also a comparatively minor detail in a much larger mosaic – why are we wasting energy on it? Let’s not do the work of the trolls.
@Geroge Knight
“You’re a multitasker in doing two things at a time. You ask Mr. Murray for an explanation regarding the facts, and you call him a liar. Why not wait for his explanation first?”
@JON
“I think it is reasonable to assume that Craig, and most people who post here, are interested in truth and justice wherever the facts lead. Assume good faith of your opponents!”
@VivaEcuador
“If Craig is lying, then we are all lying with him. Do you think 4 Corners would have risked its reputation to deliberately spread a lie?”
I have noted that my comments have irritated many of you. Your level of irritation is not important. No matter how irritated you are with me it still is a fact that Mr Murray has not shown any facts supporting his claims. That Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement and that her “interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.” Ask Mr Murray to support his claims instead of waisting your time being irritated with me.
Most of you claim that you are interested in facts. I don’t believe you. If you were interested in facts you would have asked Mr Murray to prove that Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement and that Sofia’s interview was conducted before two witnesses. But you don’t. You spend time being irritated with me. Effectively proving that you are not interested in the facts of the case.
I do agree with George Knight. I am multi tasking. I am asking Mr Murray to prove his claims and at the same time calling him a liar. That is not proper. So I just call Mr Murray a liar. And ask of him to show me the facts that proves that he is not a liar. If he can do that, I will make a full apology. I know that there aren’t any facts supporting Mr Murray’s claims.
I have written extensively about the case. I think it is a very weak case. I do not know if you know that my opinion is of no importance where the case is right now. Three Swedish courts have decided that Julian Assange should be arrested. I assume the courts have more information that I have. My views of the case are only important in a Swedish court.
To me it is very simple. Julian Assange has fled Sweden to avoid interviews. On three occasions. That is not very clever. He has refused to take his Swedish lawyers advice to return for an interview. Not very clever. He has set up conditions for being interviewed in the UK, to see the complete police files beforehand. Not very clever.
Julian has a lot of fears. Big deal. In the last 50 years nobody has been extradited from Sweden to the US for political and military crimes. I know it is a fact that surprises most of you. And makes some of you irritated with me for pointing it out. You should direct your anger at history. You are more interested in spending time with the case of the two asylumseeking Egyptians. It was not an extradition. Most of you don’t seem to care that the case with the Egyptians has no bearing on an extradition case.
I think VivaEcuador is right. “If Craig is lying, then we are all lying with him.” So true. VivaEcuador said it. I just think he is 100% correct.
And to answer his question. Do I “think 4 Corners would have risked its reputation to deliberately spread a lie?” My view is very simple. I think 4Corners think they are right. Just as Mr Murray thinks he is right. If you are interested in the facts I can supply you with a list of the errors in the 4Corners program. But before things get to complicated. Ask Mr Murray to verify his claims first. And if he cannot, I will show you a complete list of facts that the 4Corners program missed, or deliberately refused to show. Is that too much to ask for?
P Olsson and lastbluebell,
Thanks for providing those very valuable insights into the Swedish ‘mind’. They made this discussion more holistic.
Can’t recall who linked the article below, but it also helps round-off the Big Picture:
http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/this-is-why.html
And Arbed for very well-reasoned posts that raise real questions about the attitude of the British courts and possible connections to this Big Picture.
I foresee that we are coming to a bend in the river where ever louder questions about the role of the Swedish prosecutors and off-the-cuff remarks by their politicians will be asked. Assange, together with those who support the quest for Truth are holding a mirror up to Swedish Society. Hopefully they will look into it with eyes wide open before the onset of their long dark winter.
Despite the Big Picture, the devil is in the detail and one devil more light needs to be shed on is Claes Borgstrom, the man who in effect states that a woman needs to be a lawyer to know whether she’s been raped.
Hi Goran,
This extract from your blog:
“Since Julian received no signal that Sofia did not want to have sex with him, he cannot possibly have had intent to commit a crime, mens rea, therefore he cannot be convicted.”
I put it to you that Craig in the particular assertions you make, could be wrong. He is not an expert on the Assange case, nor can it be claimed that by offering his views, to which he is perfectly entitled, that he claims as such.
Still, he could have come to certain inferences and he could also have relied, rightly or wrongly, on what he has gleaned from others in good faith. If so, have you any evidence that he has deliberately twisted facts?
If you cannot prove that he had the intent to lie, mens rea, he cannot be labelled a certified liar.
I think the answer lies in your last para, extracted:
” And to answer his question. Do I “think 4 Corners would have risked its reputation to deliberately spread a lie?” My view is very simple. I think 4Corners think they are right. Just as Mr Murray thinks he is right.”
That is to say no deliberate lies!
—————-
Now lets move on because there are key players in the case, including Anna Ardin, that you yourself have certified (and i hope i have understood you correctly) are lying and/or being deceitful.
And, yes, it will be very interesting to see your ” complete list of facts that the 4Corners program missed, or deliberately refused to show.”
Your participation in these important discussions could be very constructive.
As i said in an earlier post, i believe your work to be very solid. The best testimony was your being requested by Assange as a witness in an EAW hearing.
I think Mr Murray and myself could be mistaken in saying SW didn’t/wouldn’t sign the statement. There is evidence but it is not part of the official documents. All the official documents have been approved and agreed by the Swedish prosecutors. Ergo – they would not allow the fact that SW wouldn’t sign or complain at all into the official documents.
It might not be true what Mr Murray claims – but I think it porbably is. It is something the Swedish prosecutors have to clarify at some point. I think they really should be required to provide evidence of a complaint in the EAW but as I understand it they are not required to submit any evidence at all as part of the EAW and that we have access to so much information is quite remarkable.
It’s harsh to throw terms like ‘liar’ around but Goran Rudling makes a valid point.
We are all pretty much in the dark until a full open trial takes place. I fear will we never know all the facts because one thing I am sure about – there never will be an open trial. Either Assange will never go to Sweden, or if he does he will be tried in secret – that is if he is not simply spirited away to the US.
This is highly possible and the assertion that the Sweden of 30-40 years ago was a jolly nice place and didn’t do anything nasty to anybody – ever – is irrelevent. The Sweden of today is a totally different proposition.
In Assange’s shoes I would not return to Sweden if there was any other alternative open to me. I’d stay in the Embassy forever if need be.
The current ‘plan’ of Sweden/UK and probably the US is to wait until the Ecuadorian elections and hope for (or more likely try to engineer) a change of president and policy.
‘Storming’ the embassy or playing silly games with 1987 acts of parliament seems to be off the menu for now. All this talk of guarantees is mere smoke and mirrors. The UK/Swedes won’t give any and Assange didn’t ought to go no matter what they say. It’s just bluffing and PR.
@Goran Rudling 08Sep2012 5:21am
‘…the case of the two asylumseeking Egyptians. It was not an extradition. Most of you don’t seem to care that the case with the Egyptians has no bearing on an extradition case.’
Indeed you are technically right. However the fact that Sweden handed over 2 Egyptians to the CIA for extraordinary rendition (a horrible euphemism only the American offical mind could invent!) to Egypt where they were tortured, is very relevant.
If Assange is extradited to Sweden, he would then be held in custody with limited access to lawyers, possibly for many months. During this time who is to say he would not (without judicial oversight) be put aboard a CIA operated aircraft and flown out of Sweden. To where, you ask. Well my guess would be to Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, it would be very embarrassing for Sweden to explain his disappearance when it was eventually discovered, but it would be way too late for Mr Assange, by then in American hands somewhere or other.
6 out of 10 Swedish judges think their system of appointing party politicians as judges is inadequate?
Well its outright political, Independence of the judiciary is not a liberal idea that can be adjusted to the needs of the court, it should be the counterweight, a deliberation other than that of the court/judge.
Swedish prosecutor ignored the rules of EAW and that he can’t be extradited for an interview?
A crucial point, the EAW might be invalid, was this ever challenged?
Agree with KAG, Anna A has a lot to answer for, so has Irmeli Krans, Ms. Ny and lawyer Borgstrom, the socialist party clique behind this smelly judicial can of Surströmming.
@Goran,
I think you missed the purpose of my reply. You have a very clear choice: be civil to people who disagree with you, and show them politely where you believe they have gone wrong. Or, be abusive, and expect to get short shrift – it’s just how we humans operate.
“Julian has a lot of fears. Big deal” – I don’t know if that is a particularly fruitful start. I would suggest that diminishing the easily demonstrable threat in the US – of people who want to see Assange incarcerated or executed for “treason” – is just a rewriting of facts. So, be even-handed please.
The discussion should largely centre on whether the EAW is valid, whether it is being applied proportionately, whether Assange can legitimately seek political asylum, whether there is political interference with the Swedish prosecution, and how to balance the allegations in Sweden with the presumption of innocence. There has been some very good conversations coming from both sides, with each considering evidence from the other, and conceding narrow points when appropriate.
@Jemand, I’ll keep it brief, since other topics should take precedence. But I’d say that clarifying aspects of liberal thought is not the derailment work of trolls – it’s important.
I think you’re still making sweeping generalisations that are unfair. Being female and gay doesn’t make somebody a feminist any more than being a women makes a feminist (and I hear the latter quite a bit, sadly). And being a feminist (i.e. someone who takes the view that women’s rights need improving in society) is not likely to make someone gay.
As for gay nightclubs, of the ones I have been to, I’ve never had my sexuality queried at the door. If lesbian-only rules apply to certain clubs, it may just be to help gay women meet – it must be annoying for a woman to fancy another woman only to find out they’re in the wrong 94%!
Perhaps gay-only clubs exist also partly as a response to homophobia, and I find that a saddening thought. My view is that gay-only clubs are a rarity, and of the ones that have such a policy, I hope they become more inclusive as society becomes more tolerant generally.
So far. No facts support Mr Murray’s claim that Sofia Wilén REFUSED to sign the statement. Zero. It seems like Mr Murray made up his claim from thin air in a similar fashion that Naomi Wolf makes up claims.
So far. No facts support Mr Murray’s claim that “the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.” This one is also made up thin air.
Naomi Wolf in her latest article relocate the alleged rape to Uppsala in order to smear the Swedish legal system and the ongoing Assange investigation.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/the-assange-case-naomi-wolf-errs-on-facts-and-basic-geography/
Is Mr Murray a liar? Is is he just a pathetic researcher? Is Naomi Wolf a liar? Or just as a pathetic researcher? Maybe it is of interest to some of you to sort it out. Obviously both of them have made errornous claims without doing any fact checking. That is being dishonest and I call people that do that liars. Maybe I am not technically correct in doing so, but I think you all get the idea.
Julian is afraid of being extradited from Sweden to the US and receive a death sentence. If Julian was afraid of ants, does it make ants dangerous?
Now on to Julian’s fears. It is against Swedish, English and European law to extradite a person to a country where he risks death penalty. You all know that but you pay no attention. Julian may have fears. His fears has no foundation. It is imagined fears, and everybody knows it. Some of you still deny it. Why?
If Bradley Manning had been in Sweden and the US would have asked for his extradition, Sweden would have refused to extradite him. Sweden does not extradite for political and military crimes. Haven’t done so in the last 50 years. Fact.
Now onto execution of spies. The US is not asking for a death penalty in the Bradley Manning case. Now for something you can research since I don’t really know. After WWII, the US does not have a history of executing spies. I don’t know of any spies executed in the US after the Rosenbergs. Do you know of any? I would be happy to get facts on this. Just to show that Julian’s claims is over the top silly.
@Jon
“The discussion should largely centre on whether the EAW is valid, whether it is being applied proportionately, whether Assange can legitimately seek political asylum, whether there is political interference with the Swedish prosecution, and how to balance the allegations in Sweden with the presumption of innocence.”
Please Jon. Three UK courts have ruled, the EAW is valid and it is applied proportionately. Been dealt with. Julian does not have any legitimate reasons to be granted asylum. He is granted one anyway. Nothing you or I can do anything about. I have looked at the case more than most. I have not found any political interference. Nada. Maybe there is interference. But please show some facts before scream there is any interference.
I know that the interviews of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén are “konceptförhör”, summaries. I was actually the first person who reported it. It is against recommendations, but unfortunately most rape cases are handled this way. Fact. I also know why it is done this way. “It is the economy, stupid.” I am of the opinion that this has to change.
Please check Julian Assange’s and his lawyers claims. Most of their claims are similar to Mr Murray’s and Naomi Wolf’s.
I have on many occasions stated that I do not think that Julian will be convicted. But it up to the courts to decide. My opinion on this is as uninteresting as yours. My opinion is that Julian has behaved like a complete idiot from day one. The reason he is in the situation he is is because of lack of proper crisis management. Please look into what he has done and it will become evident to you to.
Sorry for the rude tone. But I am really upset with the number of false claims from people that try to tell me they are human rights lawyers and activists. The are really poor at checking facts. Some of them lie. That pisses me off. Sorry for letting it out on you.
According to Assange’s lawyer, Per Samuelsson:
* “People from other countries with different legal cultures just do not understand how extensive the Swedish legal system is regarding sexual crimes. The allegations made against Julian Assange in Sweden must seem to Assange as pure nonsense, as a joke. But he must understand that these are the kind of things for which men go to prison in Sweden.”
“There was a discussion [about a law in sexual offences in 2007], but it has not changed. Political pressure which has the equality of women in society as starting point – which is in principle commendable – has led to an unacceptable very high legal uncertainty for defendants in Sweden. This is what Assange is experiencing right now. The feminist movement in Sweden is particularly strong. It has long been criticised by women’s rights activists that the judges would believe men more. It was said that it was impossible to get justice as a woman. Now the reverse is true in Sweden.
* “Today convictions are demanded due to a basic political tenor [a higher conviction rate was the stated purpose of Thomas Bodström (the partner in the law firm representing the two complainants against Assange) while he was Minister of Justice and promoting the reforms for the Sexual offences law]. The tenor: in rape cases, men have to be sentenced; otherwise it is unfair to women. This is unworthy of a constitutional state.”
http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Fair-Trial-for-Julian-Assange.html
How little one knew of Sweden as a society. Forget your subtle debates about lesbians. It is a simply risky to be a man.