Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar

by craig on September 11, 2012 1:05 pm in Uncategorized

There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:

“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”

Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.

If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?

Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.

Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .

11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.

13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.

14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.

Anna tweets at 14.00:

‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’

This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”

15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:

‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’

Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.

16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.

20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.

21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.

Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.

No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:


Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.

Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.


Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.

She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.

Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it.


I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.

Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.

Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.

By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?

Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.

Tweet this post


1 8 9 10

  1. Hi Blue,

    Again, I agree totally with everything you say. This bit especially:

    Could it be just as well that someone else takes it upon them to speak for Assange’s obvious right to compensation?

    Back in January 2013 someone at Flashback noticed that the Svea Appeal Court had made a ruling that compensation must be paid for violations of the presumption of innocence, even when there is no formal acquittal because the case never reaches a court (Svea Court of Appeal T 692-12 – Compensation Act (1998:714) ):

    And here’s that law: https://lagen.nu/1998:714

    Using the idea that the women could be compensated as a way to move things forward is good, I suppose, but if the Swedish authorities make any serious moves to pay Sofia Wilen a penny I intend to kick up an unholy stink about it (I have a little more sympathy for Anna Ardin, as I believe she was manipulated and lied to by Wilen in the very beginning) – to personally kick up a stink, as best I can, as loudly as I can – and I would be, to put it in Rixstep’s kind words, “indefatigable” about it, believe you me.

    And I will kick up an equally unholy stink if Julian Assange is not massively compensated under the above Swedish law. Spread the word about it, please Blue.

  2. Blue,

    To further illustrate what I mean by having a little more sympathy with Anna Ardin, and your point about the way the case has been run by Borgstrom, Ny and now Massi-Fritz seeming to be entirely acceptable to Sofia Wilen (ie. that she has been the driving force behind all this from Day 1), you only have to compare how the two women responded to being told about the financial compensation available for rape victims:

    Sofia Wilen, despite appearing to be too “distressed” to finish explaining her actions to police, likely spent a full 10 minutes at the end of her interrogation asking specific detailed questions about being kept informed at all stages of the case and the possibility of financial compensation:


    whereas Anna Ardin was not only not around when a formal complaint was lodged on her behalf [caveat: some Flashbackers keep referring to a timing of 16.31 re AA’s formal complaint – what document are you referring to here, please? – the document below has a timestamp of 17.46, when she had already left Klara station]:


    but there is also this telling statement in Anna Ardin’s formal witness statement the following day, obviously in response to the same police procedure of 13b S Preliminary Investigation Edict (1947:948) FUK:

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


    That’s two very different responses to the notion of being a ‘victim’, isn’t it? Which I think lends weight to the idea that Wilen set out from the start to bring false allegations against Assange, whereas Ardin got tricked into supporting her and reluctantly dragged into it. From that point onward, when Ardin suddenly found herself the subject of a formal complaint, I think all her actions can be interpreted as (admittedly batshit-crazy) ways of trying to limit the damage to herself.

  3. The blue at 2.28:..I think there should be some deduction for handing in a fake condom as evidence!

    Well spoken. Compensating the women is OK if it is stated that this is because of the Swedish state’s bad handling of the legal process. Therefore it is totally wrong to link the sum to what would have happened if Assange was found guilty.

    Closing the case would let Anna of the hook also: she would avoid a discussion in court of the torn condom with no DNA. In other words, I find it likely that Anna would agree to a solution a la Hillegren.

    If the women are given compensation for publicity damage and for being mishandled by the Swedish state the implication must be that Assange has got the same right.

  4. Thanks to John Goss for this excellent op-ed article:

    Will Sweden Drop the Charges Against Assange?

    Cool balloons ;)

  5. Hi Arbed,

    About the time 16.31, it appears on page 5 of “Häktningspromemorian”. The page appears to be a record of the complaint being entered into the system. At the top right there is a time stamp 2010-08-20 18.02, in the next section the time 2010-08-20 16.31 appears. Not sure how to interpret it, but I assume the document was initiated for entering the complaint at 16.31.

    Corresponding times for Wilén, on page 2 of HäPM, are 2010-08-21 12.00 and 2010-08-20 16.11. So it looks as if her complaint was entered first, but then it took 20 hours before it was, I don’t know, completed? While Ardin’s was entered second, 20 minutes after Wilén’s, and completed within 91 minutes.

    I supposed that means Wilén was interviewed first by Wassgren. Under “Bilagor” (attachments) it says “Målsägandeförhör i DurTvå” so it looks as if teh document wasn’t completed until the first version of her second interview could be attached.

    There must have been a time interval of about 90 minutes when Wassgren was working on documenting Ardin’s complaint, between 16.11 and 18.02. Part of that documenting should have been the 17.46 document you’re referring to, I guess.

    At the end of the document, p 6 HäPM, there is the time 16.30 for a decision (beslut), apparently about making Assange the suspect of the alleged crime (to the lesser degree “skäligen”). It looks as if right after that decision, the documentation of Ardin’s complaint begun, at 16.11. (Let me make clear that I’m just an amateur in reading these documents, and far from sure about the corresponding English terms.)

    The same decision is listed on page 95 of HäPM, with all the other allegations added by Ny and Lejnefors. But on that page it is classified as “sexuellt ofredande” (crime code 0638), while in the original document on page 6 of HäPM it was about “ofredande” (crime code 0408). So who took the decision to change the classification to “sexuellt ofredande” rather than “ofredande”, and when?

    Page 4 of HäPM (“Brottsanmälan”) must have been written much later than pages 5-6. It has no time stamp or signature. Same for the corresponding document for Wilén, on page 1. Pages 2-3 and 5-6 (“Anmälan”) are the ones showing the original documentation of the complaints from 20-21 august 2010, and so is the 17.46 document you mentioned.

  6. Oops, should have been “between 16.31 and 18.02″ in the 4th paragraph above.

  7. Hi Blue,

    Can you post me a link to the “Häktningspromemorian” please? Thanks for trying to explain it to me, but I’m a bit confused now. You say:

    There must have been a time interval of about 90 minutes when Wassgren was working on documenting Ardin’s complaint, between 16.11 and 18.02

    but two paragraphs above you already gave that 16.11 timing as to do with the filing of Wilen’s complaint, not Anna’s. Similarly, I’m also thrown by your saying:

    there is the time 16.30 for a decision (beslut), apparently about making Assange the suspect of the alleged crime (to the lesser degree “skäligen”). It looks as if right after that decision, the documentation of Ardin’s complaint begun, at 16.11.

    How can an action taken at 16.11 (which refers to Wilen anyway) be the result of a decision taken at 16.30 related to Ardin?

    The two documents from which I have taken timestamps for the formal registration of each complaint – 18.30 (for Wilen, by Krans) and 17.46 (for Ardin, by Wassgren), both on 20 August, are pages 14 and 15 of the Assange-UC-Kompress document (download here: https://www.divshare.com/download/23689914-fad ). Please note that Wassgren says specifically that Ardin was not on the station premises when her formal complaint was registered.

    Is it therefore not likely that the top timestamp in the “Häktningspromemorian” – 2010-08-20 18.02 – is the relevant one, following some 15 minutes after the formal registering of the complaint, and the 16.31 timestamp refers to something else?

    Would be grateful for a link, if you can provide it, so I can take a look at it myself.

  8. Oops, we’ve cross-posted. Thanks for clearing up some of my confusion. I still think though that the 16.30 / 16.31 stamps about a “decision” are more likely just Wassgren’s way of recording when exactly it was that she finally spoke to Anna Ardin alone – either started the 15-minute chat or ended it at that precise time – separately from Sofia Wilen (who had just been taken off to make her formal statement, starting 16.21 – that would make a “finished conversation with Wilen” timing of 16.11 make sense. It was Krans who formally registered Wilen’s complaint in Durtva). Anna has claimed elsewhere that she only spoke to Wassgren on her own for around 15 minutes, then left.

  9. Yes, sorry about the confusion. Here’s the link to HäPM, Häktningspromemorian:


    It’s all in Swedish. The interviews included are the ones translated by Rixstep, but I’m not sure if the rest of the documents have been translated in their entirety.

    There is quite a long time interval between the arrival at the station around 2 PM and the 15-minute talk Ardin supposedly had with Wassgren around 4 PM. Did Wassgren speak to Wilén for a much longer time, perhaps?

  10. Oh, sorry Blue, I didn’t realise you meant the main HAPM document.

    Ok, that page 5 about Anna Ardin’s allegations gives the timestamp of 16.31 against the words “Anmälningsdatum” and “inkscriven” – “registration DATE” and what I would translate as “written down [ie. on paper]” by Linda Wassgren at that time. To me, this seems more like a description of a policewoman taking notes by hand as she sits listening to someone’s story, and the 16.30/1 timestamp is therefore the estimate she’s given of when she first “took down” or heard Ardin’s story.

    If that’s so then the timestamp for 16.30 for a “decision (beslut)” could be either Linda Wassgren deciding to hear Anna’s story separately from Sofia’s (remember Anna told Donald Bostrum she’d only chipped in “one statement” when sitting alongside Sofia), or possibly refers to a decision made by one of the colleagues she phoned for advice, as a result of which she speaks to Anna separately about her own experiences – which would leave a very big question mark over whether Linda Wassgren shared with Anna that police were thinking of treating her story as a complaint. Perhaps she did, or equally perhaps Linda didn’t do that, but just jotted down some notes when interviewing Anna for 15 minutes, then went to liaise with the duty prosecutor about the arrest warrant – issued at 5pm precisely, for “double rape” according to Expressen – then, once Anna had left the building, Wassgren sat down to start doing the paperwork and registering the complaint formally into the computer at 17.46 – noting on it that she had NOT had the customary chat with Anna about complainant’s rights/compensation under 13b S Preliminary Investigation Edict (1947:948) FUK because AA was no longer in the building – finishing up 15 minutes later at 18.02, the timestamp on the top of the document.

    How does that sound to you? Plausible? Let me know if there’s other info which contradicts it, would you please?

  11. PS. That timeline leaves a couple of intriguing points, doesn’t it?

    1. If Anna really did leave the station straightaway after her 15-minute chat at 16.30 with Linda it’s possible Anna left Klara without knowing that an arrest warrant would be issued. (And why would she hang around if she’d only come along to support Sofia and she knew Sofia had been taken for a formal interview? Her experience as a Gender Officer at Uppsala would tell her that interview would likely take hours – although, in the event, Sofia’s interrogation was ubruptly curtailed much sooner than usual due to “distress” just as the interview was reaching the “and what did you do after?” bit.)

    2. An arrest warrant was issued concerning both women before a formal complaint had even been registered for either, let alone proper witness statements taken from them.

  12. I think the document with the time 17.46 is a special document about information given to the complainant. It too has the time 18.02 at the upper right corner, so it must have been submitted at the same time as the “anmälan”.

    Could it be that Wilén “lost concentration” shortly after 17.00, and the rest of the time was all about gaining information about procedures and compensation etc.?

    To read Wiléns corresponding document about “Information och underrättelser” to the letter, at 18.30 she has been informed about everything listed below on page 14/41. It could have taken some time, and for that she didn’t lack concentration, it seems.

    I think Ardin might have left by 16.30, and at that point Wassgren sits down to register her complaint. (Perhaps she took notes by pen and paper while talking to her.) It takes a while, possibly because she’s busy on the phone as well. By 17.46 she has come to the part about informing/documenting what the complainant has been informed about, and notes down that she isn’t at the station. “While the complaint was (being) registered” could refer to the whole interval 16.30-18.00.

    The time at the upper right corner for Wiléns document is 2012-08-20 19.28, which I suppose is when Irmeli hit enter for that document.

    I imagine keeping track of what information has been given to concerned parties is considered important, so the exact time for that is documented, as well as the content of the information.

  13. I think “lämnad av” (Linda Wassgren) refers to “lämna information” i.e. “give information” (to complainant).

  14. It’s all very confusing. Wassgren states that Ardin came to the station to file a complaint about ofredande/molestation, making it sound as if that was Ardin’s intent, but when Ardin talks to Boström over the phone, it sounds as if she hadn’t expected a complaint to be filed, but that could be Wilén’s case she’s talking about, or she plays innocent. Perhaps it was confusing to Ardin as well.

    The decision at 16.30 is, I think, related to the “suspicion of crime” (brottsmisstanke) and more specifically the choice of classification and degree of suspicion. Linda should have talked to Anna before that, in order to be able to make that decision. Which is why I think she talked to Ardin before 16.30, then made the classification the suspected crime and chose the degree of suspicion, and then started entering data into the system, filling out the form, so to speak. At 17.46 she documents information given to (or rather not given to) the complainant as that is a separate document in the total documentation.

    So far, so good. Then afterwards someone changes the classification of the crime but that second decision isn’t recorded in any known documents.

    On page 95 of HäPM Irmeli is listed as “decision maker” on 2010-08-20 of the “crime suspicion” rape, but we know from her own notes that the decision wasn’t really hers. She decided to “obey the instruction” to classify it as rape, that was the decision she made on that day.

    All in all it is as if it is made to look like both Linda and Irmeli were responsible for decisions they didn’t really make themselves.

    Can anything be deduced from the “brottsmisstankenr” (crime suspicion number) on pages 95-96? Those by Lejnefors are consecutive and starts differently. The three first, by three different decision makers, all start with 020110. I haven’t got a clue, but why is Ny’s number more similar to Wassgren’s and Krans’s than to Lejnefors’s? And despite the five week time interval, Krans’s and Ny’s are closer than Wassgren’s and Krans’s which were made on the same afternoon.

  15. Arbed, perhaps you’re right that Linda started interviewing Anna aroud 16.30. My idea was that a decision how to classify the event would require some interviewing first. But if Anna herself presented it as a ofredande/molestation, and Linda cautiously chose the lesser degree of suspicion (skäligen/reasonable) rather than the higher degree (sannolik/probable), I suppose it makes sense. I don’t know if the police turns on the computer immediately or starts with pen and paper. Boström is the person who might be able to deduce the time line from all the phone calls and messages he got from Anna, but it may not be that important, and he’d probably better keep the information to himself. I wonder what Anna did all the time between 2 pm and 4 pm though. The initial talk with all three can’t have taken long. Perhaps she was on the phone most of the time, with Petra and other friends.

  16. The Blue at 4.30 am 17 Jan:
    “Arbed, perhaps you’re right that Linda started interviewing Anna aroud 16.30.”

    Hmmmm. The two women arrived at 1400 and she was interviewed at 16.30…? What happened before that then? It sounds unlikely to me.

    Maria Sveland has interviewed Anna for her book. She writes:
    “At the police station her/Anna’s/ witness statement was taken down in a quarter of an hour. After that she left, believing that she had finished. But the police had a different view on Anna’s story and named the event as sexual molestation, illegally using force and trying to rape” (sexuellt ofredande, olaga tvång och försk till våldtäkt).

    It seems to me as if Anna arrived at 1400 and was interviewed, briefly for 15 minutes, quite soon after that.

  17. Hi Axel,

    Thanks for that quote – I’ve been looking for it for a while. Got a link for it, please?

    Regarding the timing of Anna’s chat with Linda Wassgren, there are a few more pointers that give clues as to when exactly it was:

    1. It’s in Donald Bostrum’s witness statement that Anna told him that she first sat alongside Sofia Wilen as Sofia “told her story” to Linda Wassgren, and that Anna interjected with the remark: “I believe that Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar, and that’s why I think it is true”. We don’t know how long listening to Sofia’s story took.

    2. Linda Wassgren confirmed that she also spoke to both women separately. I think from point 1. that the logical order would be Sofia first, then Anna. Also, there are several sources in the police protocol and in press interviews given by Ardin where she insists she only went to Klara station with Sofia Wilen in a supportive role to the younger woman’s complaint. This too implies that police officers would deal with Wilen first, Ardin second.

    3. Sofia Wilen’s first text message sent from Klara station on 20 August 2010 is timestamped 14.26:

    did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him (sv: få tag på honom) (14:26)
    http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html [para 97]

    It is possible, I suppose, that, like Sofia’s text precisely six minutes after the duty prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for Assange – she was “chocked [sic: shocked] when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test (17:06)” – Sofia is again busy texting to her friends while she is in the middle of formal interviews with police officers (that or she has some kind of bladder problem requiring frequent visits to the loo ;) – I can’t imagine many police officers would tolerate this level of distraction and rude behaviour in their interviewees…), but I think it’s more likely the 14.26 text came before Sofia Wilen started her informal and unrecorded interview with Wassgren. Perhaps she dropped the magic words “Julian Assange, rape” to the desk sargeant when the ladies first walked in at 14.00 – with the entire station pricking up their ears immediately – then sent her text as she watched the melee from the waiting area whilst a room to speak to her properly was being found? Or perhaps that 14.26 text is completely made up and is sent as part of the cloud cover/alibi re false allegations charges that Sofia Wilen was creating to disguise her true motives for visiting the station for “advice”? Either way, I think it’s likely it was sent before the conversation between Sofia and Wassgren that Anna describes listening to to Bostrum.

    So, where does that leave us for the timing of Anna’s 15-minute interview with Wassgren? It would seem the earliest Sofia’s story can start is around 14.30. It takes, say, 30-40 minutes, so that would take us to maybe 15.10? Then maybe a similar-length chat by Wassgren alone with Sofia, bringing us to 15.40-ish. You’d need to allow 5 or 10 minutes at some stages for room changes, or Anna being sent back to the waiting area, etc, so maybe add in another 15 minutes to the timings. All in all, I think it’s likely that Anna’s separate interview with Linda Wassgren didn’t start until after 16.00 (so possibly an interview time of 16.31 is correct?), then Anna would have left the station sometime between 16.15 and 16.45, possibly unaware that police would register her visit as a formal complaint at 17.46 and without being given the usual complainant’s rights information as noted by Linda on the form at that time.

  18. PS. I’m not for one minute saying that the suggested timings I’ve given above are correct – I just think they seem plausible. The really striking thing about them, though, is that if Anna Ardin did leave Klara station as early as sometime between 16.15 and 16.45, there is a possibility that she was unaware, not only that her visit would be registered by police as a formal complaint, but also she have been unaware that an arrest warrant would be issued for Julian Assange at 17.00. The quote from Sveland’s book – After that she left, believing that she had finished. But the police had a different view on Anna’s story and named the event as sexual molestation, illegally using force and trying to rape – does seem to give that impression.

  19. PPS. With regard to the respective timings of Wilen’s and Ardin’s first informal and unrecorded interviews with Wassgren, you also need to bear in mind what Wassgren wrote in her memo to Eva Finne on 22 August: “Initially the crime of rape was mentioned and that both women were victims…”, and that Bostrum’s and Petra Ornstein’s statement both have Ardin telling them that Sofia Wilen was determined to report Assange for rape on the Friday morning. These statements record that Ardin was speaking to them directly after Sofia Wilen had contacted and spoken to Anna for the first time at 9.30 that morning. A secondary source for this is Julian Assange himself, who in his autobiography mentions that – as he heard it on the morning of Friday 20 August via Donald Bostrum – Anna Ardin was trying to protect him from Sofia Wilen’s intentions.

    The reason I am confident in these timings is that I know from my own experience that when a woman walks into a police station with a story, particularly one of date rape (I don’t know what happens if you wander in clearly physically injured and brutalised), it can take several hours before you sit down to give a formal statement and there is usually two previous interviews before this stage: you outline your story to a first officer briefly so they hear your story, then you tell it again in what can seem to be quite a grilling as the police try to screen out malicious or delusional complaints. Then you give your formal statement.

    That’s for a woman saying “I want to report a rape”. I don’t know how a friend who showed up with you saying she only wanted to support you would be dealt with – it’s unlikely that if you stated “I’m a rape victim of the same man too” right at the start you’d be allowed to sit in on any of your friend’s interviews; you’d be split up straightaway and interviewed separately from the outset – but if your friend said right at the start “I want to report a rape, Julian Assange sabotaged a condom, I’m worried I’ll have HIV” and you said “I want to support her please” and didn’t mention until halfway through your friend’s first interview where she explains all about hearing Assange making “pulling balloon sounds” in the night – “I think Sofia is telling the truth. Something similar happened to me, that’s why I think it’s true” – then maybe that is the point in the initial screening process where the police officer says “ok, she’s not crazy, it’s two women victims of the same bizarre form of … er, what in hell do I call this? She says ‘rape’, must phone colleagues for their advice in a bit, meanwhile should split these two up right now…”?

  20. I see that I’m not alone in being very upset about the idea put forward by ex-prosecutor Rolf Hillegren that the women be paid off: “The state should therefore ex gratia pay damages which they would have been awarded if Assange were tried and convicted”, and the inevitable effect this would have on public opinion given that it presumes Julian Assange’s guilt.

    It’s just occurred to me that it could be argued that to pay damages to the women on this basis would therefore be illegal under Swedish law, specifically the precedent set by the Svea Court of Appeal T 692-12 – Compensation Act (1998:714) ruling in 2012 about the “violation of the presumption of innocence” should a suspect have incurred reputational injury and damage although an investigation has never reached a court and there is no formal acquittal.

    Here’s what I linked above about this particular court ruling:

    Back in January 2013 someone at Flashback noticed that the Svea Appeal Court had made a ruling that compensation must be paid for violations of the presumption of innocence, even when there is no formal acquittal because the case never reaches a court (Svea Court of Appeal T 692-12 – Compensation Act (1998:714) ):

    And here’s that law: https://lagen.nu/1998:714


    I know that there are a few Swedish legal professionals in the Flashback forum. Can anyone repost this there, and ask those professionals to look at this ruling in light of this proposal that the women be paid as if Assange had been convicted? Tell me if the ruling would prohibit payment being made to the women on this basis, please.

    Surely to award damages to complainants for unproven allegations as if they have been proven in a court of law is the epitome of “violation of the presumption of innocence”?

  21. Linda Wassgren’s PM from 2010-08-22 describing the events on 2010-08-20 between 2-5 PM is strangely lacking in time information. The story starts around 2 PM, and ends with the issuing of the arrest warrant which we know from other sources took place at exactly 5 PM, but not a word inbetween of how long, approxiamately, the various interviews were, or when or in which order within the three hour time interval they took place. Was she deliberately evasive, or did she not think it important? “Around 2 PM” (vid 14-tiden) and “at/near the beginning” (inledningsvis) are the only time indicators, the latter quite vague.

    These three hours are the foundation for the arrest warrant issued by Maria Häljebo-Kjellstrand at 5 PM. Because of that you’d think they should have been better recorded. Much of what Marianne Ny later did was probably aslo based on these initial, unrecorded three hours.

  22. Arbed at 17 jan 5:02 pm
    “Thanks for that quote – I’ve been looking for it for a while. Got a link for it, please?”

    The quote is from page 70 in Sveland’s book (in Swedish). I have not found the text freely available on the net. But you can get the book here.

  23. Arbed wrote:
    “All in all, I think it’s likely that Anna’s separate interview with Linda Wassgren didn’t start until after 16.00 (so possibly an interview time of 16.31 is correct?), then Anna would have left the station sometime between 16.15 and 16.45, possibly unaware that police would register her visit as a formal complaint at 17.46″

    The Blue wrote:
    “Linda Wassgren’s PM from 2010-08-22 describing the events on 2010-08-20 between 2-5 PM is strangely lacking in time information.”

    Yes. The sloppiness in giving proper information in Linda Wassgren’s memo is perhaps a way of concealing some aspect of the process?

    I agree with Arbed that the SMS which Sofia sent 14.26 could have been sent immediately after the first talk, when Anna and Sofia sat together and Anna filled in with one sentence. That point in time is when the rape allegations convinced Linda (and any other person who might have been present). Within the first half hour in other words.

    I assume that the two separate interviews took place immediately after that. First Sofia then Anna. It was only after those, I assume, that Linda made a number of phone calls, to the station officer, to Mats Gehlin and to others. Others could include Södersjukhuset and intelligence units. It is quite likely that the station officer, Johan Hallberg, made his own phone call upwards in the system, when he realized who was being accused. All these phone calls must have taken some time. They may also have been formative for the decision to immediately issue an arrest warrant. And this should have happened before the formalities with reporting accusations into the system took place. To me, this is a likely explanation of why two and a half hour passes before registration of the complaints and the start of the formal interview with Sofia.

    The question is: did Linda’s series of phone calls come after she had taken separate interviews with Anna and Sofia. Or before those? My guess is that the phone calls came afterwards. There could have been several talks to Sofia also between phone calls. But if there was only one talk to Anna on that Friday I believe that happened before Linda’s series of phone calls.

    We know that Sofia left at 18.40 or so. In my view Anna could have left long before her complaint was registered in the system. She went to a party in the evening and enjoyed herself. Did she find out immediately, later in the evening or the next morning about the arrest order? Who can tell? Someone should ask her.

  24. Axel, thanks for the link. Much obliged.

    I think your 12.05pm post is an excellent summary of the likely order of events at Klara station that Friday afternoon, and, yes, someone should ask AA exactly when she first heard about the 5pm arrest order for Assange, and that her own involvement had now been turned into a formal complaint.

  25. Arbed,

    I get the impression from Kajsa’s interview (on 8th September) that Anna knew, on the evening of the 20th, about the formal complaints being made on her behalf, but there isn’t a word about an arrest warrant. Any chance Anna thought an arrest warrant was such a natural consequence of the complaints made that she didn’t think it had to be pointed out? It was obvious that the police would want to get hold of him somehow. Well, to her it was obvious, to Sofia it was text-message-worthy.

    Unfortunately Kajsa isn’t the most reliable witness. She was later caught stealing books at an academic bookstore, and tried to excuse herself by saying she had so little to live on as a student. When she had to state her income, on which the fine was calculated, it turned out to be a lot more than she had first implied.

  26. Hi Blue,

    Yes, I personally think Anna found out that her visit had become a formal complaint only once she was already at the party with Kajsa, and that is why they spend so much time discussing Anna’s feelings about how her behaviour towards Assange after the events that police were now saying Anna alleged as a formal complaint would look in a courtroom:

    Then it was found out the police had even filed a complaint regarding Anna and the police had interpreted things to mean Anna was also a rape victim. That was also when Anna told her she thought Julian at first didn’t want a condom and that they’d fought over that and then Anna rolled over. Then Julian put on a condom that Anna believed he’d broken later on during sex because she heard a snapping sound. Anna heard the sound after he’d pulled out during the act.


    Anna had been sad and reflective for she wondered how she would explain in a courtroom that she let him go on living with her despite what had happened.

    Sounds like she received some news that really ruined the party for her. Perhaps a phone call from Niklaus Svensson of Expressen, who knew by as early as 19.52 that evening that Assange had been arrested in absentia and that it involved two women? After all, Expressen had been publishing Assange’s itinerary in minute detail on 15 August, so the ‘jackal’ tabloid journalists there certainly knew which woman in Stockholm Assange was staying with: http://rixstep.com/2/1/20101018,00.shtml [3rd paragraph].

    Eight o’clock in the evening is a bit early for a Friday night party in England, but I don’t know how things are in the darker northern climes of Sweden. It’s not a significant point anyway whether she was already at the party or still getting ready to go there, it’s possible either way that she only found out via a phone call from journalists that her own visit to Klara was being treated in a way she had never intended some three hours after she left the station thinking she had “finished” after a 15-minute chat with Wassgren. No doubt an ex-Gender Officer would know reporting a rape involves a lot more time input than that.

    There’s a consistency to Anna’s story across different sources and in both her own statement and what other witnesses say she said to them at various points, isn’t there? But the same consistency just isn’t there across the various sources for Sofia Wilen.

    Note, too, the same heavy emphasis on the sound of “snapping” “pulling balloon” noises of condoms ‘deliberately ripped’ during sex – heard, but not actually seen – that we see in Mats Gehlin’s note on the forensics file about Sofia Wilen’s story, and the same emphasis on this ‘sound’ aspect from Gehlin in the only chance he will get to interrogate Assange (Sofia Wilen’s case having already been closed by this point).

    Doesn’t the way Kasja describes it in her statement sound as if this is the first time Anna has told her about these allegations, with a particular focus on the sound of the condom she thought may have been deliberately ripped? It really seems that – from the morning of Friday 20 August onwards – this sound becomes the crucial factor; the bit at the heart of all that follows: Anna deciding – days after it supposedly happened – that whatever happened to her uniquely qualifies her to lend support to another woman’s police complaint against Assange; Anna interjecting with one statement – “that bit about the condom”, as Bostrum describes it “word for word”; Mats Gehlin sending two deliberately torn condoms/fragments to the forensics lab under the same case file number, with specific instructions – test the tears, DNA tests not required – against the instructions of the prosecutor to “do nothing on Wilen’s allegations, her case is being closed”; Marianne Ny’s determination to prosecute (and misdescription on the EAW) of that crucial third allegation, the UK High Court’s extraordinary conclusion that what they say the forensic report calls “tearing through wear and tear” (which, of course, it doesn’t; it says the opposite) constitutes “rape by deception”…etc.

    My, my, whatever can it be that Sofia Wilen told Anna Ardin at 9.30am on Friday 20 August had happened to her that set this whole train of events into motion…?

  27. Arbed wrote: Doesn’t the way Kasja describes it in her statement sound as if this is the first time Anna has told her about these allegations, with a particular focus on the sound of the condom she thought may have been deliberately ripped? It really seems that – from the morning of Friday 20 August onwards – this sound becomes the crucial factor; the bit at the heart of all that follows….”

    Good thinking. Question: At what point in time does the story abount the sound of a torn condom first appear? Friday morning? Friday at around 14.15 when Linda talks to both women? Any other time?

  28. I should point out, of course, that Kasja Borgnas’ statement was not taken until 8 September and was done by Ewa Olofsson, so Mats Gehlin is not picking up his focus on this ‘sound’ in his interrogation of Assange on 30 August from Kasja’s police statement. Nor, I would propose, does he get it from Anna’s own statement on 21 August, which only says:

    “Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off”

    That, to me, doesn’t stand out as a particular, peculiar “snapping” sound like the one Gehlin seems intent on in his discussion with Assange:

    “This accusation, I might sound like a nag but I still have to ask. It’s a rather clear picture Anna has of what happened. And this part of her hearing a sound from the condom.” [ie. this is the second time in the interview he returns to the issue of a ‘sound’]

    So, where did Mats Gehlin get this odd fixation on the ‘sound’ of ripping condoms? The one he also makes a special file note of after he first hears from the lab that one of the condoms has no DNA on it:

    Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.
    http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/07/01/the-lab-results/ [right at the bottom of the page]

    He must have heard this story of a broken condom accompanied by peculiar “pulling on a balloon” sounds experienced by Sofia Wilen prior to 25 August, otherwise why would he specify in his instructions to the forensics lab that the edges of the fragment be tested to discover how it got broken?

    Of course, what makes this ‘sound’ so intriguing to Mats Gehlin is that he has heard it described by two women. As we know, Anna Ardin only accompanied Sofia Wilen to Klara station to support the younger woman, chipping in with ONE statement as she sat beside her while Wilen told her story to Linda Wassgren:

    [As described by Donald Bostrum, “word for word”]: “I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar” Anna says then – and then she told me that bit about the condom then – “so that’s why I think it’s true”… Anna says: “because we suddenly were two women who had a statement about – about the same man – so it became a crime against the state, and so it became a complaint even though we didn’t file a complaint”.

  29. Axel,

    My theory is that the story of Sofia Wilen’s “noise as if he were pulling on a balloon” first occurs when Sofia Wilen speaks to Anna Ardin for the first time early on Friday 20 August. We know that conversation had already taken place by 9.30am exactly.

    If this is the very first time that Sofia has spoken to Ardin subsequent to her own night with Assange – and there’s plenty in the public record to indicate that it is – it is also the first moment that Sofia has her suspicions that Assange might also be sleeping with Ardin confirmed (she had already quizzed Assange about that when she saw him off on the train to Stockholm before midday on Tuesday 17 August – and then washed her sheets, got a morning-after pill from the pharmacy and headed off to Dandryd and then Soder hospitals).

    If, during that conversation, Ardin let slip her own idea that a condom had broken because she felt very wet… she didn’t actually see the condom get broken… it sounded like he took it off, but was still there, she checked – well, it wouldn’t take much for Wilen – grumpy that Assange hadn’t returned her calls, angry with herself about allowing unprotected sex, jealous maybe that she did after all have a rival – to ad-lib “oh, that happened to me too. It was dark in the room, I didn’t see but I heard a noise like he was pulling on a balloon, but the base of the condom was still there. Then in the morning he went ahead without a condom despite my protest “no, stop, don’t go on”, then when I did the sheets I found the top of the condom under the bed on his side… ” [take a look at that forensic lab photo again]

    Of course Anna is going to feel that she should start phoning Assange via Bostrum to demand an explanation and HIV tests from Assange if her and Sofia’s discussions over the Friday morning were along those lines (I’m assuming that Sofia Wilen did NOT share with Anna that she herself had already received had a rape kit done and received PEP treatment at Soder hospital on Tuesday evening), and of course she is going to be amenable to supporting Sofia wants to go to the police. Then all Sofia has to do is sabotage a souvenir condom she’s kept and Bob’s your uncle…

    Maybe that’s why Wilen returns to Soder on Friday morning after this phone call for no real valid reason as she’s already received treatment – to hand in a sabotaged condom as “evidence”? We don’t know. The evidence only tells us that Sofia’s deliberately torn condom fragment was “produced”. Maybe Anna, having heard nothing about the Tuesday hospital visits from Sofia, advised the younger woman to go to a hospital to get a HIV test and Sofia’s third visit to hospital was just for “show”, to convince Anna? Maybe Anna advised her that it wasn’t really the province of the police to force someone to get a HIV test and she got the same cock-‘n-bull story that Sofia gave Hanna Rosquist: “Sofia took a test but it takes a lot longer to get the results. Things would go faster if Assange took a test.” http://rixstep.com/1/20110202,01.shtml

    We really won’t know for certain until we see the SMS text traffic between the two women, or Anna lets us all know what she was told by Sofia that morning.

  30. So the balloon sound story might first have appeared on Friday mornin textg 9.30, when Sofia talks to Anna over the phone. This prepares for their joint story to Linda 5 hours later. Linda then becomes convinced of rape.

    The strange thing is that Sofia does not mention this at all when she is formally interview by Irmeli Krans. But she does send a text (again) saying that she does not want to accuse Julian of anything. It sounds to me as if she know that she has just set something in motion and that she might have second thoughts. Or at least that she is desperate to conceal her deeds.

    The big question then is: was she pushed by someone to deliver this story? – in which case Klara police might have been prepared or alerted in some way. I believe that Linda did not usually do that reception job at Klara.

  31. If Sofia had in any way misled Anna, that could be an explaination for Sofia’s silence during the interview conducted by Anna’s friend Irmeli. She couldn’t tell Anna’s friend a too different story from than the one she had just told Anna, or she risked being caught with a lie. It could have been something she needed to keep from the police, or something she wanted to keep from Anna (and hence from Anna’s friend). So it could have been both a disadvantage and an advantage for Sofia to be interviewed by the other complainant’s friend.

  32. Axel and Blue,

    You both make excellent points. Just in case anyone thinks that Mats Gehlin’s note which he especially creates a special file note for after his first conversation with the lab is the result of him getting confused a couple of months down the road:

    1. Unlikely, because he’s already conducted several interrogations with Sofia Wilen by the date of his file note.

    2. There are photographs of Anna Ardin’s apartment as it was in August 2010. She had a single, box ‘storage’ bed; there was no “under the bed” where a fragment of condom could be found. Besides which, Ardin didn’t hand in a fragment, and she says in her telephone statement 21 August that she expects the condom may still be somewhere in her apartment – she obviously means a whole one; she never mentions finding a fragment.

  33. The only link between the story that they only wanted advice about HIV-testing, and the filing of a rape complaint, is the ultimatum posed that if he didn’t immediately agree to a test, they’d go straight to the police to report him for rape.

    If they only needed advice, that could have been done in much less time over the phone, especially if they wanted to be anonymous to start with, to avoid a complaint being filed and an arrest warrant to be issued. The choice of police station is also curious. Klara is located inside the Central Station, which should have been quite busy on a friday afternoon. It’s small, and separated from the station by a transparent glass wall. The reception desk and a door to an interrogation room is visible to people walking past or having coffee in a nearby coffe shop. It’s as if they were on stage. Hundreds of people must have seen them without knowing what went on.

    They didn’t look for privacy, anonymity or to avoid a complaint being filed. Sofia was a frequent traveller at the Central Station and must have been well aware what Klara police station looked like. Of all police stations in central Stockholm or her home town, this display window of a station was her choice. As if everything had to happen right in front of the eyes of the public. As if an element of exhibitionism was involved.

  34. New Swedish law going through at the moment (will be effective from 1st June this year) will – I think – affect Julian Assange’s case. It will strengthen a suspect’s “unconditional right” to see all underlying evidence forming the basis for an arrest decision. This, of course, has been denied to Assange so far. If the investigation against him is not closed before June, his case will come under this law as his detention via arrest in absentia is ongoing.


    (use Google translate)

  35. Trenterx,

    I share your concern about Rixstep and think he may have had an accident or medical emergency. I would suggest that people in Flashback who are in contact with him get in touch to check that he’s alright now.

  36. Yet another Swedish legal professional speaking out against the way Julian Assange’s case has been handled, and saying it should be dropped. This is starting to look like a campaign, isn’t it? I like how this article insists that the women should NOT be given ex-gratia payments just for making allegations that have not been proven. As the author rightly points out, there are civil courts in which the women could pursue a claim for compensation if they truly believed in their cause:


    (Google translate required)

  37. Informative article from the Solicitors Journal on where the UK’s opt-out/opt-back-in to the EAW system currently stands:

    What future for the European arrest warrant in the UK

    Interesting that it’s still unclear whether the opt-back-in provisos the UK is suggesting to the Extradition Act 2003 so that EAWs can be refused on grounds of disproportionality over trivial offences and/or that the case is not prosecution-ready – both issues applicable in the Assange extradition case – would stand up to legal challenge in the European Court of Justice. Best they get that sorted out fairly pronto. Overall, article says that the kind of tinkering proposed by the UK will not do much good – what’s needed is Europe-wide root and branch reform of the Framework Directive underlying the EAW system.

  38. Hi Trenterx,

    The 16 August 2012 episode of BBC Newsnight where Johan Pehrson took part in a discussion of the Assange case has been taken down by the BBC:


    Oddly, it also seems to have been taken off YouTube, although episodes from the weeks’ before and after are still there:


  39. US Attorney-General Eric Holder is visiting Sweden on 4 February, Prof. Ferrada de Noli reports.

    Amidst discussion in Sweden on dropping the case VS. Assange, arrives US Justice Minister Eric Holder. Meeting Swedish counterpart & lectures in Parliament

    I guess that explains the week of high-profile “debate” about the case in Sweden leading up to this.

  40. Here’s the Swedish announcement of it. Only announced on 31 January. He’s doing an invite-only speech in Swedish parliament:


    And, verrrry weirdly, here’s the US State Department press department fielding questions – also on 31 January – about how State co-ordinates with the US Justice Department Office of International Affairs about extradition, and saying that they cannot comment on individual extraditions:


    Meanwhile, the Justice Department OIA’s weekly press release of officials’ schedules for this coming week is not up yet. Here’s the page to keep an eye on, for anyone here who’s interested in this development. If Holder’s 4 February visit is not included in the weekly schedule tomorrow (Monday) then they are definitely trying to keep this visit quiet.


  41. Probably a better link for checking whether the US Justice Dept formally announces tomorrow Eric Holder’s cosy chat to the Swedish parliament on 4 February, and what they have to say about it:


    Here’s Swedish radio’s announcement of tonight’s Agenda debate on whether Sweden should dismiss the investigation against Assange (Google translate required):


    Here’s Johan Pehrson, Swedish Liberal Party spokesman, saying that it should:


    Sounds like Holder’s visit might be a case of attempted damage-limitation (with a touch strong-arming bully tactics thrown in too)

  42. Hi Flashbackers,

    Can someone please give me an exact translation of what Claes Borgstrom said on Agenda about AA being “ambivalent” – something to do with questioning in London? I’d really like to know whether the exact wording gives any clues as to her present state of mind.

    Actually, is there a transcription of the whole programme available in English? The programme segment didn’t seem to be very long. Perhaps someone can do a transcript in Swedish and whizz it over? – I’ll get it translated over here.

  43. Here is the interview with Claes Borgström, Swedish Television programme Agenda on February 2nd, 2014 about 22 minutes into the programme. My translation:
    Interviewer: What does your client have to say, is she not keen to see the investigation move forward?

    C Borgström: My client, it is an ambivalent situation for her…she has…it is a very long time since this happened and it is of course the case that she wants to get away from this at the same time as she wants him to be called to account (for what he has done).

    Original in Swedish:
    -Vad säger då din klient är inte hon angelägen om att utredningen förs framåt?
    -Min klient, det är en kluven situation för henne..hon har..det är väldigt länge sedan det här inträffande och det är naturligtvis så att hon dels vill komma bort från det här samtidigt som hon vill att man ska ställa honom till svars alltså.

  44. There is another thing about Borgström’s interview that is odd. He does not want the prosecutor to travel to London to interview Assange. Some of the reasons given are these: that the prosecutor in such a case first has to apply for permission, then that the questions have been put by the British (!) police, finally that the prosecutor cannot ask exactly what she wants.

    What on earth is he going on about? The EAW cannot apply inside the Ecuadorian embassy, or…?

  45. Great comment by Arbed121 on The Local’s reporting of last night’s television debate.

    My gosh, I’ve never heard hypocrisy sound so shrill.

    Bildt, Reinfeld, Ask, Perklov and Cecilia Malmstrom have all made public remarks prejudicial to Assange over the past three years, so how can they criticise others for “interfering in the case”? I guess they all must be worried that Uncle Eric Holder – US Attorney-General – is arriving in Stockholm tomorrow and they are all expecting smacked bottoms for allowing – oh, the horror – a public debate to have started about how badly this investigation has been handled. Uncle Sam is very, very angry.

    “Swedish prosecutors, however, refuse to handle the trial in London” – What trial? No one is asking for a trial in London – Mr Assange would, however, really like the opportunity of a police interview about the allegations so that he can give his side of the story and clear his name – something which the prosecutor has denied him for three years now. Elizabeth Massi Fritz talking about a “media witch hunt” has more irony than I can take on an empty stomach, given that media witch hunts are a speciality of her own.”


  46. The head of the Swedish Bar Association, Anne Ramberg, has observed this, quoted from the Agenda TV program:

    “It is not inconceivable that an interview with Assange would result in the case being dropped. But that possibility will be excluded by not taking contact with him.”

    Perhaps Ramberg pointed out the real reason for not hearing Assange in London during the 38 months that he has been available there, every single day?

    I found the quote here, in this summary in English of the last weeks’ changing discussion in Sweden: http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/critics.pdf

  47. Thanks, Axel! I think Claes Borgstrom’s excuses on the Agenda debate for not interviewing Assange in London are all patent nonsense. The Mutual Legal Assistance procedures for questioning a suspect in the UK are all very thoroughly detailed here [links at bottom]:

    The Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Letter of Request (LOR), Disclosure and Abuse of Process in the Julian Assange Case: The Factors Requiring the Prosecution to Deny an Interview in London

    Meanwhile, I’ve been thinking about another very “ambivalent” statement from Sweden recently… which I’ll do as a separate post.

  48. Why did Marianne Ny keep Allegation 2 on the EAW despite already knowing that forensics results showed the condom ‘evidence’ had no sign of DNA on it?

    As a reminder, here’s Allegation 2 as written on Ny’s arrest warrant to extradite Assange from the UK. It concerns Anna Ardin’s allegation that she believed a condom had broken during sex with Assange and that he had broken it deliberately:

    2. Sexual molestation

    On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

    As we know, Marianne Ny was already aware by 25 October 2010, when she received the forensic results report back from the SKL lab, that Anna Ardin had, in fact, handed in a condom made to look torn and used but which had no DNA on it. Clearly, from Ny’s point of view, this ‘evidence’ was useless to her purpose of prosecuting Assange for Allegation 2. Rather, the crime it pointed to was one of making false allegations. So why would Marianne Ny include on the EAW that she drew up over a month later at the end of November 2010 an allegation she knew full well she would later have to withdraw?

    The question in the title above was prompted by a curiously worded statement added to the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s website ahead of Swedish broadcaster SvD’s Agenda debate on the stalled investigation. Within a statement responding to the debate was a link to some extra clarification added to the reasons the SPA website gave back in 2012 why Assange could not be interviewed in London:

    [Google translate from Swedish original] The prosecutor’s opportunity to ask questions about things in the investigation that is not directly expressed in the EAW are limited. Thus there was a significant risk that a hearing in London will not bring the investigation forward.

    Well, of course that “opportunity” is limited. Under the rule of specialty, it is a condition of European Arrest Warrants that, once extradited, you cannot prosecute someone for offences that are not detailed on the warrant itself:

    The rule of specialty, which prohibits a person being dealt with in the requesting state for matters other than those referenced in the extradition request

    So, Marianne Ny knows she will have to drop Allegation 2, but nevertheless needs it to be written in the warrant for some reason. She also wishes to interrogate Assange about something not directly expressed on the EAW. This could – possibly – relate to some nefarious plan for Sweden to prosecute the Wikileaks founder on computer hacking charges a la Anakata or Sweden’s new ‘foreign espionage’ law, but that’s not really Marianne Ny’s area. She’s a specialist. Her vocation in life is to head up the Swedish Sex Crimes Development Unit in Gothenburg with a mission to expand Sweden’s sex crimes legislation, so it’s more likely the “things not directly expressed in the EAW” Ms Ny is so keen to discuss with Assange – but only “in person” and only once in Sweden – fall within that remit.

    Let’s take a little detour through another creative attempt to set new precedents in sex crimes legislation. In the UK High Court judgment refusing Assange’s appeal against Ny’s warrant, the judges go to inordinate lengths [paragraphs 79 to 96, as discussed in this article] to look at Allegation 2 in the context of previous UK rape trials involving an element of ‘rape by deception’ to see whether Marianne Ny’s Allegation 2 could meet the dual-criminality criteria for extradition (ie. that the alleged offence would also constitute a crime in British law). They decide that it does, but then go and spoil all that hard sleuthing through UK case law they’ve just done to justify Allegation 2 as an extraditable offence by mentioning in paragraph 94 that the forensic report in the Assange case suggests the rip in the condom which Anna Ardin presented as evidence is the result of wear and tear. As a creative addition to sex crimes legislation, “wear and tear” equalling “rape by deception” is unlikely to make the grade. [Why did the UK High Court undercut its own argument by inserting this remark – the only reference to the Swedish investigation’s underlying physical evidence in the entire judgment – in paragraph 94? It’s deliberate, of course, because “The conclusion of the expert was that there was nothing to indicate that a tool had been used, but that the damage to the condom was created by the wear and tear of the condom” is a lie. Take another look at that forensic results report. It clearly states that the tear edges on BOTH condoms (that “both” is important, but I’ll come back to that) match a ‘control’ rip in the back of Anna Ardin’s condom that the laboratory technicians manually made themselves. No one has yet figured out what the purpose of the judges’ obfuscation might be; however, we do know that UK High Court judges do not spend three months deliberating on a high profile, highly politicised case such as Assange’s only to make an elementary ‘mistake’ like this.]

    It is clear from the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s most recent statements that the European Arrest Warrant issued by Marianne Ny is for investigative purposes after all, despite her misleading the UK court that she had already decided to prosecute Assange (under Swedish law, it is illegal for her to do so before the preliminary investigation is concluded). So, are there any matters in the Swedish police protocol still to be fully investigated for which Anna Ardin’s Allegation 2 could act as a “placeholder” – matters not “directly expressed” on the EAW but nevertheless still ‘there’ in a more oblique way? Matters which could still go forward to prosecution, taking into account the rule on specialty, if Ardin’s Allegation 2 was later withdrawn because the forensics results indicate her evidence is faked? Something which could be neatly slotted in as a substitute Allegation 2 (Allegation 2.0, as it were) and still meet both the specialty rule and dual criminality criteria?

    Why yes – yes, there is.

    Shortly after 9.30am on Friday 20 August 2010 Anna Ardin told her friend Petra Ornstein, whom she phoned her immediately after first being contacted by Sofia Wilen, that “there were a number of similarities between their stories” and that she’d just been told that “Julian had seen to it [the other girl] had sex without a condom against her wishes”. Remember too how Ardin confirmed to Donald Bostrum after she had left the police station later that day that it was because “we suddenly were two women who had a statement about the same man so it became a crime against the state”. But are those “similarities” Ardin describes between her own allegations and those of Sofia Wilen similar enough to enable Marianne Ny to substitue one for the other in respect of Allegation 2 on the EAW? Ny’s rather peculiar wording of Allegation 2 as written on the face of the EAW warrant – “Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity… consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge” does seem to echo that other statement about Sofia Wilen’s claims: “Julian had seen to it they had sex without a condom against her wishes” to a remarkable degree.

    Is it effectively the same “statement about the same man” that the two women tell police when they visit Klara police station together on Friday 20 August 2010? Apparently, whatever they said was powerful enough to convince the duty prosecutor to issue an arrest warrant for Assange for “double rape” even before either woman’s formal statement had been taken or either of their complaints had been officially lodged in the police Durtva computer system – despite one woman issuing multiple text messages while still at the police station that “she only wanted him to take a [HIV] test” and “did not want to put any charges on JA”, and the other woman later insisting she only went along to support the younger woman’s complaint.

    Of course, Marianne Ny may not place too much credibility on Sofia Wilen’s text messages – she has withheld 100 SMS text messages from the women’s phone records from the file she submitted to the UK to support her extradition request, and refused to allow the Assange defence team to make copies of them – particularly if she feels there is evidence in the police protocol which contradicts what they say. Back to that forensics results report, which points towards a completely different interpretation of the case from the one we all think we know from its public presentation to date. On the day he first heard from the forensics lab that they could find no DNA on Anna Ardin’s condom evidence, lead police investigator Mats Gehlin (yes, the same policeman Marianne Ny insists is the only policeman qualified to interrogate Assange on the allegations he hasn’t been asked about yet) wrote out a separate file note, datestamped 20/10/2010 15:08, and added it to the police investigation file. But the note seems less concerned about Anna Ardin’s condom evidence than it does about the condom fragment from Wilen, which he’d sent to the lab on 25 August 2010 (ie. after Wilen’s case had been closed down by senior prosecutor Eva Finne and before it had been re-opened by Marianne Ny on 1 September) with the specific instruction to test how the tears in BOTH Wilen’s and Ardin’s “torn” condoms had been created; he hadn’t even ticked the box requesting DNA analysis. The file note reads:

    A conversation with SKL yielded the following.

    The condom from the residence of complainant 2 [Ardin] had no traces of DNA.

    Vaginal swabs from complainant 1 [Wilén] had DNA from complainant 1 [Wilén] and a man.

    The bit of condom found in the residence of complainant 1 [Wilén] had DNA from complainant 1 [Wilén] and the same man found on the vaginal swabs.

    Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.

    The police protocol includes seizure protocol documentation, authorised by Eva Finne, for the collection of evidence items from Anna Ardin on 21 August 2010, including the condom she submitted. However, there is no corresponding documentation in the leaked protocol relating to a chain of custody for the deliberately torn fragment of condom from Sofia Wilen seen in the forensic lab photograph; it is simply appended to Ardin’s case docket with the word “produced”. We therefore do not know whether police collected this condom fragment from Wilen’s apartment (if so, why is there no police documentation for it?), or whether Wilen handed it to Stockholm’s Soder Hospital rape clinic on the third visit she made to a hospital on the Friday morning after her conversation with Anna Ardin (she’d been to two separate hospitals three days earlier, in the second of which she’d had a rape kit done taking “DNA examples” and, almost certainly, received precautionary PEP post-HIV infection treatment within its 72-hour effectiveness window), or whether Sofia simply handed it to the first policewoman she spoke to at Klara police station prior to sitting down with a second policewoman, officer Irmeli Krans, to give her formal witness statement.

    It is high time that a formal Freedom of Information request is put in for the release of the police seizure protocol relating to Sofia Wilen’s condom fragment (if one exists, that is), or, if no such document exists, any and all other documentation pertaining to it. The SKL forensic lab reference number for Wilen’s condom fragment is 201001231102 under Designation AB/7525-10/G001 and her case number is K246314 if anyone wishes to follow up on this – surely this is something any enterprising Swedish journalist or citizen alarmed at the damage being done to the reputation of Sweden’s judicial system ought to pursue? It may hold the key to unlocking the mystery of Marianne Ny’s extraordinary behaviour and mishandling of this investigation.

  49. It could be worth checking with the Enköping police, in case they were involved in taking a look at Sofia’s bedroom or handling some kind of evidence.

  50. Thomas Olsson and Per-Erik Samuelsson confronts the deadlock in an article today. A brief summary:

    -Swedish law demands a speedy investigation, Assange should be heard in London now. Elisabeth Massi Fritz and Claes Borgström do not properly represent their own clients since they are not pushing for a questioning of Assange in London. Marianne Ny has locked herself into an impossiblöe situation and is presently totally passive. It would be a good idea for a superior prosecutor to look into the matter.


  51. Thanks, Axel

    Glad to see things starting to shift over there!

  52. For Trenterx,

    Re: that odd SMS from Erika Lejnefors on 8 October which seems to retroactively refer to past events in the wrong tense “Odd that he is no longer available on Thursday”. If this “Thursday” was 6 October, then I think Rixstep has an article which helps explain it.

    It comes from when Hurtig submitted his bill and a curious comment that Erika had made that is noted on it against the billing item when Hurtig was asked to make himself available on 6 October as an arrest was expected. “Three wasted hours”, or something like that. I think it was Erika who tipped the wink to Hurtig about the paparazzi ambush arrest. This curiously-timed SMS from Erika to her boss – “Odd that he is no longer available…” – might therefore be Erika playing ‘innocent face’ to cover her own ass.

  53. Present discussions on Flashback seems to clarify a couple of things:

    1. Marianne Ny did not issue an arrest warrant on September 27th 2010, this happened later.
    2. Julian Assange’s travel from Stockholm to Berlin on September 27th was not improvised suddenly. It was planned during the preceeding month, as witnessed by several people involved in preparations of those meetings held in Berlin.
    3. The reference to Julian’s “running away from justice” in Swedish courts, and backing up the EAW, is not based on facts.

    And did the theme of “running away from justice” not play a role also in the British legal proceedings around Assange?

  54. Hi Axel,

    And did the theme of “running away from justice” not play a role also in the British legal proceedings around Assange?

    Well, it was reported in the UK press that way, but I don’t remember it featuring in the later court hearings at all. In the Belmarsh hearing Justice Riddle commented that the fact that Assange as soon as he entered Britain had got his lawyers to contact the Metropolitan Police to say his whereabouts were known should he be wanted for questioning, and his voluntary surrender on 7 December 2010 once the EAW was certified, was “hardly the actions of a fugitive”.

  55. Part 3 of this exhaustively researched response to Andrew O’Hagan “Ghosting” article in the London Review of Books is particularly good on what he got wrong about the Swedish investigation.

    Part 1. Cross-Purposes http://hazelpress.org/ghosting-wikileaks/4583092610
    Part 2. A Breach of Trust http://hazelpress.org/ghosting-wikileaks-2/4583123508
    Part 3. Fact and Fiction http://hazelpress.org/ghosting-wikileaks-3/4583145831
    Part 4. All Moral Authority http://hazelpress.org/ghosting-wikileaks-4/4583254299
    Part 5. Total Surveillance http://hazelpress.org/ghosting-wikileaks-5/4583299419

    Note to moderators: Any chance of clearing the spambots’ postings above?

  56. Such a cosy little arrangement…

    After months of investigation into the relevations of NSA spying from Edward Snowden the EU issues a resolution (unfortunately, not a legally binding one) which criticises Sweden for its role:

    “Countries designated to help the U.S. with data collection – including Sweden – are invited in turn to clarify what happened and revise their laws.”
    http://hbl.fi/nyheter/2014-03-12/579766/kritik-mot-sverige-i-nsa-resolution (Swedish, use Google translate)

    Sweden’s response?

    Swedish member Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (M): “Sweden has a law, FRA, which is modern and has become a model for transparency and democratic control. It is not credible to Parliament calling for a revision”, said Corazza Bildt in the debate after the vote.

    Yes, Carl Bildt’s wife.

  57. Eva Joly, member of the European Parliament (green) and once a runner for the French presidency, will give a press conference in Stockholkm today. “I have found a solution” she says. The Minister of justice, Beatrice Ask, and Marianne Ny both refuse to meet her.


  58. Hi Axel,

    Yes, MEP Eva Joly has certainly been blasting a hole in the Swedish prosecutor’s prevarications on the Assange case:

    English translation of interviewed screened by TV4:

    Ditto, English translations of Eva Joly’s press conference proposing all sorts of solutions for moving the investigation forward:

    Part One: http://wlcentral.org/node/2927
    Part Two: http://wlcentral.org/node/2929

  59. Arbed

    4 Feb, 2014 – 5:04 pm

    The second link has been removed.


    I’m trying to catch up. :)

  60. Because feminism is so strong in Sweden I thought I would share this article with you. In it prizewinning Turkish novelist, playwright and poet, Meltem Arikan, looks at how a more appropriate use of words can free people from the stigma attached to emotive words. This is important for men too. Julian Assange would probably be a free man if this feminist view of thoughtful usage was adopted.


    If you can give this publicity in Sweden please do. Thanks.

  61. The US Office of the Director of Intelligence has issued a new edict forbidding all intelligence employees from talking to the press, even about unclassified stuff:


    So, the US governing elite and powerbrokers are turning inward, drawing in their web and cutting their own ability to communicate, just as predicted in this rather famous essay…

    Julian Assange: Conspiracy as Governance:

    Makes for an interesting re-read at this point in time.

  62. Baroness Jenny Jones, deputy chair of the Police and Crime Committee at the London Assembly, has suggested sending the policing bill for Julian Assange’s detention at the Ecuador embassy to Sweden, or “the police should walk away”. Daily Mail readers up in arms (surprisingly, mostly in favour of Assange. How odd…:))


  63. Arbed; What do you make of the Intercept’s dearth of revelatory posts?

    April 14th was the last entry on the subject of ‘Passover’

    Ebay buyer’s remorse?

  64. Hi Ben,

    Don’t know what’s going on at The Intercept, but it sure doesn’t seem like it’s working out. No love lost, for me, for Omidyar (I thought his weasel words when challenged by Wikileaks regarding Paypal’s role in the Wikileaks financial blockade were a disgrace) but I do feel for the high-quality journalists who were lured onboard.

    Here’s a few links with more detail about the The Intercept’s failure to produce the kind of investigative journalism it promised. I think the very last link may well be the biggest clue to what’s happened:

    A first look at First Look Media: six months of love:

    In Which Our Self-Proclaimed Hero Explodes Himself [on Greenwald/Omidyar]:

    Glenn, Intercepted: Pierre Omidyar’s quarter billion dollar journalism project seems to have stopped publishing:

    First Look publishes new editorial independence statement after Pando reveals Omidyar White House ties:

    Revealed: Visitor logs show full extent of Pierre and Pamela Omidyar’s cozy White House ties:

  65. How do you see the latest comments on these very long threads?

  66. Craig; Thank you for leaving these huge thread comments open. It certainly assists with keeping new threads on topic. I love it !

  67. Arbed; Thanks for those links. The comments at Intercept are slow to appear, as though in moderation, but they do show up. Many have been expressing the same sentiments and to their credit they allow them to stand, albeit without much real explanation other than they want to avoid releasing info that could be detrimental to the health of some. I think a healthy skepticism is healthy. :)

  68. Craig, there are two sets of page buttons; one above the comment form, and one below the original post. Click the highest page number and then scroll to the bottom of the comment thread.

  69. Arbed

    This is going to sound horribly big-headed and I don’t see how to avoid that or the resulting flak.

    I am probably the most prominent and high profile blogging whistleblower around. Because I was in a much more senior position on the inside than other security state whistleblowers, my sources and contacts are unequalled in this area. Yet there has never been any attempt at all by the folks at The Intercept to contact me. I found that very strange, and somewhat suspicious.

  70. Eva Joly’s visit to Stockholm seems to have triggered a new development. Retired judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman has written to the Swedish Justice Ombudsman (“Justitieombudsmannen, JO)and asked it to look into the way the Assange case has been handled by the Swedish Prosecutor. A similar request was made earlier by journalist Helen Bergman, but rejected on the grounds that the case was ongoing. Brita Sundberg-Weitman argues that the case is not ongoing, but standing still, moving nowhere for the moment. She appeals on the ground that the Swedish prosecutor has violated the principle about proportionality and that Assange’s rights according to the European Convention of human rights, have been violated. Sundberg-Weitman was one of the witnesses in the first trial in London, as you may recall. More here: https://www.flashback.org/sp48510972

  71. Craig,

    That’s an exceptionally good point. I know The Intercept’s source-protection method for anonymous whistleblowers, SecureDrop, is not sufficiently robust for national security leakers, so maybe that is why they aren’t going after the kind of high-level security state which your access allows?


    That’s very good news, thanks! Did you see that even Bob Carr, ex-FM of Australia, who was notoriously antagonistic to Julian Assange while in office, has called for the Swedish prosecutor to hotfoot it to London?

    During an appearance on the radio programme “A Rational Fear”, former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr was asked about Julian Assange. He said that Australia has “no standing in that case”, but his personal view is that “he’s been there for too long and it would be appropriate, simply based on the humanity of the case, for the Swedish public prosecutor to beat a path to the Venezuelan Embassy and interview him there.” [An audience member corrected him that Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy.]

  72. Craig,

    …the kind of high-level security state *stories* – typo, sorry

  73. This is what being extradited to the US to face a Grand Jury indictment drives people to – a retired British couple tried to commit suicide today after all their appeals in the UK courts and to the UK’s Home Secretary and Prime Minister failed. They’d lost everything – their jobs, their home (bankrupted by the legal costs), even their mental health:

    Extradition couple Paul and Sandra Dunham who made suicide pact treated by paramedics

    RT covered the case very well back in January.

    Worse than Death? Unfair UK-US extradition rules see Brits…

    And people ridicule Assange for seeking political asylum in an embassy against US extradition…?

  74. In defence of Julian Assange, by publisher Colin Robinson:


  75. Quick update:

    Tuesday 24 June Assange’s Swedish lawyers filed an application to Stockholm District Court to have the EAW rescinded (on several grounds, but I provide links about the most important one below): http://justice4assange.com/Court-filing-to-remove-warrant-24.html?update

    Predictably, most mainstream reports either ignored it altogether, or focused on comments by the Swedish lawyers about the EAW no longer being enforceable given Assange has political asylum in an embassy. Only the Guardian has written about the most significant of the grounds cited by in the court filing – that a new law in Sweden which came into effect on 1st June stipulates that that anyone arrested or detained has the right to be made aware of “facts forming the basis for the decision to arrest” (ie. hand over the evidence you’ve been hiding from the courts all this time, Marianne Ny). The court will rule on Assange’s submission in a few days.


    Finally, the Swedish press woke up to (some of) the implications of this latest move by Assange:

    The Local 25/6/14: http://www.thelocal.se/20140625/swedish-womans-texts-could-clear-julian-assange

    Perhaps some of you will remember that Assange’s lawyer was allowed by Marianne Ny’s office to view, but not copy, a cache of 100 text messages by Sofia Wilen. He managed to memorise 22 of them and four have been used in a previous affidavit by Assange:


    This article points out some troubling questions raised by the timestamps of just two of these texts about what we already (think we) know from the women’s witness statements released to the press and available on the internet:


    If the rest of the 100 texts reveal similar discrepancies in the women’s stories and case investigation, Marianne Ny will have a heart attack if the court rules she must reveal them to Assange’s defence (and the world ;)). I’m sure she will much prefer to simply cancel the EAW warrant than do that

    This article outlines some of the other evidence that Assange’s court filing will also force discovery of:


  76. Arbed, thanks for the update.

  77. Arbed

    Seconded. But what are the chances that Marianne Ny has “lost” the unhelpful texts?

  78. Arbed

    Seconded. But what are the chances that Marianne Ny has “lost” the unhelpful texts?

    A possible situation, but if she did I for one, would not be surprised.

    I wrote here at Wikileaks Central in 2010 relating to arrest for the purposes of investigation among other issues

    The European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 states:

    Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
    * (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

    There has been a long running argument as to whether Assange was charged. IMO he wasn’t but that is not determinative of the argument that because this was an EAW (and keeping in mind Article 6’s minimum requirement), Sweden should have but did not disclose their case (and not in English, fully, either)

    Now Sweden IS required to disclose their case, however it could be that they argue the new law is NOT retrospective to Assange’s matter.

    My argument is and always was, that Assange’s human rights will be/would have been breached if he was held without bail in Sweden while that dreadful prosecutor Ny egged on by that appalling Claus Bogtrotter “investigate” the matter for months and months before trial.

  79. Thanks Peter for your link and evaluation. I doubt they will make it an easy passage to freedom for Assange. He is definitely not safe in Sweden with its known affiliation to the United States. A colleague in Sweden has informed me that come September there will be a change of government and he believes the social democrats will want to start with a clean sheet.

    As a result of my last article I was contacted privately by a woman who states that most cases of rape, even rape as we might understand it in the UK, never go to court in Sweden, and certainly nothing as insubstantial as the accusations being levelled against JA.


    I would like to write something on what she told me but feel restricted because the reports are in Swedish and you cannot always trust the electronic translation packages.

  80. Hurrah, Assange’s lawyers seem to have managed to force Marianne Ny in front of a court to explain herself:

    Swedish court sets date for Julian Assange rape case hearing:

    Somewhat misleading headline there (Guardian, so quel surprise) as this hearing is about Marianne Ny’s conduct Assange’s rights to be informed properly of the reasons for the arrest warrant. The article refers to a “sharply worded statement” by the prosecutor, which is true but I think better characterised as ‘vindictive’-sounding. Also extremely evasive with many lies of omission. Ny showed in the statement she faxed to Belmarsh how crafted her statements are to imply everything, yet state nothing. This one is no different. It’s available in Swedish here:


    and there’s an English translation coming but not ready yet.

    Note, though, the final paragraph of that Guardian article: “Thomas Olsson, a Stockholm-based lawyer for Assange, said: “The statement from the prosecutor gives us strong arguments for our case.” That’s right – you can drive a coach and horses through the gaps and omissions in Marianne Ny’s statement to the District Court.

  81. Craig,

    In answer to your query about the chances of Ny “losing” the text messages, not very likely at this point, I’d say. Too well-known already in late 2010 that there were 100 of them, and Assange’s lawyers have already memorised (incl. exact timestamps) 22 of them. Her credibility in the eyes of the world will drop to zero if she cannot produce them now. I think it would be very difficult for her to proceed any further with her case – already seen in Swedish legal circles as “too weak to ever reach court” – in that event.

  82. Craig,

    PS. Assange’s affidavit used only 4 of the memorised text messages, but did go on record that they were in possession of 22. The problem for Ny is that she doesn’t know which ones are the other 18… ;)

  83. Here are English translation of both Assange’s submission to Stockholm District Court to have his arrest warrant rescinded/proper discovery of withheld evidence, and Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny’s response:



    I’d say the former makes the latter look very thin indeed.

  84. Sofias lawyer, Elisabeth Massi Fritz, attacks Thomas Olsson and Per Erik Samuelsson in today’s Svenska Dagbladet.

    It is a tiresome read, full of sweeping statements.
    Two points may be worth mentioning.
    1. She objects to the argument that questioning in London is in the interest of her client. In the interest of her client is to question Assange in Stockholm, she claims. Full stop. No further motivation for that statement whatsoever.
    2. She totally ignores or rejects any statement that Assange is threatened politically or legally by the US. “When Assange’s lawyers state that he is a political refugee, protected by the UN Convention on refugees, they could not possibly be further away from truth”.

    As far as I understand she has no role whatsoever in the upcoming court case.

  85. Hi Axel – good to see you!

    Marianne Ny’s letter after hearing of the #Assange filing:


    Can any kind Swedish soul translate this to English for me please?

  86. … also really interested in knowing what these two say:



    (I believe the latter was in response to this enquiry, in English):


    … which is pretty embarrassing for the Swedish Prosecution Authority.

  87. Marianne Ny is keeping in close touch with Alison Riley at the CPS about developments.

  88. Hi Axel – good to see you!

    Marianne Ny’s letter after hearing of the #Assange filing:


    Can any kind Swedish soul translate this to English for me please?

    Pardon my clumsy English. I tried to keep it very close to the original. I’m unsure of some legal or administrative terms, but you’ll get an idea. Let’s hope Rixstep will soon make a better one, if he hasn’t alreay. :)

    Tomas Olsson was on SVT’s morning show 07.05 today. It appears as if they don’t have any new pieces of information. I’ll be back when I know something.

    Last night I informed Claes Borgström and Elisabet Massi Fritz about what I’ve read in media. They where both well up to date. Claes Borgström would take part in the morning show on phone and EMF had declined to participate. Considering that we have promised to keep the complainants [sic] we should maybe contact them directly. Is it possible for you to contact them in the morning and tell them that we don’t know any more than what has been in media. Nothing can be said about how the court will decide. However, no decision is to be expected today. Nor do I know if it will be handled in writing or through a hearing. There are only two possible outcomes though. Either the arrest warrant is vindicated and then the EAW stands, or is rescinded and then the EAW falls. However, the message is “Sit calm in the boat” for now.

    On our part, the type of procedure [ written/oral ? ] and in the next step the court’s decision will determine how we will handle media and security issues. Those functions at and [sic]you will probably have to coordinate their potential activities.


  89. The above in resonse to Arbed

  90. A couple of hours ago:
    “The present stalemate is unworthy a country that subscribes to the rule of law”. Assange’s lawyers do reply to Massi Fritz’s statement earlier in the week.


    Some of their points:
    -“no crime has taken place” (an exact copy of the wording in Eva Finne’s decision to close the rape case in august 2010).
    – SW did not want to report a crime, quoting the content of text messages. And initially, none of the women wanted to report a crime- sex was by consent.
    -Massi Fritz is seriously mistaken when she points finger to Ecuador and dismisses the danger to Assange from USA. Criminal investigations against Wikileaks and Assange has started in the US already.
    -Pressing Assange to give up his political asylum, which seem to be the purpose of NY’s resistance to question Assange in London, is wrong.
    -To keep the investigation open for four years without questioning Assange is against the principle of a speedy investigation.
    – To cancel the arrest does not mean that the investigation comes to an end. We take the view that the investigation should be completed by allowing Assange to give his version.

    That is a pretty sharp response o Massi Fritz’ recent piece and to Marianne Ny’s formal response to the court. The ball is moving at last…

  91. Cross-posting from Craig’s excellent Stockholm Syndrome thread, for the record/pick-up by the Flashbackers –

    The withholding of exculpatory evidence favouring Assange’s innocence is indeed a crucial issue. The discussion above about what constitutes the ‘case file’ is relevant. My understanding is that in Sweden, which typically has a gap of 10-14 days between formally charging someone and their trial, the whole of the case file – including all the material a prosecutor has discarded as irrelevant to the case they wish to put before the court – must be disclosed to the defence as soon as they are formally charged; it’s colloquially known as the ‘slop bucket’, I believe. Defence counsel then have only about 10 days in which to analyse sometimes 100s of pages of material. It doesn’t take a genius to work out why Marianne Ny doesn’t want to progress her investigation to the point of formal charge without Assange being safely in solitary confinement and access to his lawyers severely curtailed before releasing her ‘slop bucket’.

    As you say, Craig, the text messages by Sofia Wilen to her friends are dynamite. Analysis of the timestamps of only two out of the four reproduced in Julian Assange’s Affidavit requesting proper investigation of the mysterious disappearance of Wikileaks’ computers when he eventually left Sweden shows that there was something very odd going on even during the women’s visit to the police station. How could Ms Wilen know of the issue of the arrest warrant for Assange within 6 minutes when she was supposedly halfway through giving her testimony? How could she be sending text messages during that interview? And why does the police officer record her breaking down with “shock” at the news a full 1 hour 34 minutes after the timestamp of Ms Wilen’s text?


    Other text messages from Sofia Wilen throw considerable light on when exactly she visited various hospital clinics during the week after her night with Julian Assange, and raise questions about what exactly was the purpose of her third visit to hospital on the morning of the day both women went to the police, ie. AFTER her first discussion with Anna Ardin.
    My own theory is that it has something to do with the OTHER torn condom – the one from Sofia Wilen – pictured [top, above the DNA-free torn condom from Anna Ardin] in this forensic report:


    That forensic report bears very careful study. Aside from it showing that Ardin’s condom is worthless to Assange’s prosecutor as evidence, having neither male nor female DNA on it, it does state clearly that Wilen’s condom (which does have two sets of DNA on it) has been manually torn in the same way as Ardin’s. It also indicates two other things: 1) the chain of custody for Wilen’s condom is unaccounted for, as it has been submitted to the forensics lab under Anna Ardin’s ticket (Wilen’s ‘case’ having been dismissed by senior prosecutor Eva Finne at the time), and 2) there is a dirty great big hole in the witness statement given by Sofia Wilen to the police, and in the witness statements of her friends, none of which mention anything at all about a condom being broken during Wilen’s encounter with Julian Assange. To my mind, the chain of custody of Wilen’s torn condom fragment is the most important piece of evidence that needs to be extracted from Marianne Ny’s withheld ‘slop bucket’ of investigation materials.

    John Goss:

    I have reason to believe that Anna Ardin was/is a secret services (CIA/Swedish) asset, or an extremely gullible woman.

    “or an extremely gullible woman” would be my guess. Maybe “gullible” would be the wrong word – ‘cold reading’ techniques can be extremely persuasive, and convince many they are hearing something for the very first time from an independent source when in actual fact they themselves have inadvertently provided all the clues necessary for their interlocutor. Personally, I think all the available evidence points to Sofia Wilen claiming to Ardin during their first telephone call that she too had been the victim of a ‘deliberately’ broken condom – having picked up on Ardin mentioning her own imaginings about this supposed event – and that’s what persuaded Anna Ardin to risk her political career by accompanying the younger woman to the police station to report the matter and seek advice. There is a text message from Wilen to a friend in which she tells bald-faced lies, attributing to Ardin things which completely contradict what the latter has stated in all other sources (to her friends BEFORE the police visit, to newspapers after, on twitter, etc). As to the first part of your sentence about Ardin being an intelligence asset, well I don’t know about that, but there are two reputable Swedish sources claiming Wilen is one.

    Oh, and the claim by the prosecutor that they cannot interview Assange in London because it would be impossible to compel a DNA sample is laughable, purely designed to throw sand in the eyes of a gullible press. It’s already been confirmed at the Belmarsh hearing that Assange had voluntarily given a DNA sample to the Metropolitan Police. The Swedish prosecutor can simply ask for that to be forwarded to them. Does make you wonder to what use a corrupt Swedish prosecutor would put it, though…

    ;) Arbed

  92. An interesting article looking at the possibility that, although Marianne Ny refuses to use Mutual Legal Assistance to question Assange in London (because she’d then have to set out her evidence for UK authorities to assess), she might have filed an MLA request for wiretap surveillance of the Ecuadorian Embassy – something which MI5/MI6/GCHQ would look on favourably as they’d get to retain anything obtained as a result of it that is not directly related to the Swedish case. This could account for the major discrepancy between what the UK govt admits it’s spent on policing the embassy and what it should cost (ie. roughly half the amount). FOI requests for a full break-down of the figures have been met with refusal and some coy references to “national security”:

    Is Sweden’s Prosecutor Secretly Spying on Julian Assange?

  93. Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet today publishes the story about how USAID used young Latin Americans, posing as tourists, to get in touch with opposition groups and undermine the Cuban government. However, neither Aron Modig, a Swedish Christian Democrat or Anna Ardin, from the christian wing of the Swedish Social Democrats are mentioned in their report. This USAID programme started in 2009, thus probably applies to Aron Modig who was caught delivering cash to the opposition. Anna Ardin, visited the country in 2006, delivered cash and managed to escape from arrest by a close shave. Ardin was in touch with Miami groups and the likelihood is that her visit was coordinated between the Sweden and the US by some earlier programme.

    Swedish social democracy had a very good reputation in Cuba in all circles. Olof Palme visited the country in the 1970:ies and spoke to mass audiences in Spanish. Even twentyfive years later, being a young social democrat from Sweden would have been a good cover for clandestine activities.



  94. The questioning of Sofia W on August the 20th 2010 (to be precis: a revised version of it)is published in the 100 page document that Marianne Ny used to secure a European arrest warrant.

    We know today that there has been seven or eight additional questionings of Sofia W. That seems to be very unusual for a rape accusation case. The tone in email correspondence (recently released)between Marianne Ny and Sofia’s new lawyer, Elisabeth Massi Fritz, seems to be cold, if not unfriendly.

    Is there some kind of friction/conflict between Sofia W and Marianne Ny?

  95. Hi Axel,

    Can you translate a couple of the statements by Ny in the recent correspondence that you describe as “cold” or “unfriendly” please? I’d like to judge for myself but I rely on Google translate for things released in Swedish, which misses a lot of nuance, I’m sure.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if there was friction between the SW/EMF and Ny/Isgren camps. Marianne Ny nailed her name and her reputation to the mast on 1 September 2010 when she re-opened and expanded a closed case, believing no doubt at the time that such a cause celebre would be the making of her. It was, of course, nearly two months before the forensic results from the SKA lab and the later SW interrogations revealed that Ms Wilen’s claims (and thereby the whole case, as SW roped in Anna Ardin so effectively) were based on a pack of scheming lies. But it was too late to back out by then – Ny’s political masters (Perklev, Bildt, SAPO etc) would never allow it – and Marianne Ny was now a hostage to fortune.

  96. Message for Trenterx:

    Yes, quite right. I can’t reveal my source. Suffice it to say that my assertions about the timings of Wilen’s various hospital visits are based on her own words, time- and date-stamped, so I am very very sure of my facts.

    You could try approaching George Galloway. He’s seen the 22 SMS that are part of the stash that Ny is withholding. He’s not the only one, of course – those SMSs have been circulating for a while now – but he’s the only one who’s actually said anything publicly about them. Perhaps he’d be prepared to offer further public comment? (But he’s very busy campaigning on Gaza at the moment.)

  97. Re: Arbed and the infamous sms:es.
    Could you try to get hold of those sms, or ask anyone in the UK “sitting” on these to make them public here or send copies to us. These sms could be the detail that would start things to move on and break up the legal grid-lock, every time this is mentioned on the swedish site, the thread gets sabotaged by useless text so there is an interest to keep these secret….

  98. Hi Duqu,

    Good to see you! Yes of course, you are right – there is an interest in keeping them secret, and exposure of them would, as Bjorn Hurtig once said, make the whole case ‘moot’.

    BUT… the people who have seen these SMS feel it wouldn’t be right to pre-empt the Assange defence team. It is, after all, their case and it’s up to them when and how they wish to use this evidence. Remember that only 4 were used in the Affidavit, so a lot of thinking must have gone into selecting which ones to use, and which not. It all depends on their strategy. And I agree with this view of respecting the right of the Assange defence team to choose how to use the SMS. We all know by now the kind of dirty tricks that have been played by the prosecution in this case. It is probably very wise not to let the other side see what your hand is if they cannot be trusted to play fair. Perhaps the Assange defence team feels the better strategy – politically – is to push as far as they can to get the EAW warrant rescinded in the SVEA Appeal court and, if thereby they manage to dislodge the major element of coercive power from the situation, then they can go in harder to refute the original allegations and clear Assange’s name entirely.

    However, there are other areas where it would be good to try to obtain new evidence which could be explored from within Sweden:

    1. Seeing if anything can be flushed out of that list of Sofia Wilen’s Twitter follows.

    2. Can Mats Gehlin be coaxed out of the woodwork? Has he made any comments anywhere (even privately) about what he knows about the case? I saw something which said he is suffering from depression. Everyone who has had any involvement in this blatant miscarriage of justice must feel that their name has been besmirsched on an international level merely by association with it, even if they were one of the ones just trying to do their job. If Mats Gehlin now knows the truth, then I bet he’s depressed at how it’s all worked out.

    3. Quoting from a previous post of mine:

    It is high time that a formal Freedom of Information request is put in for the release of the police seizure protocol relating to Sofia Wilen’s condom fragment (if one exists, that is), or, if no such document exists, any and all other documentation pertaining to it. The SKL forensic lab reference number for Wilen’s condom fragment is 201001231102 under Designation AB/7525-10/G001 and her case number is K246314 if anyone wishes to follow up on this.

    It really would be a good idea to coax this seizure protocol out of the authorities, if at all possible, or at least to get them to confirm whether one exists or not.

  99. Hi Trenterx,

    Thanks for trying to get Flashback interested in filing a FOI request for the Wilen condom fragment seizure protocol. I know you’ve also re-posted me in the past when I’ve asked the same thing. I confess I’m mystified when I see Flashbackers sail straight past this crucial point, almost as if they cannot see its importance. Why does that happen?

    Perhaps it would help stir people into action if they re-read the whole of that post where I ask them to file an FOI for the seizure protocol? It is my attempt to outline how I think the Wilen condom figures in the extradition EAW (in which, of course, ostensibly it doesn’t – there is no mention whatsoever of a torn condom from Wilen in it). So in this post I examine the question of why Marianne Ny put Ardin’s allegation about a deliberately torn condom into the EAW knowing she’d have to drop that particular charge before the case ever reaches a court because the results of the lab tests prove Ardin’s condom is fake:

    and one which sets out a good number of clues in the available record that Sofia’s torn condom fragment is something she invents to dupe Anna into helping her with the police:

    By the way, in that first link you’ll notice in the 2nd paragraph from the bottom the phrase “DNA examples”. Please note that I’ve included double quotation marks around it – because that’s how one indicates you’re repeating an exact-words quote of someone – and then think about what I said to you recently: “my assertions about the timings of Wilen’s various hospital visits are based on her own words, time- and date-stamped, so I am very very sure of my facts”.

    You’ll find a lot of that sort of stuff in my posts here at Craig Murray’s blog if you look carefully enough. I try to sneak in as many little ‘breadcrumbs’ as I can, discreetly, to help guide other researchers where to dig harder. For example, here’s a few which all quote the same exact time for a particular event, which appears nowhere else. I leave it up to you to work out how I could possibly be so precise:

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-10/#comment-438222 [1st paragraph]

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-10/#comment-439552 [just after “Why yes – yes, there is”]

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-10/#comment-438211 [final paragraph]

    As regards when the phrase “DNA examples” might have first been ‘spoken’, here’s a couple of relevant posts:

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437523 [paragraph beginning “Of course, as at Monday 23 August”]

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437394 [2nd from last paragraph, and the post following this one]

    If you think about it, I can only be absolutely sure of the timings I’m giving there if my source ‘document’ confirming the “DNA examples” have already been taken can verifiably be timed to a point which makes it extremely unlikely that they are taken sometime during Thursday 19th August – for example, say, 7am in the morning on the Thursday.

    Bonus ‘breadcrumb':

    Hope that’s enough to get Flashback to realise how crucial it is to try to obtain hard evidence of the exact chain of custody of the Wilen fragment. When exactly, where exactly did it pass from Wilen into police hands?

    Actually, it’s worth re-reading my post immediately after that last link too. In it I explain where I think Donald Bostrum might be telling the police that he spoke to Assange about Sofia Wilen’s ‘torn’ condom allegation during the morning of Friday 20th August, ie. after he has spoken to Anna after she has spoken to Wilen for the first time at 9.30am. [This post gives a fuller account of what I’m getting at: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437309 ] and I quote a section of Bostrum’s witness statement pointing out where it seems Gehlin and Bostrum might be talking about two separate torn condom incidents:

    Re-reading it myself, I’ve just noticed something I missed before [2nd para from end]:

    “… And so my impression is that she didn’t experience anything serious but was mostly angry. As in don’t fucking break the condoms but not that it was an assault. Uh, this is my impression because she doesn’t go to the police for her own sake.” < see that plural there? – "the condoms” – since when did Anna say anything about there being more than one broken condom in her own experience with Assange? Is Anna under the impression Assange is in the habit of breaking condoms – despite only ‘experiencing’ one such incident herself – because she’s been told by someone else he did it to them too? And that’s why she’s angry with Assange, angry enough to go help someone else report him (because their experience – “No, no, stop” they told her they’d protested – sounds much much worse than her own)?

    Apologies it’s such a lot of reading to follow all these ‘breadcrumbs’ through. My posts are always so very long and complex, I’m sorry. But, then again, it’s a very complex case… :)

  100. The rumour started by SkyNews that Assange was about to surrender to authorities and leave the embassy is not true. Watch the smile on this video of the full press conference as he confirms he will leave “soon” (at the 11.35-min mark).

    Assange: I will leave Ecuadorian Embassy soon (FULL SPEECH):

    Hilarious watching the vulture press accumulate on the pavement opposite the embassy, not to mention guffawing at all the inaccurate press reports. About 300 non-stories spawned within two hours – haha, I think Julian Assange just trolled the entire Western media. Troll us, Master Troll! :)

    By the way, the recent legal changes to UK extradition law which Assange referred to in the press conference when he thanked the UK government for making changes to the law to protect him are here:


    They came into effect on 18 July 2014 (two days after the decision of Stockholm District Court to keep the arrest warrant in place) and are clearly relevant to Assange’s situation. They will give the Ecuadorian diplomats a much stronger hand in negotiating safe passage. Interestingly, in yesterday’s Daily Mail interview Assange mentioned that the Parliamentary Select Committee on Extradition Law reform had asked him to submit a report on whether the UK’s extradition system breached fundamental human rights:


  101. Can anyone give me a better English translation of this article from Dagens Juridik? I’m wary that Google translate is messing up the legal naunces of this new Swedish ruling:

    Kammarrätten: Slasken blir inte offentlig när åtal väcks – polisen behöver inte lämna ut uppgifter

    Swedish prosecutors no longer have to publicly release their investigation ‘slops’ if a Freedom of Information request is made for them when a prosecution has been abandoned? Have I got that right?

    How will this new ruling affect the Assange case – particularly in reference to the withheld text messages from Sofia Wilen; the seizure protocal documentation for her ‘torn’ condom fragment; the second Wilen statement to police that Marianne Ny told the UK court said “substantially the same” but she refused to use in place of the earlier unsigned one; the fabled medical certificate from Soder; the second forensic testing for DNA on Anna Ardin’s ‘torn’ condom; Marianne Ny’s new secret annex she added during the 16 July hearing, etc etc?

    Does Marianne Ny now have the ability to ‘classify’ all of this information if she is ultimately forced to drop her investigation?

  102. Arbed wrote:
    “Kammarrätten: Slasken blir inte offentlig när åtal väcks – polisen behöver inte lämna ut uppgifter

    Swedish prosecutors no longer have to publicly release their investigation ‘slops’ if a Freedom of Information request is made for them when a prosecution has been abandoned? Have I got that right?”

    The link does not work. But I think you got that the translation right.

    I am not an expert on what you can dispose of. What goes down as “trash” (slask), and is therefore never available to the public, surely should only be things that are not important for the case. In the Thomas Quick case important material was put in the “slask” if I remember right.

    Sorry not to be more helpful.

  103. Axel, or any of our Swedish visitors to this blog

    I’d be very grateful for an English translation of this link. I want to try to see if it has any impact on the Assange case but Google translate is not good enough for the purpose. Does this new ruling give Marianne Ny the ability to ensure that anything she wants to hide stays hidden forever?


  104. Also for the benefit of our Swedish friends, this link is currently doing the rounds on Twitter.

    The NGO Fair Trials International confirmed in July 2012 that the new EAW proportionality test introduced by the UK in its recent changes to its extradition law were explicitly requested by the chief Supreme Court judge during Assange’s appeal the previous month:

  105. Arbed, thanks for the link. I don’t think I am the right person to translate that text, too technical for me, not being legally trained.

    However, I understand your fears. A decision to charge does not make “the trash” (“slasken”) publicly available, at least not before a trial and until a verdict is given. If an inquiry does not lead to a charge and a trial the information could remain secret. In this case a list of all the items in the trash was released, but only partially, since bits of it were masked.

    But, if I read the text correctly it does not say anything about the right of the accused to get access to that information.

  106. Arbed,

    The impression I got reading the article in Dagens Juridik was that the main reason the material wasn’t released was that a final verdict hadn’t yet been given. I suppose that means that long as there is a possibility to appeal, or during such an appeal, they can keep the material hidden. But I’m no expert. “Lagakraftvunnen dom” or “vunnit laga kraft” seems to be the key term. “Final verdict” or “have gained legal force” are translations found online.

  107. Thanks Axel & Blue! Sounds like it’s not quite as bad as I thought.

    Axel, you mentioned this:

    “In this case a list of all the items in the trash was released, but only partially, since bits of it were masked.”

    You couldn’t get me a link – or a link and a page reference, whatever – to that ‘trash’ list. I’ve never seen it, and even the redacted version I would like a peek at. Thanks in advance.

  108. Oh! I’ve just realised the phrase “In this case a list of all the items in the trash was released…” could be referring to the case spoken about in Dagens Juridik, and not the Assange case. Obviously, I’m not interested in the other case. Only if the ‘trash’ list is the one Marianne Ny has in Julian Assange’s case.

  109. Arbed: “Oh! I’ve just realised the phrase “In this case a list of all the items in the trash was released…” could be referring to the case spoken about in Dagens Juridik, and not the Assange case.”

    Indeed!It does refer to the case discussed by DJ.

  110. Please, someone, tell me it is not true that the crazies in Sweden are thinking of making it a criminal offence to negligently “cause discomfort” to a sexual partner:

    Whoever negligently causes another person for a sexual situation, a sense of discomfort the day after that is not insignificant, is convicted of this offense to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months. Serious offense, shall be sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding four years.


    Lex Sofia indeed, if it’s true…

  111. Hi Trenterx,

    Very interesting points you make about the possibility of real-time interception by FRA/NSA of the phone & text message traffic between Wilen, her friends, Ardin and Assange:


    I agree that thoughts along those lines could underlie Wikileaks’ two tweets yesterday. Assange’s affidavit also sees XKeyScore and/or similar surveillance programs as a key issue regarding the ability of the Swedish authorities to know the exact day he planned to leave Sweden (on 27 September 2010) to attend a business meeting in Berlin, as Stefania Maurizi of the Italian newspaper L’Espresso had used her gmail account to set it up a few weeks earlier:


    Obviously, this could have some bearing on the timing of Marianne Ny’s 27 September arrest warrant and the extraordinary fact that her warrant did NOT result in Assange being stopped at the border, but nevertheless Wikileaks’ computers containing evidence of US war crimes were stolen from Arlanda airport.

  112. Moderators, can anything be done about these pesky spambots? Or at least, can their posts be deleted?

  113. George Galloway has been banned from a BBC Scotland televised debate. Some (presumably radfem) women’s organisations, such as WomenForIndependence, chimed in on the basis of Galloway being a “rape apologist” for Julian Assange.

    I have always worried that organisations fighting for women’s rights – especially the rights of rape victims to be heard – might potentially be shooting themselves in the foot by using this particular case (Assange’s) as a cause celebre. What happens if evidence eventually emerges that proves – as Galloway puts it – “the women are lying”? With so many feminist writers and organisations taking such a strong stance against Assange, and his supporters like Galloway, prior to him even being questioned let alone charged, the backlash against us if this evidence comes out and it is as Galloway describes will be immense. Feminists will be seen as having conducted a witchhunt of an innocent man based on women making false allegations (it does happen sometimes, we all know that) and the people who will suffer most from that backlash are genuine rape victims trying to report their crimes.

    I refer people back to the 25’40” part of Galloway’s podcast about the Assange extradition, in which he definitively states he has the withheld SMS evidence of “texts between the women and between the women and Julian Assange”:


    These feminist orgs really should know better than to try to slander someone like Galloway. He doesn’t make definitive public statements unless he is very very sure of his facts. Remember how he whupped the arse of the US Senate when they tried it on with him?

  114. I suspect you’ve all seen this:

    Julian Assange lawyers lodge appeal against Swedish ruling

    The most interesting aspects are 1) timing, of course; Sweden goes to the voting booths on Sunday 14 September. Change of govt likely.

    And 2) the defence obviously plans to read out some of the withheld women’s SMSs:

    Oral hearings are rare, but Assange’s lawyers said it would be wrong for the judge to deny their request because documents regarding an “important piece of evidence” – text messages sent by the plaintiffs in August 2010 – are being withheld by the prosecution and can only be read out to the judge in open court.

    It will be very interesting to see whether they are, in fact, allowed to do this, and which texts in particular they choose to read out.

  115. I’m more and more convinced that on the morning of Friday, 20 August 2010, Anna Ardin told Donald Bostrum that when Sofia Wilen had called her Sofia had also claimed Assange had deliberately ripped a condom. In his statement, Bostrum describes how he confronted Julian directly on this matter (still on the morning of Friday, 20 August). Although it is very vaguely worded, I think Bostrum is describing to the police how he asked Assange about torn condoms in respect of both women. I try to show the exact words of Bostrum’s indicating this in these posts:

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-10/#comment-473587 [last 2 paras]

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437316 [the whole post]

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437316 [the whole post]

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437318 [section of relevant part of Bostrum statement, with my annotations]

    But, also, look at what Bostrum tells Alex Gibney in an interview included in the We Steal Secrets documentary:

    One week after the seminar Anna called me and said: “Donald, I was very proud to have the hottest man on the planet in my apartment, in my bed even, but then it happened something I didn’t like – he tore the condom and I feel very uncomfortable about it.” And then she told me that Sofia called her about the same thing. She was very concerned if she is pregnant or catch HIV or something because Julian had sex with her without a condom. They said if Julian take a HIV test, we won’t go to the police.

    I’m sure Donald Bostrum knows that the basis of Sofia Wilen’s “rape” reporting/visit to police “to seek advice about HIV testing” is actually that Wilen made (after speaking to Anna for the first time – and only after) the claim about the “pulling-balloon-sounds” torn condom. Over and over again in Bostrum’s comments, he links two sentences together which, together, imply the two women were both making allegations about torn condoms. He just hasn’t relayed that to the police very well in his transcribed statement.

  116. Arbed wrote:
    “I’m more and more convinced that on the morning of Friday, 20 August 2010, Anna Ardin told Donald Bostrum that when Sofia Wilen had called her Sofia had also claimed Assange had deliberately ripped a condom.”

    Arbed, you might have seen yesterdays’s response from the prosecutor, published here: http://www.aklagare.se/PageFiles/13838/AM-131226-10_ÖYT_40116460_20140923090131.pdf

    Julian’s Swedish lawyers are trying to get permission to read the SMS text messages to Svea Court. Marianne Ny and Ingrid Isgren do reject this very firmly. It is a big thing in their statement. I speculate that among the text messages is one which confirms that Sofia claimed that Julian ripped a condom. This would explain why text were presented to the lower court in secret session – it would strengthen Ny’s hand- yet giving no legal opportunity for Samuelsson and Olsson to argue against it in public.

  117. Hi Axel,

    Hmm, maybe – but I doubt Marianne Ny is on as firm ground as having a SW text message saying Assange ripped a condom on her too, otherwise Ny would have put that allegation and her “condom fragment” evidence in the EAW.

    Remember that nowhere else other than Mats Gehlin’s note, the mysterious presence of a condom fragment as physical evidence of unprotected sex (!) and hints in Bostrum’s statement that Anna relayed that story to him too, there is no mention in Wilen’s testimony or her friends’ of such an incident.

    Notice too that in her submitted opinion Ny uses the formulation “the SMS and Julian Assange’s interpretation of them”. So she’s referring specifically to those which have already become public via Assange’s affidavit. Maybe this is just obfuscation – to divert attention from the specific SMS requested by the defence, the “awake” one, and the phone traffic between the women, of course. And to divert attention from the fact that she claims SW’s texts are the basis of her shift from “reasonable suspicion” (the level on which she based her HAPM to the Swedish and British courts) to “probable cause” now. Reading further down in Ny’s submission we come across this:

    “The SMS messages constitute a part of the preliminary investigation for which Julian Assange has not yet been interrogated.”

    – meaning that Sweden doesn’t feel the need to ask a man any questions when investigating “rape” before deciding that a woman’s texts constitute “probable cause”-level evidence.

    Marianne Ny has a problem. She knows the Assange team has copies of 22 SMS, but she doesn’t know which ones. She is utterly desperate to keep all the remaining 96 SMS secret, which I suggest means she knows they clearly exonerate Assange.

  118. Point taken. Do you say that there are 96+22= 118 text messages? Olsson and Samuelsson have also requested information about mobile telephone traffic. Metadata, I suppose. Who called who at what time?

  119. Hi Axel,

    No, no – I mean we’ve seen 4, leaving 96 to make up the full 100 – and out of that 1000 the Assange team has 22, therefore another 18 are not public yet.

    I can think of a couple of those latter ones (which have been being quietly passed around, though not by the Assange people AFAIK) that could be interpreted negatively towards Assange – but as soon as one works out from the timestamps where they fit into the sequence of events/general context they speak in the opposite direction. Oh, and then AA went and ruined Ny’s chances of using the most obvious one by being so indiscreet on Twitter…

  120. Bah! typo: 100, not 1000

  121. Arbed: “Oh, and then AA went and ruined Ny’s chances of using the most obvious one by being so indiscreet on Twitter…”

    Remind me, please.

  122. Hi Osa at Flashback forum!


    Let’s all help the DN to find something to review and write about.

    Good to see DN.se soliciting anonymous submissions for investigative reporting on bias and corruption. You asked people to find something from the Flashback Assange thread to drop in DN’s submission portal. How about the pages from the HAPM concerning the forensic report [English translation: http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/07/01/the-lab-results/, with the following ideas/questions for DN to follow up?

    1. Why is a fragment of used condom considered to be ‘evidence’ in respect of an allegation about non-use of a condom in a consensual sexual encounter, when none of the parties deny that the sex took place?

    2. Where is the seizure protocol authorising the acquisition of this condom fragment as evidence? [A seizure protocol exists for the other, full-sized condom analysed in the forensic report, but not for the fragment.] When, where and by whom was the condom fragment passed to police?

    3. What is the relevance of the forensic report finding that the condom fragment was torn by the same method as the “used” condom with no DNA traces on it?

    4. Has a follow-up forensic report been requested for analysis/opinion as to *how* a condom can be torn without leaving any traces of DNA? Exactly what methods/precautions would need to be taken to avoid DNA transference from hands, nails or male/female genitals to the condom?

    5. Is the prosecutor Marianne Ny thinking of bringing charges of evidence-tampering and/or submission of fake evidence in light of the forensic report findings? Would these apply to one woman, or both? Or is there a third-party suspect for these potential charges?

  123. The Assange defence team’s response to the Swedish prosecutor’s arguments against the latest appeal to drop the arrest warrant (and hence the EAW) has gone in. The prosecutor now has until 27 October to respond to this document and then the SVEA court will announce what it plans to do next.


    If you are interested in the Assange extradition case, this document is really worth reading in full. It’s 11 pages plus two short appendices, all in English and the legal arguments contained in it are crystal-clear.

    TL:DR? The document covers:

    1. European case law regarding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty that the Swedish prosecutor is breaking and that, contrary to prosecutor arguments, Assange’s time in the embassy counts towards the length of time he’s been detained. (This will affect the cost of compensation due further down the line.)

    2. Matters pertaining to the principle of proportionality in the prosecutor’s attempt to pressure Assange to give up his political asylum.

    3. That the prosecutor’s claim that she needs to interrogate Assange in custody in Sweden is incoherent, especially as regards taking a DNA swab – she has already agreed in the UK Supreme Court Agreed Facts that one was taken when Assange was first arrested in December 2010.

    4. A motion that the SVEA court rules the prosecutor must hand over the women’s phone and text traffic to the court. Alternatively, a motion that SVEA applies to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the matter. (A new Swedish law that suspects have a legal right to know the evidentiary basis of their arrest is derived directly from an ECHR Directive in 2012. The prosecutor has tried to argue against this.)

    5. Discussion of UK law on precedence and how rival extradition requests from the US and Sweden would normally be treated, backed by an affidavit from a UK extradition law expert.

  124. The two short appendices to the Assange appeal are on the Swedish version (in English), not the English version above.


  125. Many thanks to Mary for posting MP Philip Davies question in the House of Commons regarding how much money had been collected from Julian Assange’s bail sureties:


    I’m trying to find out what prompted him to submit this question to the Justice Minister, and why now (question dated early September)? It’s a few days before the latest appeal to the SVEA court was submitted, but well after the original appeal to Stockholm District Court back in June.

  126. Swedish prosecutor got her response to Julian Assange’s appeal into the SVEA court last night on deadline, but what a dog’s dinner her legal argument is:


    The SVEA court, clearly embarrassed at the thought of ruling against Assange on the basis of said dog’s dinner, have thrown the ball back to the defence team to buy some more time – until 3 November:

    http://www.svea.se/Avgoranden-och-pagaende-mal/Pagaende-langmal/Information-om-overklagandet-av-Julian-Assange-betraffande-haktning/ [includes English translation]

    This appeal started in June and all the back-n-forth-ing since then is like watching a match at Wimbledon (though it’s clear who’s delivering all the aces, I still suspect the match may be fixed…)

  127. And here’s another one – especially intriguing for those who like sluething around in the Assange case. Any chance one of our Swedish visitors could re-post this to the Flashback forum?

    Anyway, to the intrigue…

    Rixstep (the translator into English of the leaked Swedish police protocol & best source for news on the Assange case) has written a rather excellent article:

    The Curious Case of Assange in Sweden:

    It’s quite long but covers all the bases. In the middle, though, there’s this:

    “One very well known journalist in Stockholm has reportedly told others in confidence that the second girl [Sofia Wilen] is one of the best honeypots in town. A spook group from a foreign country has reportedly had information to offer on the same girl. Neither lead has ever been followed up.”

    Which well-known Swedish MSM journalist? Which foreign intel agency? Which “others” gossip about Wilen as the best local honeypot? Who did the foreign intel agency offer info on Sofia Wilen too? Time for some serious sleuthing…

  128. Good link here discussing Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny’s tactics as regards the women’s SMS/phone traffic – and why she is withholding all but one or two of the 100 texts known to exist (these 1 or 2 she interprets as providing “probable cause” evidence of rape) from being viewed and analysed by either Assange’s defence team or by the courts themselves:

    Assange Case: Something Sick About the SMS

    and this article discusses a ruling by Sweden’s SVEA Court of Appeal earlier this year giving Swedish police permission to destroy any evidence a prosecutor elects not to use in court proceedings [known as an investigation’s ‘slops bucket’ – something which must be immediately handed over to a defence team as soon as charges are brought, though this generally gives defence lawyers approx. 10-14 days to analyse whatever’s in those ‘slops’, at least that WAS the case until this SVEA ruling, I believe]. If Assange’s arrest is rescinded and the case dropped – or even if it continues in its current frozen deadlock until the statute of limitations runs out – this would potentially have the effect of putting the women’s SMS forever beyond the reach of any Freedom of Information request or public view.


    Comments, anyone?

  129. The UK is to hold an important Parlimentary debate/vote on whether Britain should continue to use the European Arrest Warrant, or opt-out of the EAW entirely and there’s a campaign and template letter to email to MPs ahead of Monday to get Julian Assange’s case raised in the debate.


    Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx MP,

    Parliamentary debate on the European Arrest Warrant, 10th Nov 2014 – Julian Assange

    I am writing to ask you to raise the case of Julian Assange during the upcoming Parliamentary vote on whether the UK should opt out of the EAW entirely. The cost issue sets Julian Assange’s case apart from other extradition cases and shows how badly wrong things can go when the EAW system is abused. See this website for details: govwaste.co.uk

    The government is trying to hide behind the recent EAW reforms, but they don’t deal with the fundamental problems of the European Arrest Warrant, which leaves British judges little alternative but to rubber-stamp extraditions without any prima facie evidence being presented. Adding that a ‘decision’ to charge has to have been taken does little to prevent misuse when the person issuing the EAW is an official (investigator/prosecutor) rather than a judicial figure (judge/magistrate), as in Sweden’s system. EAWs issued by non-judicial authorities cannot be blindly trusted to be independent and impartial, especially when the issuing authority also has the role of Chief Investigator, as is the case with Marianne Ny, the Swedish prosecutor demanding Mr Assange’s extradition for questioning over allegations of sexual misconduct.

    The rushed introduction of the EAW into British law has led to the UK having to aid unjust proceedings in other parts of Europe, often at enormous cost. The Assange arrest warrant is a case in point: it has cost UK taxpayers nearly £8 million in just over two years. Since 2012, the UK has spent 20% of its entire EU extradition budget against Assange, the equivalent of 600 extraditions when calculated on the average £13,000 cost per extradition.

    Britain has also borne the cost of facilitating Sweden’s misguided use of the EAW to extradite Julian Assange through the UK legal system, when Mutual Legal Assistance protocols could have been used to question him all along. The Assange embassy situation is an absurd consequence of enforcing an arrest warrant where there is no formal accusation. Not only has he not been charged – the Swedish prosecutor won’t even come here to interview him.

    The case of Julian Assange provides ample illustration that there are insufficient safeguards in the judicial systems of other European countries and the EAW basically extraterritorialises these, imports them wholesale, makes the UK bear the costs, and obliges it to execute the orders. That is unsatisfactory and should be unacceptable for any parliamentarian concerned about their constituents’ rights as UK citizens or residents.

    Yours sincerely,
    Your name

  130. A recent UK Supreme Court judgment is relevant to the issue currently being appealed through Sweden’s SVEA Court that phone & SMS traffic between the women and some witnesses should be released by Marianne Ny to the court and/or Assange’s defence team.

    Here’s a UK Supreme Court tweet about it:

    UKSC dismisses VB’s appeal v Westminster Mags’ Ct: evidence in extradition case must be disclosed to both parties http://ow.ly/DQBRt

    The link contains a further link to a press summary of the judgment:


    “the relevance, truthfulness & persuasiveness of evidence cannot be tested in a closed hearing”

  131. Thanks – very interesting.
    Sandy Harris
    Palo Alto, CA

    re: Citizenfour
    I was shocked at how fabulous Snowden looks on film–it’s as if each person in this documentary was cast with the utmost care.
    They all look good and speak as if the words are from a screenplay.
    “Remember, it’s better to look good than feel good.” paraphrasing Billy Chrystle (sp?) SNL

    *did I flunk the math part?

  132. John Pilger has just written an excellent summary of the Assange extradition situation.

    The siege of Julian Assange is a farce – a special investigation:

    The most interesting part, in terms of the Parliament’s debate about the EAW, is this:

    The Assange case finally reached the UK Supreme Court in May 2012. In a judgement that upheld the EAW – whose rigid demands had left the courts almost no room for manoeuvre – the judges found that European prosecutors could issue extradition warrants in the UK without any judicial oversight, even though Parliament intended otherwise. They made clear that Parliament had been “misled” by the Blair government. The court was split, 5-2, and consequently found against Assange.

    However, the Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, made one mistake. He applied the Vienna Convention on treaty interpretation, allowing for state practice to override the letter of the law. As Assange’s barrister, Dinah Rose QC, pointed out, this did not apply to the EAW.

    The Supreme Court only recognised this crucial error when it dealt with another appeal against the EAW in November last year. The Assange decision had been wrong, but it was too late to go back.

    and this:

    The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament will eventually vote on a reformed EAW. The draconian catch-all used against him could not happen now; charges would have to be brought and “questioning” would be insufficient grounds for extradition. “His case has been won lock, stock and barrel,” Gareth Peirce told me, “these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit. And the genuineness of Ecuador’s offer of sanctuary is not questioned by the UK or Sweden.”

  133. Prompted by some revealing comments about Andrew O’Hagan’s Ghosting tell-all in his last blog post on the Assange EAW, Dr Bernard Porter has written a rather good follow-up.

    Julian Assange and the European Arrest Warrant:

    Meanwhile, Swedish leaks site UnderMattan has revealed that an IP address registered to the European Court of Justice was taking a look at UnderMattan’s page dedicated to the Assange case (including virtually all the original documents that have been leaked or otherwise become public) on the day after the SVEA court handed down its verdict that the arrest in absentia had to stay in place (while criticising Marianne Ny for breaching her obligation to progress the investigation):


  134. Following some revealing readers’ comments on his last blog post about the Assange EAW (http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2014/11/11/bernard-porter/assange-and-the-european-arrest-warrant/), Dr Bernard Porter has written a rather good follow-up.

    Julian Assange and the European Arrest Warrant:

    Meanwhile, Swedish leak site UnderMattan has revealed that an IP address registered to the European Court of Justice visited UnderMattan’s page dedicated to Assange (inc. all leaked, FOI’d and otherwise public original documents) on 21 Nov, the day after the SVEA court ruled the arrest in absentia should continue and criticised Ny for breaching her obligations to progress the investigation:


  135. Test

    Moderators – I’ve tried several times and a post I want to make is failing to appear. It has three links in it: one to an London Review of Books article, a tweet, and a link to Swedish leaks site UnderMattan. The weird thing is, I’ve tried to post it to Squonk’s blog too and it won’t post there either. Can you advise, please?

  136. Arbed

    Seems the spam filter ate your posts. It’s now been told you are not a spammer and the comments released from the queue.

  137. It appears that Marianne Ny’s Sex Crimes Development Unit spent all day on 24 August 2010 (the day after, we think, Claes Borgstrom first contacted his old friend about re-opening the Assange case) creating a new document called “Compilation – of law of Sexual Offences”:


    The document itself is linked within that link, but here it is if anyone wants to analysis it further or use it as a handy reference of Swedish sex offences legislation:


  138. In Sweden’s recent Universal Periodic Review of its human rights record by the UNHRC, it came under fire from Latin America (as a bloc – Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay, Cuba and Nicaragua; Slovakia joined in too) for its behaviour in the Assange case:


    In its interim response, Sweden “admitted the possibility to explore some measures to unlock the stalled legal process” (owtte) and that it would take on board some of the recommendations of the above countries. It has until mid-June to finalise its full report-back to UNHRC on what actions it will take. The one disappointment was that Sweden still refuses to recognise the concept of diplomatic asylum.


  139. On the topic of “Wow”… (hard to be off-topic on this thread, haha)

    On 1st January Sweden rewrote its constitution – and its previously exemplary Press Freedom laws – to create two new offences involving “foreign espionage” and publishing information that “affect[s] any matter of a secret nature” in military operations in which Sweden is participating (eg, Afghanistan).

    Here’s the law reform. Proposed Feb 2013, effective Jul 2014 and constitution changed 1 January 2015:

    Enhanced criminal law protection against espionage


    War Journalism needs to be free

    It’s not mentioned explicitly here but the new law also covers “harm” to any of Sweden’s military partners, therefore enabling it to be used to extradite publishers of info on US war crimes in countries in which Sweden has a military presence – for example, war crimes detailed in Wikileaks’ Afghan War Diaries.

    No cigar for guessing who this legislation is aimed at.

  140. I was very saddened to learn that Rafik Saley succumbed to cancer yesterday afternoon. He was the main researcher and co-wrote this article with Okoth Osewe and myself. RIP Rafik.


  141. Hi John,

    Very sad, RIP Rafik. Brilliant article you both wrote there.

    Since the time of that article, Sweden is still at the ol’ renditions game. Just last week Sweden’s spy service SAPO chartered a private plane to rendition an asylum seeker tortured at the behest of the FBI back to the land of his torturers [USA]

    Aftonbladet 13/2/15: Alleged tortured by FBI, sent off by SAPO:

    Translated into English: https://archive.today/clGLI

  142. It seems Julian Assange and legal team made a submission to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – apparently about six months ago (the 2nd paragraph dates it to 816 days in the Ecuador embassy – he’s now been there 983 days):


    It’s 42 pages and well worth reading in full, if you have the time. If not, here’s some highlights:

    Para 75 – The UK promised to produce a ‘legal text’ to secure Assange’s human rights protection. They dropped the idea when he helped Edward Snowden to escape the US’s clutches.

    Para 65-71 – The UK’s & Sweden’s assertions that they “don’t recognise diplomatic asylum” are without merit. Both are already full Parties to the 1951 Geneva Convention “without reservations”.

    Para 86-90 – The “rich history” of Western nations’ use of diplomatic asylum, including the US in 2012, the UK, Sweden…

    Para 98 – is a corker! In a July 2014 press conference, the Swedish prosecutor herself sets out 4 ways in which she’s broken Swedish law in the Assange case.

    Para 100-104 – summary of gross abuse of Swedish & international law in prosecutor’s refusal to interview Assange abroad.

    Para 105-109 – summary of points of law relevant to Assange being denied any opportunity over four years to defend himself against allegations & “to dispel long shadow of suspicion” first cast by Sweden illegally leaking his name to the press.

    Release of the complaint to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention about Sweden and the UK has coincided with the filing of an appeal to Sweden’s Supreme Court:


    Fair Trials International has submitted an amicus brief in support of the latter:


  143. Hi Arbed, thanks for keeping this important thread going, and thanks for the latest link in Julian Assange’s forced incarceration appeal. I will try to get time to read it when I have attended to a lot of other pressing issues.

    The SAPO rendition is disturbing. There are good people in Sweden but I do not know what has happened to change it into a best buddy of the USA. I suspect Sweden, like many other countries, is the victim of US ‘financial aid’, that is , aid with ties. We need to ditch the dollar.


  144. He’s not under forced incarceration he’s free to leave and defend himself against those allegations any time he wishes.

    I don’t think anybody cares anymore.

  145. Thanks Kempe, for proving that you stick with your blind ol’ prejudices and wouldn’t let a little bit of informed reading get in your way.

    Or are you claiming to have fully digested the legal arguments in the three documents I linked already?

  146. “I don’t think anybody cares anymore.”

    I don’t think Kempe ever cared, not for anyone or anything anti-establishment. No loss without his snide comments.

  147. free european

    14 Mar, 2015 - 12:18 am

    The dark connections Ms Ardin has make her a first class suspect for being an aide of some organizations which are not Swedish. She might just disappear if inquiries become too intense – and stay gone forever. Time will tell.

  148. I wouldn’t trust the Swedish offer of questioning. There might be technical reasons for it in relation to statutes of limitations. It might be to keep the investigation legally ‘alive’ and Assange effectively sequestered.

    Also, after questioning Assange in London, they can move to either issuing a warrant for his arrest for the purposes of charging him or for prosecution if they charge him in absentia. The merits of their case are irrelevant. Sweden would be no different to any other country in having people charged and tried, only to see their cases dismissed by the courts for lack of merit.

    What that would do, is flush Assange out into the open where all manner of threats await him. There’s been plenty of time for someone to concoct a solid plan to neutralise Assange under circumstances that only ‘crazy conspiracy theorists’ would ascribe to the US.

  149. Free European, I tend to agree regarding Anna Ardin, and perhaps Sofia Wilen too. She almost certainly has links to the CIA.

    Jemand, I would not trust them either. The only thing that makes me think positively is the fact that since the new government came to power it was the first country to recognise Palestine. Of course Assange has to be careful. If after questioning him there is no case to answer, he should be free to return to Australia (a country which has really let him down) and that is where he would be safest. There is a lot of support for him in Australia, if not from the Australian government.

  150. Reuters report:


    One of Assange’s lawyers said he welcomed the request but expressed concern the process could take time because approval was needed from British and Ecuadorian authorities. […] Ecuador’s embassy in London could not immediately be reached for comment.
    Even if Sweden drops the investigation, he faces arrest by British police for jumping bail granted while the UK courts considered a European arrest warrant issued by Sweden. Samuelson said Assange and his lawyers had to discuss the request from Swedish prosecutors, who also want to sample his DNA, before responding. A Swedish appeals court late last year upheld a detention order on Assange, but said prosecutors had not made enough effort to question him.

    The main reason for prosecutors’ change of heart is that several crimes Assange is suspected of are subject to a statute of limitations expiring in August. Prosecutor Marianne Ny said she still believed questioning him at the embassy would lower the quality of the interview and he would need to be in Sweden should the case come to a trial.

    “Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies to the investigation,” she said in a statement.

    Sweden’s Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to hear his request to lift the warrant for Assange’s arrest and has asked the prosecutor to submit an opinion before a decision can be taken.

    London’s police chief said last month the cost of keeping watch on Assange was a drain on police resources and the operation was under review.

    (This version of the story corrects paragraph 8 to show Sweden has not charged Assange)

    (Additional reporting by Michael Holden and Guy Faulconbridge in London; Editing by Niklas Pollard and Tom Heneghan)

  151. “If after questioning him there is no case to answer, he should be free to return to Australia (a country which has really let him down) and that is where he would be safest. There is a lot of support for him in Australia, if not from the Australian government.”

    John, absolutely. The tricky part is the journey.

  152. Marianne Ny’s face-saving statement that she will need to take a DNA sample from Assange as part of the Ecuadorian embassy interview is a busted flush.

    First, she’d already agreed in the UK Supreme Court’s Agreed Facts that Assange gave the Metropolitan police a DNA sample, taken “under lawful authority” on 7 December 2010 (paragraph 38 of the Agreed Facts)


    Second, Marianne Ny’s own Gothenburg Development Centre guidelines on DNA sampling say that a 2nd DNA sample should NOT be taken if one is either on the DNA register or a DNA sample has already been taken as part of the investigation (page 7)


  153. On top of that she has some rather stringent hoops to jump through in order to meet the criteria for Mutual Legal Assistance from the UK police (see Section 2)


    She won’t like having to produce her evidence to back her LoR (Letter of Request), but I doubt the Home Office will throw the request out on the basis that the investigation is “trivial”. The UK wants shot of that £10m-and-counting policing bill soooo badly…

    Meanwhile, a former high-ranking prosecutor wrote a very damning op-ed in Sweden’s SvD newspaper. Said she has brought “disgrace to our country” and should resign. Also, points out how “it is not common” for a prosecutor to elect herself to be lead investigator too. Which is precisely the point Assange argued at the UK Supreme Court – how can a “lead investigator” be an “impartial judicial authority”? Such a corrupt ruling that Supreme Court decision…

    http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2015/03/17/the-prosecutor-in-the-assange-case-should-be-replaced/ [English translation]

  154. Excellent article by Rolf Hillegren, the bottom link in this comment.


    Thanks for posting Arbed, and for all the good work you do on this thread.

  155. This is in German, pls find someone who can read it for you. I once started to translate it but I got stuck in one (irrelevant) part that was ambivalent. It does not say it all but when you reflect on her CV, you do wonder.


  156. Translation of Swedish Supreme Court’s 4:1 verdict on Assange’s appeal, with the dissenting opinion that the current detention order should be dropped:


    In summary, and quite ludicrously, the court used the fact that Marianne Ny agreed in March 2015 (4.5 years late!) to travel to London to interview Assange as justification that the arrest order should stay in place. As if an investigation in which the suspect is wholly co-operative – in fact has welcomed the questioning, agreeing to all Ny’s special conditions (even though some are not in accordance with Swedish law) cannot continue regardless of whether the detention order is lifted or not.

    A month ago Marianne Ny claimed she was putting in the formal paperwork for a London interview – http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/The-prosecutors-ask-Assange-for-clarifications/. It was a lie. Today Ecuador announced that they are still waiting for her application to arrive:


  157. Couple of interesting articles, perhaps giving further explanation of Sweden’s treatment of Assange:

    US data: Swedish money to the Clinton Foundation would prevent Iran sanctions:

    Bill Clinton’s foundation cashed in as Sweden lobbied Hillary on sanctions:

  158. Two very interesting FOIA requests to the UK Home Office.

    One concerning the number of times between November 2010 and March 2015 Sweden has requested to interview someone in the UK under MLA:

    FOI – MLA requests from Sweden asking for individuals to be interviewed:

    Answer: Sweden would not interview Assange in UK but made 165 other requests to UK including 22 for GBH/murder, and asked to interview 44 people during 1,594 days it refused to question Assange.

    The second FOIA asks whether the UK police deploy the same hand-held surveillance radars being used in the US that can see through walls (these: http://www.mintpressnews.com/new-police-radars-are-being-used-to-see-inside-homes/205424/) a) at all and b) at the Ecuadorian embassy:

    FOI – UK surveillance of Ecuadorean embassy in London:

    Answer: UK Home Office refuses to confirm or deny, both questions.

  159. Thanks mods for re-opening the comments so I can post this latest bit of news in the Assange v Sweden saga. It’s really useful to have somewhere that can be a sort of one-stop-shop archive of the case. Thank you.

    Latest Assange v Sweden news

    The Will She, Won’t She game by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, who promised the Swedish Supreme Court back in March that she was finally going to question Assange in London, continues. The statute of limitations runs out on most of the sex allegations against Assange on 18 August. Latest news is that the appointment agreed for the long-awaited interrogation on 17 Jun – cancelled by Ny at the last minute – turns out to have been nothing more than a PR stunt gone wrong. Apparently, she’d deliberately sent her formal application to Ecuador to use their embassy too late for them to process it but had tipped off a tabloid paparazzi about the time of the supposedly secret interrogation so he’d be there outside the embassy in Hans Crescent to capture the moment her deputy prosecutor Ingrid Isgren was turned away at the door.

    And booked herself on holiday from the following day to 8 July, though her spokesman claimed yesterday she’s still on holiday and there “unavailable for comment”.

    Details here: http://wiseupaction.info/2015/07/16/sweden-fails-to-call-another-chapter-in-the-pre-trial-punishment-of-julian-assange/

    Ecuador’s press release: https://archive.is/i3Cwv

    Assange’s press release: https://justice4assange.com/Prosecutor-cancels-Assange-meeting.html

    The Swedes are getting fed up with her and want her gone:


  160. So, most of the case against Assange has collapsed, with Marianne Ny – and now the full Justice Department behind her – foot-dragging in the most painfully visible way to avoid questioning him before the statute of limitations expired on Anna Ardin’s allegations (and her patently fake “torn during sex” condom revealed by the forensics report).

    For those of us who’ve watched this investigation from the start, Ny’s press release of 13th August 2015 has virtually no truthful content in it:


    Except for this bit:

    “Today, 13 August 2015, an incident of suspected unlawful coercion and an incident of sexual molestation will be time barred. On 18 August, an additional incident of sexual molestation will be time barred. Concurrently a suspected sexual molestation, of which Julian Assange has not been detained, will be time barred.”

    Cleverly worded. Note how that’s 4 allegations dropped there, not 3 as reported by most of the press. The fourth allegation – a “molestation” offence – wasn’t on the EAW (“of which Julian Assange has not been detained”). This is the allegation for which AA’s easily disproven allegations was a “placeholder” – and relates to Sofia Wilen’s torn condom fragment that also appears in the forensic report.

    Fuller explanation in my post of 4 Feb 2014:

    Looks like the Swedish prosecutor is going to protect Sofia Wilen too from prosecution for handing in faked evidence. The case now rests solely on whether Marianne Ny thinks she can prove that Assange knew Wilen was “asleep” or “half-asleep” for 30 seconds before she consented to unprotected sex.

  161. The Italian newspaper L’Expresso has obtained 222 pages of FOIA documents between the UK Crown Prosecution service and the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. Also between her and the Ecudorians about the embassy interrogation. The emails reveal that in January 2011 the CPS advised against interviewing in London, on the basis it might show the Swedes had no case.

    L’Expresso [in English] Five years confined: New FOIA documents shed light on the Julian Assange case:

    Pdf of source docs: http://speciali.espresso.repubblica.it/pdf/ja-foia-files.pdf

    Press Association write-up, including reaction of CPS to disclosure:

    (The statement by CPS that “the Swedish Authorities were and remain ready to prosecute Mr Assange” is knowingly false, as evidenced by Ny’s 19th January 2011 email to the CPS included in the FOIA cache, in which she sets out why, under Swedish law, she’s unable to make a decision to prosecute until the preliminary investigation – including, of course, questioning Julian Assange – is completed.)

    Guardian write-up, including reaction of Swedish Prosecution Authority and that Assange team may launch legal challenge to extradition now:

    (Ny’s unavailable to comment as she’s “on holiday” – again… – and the prosecutor sent to interview Assange on 17 Jun (cancelled at no notice) “has no information on the case before 2013″)

  162. It seems Sweden’s Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ann Linde, who has been put in charge of negotiating the Mutual Legal Assistance treaty with Ecuador necessary for questioning of Assange in the London embassy, has since been keeping some very distinguished company in UK and US natsec intelligence circles. Oh, and she’s a friend of Anna Ardin.

    How impartial are the Sweden/ Ecuador Mutual Legal Assistance talks?

1 8 9 10

Leave a Reply

Basic formatting: <strong>Bold</strong>   <em>Italics</em>  <blockquote>Indented/quoted</blockquote>  <a href="http://example.com/link">Link text</a>

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud