Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar 2004


I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.

The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.

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:

Either

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.

Or

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.

At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”

At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.

The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.

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. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.

Conclusion

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.

Liked this article? Share using the links below. Then View Latest Posts


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2,004 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar

1 9 10 11 12 13 67
  • Orb

    @Rudling I don’t see why you should almost take over the comment section and make this a matter of whether Ardin’s presence can be deduced from Donald Boström’s testimony or not. I regret allowing myself to be dragged into and contributing to the issue, and I’ll try to stop here.

  • technicolour

    Villager, I think one can say ‘on the whole’, because that’s the way that one paragraph seems to read – but to actually make concrete sense of this, one would have to re-interview the witnesses. I agree with Orb – don’t think there’s anymore to say about this.

  • evgueni

    Goran,
    regarding the (hypothetical?) gang rape scenario. Are you implying that only the 1st man would be deemed to have committed rape? If so, could the other two be accused of ‘sexual molestation’?

  • JimmyGiro

    A horrible thought:

    Sophie Wilan is the loose canon. She maybe an innocent, being used, or a neurotic, also being used; but she has disappeared off the current radar.

    No doubt this is due to the Swedish vulvocracy’s edict of ‘protecting the victims’, but in reality it is silencing them from speaking independently from the State bureaucracy.

    Will we be reading a story soon that Sophia has ‘committed suicide’? As far as the bureaucracy is concerned, it would be a double win of both silencing the lamb, and ‘confirming’ her victimhood.

  • Göran Rudling

    Orb,

    Ardins phone record for that day could tell what she was doing during Sofias 16.21-18.40 interview with Krans.

    Anna’s phone record does tell what she did while Sofia was at the police. It is all in the police interviews of you can read it. From Donald’s interview:

    So that, yes, on Friday afternoon Anna phoned me fairly often, or we phoned each other a great many times that Friday. Then she said, “Now Sofia is with the police. Now I have been with the police”, and there is talk of HIV tests again . . .

    Seems like all of Mr Murray’s numerous sources that cannot be revealed are making stuff up again.

    Or maybe the above has to be to interpreted to mean that Anna made that phone call while being present during Sofia’s interview since Mr Murray “knows” she was present for the the whole interview. For Craig it “does seem to indicate very plainly that Anna WAS in the room when Sofia told police her story – I can see no other possible interpretation. Which again leads me to believe that Goran is spreading disinformation.”

    Facts wrong, claims wrong, sources false, ….. and now interpretations wrong.

    Craig specialises in talking nonsense with an air of great authority. Try sunglasses.

  • Orb

    Göran, you’ve read Linda Wassberg’s PM. It says she talked with Anna and Sofia separately after they had presented their problem together. When Ardin tells Boström that “now Sofia is with the police” it could be about Sofia’s talk with Wassberg. With your great deductive skills you could have thought of that yourself.

    Between 14.00 and 16.21 there must have been a few breaks allowing Ardin to make calls or text Boström. Even if she shuts down her phone at 16.21 she could still be said to have had an intensive contact with Boström during the afternoon. You can neither prove nor disprove that she was present at Krans’s interview. People may have sources they don’t want to make public. Why not respect that?

    According to some sources, Sofia and Anna got together already the day before, or at least early on Friday. If they had time to compare their stories before the interview, it matter less for Ardin’s own interview if she was present during Krans’s interview. She more or less knew the important facts already. Perhaps they even compared notes afterwards, before Ardin’s phone interview the day after.

    It’d be interesting to know where Ardin spent the night between Thursday and Friday. And at what time Assange left Ardin’s flat on Friday.

  • Orb

    Correction: When I said got together already on Thursday or Friday morning, I meant were in touch from about that time (phone and SMS) about the “rape”/HIV thing.

  • Clark

    Göran Rudling, I’m the other moderator here. Craig usually watches the comment threads for only a short time after each of his original posts. He is not ignoring your comments; you’ve had more replies from him than most commenters get. He is very busy and is involved in many things, including writing a book, which, he tells me, is the most demanding thing he’s ever written. Craig has engaged in debate with you, so I think he will have checked some sources more thoroughly next time he writes about this.

    Craig has asked you this:

    “For your next post, I invite you to do this. Set out the timeline I set out, leaving in everything that is fair and accurate and correcting anything you believe to be wrong. That would be constructive.”

    I, too, think this would be constructive.

    I understand your point about the hypothetical rape of a fifteen year old. I’ve read that the definition of rape in Sweden is based upon force, not consent. Thus, you’re saying that under Swedish law, the first man would have committed rape, but not the other two. This is obviously unjust.

    I suspect that I understand what is going on in Sweden regarding rape enforcement. The rape law is badly constructed. However, instead of that law being changed, the investigation, enforcement and legal systems, from the police to the courts, has been subjected to political pressure to try to secure more convictions under the wrongly defined law. Thus Sweden has acquired closed trials in sex offence cases and partisan judges. This has satisfied neither rape victims nor people accused of rape. The whole thing has become a bitter and futile battle.

    You have been trying to get the flawed law changed. My guess is that you have suffered bitter criticism from both sides, and thus you have become very sensitive about defending your views, to the point that you argue in a hostile manner.

    I suspect that you have decreased your credibility with Craig by accusing him of lying. Craig is rightly proud of his honesty. When he was told by the British government to keep quiet about torture in Uzbekistan, Craig refused. He was then falsely accused of professional misconduct, including sexual allegations. He was sacked, he suffered a breakdown and his career was ruined. Craig has suffered greatly for his honesty.

    Please do your best to be calm and patient. I will be reading source documents when I get time. Please remember that much of the original material is not available in English. Most of us here can’t read Swedish, so we have to rely on secondary sources. This increases the opportunities for misunderstanding, error and distortion.

    I will be returning to this thread, but I will be very busy over the weekend. Congratulations on all your work and blogging.

  • Göran Rudling

    Dearest Orb,

    I am most surprised of your comment. I’ll explain why. There is no evidence whatsoever that indicates that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview. Zero. Nada. Noll.

    What you are doing now borders insanity. You are doing everything you can to try to discard the evidence that exists that proves that Anna was not present at Sofia’s interview. And you do it by editing. Why don’t you do what is most logical, find the evidence that supports the claim that Anna was present. According to Mr Murray there are “numerous” sources. So why don’t you ask Mr Murry to reveal just one.

    I think you are a conspiracy theorist at heart. For some reason you want to maintain Mr Murray’s and your idea that Anna was present at Sofia’s interview. Why is it so important to you? Isn’t there any other “non-existing evidence” that the case is “political”?

    Mr. Murray has claimed that there are “numerous sources” that proves that Anna was present at Sofia’s interview. So far he has not shown one. Not one. Ask him to prove that Anna was present. There are millions of people claiming that pigs can fly. Not one has shown one pig flying. And that is according to your logic proof that pigs can fly.

    What you are doing now is walking into the swamp of misrepresented facts, half-truths, innuendo, incorrect interpretations etc that I thought was Mr. Murray’s private property. Why do you do it? What do you think you gain by it?

    I have read the Memo by Linda Wassgren. I am the person that has posted the Memo on several sites to help people understand what happened at the police station on 20 August. Don’t forget that I am miles better in Swedish than in English.

    You state:
    When Ardin tells Boström that “now Sofia is with the police” it could be about Sofia’s talk with Wassberg.

    Yes if you edit the statement that way. If you edit the statement like this, “with the police” what would it mean? Who is with the police? When? And who isn’t? And why? Everybody could be with the police. And nobody with Julian. No wonder he feels abandoned. Scary thought. Why not go and cry with Correa?

    The original police interview reads “Och nu, berättar hon, nu är Sofia hos polisen. Nu har jag varit hos polisen och så är det HIV-tester igen och …..” Do you want me to translate?

    Yes it is most likely that Anna got to know about Julian’s sex with Sofia on Thursday 19 August. And if that’s true Mr Murray’s so called detective work falls to ground like an ill constructed sand castle.

    But Mr. Murray is still asking “Why didn’t Anna Ardin warn Sofia Wilén”?

    And I am asking why isn’t Mr Murray revealing just one of his “numerous” sources?

    Follow up is coming

  • Jemand

    @JimmyGiro

    I hope your fears are unfounded. The reports regarding SW depict her as a sort of ingenue. Her romantic fantasy involving JA as a dashing cavalier could not have been more doomed – the truth about love and politics being rude lessons in life. Now she appears to be in hiding. Are people counselling her to silence? Warning others off from questioning her? I think her story is a potential threat to the extradition case and must not be allowed to be told in public – at least not before JA is in the hands of the US DOJ. After that, it will simply be an academic point that we sullenly lament.

  • JimmyGiro

    You can’t make this up. Louise Mensche who criticised Mr. Murray about naming accusers on Newsnight, is now bemoaning the advice from Naomi Wolf, who advocates the naming of accusers as with the accused.

    But get this: Louise Mensche now calls herself Louise Bagshawe, only weeks later:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372

    What’s in a name Louise; a self promoting crayfish, who used our democracy to grandstand her ego, will still smell as sweet as a quim, by any other name.

  • Göran Rudling

    Clark,

    “Craig has asked you this:

    “For your next post, I invite you to do this. Set out the timeline I set out, leaving in everything that is fair and accurate and correcting anything you believe to be wrong. That would be constructive.”

    I, too, think this would be constructive.”

    But if you want me to translate why do you send me comments like the one above?

    I can only interpret your comment from 15 Sep, 2012 – 4:05 am as one is allowed to agree with Mr Murray in any way and form and if that includes calling me things it is okay.

    When I show evidence that Mr Murray is ill informed, and so are his “numerous sources”, and/or he is making things up I am asked to set a timeline out. I have asked Mr Murray to show one source and/or some of information that shows that Anna Ardin was present at Sofia Wilén’s interview. So far Mr Murray has responded. His comments are bizarre ways of saying he likes/dislikes my sunglasses. Please ask Mr Murray to back up his claims. In his response he may comment my sunglasses it he thinks it is important.

    I fully understand that I have no “right to comment” on Mr Murray’s blog and that you can stop me at any time and you don’t have to give a reason. I have also noted that a number of comments are far less constructive than mine. Some are not even related to the subject Mr Murray is writing about but directed at me personally.

  • Göran Rudling

    Clark and Orb,

    I showed this line from Donald’s police interview about one phone call from Anna:
    “Then she said, “Now Sofia is with the police. Now I have been with the police”, and there is talk of HIV tests again . . .”

    In a lame effort to to try place the call to between 14:00 and 16:21 Orb hid evidence from us. He took out the line “Now I have been”.

    Anna says to Donald in Swedish “Nu har jag varit”. Varit is the past tense of vara. Anna is telling Donald that she has LEFT the police station. If one wants to say you are in a police station you say är.

    Donald’s interview shows that Anna has left the police station and that Sofia is still there. It shows that Mr Murray’s claim is false like so many other claims. And that his sources are, at best, ill informed too.

    Now can you please ask Mr Murray to respond. Either admit that there is nothing that supports the idea that Anna was present at Sofia’s interview or show evidence that indicates she was.

    Is it so very difficult to admit that Mr Murray made a mistake? Are you afraid that admitting it will make all of the other claims fall to like in a game of domino?

  • Orb

    @Rudling I’m surprised you suddenly treat Anna Ardin as a trustworty witness. She didn’t tell Donald Boström the truth earlier in the week when she said she didn’t sleep with Julian Assange. What makes you so sure that she’s revealing the full truth this time? I think it is a little out of place for you to demand of someone to reveal his sources. You’ve made it clear that you disagree. Why not leave it there? There’s no point in repeating the same thing over and over again, just bad style.

  • Clark (Moderator)

    Göran Rudling, I have no intention of deleting or blocking your comments. Of course, Craig is in charge, and if he asks me to I will. But I doubt that Craig will do that. I’m trying to calm things down. I want this debate to continue until we all understand the evidence. I announced that I am a moderator here in order to be fair, not to threaten you. Maybe I seem too formal, calling you “Göran Rudling”; I usually use full names, just to make things clear for other contributors. I hope that’s OK.

    “But if you want me to translate why do you send me comments like the one above?

    I can only interpret your comment from 15 Sep, 2012 – 4:05 am as one is allowed to agree with Mr Murray in any way and form and if that includes calling me things it is okay. “

    I’m sorry, I honestly do not understand why you have interpreted my comment this way. I asked you to translate in order to help people who don’t read Swedish (ie. most contributors on this blog). I am trying to help you, and trying to help the debate continue until a consensus is established. Please consider that I am trying to help, and read my comments again. You have my support. You have had supportive comments from highly respected contributors Technicolour and Suhayl Saadi, and from Villager and CE, who are newer names here. Here are some examples:

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-2/#comment-357420
    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-2/#comment-357311
    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-2/#comment-357414

    I am personally sorry about the abuse you have received on this blog (though you have been quite provocative yourself, too). I used to warn people about personal abuse, and I would edit it out if they continued, but this proved unpopular, so I stopped. From my own experience, I know how stressful it is when one is criticised and abused by many others. Twice recently, I have suffered emotional collapse whilst trying to argue with groups of contributors who seemed to “gang up on me”. But your research is valuable, so I ask you to ignore any abuse, and find confidence and strength from the support you have received.

    I’m sorry, but I will not ask Craig to respond; please be patient. Craig spends long periods away from this blog. He is writing a serious, very demanding book, he defends asylum seekers in court and by writing letters, and his family must come first. Also, I would not pressure Craig to respond because I think it is better if he checks his sources and considers their meaning thoroughly; we should not pressure him to respond before he is fully prepared and has sufficient time to reply thoughtfully.

    Please do post a version of Craig’s timeline with your corrections; links to sources (with translations, if in Swedish) would be helpful. I expect that Craig wishes to compare his timeline with yours, and to investigate the differences. The sooner you post your timeline, the sooner Craig can start considering his reply.

    Best wishes to you.

  • Clark (Moderator)

    All contributors, please be polite and considerate to Göran Rudling. He is personally, directly involved in the Assange case. It was he who exposed, and, apparently, double-verified that Anna Ardin had been deleting her own tweets, and he has been called to court to testify about that. He thereby did Assange a great service. From his viewpoint, we are at best just a bunch of people speculating from a distance. He is the only reader of Swedish that we have, and he has read the original documents in their original Swedish. His familiarity with the evidence is highly valuable, and you risk degrading the debate and thus obscuring the truth if you inflame the argument.

    That doesn’t mean you have to believe everything he writes. If his evidence looks wrong, please post links to demonstrate that. The evidence is more important than anyone’s interpretation of it. Let’s get the evidence clear before we start speculating about its meaning.

    I have spent hours composing these two comments to be as diplomatic as I could possibly make them, to try to encourage clear and sensible debate rather than the personal accusations of bad faith seen so often above. I would rather have spent that time reading the original documents myself, so everyone, please try to keep this important thread calm and civil.

    Best wishes to all.

  • Villager

    Clark, thank you for your last couple of posts. I’m glad you cleared your earlier comment up, particularly in the context of Craig Murray’s earlier perceived threat of having to start editing Goran’s posts out. Add to that his personal somewhat snide remark on Goran’s sunglasses which, far from looking like a knock-out punch, ended up hitting below the belt. A couple of posters observed that “the thick plottens”. So, i’m glad we are finally attempting to stop the sparring. And if i understood clearly, Goran has also apologised earlier for using the strong accusative word of lying.

    I have been following this and earlier related threads very closely–the inconsistencies are amply evident. I’m not sure what one would achieve by summarising again the timeline and i hope it isn’t a deflective tactic. But that is up to Goran to decide.

    Appreciating Craig’s commitments i would like to clear just one thing up and i quote (from the earlier thread, directly relevant here):

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

    Can we have a source for this? If it is indeed a fact that Ny represented as such at the High Court, it should be quite easy to identify, i assume. The smaller point in that claim is, how can Krans as police officer also double up as witness?

    From all that i’ve seen, I do not believe that available evidence confirms that Ardin was witness to Wilen’s formal interview. I’m happy to stand corrected, that is why the source for the above claim is crucial.

  • Göran Rudling

    Dear Clark,

    Thanks a lot. I don’t mind being called a lot of things. My tone invites it, I agree. I have inherited a Teflon coat from Ronald Reagan. Things thrown at me don’t stick.

    I do appreciate your efforts to make sure this debate will go on in order to find out what is the truth in the Assange case. I thought you tried to silence me but I was wrong. I made a mistake and please accept my apologies.

    I am an engineer by training and I think facts are important. If you don’t get correct facts your opinion will be way off. I hope that this explains why I prefer that we can agree on the facts of this case before we talk about our opinions of the case.

    Please understand that I called Mr. Murray a liar because I seriously believe he did fabricate events in order for him to support his opinion. I fully understand that it can seem to be disrespectful and offensive. But let me tell you something that I think is more important and what really determines the size of a human being. If Mr Murray lied and fabricated events in an effort to save Julian Assange I surely can understand that. Sometimes you have to lie. I have lied too. If Mr Murray would come out and say, “Yes I lied because I thought it served a good purpose”, I am the first to RESPECT and support him for doing so. In my world what is really important is what you will do for the future. Not what they’ve done in the past.

    I know that may tone has not been up to standard. I will do my best to stick to your standards in the future. If I over step your lines, please tell me.

  • Villager

    Goran,

    I don’t think Craig “lied because I (he) thought it served a good purpose”. He is an eclectic blogger with eclectic interests. He may simply well have been careless in cross-checking some of the facts. I am guilty of that insofar where i started to join this debate. But as the discussion evolved and the more i read, the more i was persuaded, not least by you, that one does not need to believe in conspiracy theories to see how weak the case is prima facie, based on publicly available evidence.

    I do think it is important to segregate the actual case in Sweden with stitch-up theories, in order to maintain objectivity. Anyway, even Superman puts on his his trousers one leg at a time.

    I can see your specialisation in the subject of the case and your dedication–thank you for sharing this. It has been riveting.

    Assange in his S American interview indicated that it was just possible that the case will be dropped (after internal investigations?) Do you see any chance of this? Is anything afoot on that front? Although, personally i can’t see that happening until Assange himself is interviewed further.

    I think one of the weakest links in the initial police investigations is not having interviewed Assange further in early that September.

  • Göran Rudling

    Dear Orb, thanks a lot for helping my understand the case better

    It was a very long time ago since I came across a group of people that are so into denial, falsification, making up stories, fabrication etc as Assange supporters. The modus operandi can be summed up like this. Make up a story, make a claim based on the made up story. When somebody points out that there are no facts that supports the story, attack the person. When evidence is shown that proves that the story is made up, manipulate the evidence (take out important parts) and fabricate a new story hoping that nobody will notice the manipulations.

    My brain is slow. But it works. I have been thinking a lot about your post where you edited the evidence out that Anna was not present at Sofia’s interview. The post where you deleted the important words “Now I have been with the police” from the statement “Now Sofia is with the police. Now I have been with the police” in order to try to convince people that it was likely that Anna could have made a phone call between 14:00 and 16:21. My conclusion is that you are into fabrication too. Just like Mr Murray. And that you are doing exactly the same thing as Anna Ardin, deleting stuff hoping people won’t find out. You are into deception Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Orb. But you do it in an even clumsier way than Anna Ardin. And you do it in front of my eyes. Just like Anna Ardin did.

    What you do is take a rumour that Anna was present at Sofia’s interview because you hope it fits into a silly conspiracy theory that Swedish authorities are out to get Julian Assange. Since you are so into the idea you refuse to accept facts that prove that you are dead wrong. Instead of looking for facts that support the idea that Anna was present during Sofia’s interview you edit evidence that proves she was not. An act of willful fabrication. Your behaviour tells me that you think it is okay to manipulate evidence as long as it is to support Julian Assange. This is really disturbing.

    In your latest comment you are upping the ante. You try to tell me that Anna lied to Donald when she said “Now I have been with the police”. You tell me that Anna has lied before, “She didn’t tell Donald Boström the truth earlier in the week when she said she didn’t sleep with Julian Assange.. I know that Anna has lied. I’ve written extensively about it. I’ve spent time trying to figure out of all what Anna has said, what is true and what is not. What I find amusing Orb is that you don’t for a millisecond reflect on the fact that Mr Murray’s whole article about Anna Ardin is based on the idea that Anna is supposed to be telling the truth in one text message. If Anna lied in that text, what happens to Mr Murray’s story?

    You write “I think it is a little out of place for you to demand of someone to reveal his sources.. Oh yeah? Sure. You think it is okay to say whatever you like and you do not have to back it up with facts or reveal sources. I get it. I have heard people say that they have seen you having sex with donkeys, sheep and pigs. You are some kind of barn Romeo. Must be a fair statement in your world. I do not have to back it up with facts or reveal my sources since you believe it is a little out of place for you to demand of someone to reveal his sources.

    Since I found your comments very odd I have looked into this with my brain switched on better. I have found even more false claims making Mr Murray’s position a lot weaker.

    1. Mr. Murray (MM) claims the women arrived at 2pm and rather than see another officer, they waited two hours until Krans came on duty.
    2. MM claims that the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.
    3. MM claims Anna Ardin was present throughout Krans’ interview of Wilén.

    Mr. Murray claims that nothing happened at the police station until Irmeli Krans’ shift started at 16:00. Believing Mr Murray, it is impossible that Anna called Donald between 14:00 and 16:00 to report what had happened since nothing had happened. That reduces the window of opportunity for the phone call to 16:00 to 16:21. During these 21 minutes Anna had not only uttered the words that made the police start the investigation she had also found the time to make the phone call. And she had to lie saying that she had left the police station. According to Mr. Murray, things move at break neck speed when Irmeli Krans is involved.

    You agree that Linda Wassgren talked to the two women. By your admission you effectively confirm that Mr. Murray’s claim number one is false. (Let’s see how you will try to get out of this one)

    In order for you to place Anna’s phone call to Donald between 14:00 and 16:21 you edit out all the words that suggest that Anna was not present at the police station. You tamper with evidence. And you do it willfully. If you just “happened” to edit out the words with the “honest belief it wasn’t really important” please tell me now. Come clean please.

    If we are to believe Mr Murray, Anna was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview and present when Irmeli Krans finished typing out the interview. Anna must have been at the police station from 14:00 until 19:28. And since nothing happened between 14:00 and 16:00 Anna’s call had to be made between 16:00 and 16:21. If Anna didn’t call during these minutes she must have called during Sofia’s interview or when Irmeli typed out the interview between 18:40 to 19:28. And not only that, she must have lied when she said she had left the police station.

    Orb. Why don’t you just give up. The more you say, the more ridiculous the made up story becomes and the more of a fabricator you become. In comparison to Mr Murray’s and your story Anna Ardin’s is very believable.

    Orb. I don’t know you and I don’t know Mr Murray. I can only judge you from what you write. I have noticed that you don’t hesitate to fabricate, lie that is to me, just in front of my eyes hoping that I wouldn’t notice. What kind of a planet are you on?

    Finally. I know that Mr Murray make numerous claims that are not true. I have facts that proves it. You come in as a sideshow, amusing I must say, trying to support Mr Murray’s claims by editing evidence. Please understand, the more you deny the harder I will work to show that you are in wrong.

    I understand that it must be very very difficult to admit that I am right and you and Mr Murray are wrong. Especially since I am so verbally aggressive. But let me tell you something. I have made mistakes. I have lied too. I think that I am a better person for admitting it. It is not about what you did yesterday, it is about what you are gonna do for tomorrow that is important.

    I don’t hate you or Mr Murray. I am a nice and loveable character (I know it is difficult to understand). What I really wanna do is to respect you and Mr Murray. I just can’t do it as long as you tell me silly stories. So please, spend some time reflecting before you respond.

    If you want to contact me for a private conversation here is my e-mail adress. goran.r[put an “at” sign here]samtycke.nu

    P.S. Orb. While I write this I listen to Bob Dylan’s latest album, Tempest. Fabulous record. Makes me warm. I want to like and respect you. Please help me. And listen to the album. I think you’ll like it.

    [Mod/Clark – Göran, I’ve obfuscated your e-mail address to defeat spamming software.]

  • Göran Rudling

    Villager,

    “He may simply well have been careless in cross-checking some of the facts. I am guilty of that insofar where i started to join this debate.”

    It could very well be true. Maybe I am over reacting. I just have a hard time believing that someone who calls himself a Human Rights Activist is careless in checking facts. But I know that other people that call themselves Human Rights Activists are extremely careless in checking facts. Bianca Jagger and Jennifer Robinson to mention two. Not to mention Naomi Wolf, but she is not claiming herself to be a Human Rights Activist. She is a third wave feminist whatever that is. I just thought she into fiction.

    Do I think that Sweden will drop the case against Julian Assange? When I for the first time talked to Julian’s lawyers in person I told them Sweden will never drop the case. I still think so.

    Just a question to you. Do you think that the UK will drop the case that Julian has jumped bail? And if you do, when do you think they will?

  • Villager

    Goran, i already gave u my view that i didn’t think that Sweden would drop the case, at least not until they’ve interviewed assange. So why do u ask me that rhetorical question about the UK?

  • Göran Rudling

    Dear Clark,

    “I understand your point about the hypothetical rape of a fifteen year old. I’ve read that the definition of rape in Sweden is based upon force, not consent. Thus, you’re saying that under Swedish law, the first man would have committed rape, but not the other two. This is obviously unjust.”

    It is not a hypothetical case. It is a case from reality. There are very many sexual acts that are criminal in England but are not in Sweden. The English law is better, tougher and the punishment is stronger. The definition of rape is far wider. For Mr Murray to state “Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws” without explaining to the reader in what respect not only is he misleading he is doing something much more sinister. He is saying feminists are people that are evil and that wants to get innocent men. And that feminist are people that are not entitled to human rights.

    “I suspect that I understand what is going on in Sweden regarding rape enforcement. The rape law is badly constructed. However, instead of that law being changed, the investigation, enforcement and legal systems, from the police to the courts, has been subjected to political pressure to try to secure more convictions under the wrongly defined law. Thus Sweden has acquired closed trials in sex offence cases and partisan judges. This has satisfied neither rape victims nor people accused of rape. The whole thing has become a bitter and futile battle.”

    Clark. You are simply wrong here. I won’t go into detail proving you wrong. I do respect you and I think your contributions so far have been very valuable. I prefer to listen to Bob Dylan and think you are wonderful human being that just sometimes is in the wrong. Just like me.

  • Göran Rudling

    Villager,

    “Goran, i already gave u my view that i didn’t think that Sweden would drop the case, at least not until they’ve interviewed assange. So why do u ask me that rhetorical question about the UK?”

    Do you really wanna know?

    Because I sometimes misread and behave like a total idiot. I am very sorry being an idiot. I didn’t read everything you wrote. I will be more careful next time. Excuse me.

  • Ferret

    Thanks Göran.

    Very good article, well reasoned – and I agree with the conclusion – but with a couple of important errors.

    Firstly, the police had two condoms examined by the lab, not just one.

    The first was the tip of a condom found at the home of “MA1”. This had DNA from Anna Ardin, plus male DNA matching that from a vaginal swab from her.

    The lab said this tip had been cut by a knife or a scissors, not ripped, so would be rather bizarre if this actually happened during sex, rather than afterwards to plant evidence.

    The second condom, from the home of “MA2” contained no DNA at all and so must be considered unused.

    See the translation of the original Swedish lab report posted on the comments of Craig’s previous Anna Ardin blog at http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/anna-ardins-police-statement/.

1 9 10 11 12 13 67