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.
‘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.
@Rudling, please don’t get me wrong, I’m not making any claim that Ardin definitely was present at Wilén’s 16.21 interview. I’m saying that I can’t know for sure, which means I have to be open to the possibility. I agree that Ardin most likely wasn’t present at the interview, based on what I’ve seen. It’s the natural interpretation of Donald Boström’s interview. But I consider both possibilities.
The idea that she was present may come from a misunderstanding that Irmeli Krans was the only police inspector Sofia talked to on that day, when in fact the less known Linda Wassgren, who worked in the reception that day, played an important role during the first two hours at the station. I’ve even heard it said, though I can’t verify it, that it was Linda Wassgren and those she consulted, rather than Irmeli Krans, who decided to classify it as rape. Even if Irmeli Krans was very upset the next day (as documented on her facebook page) when the charges against Wilén were dropped, it doesn’t follow that she was the one wanting to classify it as rape.
Personally I don’t like the way the interview is written. It contains too much biased interpretation and too little relevant facts. Nor do I like the impression Irmeli Krans gave in her facebook comments, but despite this she may not be the worst of those involved in the events on the 20th of August 2010, just the “loudest”.
I think there is a possibility that Wilén was really worried about HIV and really wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t her idea that a condom wasn’t used all the time. Otherwise she’d have no right to demand that Julian Assange be tested. The police then interpreted this strong emphasis on “against her wish” as if an assault had taken place, when she just wanted to justify asking for him to take an HIV test. Speculation on my part, I admit, but I’m trying to make sense of what happened.
(Note that “against her wish” doesn’t necessarily mean “against her expressed wish”. It could mean that it wasn’t what she wanted, whether or not she told him.)
Ths strange thing is that she talked to Assange on the phone from the hospital before going to the police, and everything seemed fine then, according to some witness who had talked to Assange. They even had plans to meet the day after. So why did she go to the police at all? Because she’d already promised to meet Ardin there? It’s a mystery.
@Ferret, MA1 (or MÄ1 in Swedish) is Sofia Wilén. Her case was handled first. That makes MA2 (or MÄ2) Anna Ardin, and it was on the condom from her flat that no DNA was found.
@Orb
MA1 (or MÄ1 in Swedish) is Sofia Wilén. Her case was handled first. That makes MA2 (or MÄ2) Anna Ardin, and it was on the condom from her flat that no DNA was found.
If you’re right, then the cut-off condom tip would be from Sofia Wilen, which doesn’t make any sense.
See below for a translation of the crucial part of the “Full lab report on broken condom” at http://www.samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police_condom.pdf
(With thanks to David Landy.)
— English —————————–
Mats Gehlin 20/10/10 15:08
In conversations with SKL up came the following.
On the condom from MA2 home has not found any DNA.
On vaginal swabs from MA1 found DNA from MA1 and DNA from a man.
The condom bit that was found in the MA1′s apartment found DNA from MA1 and from the same man who was on the vaginal swab.
MA1 have not noticed that some condoms have been broken when it was dark in the room and she heard that the suspect put on the condom it was part sounds like he pulled a balloon. Condom piece found under the bed, under the part of the bed that suspect was then put on the condom.
— Swedish —————————–
Mats Gehlin 20.10.10 15:08
Vid samtal med SKL fram kom följande.
På kondom från MÄ2 bostad har det inte hittats något DNA.
På vaginaltops från MÄ1 hittades DNA från MÄ1 och DNA från en man.
På kondom bit som hittades i MÄ1 s lägenhet hittades DNA från MÄ1 och från samme man som fanns på vaginaltops.
MÄ1 har inte märkt att någon kondom har gjorts sönder då det var mörkt i rummet och hon hörde att då misstänkt tog på sig kondomen var det en del ljud som om han drog i en ballong. Kondombiten hittades under sängen, under den del av sängen som misstänkt låg då tog på sig kondomen.
Thanks Göran.
“Very good article, well reasoned – and I agree with the conclusion – but with a couple of important errors.
MÄ 1 is Sofia Wilén
MÄ 2 is Anna Ardin
In my article I don’t mention Sofia Wilén’s condom at all since it is not important.
@Göran
Sorry – I’m not following…
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/03/the-assange-case-the-condom-speaks-out/
Is this your article?
@Ferret
The article is by Goran. He inserted a line between the article and the comments below it – “This entry was posted in Julian Assange, Sex law, Wikileaks by Göran Rudling.”
I missed that line on first reading myself. Maybe he will see fit to putting it up the top, just below the title so as to avoid any future confusion. And he could help by announcing that it is his own article before citing it.
Wondered if anyone here was interested in a little background on the Daily Mail story about the condom submitted by Anne Ardin as evidence of mid-coital deliberate tearing by the fiend Assange having no DNA on it:
More detail about how that condom came to be ‘evidence’ worthy of having a man extradited without charge for questioning (Note: the law governing European Arrest Warrants forbids them being used simply for questioning or to further an investigation)
http://rixstep.com/1/20120629,00.shtml – Policeman disobeys orders to work on a case that’s already been closed
and
http://rixstep.com/1/20111126,01.shtml – detailed discussion of the full implications of that ‘no DNA’ finding
As you can see from the dates of that second article, all of this information has been known for a very long time but the mainstream media seems to have been asleep on this one. Well, that’s the kindest interpretation of their behaviour – most UK newspapers have gone silent on the ‘news’ delivered by the Daily Mail. And that’s not like them, they’re usually all over Assange news – as long as it’s negative, that is.
Most of the press has been working hard all along to push this blatantly illegal extradition through. That revolts me. They have all known about the fake evidence and that Assange was very likely innocent of these allegations, but they don’t care. They’re quite happy to be culpable in helping push someone who’s a thorn in their side along to lifetime imprisonment, or worse.
Important to know: the Swedish prosecutor had this forensic report in her possession by 25 October 2010. She applied to the Swedish courts for an arrest warrant on 18 November. She issued an Interpol Red Alert on 20 November (and gave her permission for them to go fully public with it, not something they do every time). She issued (and lied on) the international EAW European Arrest Warrant on 29 November.
When is this Swedish prosecutor going to be investigated for misleading the UK courts? When are British taxpayers going to be reimbursed by the Swedish government for the cost of dragging this farce through the courts for two years? When is Julian Assange going to be compensated for the enormous damage done to his reputation and life’s work?
@Jemand (=”Someone”?)
Thanks for that, appreciated.
🙂
@Göran
The second condom becomes relevant when people start talking about a condom with no DNA. Then people have to understand there were TWO condoms, one with DNA and one without.
But I can accept that – for the purposes of your article – you felt it wasn’t relevant.
I’m curious though why didn’t you mention the cutting of the condom tip with scissors or a knife. Didn’t you think that was relevant either? To my way of thinking, it makes it even less likely that AA is telling the truth, as she described a sound of “ripping”, not cutting?
Ferret,
The police does three tests on the condom from Anna Ardin. They cut if with a knife, the cut it with scissors and they tear it. After examination the say that the damage seen in the condom is most likely from tearing.
@Göran
Interesting… but that’s not what it says on the report.
http://www.samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police_condom.pdf
This report says the lab tested a condom tip (singular), that it was cut (not torn) and that it had DNA from AA and a male.
Where is the source of your information?
I cannot reconcile your version with the documentary evidence at my disposal.
@ Ferret
The main reason why the lab report is so confusing is because the police officer Mats Gehlin submitted two condoms, one each from AA and SW, under the same case number, AA’s. According to this link, that was done because the policeman had been told by Eva Finne to take no further action on SW’s case because she had rescinded the ‘rape’ arrest warrant, publicly declared she could see no evidence that a crime had been committed in SW’s statement (remember, she’s talking on 21st or 22nd November about the statement before it had been passed to Claus Borgstrom for ‘revision’) and was about to formally close the case. This link alleges that Mats Gehlin therefore had no legal basis on which to send the SW condom for analysis, hence including it with the other woman’s ‘deliberately torn’ condom on the same case ticket.
http://rixstep.com/1/20120629,00.shtml
@Arbed Sweden doesn’t have very strict rules for collecting and handling evidence. Breaking the law or disobeying orders doesn’t matter, it can still be used as evidence. It’s called fri bevisföring/free submission of evidence and fri bevisvärdering/free evaluation of evidence. This link may shed some light
http://books.google.se/books?id=67xM08c9JLgC&pg=PA716&lpg=PA716&dq=principen+om+fri+bevisf%C3%B6ring&source=bl&ots=CJ3-bCWD2D&sig=MQAUIyE-HTCC5Yo2iGp60OwfrVc&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=principen%20om%20fri%20bevisf%C3%B6ring&f=false
Some of it is a bit tedius but note the last sentence:
In this case, the usefulness of the evidence is what it says about Mats Gehlin and Anna Ardin, and of course the prosecutor Marianne Ny who doesn’t seem to understand the significance of the DNA free item.
@ Orb 5.35pm
Thanks for that. “Illegally obtained evidence might be used”. Sounds like a wonderful justice system you’ve got over there…
I think you’re being very kind to Ms Ny. “Doesn’t seem to understand the significance of the DNA-free item” is not how I would describe someone who has decided – based on said DNA-free condom evidence – to describe the allegations of the person who supplied it as “sexual assault and unlawful coersion” and “sexual molestation” on a warrant demanding the extradition and placing into pre-charge detention someone who she has repeatedly refused – and still refuses – to question.
Göran,
I think that there is much less outright lying surrounding this case than you think; I think the primary mechanism involved is polarisation. Commercial media are well known to sensationalise issues. It makes their news reports “juicier”, attracts audiences, sells papers and enables them to charge more to the advertisers that they host. The commercial media have sensationalised this case from the beginning.
Unfortunately, polarisation leads to further polarisation, as the other side re-state their opposing case more strongly. As people have seen the demonisation of Julian Assange in the corporate media, they have suspected distortion and propaganda, and have thus accepted opposing views with inadequate checking of facts.
Once various sources (on either side) are saying the same things, an “echo chamber” effect occurs. We have seen this happen many times, for instance, the killings by Anders Behring Breivik were initially stated to be by Al Qaeda. Within hours, most of the corporate media was repeating this nonsense. They continued until and even some time after proper evidence emerged.
Göran, I think you are wrong to accuse so many people, especially Craig Murray, of fabrication. If Craig is wrong, it is far more likely that he gained erroneous information from another source. Craig reads several languages, but not Swedish. If Craig could read the original documents, I am certain that he would base his argument upon those, because this is what he normally does. This will be why he wants you to produce your version of the timeline. He will want to see which facts need to be checked and amended.
Ferret: “Interesting… but that’s not what it says on the report.”
Thanks. That’s what I thought, too.
Dearest Clark,
“Göran, I think you are wrong to accuse so many people, especially Craig Murray, of fabrication. If Craig is wrong, it is far more likely that he gained erroneous information from another source. Craig reads several languages, but not Swedish. If Craig could read the original documents, I am certain that he would base his argument upon those, because this is what he normally does. This will be why he wants you to produce your version of the timeline. He will want to see which facts need to be checked and amended.”
I have understood that accusing people of lying have not helped the discussion. I made a mistake that I have to live with. I am sorry for doing so, but I cannot undo it now. But I appreciate the discussion.
I have spent a ridiculous amount of time with this case. Not because I am interested in Julian but in how our system really works and what the real problems are. I am very sorry that when I viewed Craig’s article as filled with so many errors I could not stop my self from seeing similarities with Naomi Wolf. I spent time showing that nothing she says is true. I saw in Craig “Oh no not another Naomi”. I did jump to conclusions.
I know that Craig has gained erroneous information. Why I am asking him for his sources is not to prove he is an idiot (sorry) for using them. It is an effort to make everybody aware of sources that you shouldn’t use. I can tell you now what sources I find totally unreliable. If you want me to I can explain. Rixstep, Professors Blog (Marcello Ferrada de Noli), Justice 4 Assange, Jennifer Robinson, Naomi, Bianca Jagger, John Pilger, Andrew Kreig, Michael Moore, Mark Stephens, Michael Ratner, Israel Shamir, Flashback Forum, Old Wolf, Per E Samuelsson and many more that I can’t think of right now. I know it might sound mouthful.
The problem in this is not the time line. It is in the interpretation. Most people have misunderstood Irmeli Krans role in this. There is jumping to conclusions just like I jumped to the conclusion that Craig is a lier.
What I dislike about the time line idea is “give me some information and I will see if I will use it”. I don’t know what criteria the person is using. If you use the wrong criteria no matter how correct the time line and the info is it will not be understood. I am asking for a more “scientific” method.
Two things. I have not yet seen anybody trying seriously how to interpret the two paragraphs I posted earlier. I will repost it and ask of you to have a look at it. What is interesting with the two paragraphs is that Craig and I look at just 2 paragraphs and we come up with fundamentally different conclusions.
I will not go away from the thread. I am just very busy with something that is far more important at the time and that I think will not only surprise you when I publish, but also make you much better understand the case. I will come back. You know where to find me if you want to hear my opinion on things.
Even if Anna Ardin is making a false claim (with weird condoms and stuff) it is still a case for Swedish courts. What Julian has done, and that is his fault, is run away. If he would have listened to Björn Hurtig he would have been cleared in early October. But he has to show up for an interview.
Original post 4 Sep, 2012 – 2:30 am This is a short version
In order you understand the importance of the interpretation I have taken two paragraphs out of Donald’s interview. What is interesting with these two paragraphs is that Craig and I make two very different interpretations. Craig says the text “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.” Meaning that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview.
My interpration is that the two paragraphs does not prove that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview. I say Craig makes an incorrect interpretation. And his words I can see no other possible interpretation.” shows the magnitude of the problem. Craig and I can look at just two paragraphs and come to completely opposite conclusions. I know I am right and I think Craig feels the same. Now I know we can’t both be right. But we can both be wrong.
I can guarantee you that the facts are hidden in the two paragraphs. The question is how to decipher the text and get the facts out.
This is one of the most important parts of all interviews. If you spend time here, you will understand the case better. I can guarantee that.
What information do you think is important? Is it in the first paragraph or the second? Explain why.
Do you get information in what room Anna Ardin was when she uttered the words?
Does the text reveal at what stage in the visit the words are uttered? (Just as the women arrived, after they been questioned individually, while taking the complaints, during the Sofia Wilén’s interview)
What had happened before Anna Ardin uttered the words?
What do you think happened afterwards at the police station?
Spend time here. It will help you much more than any time line.
@ Ferret & Clark
If you look at page 2 of http://www.samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police_condom.pdf, you’ll see that they’ve chosen some rather confusing labels (beteckning) on the items (undersökningsmaterial). The condom (kondom) from AA got the label “AB/7525-10/G001” and the condom part (del av kondom) from SW got the label “kondom”. Unbelievable but true.
On p3 it is said that the condom was cut with a knife and scissors as well as torn, but that was the lab performing tests, so that they had something to compare the original damages with. Their conclusion is that the original damage looks like their tear, not like their cuts. Note that it’s the condom and not the condom part labelled “kondom” they’re talking about! Well, except at the bottom of the page, but that text belongs to the picture (bild 2) on page 4.
On p6 it clearly says that no DNA was found on the condom from Anna Ardin, but also that they’ll try a more sensitive (förfinad) method. This apparently didn’t give much either, but that’s not part of this set of documents.
On p7 is summarised that on the condom from MÄ2’s home, no DNA was found, and that on the condom part (kondombit aka kondomdel aka del av kondom) from MÄ1’s home DNA was found, belonging to MÄ1 and a man. MÄ2 is Anna Ardin.
Again, remember that it is the condom part and not the condom that got the label “kondom”. The labels are never used on pages 5-7 though, they talk directly about the objects there.
Göran, the text you quoted:
indicates that at some point, Anna Ardin was present as Sofia Wilen was talking to (one or more) police officers. It does not prove that Ardin was present during Wilen’s formal interview. It does not disprove it either.
Göran, OK, you are unwilling to provide a timeline as requested by Craig. That is a shame. Craig is busier than, apparently, both you and me, and your timeline could have helped him proceed more quickly. It is not a matter of “give me some information and I will see if I will use it”; your timeline would be published as a comment no matter what.
Orb, thank you. So you can read Swedish? Are you Swedish?
On the never ending speculation that “Anna took Sofia across town”
I found this comment on the link that Mr Murray pointed to a couple of days ago. This comment is in Swedish and so ripe with common sense I thought you might appreciate it.
Farbror Knut (is the commenter)
Mollgan isn’t it fun to conspire.
You write:
“Ardin and Wilén did not go to Norrmalms police station, where they want to make a report, which is nearby and is open in the evening. The pair does also not go to Södermalm police, the closest to Ardin.
Instead they choose Klara Police, shortly before the close. ”
They don’t go to Norrmalms police station that’s nearby, you write.
Nearby what?
Not near Ardin’s home, work or the train station as Wilén perhaps arrived by train anyway.
Nothing strange at all to go from work a little earlier, meet up at the center of town, which is located near the job, and walk to the police station, which is located in the same building as the central station.
An extremely practical solution I think.
But it will not be as juicy suspicious and fun, I can agree with. So the question is the purpose, with their theories
Göran Rudling, you wrote:
Sorry. Why is any false accusation a matter for a court? Why should false accusations not just be dropped?
What evidence can you produce to prove that Assange “ran away”?
What evidence can you show that “he (Assange) would have been cleared in early October”?
On the basis of your above assertions, should I start ranting that that you are a “liar” and an “idiot”? Should I do as you do, rather than as you say?
“Now we have been to the police and Sofia told her story; and as I was sitting there, I filled in with one sentence.”
indicates that at some point, Anna Ardin was present as Sofia Wilen was talking to (one or more) police officers. It does not prove that Ardin was present during Wilen’s formal interview. It does not disprove it either.
It disproves that she was present at Sofia’s interview. Meaning that this comment cannot have been made during Sofia’s interview. You don’t see it yet.
The question you have to ask yourself what does the 2 paragraphs say about at what stage of the visit did Anna possible say this with Sofia and some police officer/s next.
I have already said that if anyone can decipher this one I will give a full time line of what happened at the police station.
What I am after if you cannot get what the two paragraphs actually say, what can you understand of the 100 pages in the detention memo.
Göran Rudling, I have debated with you for some time now, and it seems clear to me that you are very biased against Assange, whom you repeatedly refer to diminutively as “Julian”, as if he were a friend. You also seem biased against all and any who have written in support of Assange.
The only thing I know of that contradicts this is your exposure of Anna Ardin’s deletions.
I therefore ask you, would you like to see Assange sent to the USA? And if so, what do you think should happen to him there?
“Sorry. Why is any false accusation a matter for a court? Why should false accusations not just be dropped?”
Why it is a case for the police and maybe the courts is that three courts in Sweden do not yet see it as a false accusation. Sorry for not putting it in. It does not matter what you and I think.
If you are falsely accused, but the police think it is a fair accusation, they will look for you even if you think they should drop the case. You have to help them do so by giving input.
Why I say that the case most likely would have been solved in October is because I have listened to what Björn Hurtig has said about Erika Lejnefors’s,the prosecutor in charge, comment. That the case will likely be dropped if Julian did show up. That is why Björn Hurtig asked Julian to come to Sweden and be interviewed so he could get on with his life.
Unfortunately Julian has done almost everything opposite good advice and common sense.
Göran Rudling, I disapprove of your attempt to “reward” contributors with a timeline if they agree to your interpretation of those paragraphs. If you are interested in the truth, you would proceed by publishing your timeline rather than playing reward / withhold games.
No, I do not see that those paragraphs disprove Ardin’s presence at Wilen’s interview. Maybe it reads somewhat differently in Swedish. Please explain to me how it disproves that.
I am Swedish. We normally write the first name of people. Just as we speak. I have noted that you often write Ardin or Ms Ardin. We normally write Anna. I do agree it is more respectfull to write Ms Ardin and Mr Assange. Even though I cannot say that Anna is always treated with respect.
“I therefore ask you, would you like to see Assange sent to the USA?
Of course not. If he came here and he against all odds were extradited (I don’t even think the US will try since they cannot come up with a crime that is extraditable) I and I know a thousand other people would go out to demonstrate and we would not be afraid of being beaten on our heads while we stopping the extradition.
Me and a thousand people would not go to the Ecuadoarian Embassy or send our mothers round the world.
Let’s just solve the 2 paragraphs now and I will give you a time line.
What it the important information in the second paragraph?
How do you interpret the sentence below?
“Because all of a sudden we were two women with a statement about the same man, it became [a matter for investigation] and thus became a formal complaint,”
Remember, I am your friend. It just looks like I am your enemy. I am trying to help you see what people are actually saying.
Clark,
“No, I do not see that those paragraphs disprove Ardin’s presence at Wilen’s interview. Maybe it reads somewhat differently in Swedish. Please explain to me how it disproves that.”
I know you don’t see it. But it is right in front of your eyes. But in order to see it you have to know what happened at the police station, it is in Linda Memo. If you just look at this
“Now we have been to the police and Sofia told her story; and as I was sitting there, I filled in with one sentence. like most people you don’t understand anything.
If it is still to difficult I will tell you. But I cannot say that you have worked hard enough to understand. And there is a tendency to complain about work on your side.