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.
Göran Rudling, you are contradicting yourself. You say it is a matter for the court, but you also say that an interview with the police would lead to the charges being dropped. Courts or police, Mr Rudling?
You have also changed from “he would have been cleared in early October” to “the case will likely be dropped” (my emphasis).
You have also, after repeatedly sticking to this one point about Ardin’s presence or absence during Wilen’s interview, suddenly attempted to change the subject to why a particular police station was used.
I think that maybe Craig Murray was right to dismiss you as spreading disinformation. This should not surprise me. On matters of judging human motivation, Craig Murray is considerably more intelligent than myself.
I think it is high time that you declared you motivation.
Clark,
Thanks a lot pal. I will rephrase most likely. I think Erika Lejnefors used the probability 98%. Most likely is correct.
I have been trying to help solve 2 bloody paragraphs for some time and you complain that it is difficult.
The comment Anna made to Donald was after she had visited a particular policestation. You have to understand the comment from the context it was said in.
The events at the police station were.
Getting
Starting to talk
Decision to interview the two women separately
getting together again making phone calls to superiors
decisions to arrest julian in absence
Start to interrogate Sofia
Anna leaves
When were Anna’s words uttered given the events I just typed for you?
Please don’t whine
Göran Rudling, thank you for explaining about first names in Sweden. I shall call you Göran if you prefer.
Interpreting those paragraphs is not a question of difficulty or effort. It just doesn’t read as though it disproves Ardin’s presence. Have you presented all the necessary text? Is it a difference of language?
As for work, I put a great deal of effort into moderating this blog, hours every day, and I’ve put much effort into trying to improve this particular thread. I aspire to be a hacker, and one hacker principle is that no problem should have to be solved more than once. Duplication of effort is wasteful:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#believe2
Please try to help us proceed with efficiency.
Clark,
If you give up just tell me I will tell you how to interpret 2 paragraphs in a 100 page detention memo. .
I am doing my best to help you get a deeper understanding on how to read police interviews and look at what i get.
If you given up, just tell me.
I gave you a time line of events at the police station. You have asked me for time lines. After given you the time line you still don’t get it.
It is not in the language. The answer is in the time line. Or actually sequence of events
Here they are again. And a hint. The first paragraph is irrelevant but all Assange supporters think it is important
Getting in
Starting to talk
Decision to interview the two women separately
getting together again making phone calls to superiors
decisions to arrest julian in absence
Start to interrogate Sofia
Anna leaves
You can call Göran, Goran, Rudling, Rude, Troll, Whatever you like.
I do respect you and I am trying to help you
If you want to give up, I’ll tell you.
When I told you you will be embarrassed for not spotting it
Clark,
I am now typing the answer. It will take a few minutes.
Göran, thank you.
This is what info we can get from just two paragraphs if we understand what is said.
First we have to accept what Donald is saying is likely true. That he remembers things accurately. This can be discussed in a later section if we want to throw doubt in and still say Anna was present. Let’s leave for now.
From the 2 paragraphs two things stick out for me. Anna said something while being with Sofia. What Anna said made the police do something, action taken. What action can the police have taken after Anna’s words?
Just go on with Sofia’s interview? Out of the question. That means Anna can not have said the words during Sofia’s interview. Just not possible.
Anna says according to Donald “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,”
What Anna says all of a sudden it became a complaint. What actions would the police take after it became a matter for investigation?. They would start to investigate. Start to investigate.
Anna’s words were most likely said prior to Linda separating the women and talk to them one on one. Anna’s words made Linda understand she had to look into the matter and separated the women and started to talk to them.
Is it possible that Anna could have said the words after the women had been talked to one on one? Not likely. Then the case would be like this.
The two women were talked to individually. Linda didn’t think much of it. After the women got together Anna said something and then everything changed. Linda thought rape and called superiors. That is extremely unlikely.
Now could Anna have said it during Sofia’s interview? Absolutely not. When Sofia is interviewed everything have already happened. The police have already started the investigation.
Now. Is all the information in the two paragraphs? Yes. Do you have to know about the police station? Yes and no. Seeing that the important bit is that the police did something after Anna’s word is key. If you don’t know what happened at the police station, Anna’s word points you to find out what happened at the police station.
Now for some words on Assange supporters
Mr Murray says the words places Anna at Sofia’s interview. And that he cannot interpret the words any other way. I am sorry. He is so wrong, so wrong.
Assange supporters say the words places Anna at Sofia’s interview because they do not read the two paragraphs. They just read the first words. And then they jump to conclusions and think Irmeli is important and in on a conspiracy with Anna etc etc etc.
Now when you understand how to read the 2 paragraphs, do you understand why I think people that just see the first words as prejudiced.
What do you think now?
Could you have solved it on your own with my help? Sure. Maybe you your mind was stuck on the first words.
I have spent a very very very long time trying to peace the interviews together in looking at everything that is said. Not just cherry picked the stuff that I need for a bizarre conspiracy theory.
Thanks a lot for waiting for a reply
Clark,
Where did you go?
Göran, sorry, this still leaves me with much uncertainty. It does not prove that Anna Ardin was not present during Sofia’s interview. Where is your evidence that the women were separated before formal interviews?
Have you already prepared a timeline on your own website? If so, please post a link.
Göran, you wrote: “Clark, Where did you go?”
I’m doing other things as well. Multitasking. Moderation is really needed all the time, and there is only me and Jon. Multitasking is the only way to do it and still eat and drink. On top of that, I also fit in discussions like this one. It’s the same for Craig; see his latest post “Leave of Absence”. That’s why I asked you for patience.
Clark,
I don’t know how to tell you. Sorry for your uncertainty. I’ll try again.
Anna says that after she said the words the police did something. They police STARTED AN INVESTIGATION.
Now to the question. When can the police have STARTED an investigation?
Is it likely that they would have started AFTER they had started?
In my world, people don’t start after they have started.
When Sofia was interviewed it was some hours AFTER THE POLICE STARTED THE INVESTIGATION.
If you think it is likely that the police have started the investigation after they had started the investigation then it could be possible that Anna was present during Sofia’s interview.
I can guarantee that you won’t be helped by a time-line.
What is so difficult with this? Except it means that you have to dump a lot of conspiracy theories.
Clark,
I promised you a time-line. Here it is. Please download it locally since I will remove after a while since it is part of a piece that is not finished yet.
http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/time-klara2.htm
Tell me when you are done
Göran, the police start an investigation when some officer declares it so, and starts making official records. So here is an invented scenario:
Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen are talking with a police officer in a room. Anna Ardin happens to “fill in one sentence”, causing the police officer to decide that the matter deserves formal investigation. So the officer says “I’m making this an official investigation”, and starts a tape recorder (this apparently didn’t happen) or takes out a pen and a record sheet. The interview of Sofia Wilen continues, with Anna Ardin still present.
Nothing you have posted contradicts this scenario. You say that “When Sofia was interviewed it was some hours AFTER…”, but you offer no evidence for this, and say a timeline would not help. Apparently, I have to accept your word, or be derided as a liar, an idiot and/or a consumer of “conspiracy theories”.
I’m sorry, Göran. I think you may be deliberately wasting our time. World War Three might be starting, in the Strait of Hormuz.
Clark,
If you strike out Linda Wassgren’s memo I could maybe agree with you. But you cannot do that.
Clark,
Now we are back to where we started. If it is ok to take away all the facts we know about something things can be just anyway you like. It is so obvious that you deny facts. And you cannot see it.
What you do, which makes me very tired, is saying:
“Well, if the interview did not happen at Klara Polisstation and Linda Wassgren was not involved, and everything she has described happened did not happen, then it could have been the way I think it was”.
If it can be anyway you think it was, why not throw in Carl Bildt and Karl Rove in the interview room as well. And Goliath the Strongman and the seven dwarfs. Anything goes.
What I think you do is sticking the head in the sand and pray things that happened never happened. Remember that when you stick you head in the sand you bottom is visible.
I give up. It sure was a memorable evening.
In a while I take away the time line. It is about what happened at the police station. And that is obviously not important.
Good night
OK, I’ve saved a copy.
This whole thing is really frustrating. I don’t know where to look for impartial facts. Still, I don’t suppose it matters. It’s obvious Assange is being persecuted. Even if these charges are all down to Anna Ardin, then she is out to get him. But Anna Ardin alone doesn’t explain Assange’s treatment by the corporate media, nor the US Grand Jury and the 4000-odd page FBI file on him. Bradley Manning has been tormented with solitary confinement, shackling, and forced nudity for well over a year. And Israel is about to attack Iran.
Fuck it all.
Göran, thanks for posting the timeline. You did not include links to evidence, so the timeline remains your assertion.
Anyone who is interested can e-mail me for a copy of the timeline, but since it included no links to evidence, there is little point.
Clark,
Sounds like you are not in a good mood. I am in a great mood. I just cannot believe you don’t understand. Sometimes I think you are just pulling my legs. But your tone suggests otherwise. More like you are pulling your hair.
I can assure you that the problem you are having is only in understanding. And if you look inside you will find the problem.
Spend time with the two paragraphs, Linda Wassgren’s memo and my explanation. Talk to your friends. You will come through and then you will laugh. Loudly.
If you want to know it took me three months to put all the interviews and all the facts in the case together to a coherent story. If you can do it in a month you are smarter than me. And everybody says I just a fucking cabbie and you how smart they are.
Go to sleep and look at it again tomorrow. But I can tell you one thing. If you cannot figure out the two paragraph’s and what they say you will never ever understand this case.
A warm hug from a Troll across the sea.
And get the idea I am your friend
Goran, can you please provide a link to Linda’s memo in English…
Thanks and do let us know when the piece you’re working on is ready with a link to it on your site.
Clark, an extract from my post to you of Sept 16:
“Appreciating Craig’s commitments i would like to clear just one thing up and i quote (from the earlier thread, directly relevant here):
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.”
—-
What about this issue of Craig’s written statement?
“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.”
If this is what Ny told the High Court, there must be a public record of it? Does it exist?
Villager,
If I only had a link to an English version. Someday I will translate it for you (this week). As this thing seems to be going. It will be translated a long time before Mr Murray shows some facts that support his claims.
There are some other Swedish speaking people on this blog it seems. Here is is again.
http://samtycke.nu/doc/police_pm_p29.pdf
Thanks Goran. Meantime if any other Swedeish speakers would like to translate the above document, that’ll be very helpful.
@Clark
Re timeline, links to evidence
Correct. Every line item of Goran’s timeline needs to be justified with either hard evidence such as an official source, or soft evidence such as credible analysis. It beggars belief that Goran should be such a stickler for truth and detail that he posts essay-long comments on single points but is inexplicably disinterested in compiling a chronological list of events with corresponding sources – at least for his own benefit.
Re AA, present with SW or not
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The lack of supporting evidence that AA was present with SW during questioning does not prove that she was not present. Quite frankly, I don’t think it matters much. AA and SW had sufficient contact prior to formal questioning that we can say that their complaints have been cross contaminated. And nobody raised concerns over the use of telephone interviews which fail to prevent interference from people who cannot be seen. Completely unacceptable in other jurisdictions.
Re Goran’s motives
Is Goran really interested in Julian Assange being cleared of these allegations? Or is he interested in fooling people into wrongly believing Assange is safe to return to Sweden because he will be exonerated? I have asked him to explain his motives before and received no reply. Let me ask a simple question of Goran that he might be kind enough to answer in a clear, unequivocal reply.
@Goran, would you prefer the allegations to be withdrawn before charges are laid, or for Assange to be extradited, charged, tried and acquitted?
Villager,
Here is a quick translation. It is not one of my best but you get the message. I will be difficult for you to get the length of the redacted words in between. But it is better than just being in English.
German someone,
Your reasoning is peculiar.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The lack of supporting evidence that AA was present with SW during questioning does not prove that she was not present. Quite frankly, I don’t think it matters much. AA and SW had sufficient contact prior to formal questioning that we can say that their complaints have been cross contaminated. And nobody raised concerns over the use of telephone interviews which fail to prevent interference from people who cannot be seen. Completely unacceptable in other jurisdictions.
Since there is no evidence that pigs can fly does prove they cannot.
My comments is about Craigs claims that are unsupported. Please get that into your German head. Maybe it helps if you take your helmet off first.
The issue is not that the two women had been in contact before they went to the police. We know that. But Craig did not mention that. So that is not what is discussed. Craig claims that Anna was present during Sofia’s interview but cannot come up with anything that supports. All there is is a number of facts that indicate Anna didn’t.
When it is apparent even for the most resilient you all of a sudden exclaim that it is not important. If it is not important why the hell did Craig claim it. It is important for people that try to construct silly conspiracy theories. And it is obvious for a normal reader to see that is what he is doing.
About telephone contacts and summary interviews. I was the first to point out that Anna’s interview was over the phone on 21 August. And that it is the least favored form of interview. I’ve been at length about the lack of recording the interviews and at length about the lack of documenting the interviews in dialog form. Just because you haven’t seen does not mean it does not exist.
About my motives. In order to understand what has been going on you have to find the facts. In order to have to find out what is going to happen in the future you have to understand the legislation, the procedures, the history etc.
Assange is not helped by a bunch of helmet wearing nutters that are convinced it is a conspiracy all the while they show that they like to demonstrate that they are homophobic misogynists with a strong tendency to disregard facts and prefer to make stories up and that have an almost unbelievable difficulty in understanding two paragraphs in a police report.
@Goran, would you prefer the allegations to be withdrawn before charges are laid, or for Assange to be extradited, charged, tried and acquitted?”
I would prefer if someone could help you get your brain working.
Charges are already laid if you didn’t know. The only alternative open for Assange is to appear for an interview. Something he should have done a long time ago. I certainly hope he will not talk himself into a dustbin at the airport.
@Goran
What makes you and a couple of other dills here, think that I am German? Every sneering reference you and your hyena friends make to me being a sausage-eating knee-slapper only makes you look all the more stupid. I’m not at all offended, nor am I flattered.
“I’ve been at length about the lack of recording the interviews and at length about the lack of documenting the interviews in dialog form. Just because you haven’t seen does not mean it does not exist.”
Did you just contradict yourself after ridiculing my quotation of the popular saying “absence of evidence…”?
“When it is apparent even for the most resilient you all of a sudden exclaim that it is not important. If it is not important why the hell did Craig claim it.”
Goran, you are confusing my comments with others’ and Craig’s. We are not one person. Craig does not check with me what is important before posting his articles and follow up comments. Ok?
“Charges are already laid if you didn’t know.”
Really? That is news to me. Perhaps someone could post a link that confirms that charges have been laid and that Assange is now wanted for prosecution. Though it does leave us to ponder why the Swedes still want to question Assange if they have sufficient evidence for a prosecution. After all, Assange has a right to silence and would be well advised to save his testimony for the trial.
“I would prefer if someone could help you get your brain working.”
One brain at a time, Goran. We still haven’t discovered how yours works yet. But I will infer from your unclear, equivocal reply that your preference is for Assange to return to Sweden.
Thank you for replying.
Clark, you’re welcome. Yes I’m Swedish and a native Swedish speaker.
Göran, how do you interpret line Målsägande var ej på plats då anmälan skrevs in (Claimant was not present when the complaint was registered) on page 15 in this set of documents http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09/UC-ARKIV-120903171025.pdf ?
It’s a document containing notes about information given to the claimant (målsägande). The code 0201-K246336-10 in the third line shows that it is Ardin’s case.
The complaint was registered, according to other sources, at 16.31. So why, Göran, do you think that Ardin was at the police station at 16.31? Doesn’t it say very clearly that she wasn’t there when the complaint was registered? It’d support your idea that Ardin left early, even earlier than you think.
Orb, thanks. I was going to ask you to spend more time monitoring this thread, to help check Göran Rudling’s translations. But during the course of the argument above, I’ve seen enough of Göran to form an opinion, and I intend to change direction.
Villager,18 Sep, 5:45 am: sorry, I do not know of a source for that. You could try this site:
http://www.bailii.org/