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.
Goodnight Clark, I’ll hope you forgive me a parting shot but I think JA’s dubious behaviour and his linking so intrinsically of wikileaks reputation with his own has made himself as much an enemy of wikileaks as many a MSM hack.
It would also be interesting to know where Craig has garnered some of his false information from? Have JA and his lawyers been feeding his supporters misinformation?
Arbed (10:25pm), thanks for pointing out the date on Linda Wassgren’s memo, I hadn’t noticed.
I noticed in line 15 under “Uppgift” how it says vaknade sedan på morgonen av att hon kände hur ………………….(med?) henne (awoke in the morning by feeling how ….. (with?) her) It looks as if Linda’s description of the alleged “assault” is quite different from Irmeli’s. In Irmeli’s interview there is a context of breakfast, shopping, morning love and a light daytime slumber. Linda’s makes it sound as if it was her night sleep that got interrupted. It makes a huge difference for how the “suspect” is perceived.
Irmeli may be a loud and opiniated militant feminist for all I know, but in some ways she probably did a better job than Linda. The first prosecutor, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, made the decision (at 17:00, long before Irmeli’s interview was over) to issue an arrest warrant based on Linda’s presentation. The second prosecutor, Eva Finné, must have read the first version of Irmeli’s interview with Sofia, and decided to withdraw the arrest warrant and drop the rape charges. Pity it didn’t end there. They all want him, for various reasons.
For reference, the link to Linda’s 2010-08-22 18:20 memo about the events on 2010-08-20 (it’s the original in Swedish, but Göran made a translation in a comment on the previous page, on 18 Sep 8:43 am):
http://samtycke.nu/doc/police_pm_p29.pdf
The time for first arrest warrant can be seen on page 21 at http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09/UC-ARKIV-120903171025.pdf
“…. är anhållen i sin utevaro, beslut togs fredagen den 20 augusti 2010 kl 17.00 av jouråklagare Maria Helgebo Kjellstrand.” (….. is arrested in absentia, decision taken friday 20 August 2010 at 17.00 by on call prosecutor Maria Helgebo Kjellstrand) (Helgebo is misspelled, it should be Häljebo.)
Dearest Clark,
Here’s an interview of Göran Rudling on YouTube. Göran, I think some of your opinions may have changed since then, but I’d need to watch it again to make sure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1WSyhlOhSc
Göran, I still think you wasted my time and were dishonest with me, but I do respect your investigative work and I wish you well.
Assange has been smeared time and time again. Always remember that the corporate media serve the rich, the powerful and the establishment; all of them enemies of Wikileaks.
I spent some time to help you look into a police interview and help you find out what it said. I could help you. I really don’t know why.
I am probably older than you. There are some wonderful things about growing old. I’ll tell you a few. When I was younger I tried to be loved by everybody. I could do a lot to be liked. Now when I’m older I think I quite a nice character. So I’ve come to the conclusion there is nothing wrong with me. And I when people dislike I just wonder what’s wrong with. Their loss.
If you think I read all the silly stuff people write about me I wouldn’t have time do the things I like. They can call me anything. I don’t listen. So it is always sunshine were I am because I don’t look for the cold rain. I don’t spend time moaning of things I don’t have. I do my best to enjoy what I have.
If Assange cannot take a smear, so fucking sorry. He just got the wrong job. Please don’t get so personally involved. Shit doesn’t really smell until you pick it up.
Saw you linked to Rixstep. And you mentioned Flashback. I know who they are. In order for you to get an idea of who Rick Downes at Rixstep is read his smear on me. Do you think I cared when I saw it? If it helps you to see what people write about me, here it is.
http://rixstep.com/1/1/20110308,00.shtml
One thing I learned from my father when I was very young. “People don’t kick dead dogs.” It’s when you are stopped being kicked you have serious problems.
I am not your enemy. I am just trying to help you see things you haven’t seen before. Hope you haven’t seen this Rixstep piece before. Maybe it makes you feel better. If so, you sure are worth it.
Best regards,
Göran Rudling
CE – 18 Sep, 2012 – 10:43 pm
“On one hand you claim it to be a lie that Wikileaks has endangered lives, then on the other, freely admit that the Iraq cables were released unredacted and ‘lessons were learned’. In the learning of these lessons is there not the chance that some lives may have been endangered?”
It’s the same bizarre charge, that placing the lives of informers in an unquantified but obviously low risk of danger is somehow worse than the actual, real deaths of innocent civilians shot up by a remote helicopter gunship – ie killing people is ok, but marginally endangering their lives is not.
“There is surely a hint of truth in Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s charges of slack security at wikileaks.”
Well Daniel Domscheit-Berg proved that security was deficient when he sabotaged the Wikileaks system and deleted files. Since bursting on to the stage in his own name, Daniel has gone on to much greater obscurity as people now realise he is a knave and hustler and now shun him.
It’s obvious that CE is anti-Wikileaks and a supporter of Goran. Both of them doing the important work of destroying Wikileaks.
Clark, thanks for your replies and also the link to Goran’s video. Have a good day!
Ah Jemand, nothing like blatant straw man to start the day. Could you please point out where I stated that, “placing the lives of informers in an unquantified but obviously low risk of danger is somehow worse than the actual, real deaths of innocent civilians shot up by a remote helicopter gunship”? Can’t you imagine it is possible to hold two separate positions where you find both your ‘examples’ tragic and disappointing in different ways? Just because wikileaks performed an excellent public service in releasing evidence of brutality does not mean we should give the organisation a ‘free pass’ on all other issues.
Also ask yourself, why do you so closely associate criticism of JA with criticism of wikileaks, I would argue it was JA himself who has helped to blur the lines between himself the flawed person(like all of us) and wikileaks as an organisation.
Summary of status of case: Preliminary investigation, but advanced stage. Probable cause hence ‘charged’. Premature for plea and/or indictment. JA needs further interview, probably more than one. Decision on whether to proceed with case or drop ‘charges’.
Meanwhile has anyone read anything coherent about what sort of internal investigations, if any, have taken place in Sweden to review the various lapses by the police and prosecutors’ offices?
Goran?
Btw i read your latest article linked above–it seems persuasive. But in the end its all semantics, isn’t it?
Ah, so after all that, Goran now admits there’s a possibility Ardin was sitting in on Wilen’s interview for between 10 minutes and an hour and 10 minutes, but wants to take Craig to task for using the word “throughout”? I see.
Actually, I like Goran. There’s a touch of the old Don Quixote about him, tilting at windmills an’ all that. Quite charming in a way.
However, I think his latest article claiming, by way of a “translation error” argument, that Assange HAS been charged has a problem. The Swedish Prosecution Authority is – still, in August 2012 – saying exactly the opposite:
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/
Thank you, Goran, for giving the thread Ny’s late, faxed statement to the District Court I was talking about earlier. A close reading comparing that document with the SPA’s August 2012 statement above will illustrate exactly what I mean when I say Ny has lied to and misled the English courts. This is only ONE of the ways, of course. We know also now the forensic evidence about the DNA-free condom has come out that she had this report in plenty of time to question whether Ardin’s allegations were in fact credible before filling out an EAW request which states that they are and putting all three of Ardin’s allegations as “unlawful coersion”, “sexual assault”, “sexual molestation”.
She also told the UK court the process was much further along – ie that she had DECIDED to prosecute already at that stage (February 2011) – than Swedish law allows. Now we see the SPA statement has reverted to the true situation – the case is still in PRELIMINARY investigation (for which EAW extraditions are NOT allowed). As I said, Ny’s statement swung the District Court ruling. Judge Riddle ruled for extradition on the basis that prosecution was imminent, it was only the fact that formal charges came LATE in the process in Sweden that mattered. But it’s NOT late in the process, it’s early as the SPA now makes clear. Good God, Assange hasn’t even been questioned about the encounter with one of the women yet (the most serious allegation, to boot) – is it normal in Sweden to charge someone with ‘minor rape’ BEFORE they’ve even been questioned about it, Goran? Can you ‘translate’ that for us, please?
For clarity, here’s both documents again:
Statement to District court: http://samtycke.nu/doc/new/M-Ny-feb11.pdf
August 2012 Statement: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/
Compare “the preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage” and “subject to any matters said by him which undermine my present view that he should be indicted” (note the use of present/future tenses there, Goran) and especially “he is not sought merely to assist with our enquires” with “IF (my emphasis) the investigation results in the prosecutor bringing a prosecution” and “when continuing the investigation there is a need to carry out supplementary interviews as required…”
Goran asked me to look at points 12-14 of Ny’s faxed statement to the UK court, which of course I have, many months ago. As I said in one of my earlier posts Ny goes through long periods of “no comment” about this case and occasionally issues a very carefully worded statement. And cleverly worded too – this one swung a judge’s decision. But actions speak louder than words.
All that mumbo jumbo to the judge back in February 2011: “It is incorrect to state that a person accused of rape will automatically be held in pre-trial detention”, then “the court will RELEASE (my emphasis) an accused if the former or latter condition is not met [probable cause/risk of absconding]” and “only where the offense attracts a minimum of 2 years imprisonment… minor rape, which does not have a minimum term of imprisonment [unfortunately, EAWs are very unclear on this; they seem to be based on a ‘maximum of at least’ formulation]. Therefore, there is no presumption that he will be detained pending trial”
Reading this carefully, you’ll work out Assange will be slapped straight into jail for at least four days, then he has to hope that a court will release him if the prosecutor doesn’t claim ‘probable cause’ (which she’s already told the English court she believes she has) or ‘risk of absconding’ (which she claimed after she mysteriously managed to issue an arrest warrant a mere 2.5 hours before he was due to board a flight to Berlin – having been told by her office he was free to leave Sweden – but he, again mysteriously, wasn’t stopped from boarding by airport security. Hmmm.)
On 14 June – the day the Supreme Court dismissed the application to re-open the appeal case – Ny issued a public statement that she would detain him in custody as soon as he arrived. Why did she issue that statement? The Supreme Court allowed Assange a 14-day window in which to appeal to the European Court of Justice before the 10 day extradition process was to start (ie from 28 June, ETA in Sweden therefore 7 July). She then did two things:
1) asked the UK Crown Prosecution Service to request that the 14-day window was reduced to ZERO days. Outrageous attempt to completely block someone’s right of appeal to Europe. Probably because his grounds for appeal were so strong. No wonder he fled to the Ecuador embassy when he heard about this.
2) went on holiday. I would love to know the exact dates for this holiday, if anyone knows. Surely, she wouldn’t want to miss out on being there to greet someone she’s waited nigh on two years to meet?
Craig seems to have many errors in his posts relating to the Assange case (see Goran’s post 18 Sep, 2012 – 1:14 pm) , not only that AA was present throughout SW’s information. Surely people on all sides should be interested in the truth and not take all corrections of false information so personally.
Arbed, all the evidence leads to the conclusion that AA was not present for any of SW’s interview, surely you can see that and support a correction of misrepresentations that have been published.
Please pay attention now Arbed!!!
In a comment 18 Sep, 2012 – 11:04 pm I asked you two questions. Two simple questions.
On 19 Sep, 2012 – 11:47 am you responded with something that must be characterized as a Craig Murray reply. Ducking the questions.
I repeat the questions.
I showed you Jennifer Robinson’s claim, “if he is extradited to Sweden, he will be held incommunicado, in solitary confinement, and without bail for several months and then tried in secret”. I pointed out to you Marianne Ny’s statement about what would happen shows without a doubt that Jennifer Robinson is not only wrong but she deliberately withholds information from the Canberra MPs. She is misleading. Or as I as a simple person say, she lies. What is your comment?
Please Arbed. I was not born yesterday. Even a mental midget can see that Mr Murray’s claims are false and that Jennifer Robinson is actively misleading the Canberra MPs. Just answer the questions so I can label you correctly.
Orb 1.22 am
Yes, I noticed that – Wassgren’s statement really doesn’t correspond to Wilen’s statement, as written down by Irmeli Krans. Nor does it really correspond to either what Ardin told Bostrum according to his statement or to Ardin’s statement to the press the following day, in which she confirmed neither of the women had wished to file a complaint of rape.
She told Bostrum something along the lines of “we went for advice… and then because there were two of us it BECAME a complaint”.
Wassgren’s memo does speak of them seeking advice but also says “Initially the crime rape was mentioned and both of the women were victimized.” Was mentioned by who? Wassgren herself, or the women?
There’s something really, really odd here and it’s been at the back of my mind since someone – think it might have been you – posted the translation of that page from the forensic report about the condoms. I’ll reproduce that here, then try to explain what I mean:
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.
This is Mats Gehlin’s notes, right? (who is also one of the prime suspects to have leaked the ‘arrested for DOUBLE rape’ story to Espressen on 20 August, and the most likely to have leaked Assange’s 30 August interview transcript to them) implying that WILEN (MA1, remember) too has a story about hearing Assange “do something” with a condom, just like Ardin’s story of “deliberately” tearing one – “sounds like he pulled a balloon” – and retrieving a (piece of?) condom from under the bed. But she makes NO mention at all of this in her statement to Krans. NOTHING like it at all. And yet on 20 August we have a newspaper article, based on a leak, that there are TWO cases of rape. Both cases, according to Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensics report, involving stories of deliberate damage to condoms. By the following day, the ‘rape’ allegation is chucked out and later very dubiously revived, but now it’s about being “half asleep” when sex is initiated, with no mention of condom damage. And Wassgren’s memo also says “both women were victimised”…
We also have Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensics report, supposedly following a conversation with a lab technician, of all the different reasons said technician has told him about why a condom used for sex might not contain DNA. These are patently ridiculous. “Some people have more DNA than others”, “it could have been washed” (it would take several days soaking in strong peroxide to do that, apparently). And I’ve heard that Gehlin didn’t actually tick the box for DNA test on the form submitting it to the lab; he requested only analysis of the tear but the lab did a DNA test anyway. Is this true – about the non-tick – do you know? Was the condom produced as ‘evidence’ (collected from Ardin by 6pm 21 August) never expected to be tested for DNA? I did think it REALLY strange that a former Gender Equality Officer would do something as stupid as to hand in a condom, looking ‘used’ and with a tear in it, as evidence and not understand it would be tested for DNA. Very odd.
If so, I’d say ALL Gehlin’s “notes” are post-facto justification too, ie a cover up. But… but… is there something in all this that indicates the story the TWO women went to the police with wasn’t actually “seeking advice about HIV”, which is what they’ve told the rest of the world ever since, but really a JOINT story about ripped condoms?
I gather that “seeking advice” from police in Sweden is a common ploy which somehow absolves someone from any later charges for making false allegations, which can attract a two-year sentence over there. Is this true? How likely is it that someone who’s been a Gender Equality Officer while they were at university (Ardin) would be fully conversant with this aspect of Swedish law? Isn’t she likely to have helped many women on matters of sexual violence and the reporting thereof in the past?
Where exactly is all this evidence – all the fine detail of it, I mean – that’s emerging leading? Genuine question. I have my suspicions but I don’t want to rule out there are plausible, non-suspect reasons for it all.
I guess we’ll only know when the text messages between the two women and Assange in the period before they go to the police come out (which Ny has shown once to a defence lawyer but wouldn’t let him copy, and has also withheld them from the file submitted to the defence team and to the UK court). Those will come out soon, I feel sure. George Galloway’s got them, or some of them at least. He says so in the podcast which caused all that hoohah. The press only showed a tiny snippet of that podcast. Bastards. It’s worth watching the whole thing. Things make a lot more sense if you do. He talks about the women’s text messages at around 25 minutes in. Says he has them in Comments about the Assange case start at the 10 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4I5F05jNg
Whoops. Last sentence in previous post should read:
Says he has them in his possession, owtte. Comments about the Assange case start at the 10 minute mark.
Stupid keyboard.
Note to Goran: I’m not going to engage with you. Sorry. I find the way you engage with other people’s line of reasoning, ie. ignoring any and all valid points they make and simply hammering away at your own point over and over again, too frustrating. I shall therefore simply keep posting about points which I think make a valuable contribution to the debate and leave you to make of them what you will. I trust the intelligence of other readers to view the debate as presented here and to work things out for themselves. Sorry, don’t mean to be rude, just thought I should make clear to everybody that I won’t be answering any of your questions – and, more importantly, why.
To begin with I warmed to Göran because he found that Anna Ardin had deleted tweets to cover up the fact that she had enjoyed the company of Assange. But latterly he seems to have changed direction, wanting us to believe that the Swedish law-courts are the best in the world, and exemplars of justice.
I criticise the British law courts. I do not think it is safe to believe that justice is done all the time in any court in the world. Lord Phillips was hand-picked to preside over Assange’s appeal because, as I have shown in my blog, he was just about to retire to that pillar of democracy, Qatar, and the deal was done in chambers even before the justices sat. This is what they did with the Hutton Inquiry, the Gus O’Donnell Inquiry, and the deplorable judgment that found the four policemen who beat up Babar Ahmad not guilty, (even though the Met had paid out £60,000 damages to Ahmad in a private hearing). You see how I criticise my country’s judiciary, Göran. Have you anything bad to say about yours?
I am still convinced that the main purpose of any extradition is to get Julian Assange onto Swedish territory, where the CIA will pick him up, whisk him off to one of their penal institutions and throw away the key. Assange obviously thinks that too.
So, Göran, as you did not answer my last question, just everybody else’s, can I ask you what is wrong with Ms Ny coming to the UK to put her questions to Assange?
My guess is nothing, except they would have difficulty extraditing him from the UK.
In posting this comment, I’m posting as the establishment, consisting of governments and their increasingly allied partners in power, the corporate media, under the name:
BIG BROTHER
Good comment Clark, you sarcastic man!
Orb,
How’s this for a compromise in the Craig/Goren disagreement about whether Ardin was present in Wilen’s interview or not? Does it tie in with all the other available bits of evidence – Bostrom’s word-for-word of what Ardin tells him, Wassgren’s memo, Gehlin’s notes on the forensic file, etc?
The interview that Ardin sat in on (throughout) was the interview Wassgren conducted in reception at Klara, then Wilen was passed over to Krans by herself. Wassgren went off to consult with her colleagues (Gehlin and the on-duty prosecutor) and at some point during this process – between 16.31 and 17.45, according to Goran – Ardin left the station. Conjecture: the story that BOTH women told Wassgren was about deliberately damaging condoms but Wilen then goes on to give a different story to Krans. Looking at the formal interview statement written by Krans on 20 August (and which Gehlin later asked her to alter and resubmit to the computer system, hence its ‘official’ date of 26 August on the police protocols) on the 21 or 22 August Eva Finne threw out the rape allegation. Did she also have Ardin’s (morning of) 21 August formal/telephone interview then? Finne asked only for one count of ‘molestation’ (non-sexual variety) to be pursued. Despite this, Gehlin still interviewed Assange about the ripped condom story (obviously that’s not ‘non-sexual’) on 30 August.
Evidence for conjecture:
Ardin to Bostrum: “Sophie’s with the police now” (meaning Krans)
Ardin to Bostrum: [paraphrase]”as I was sitting there, I added one sentence. I said I think what she’s saying is true. Same happened to me” (meaning while both were talking to Wassgren)
Ardin to Bostrum: “because there were TWO women making the same statement it became a complaint” (ie, at that point Wassgren split them up and handed Wilen over to Krans – Ardin’s friend, conveniently still at the station after her shift has finished)
Wassgren memo (written 22 August after the whole thing has become an international scandal, so trying to justify her decision to consult with on-duty prosecutor/advise issuing warrant for DOUBLE rape): “Initially it was TWO women seeking advice. There was mention of rape. Both had been victimised” (BOTH had been “seeking advice” about the same story? – someone had deliberately torn a condom on them)
Wilen’s interview with Krans: doesn’t mention anything AT ALL about ripped or broken condoms. “He put it over only tip of penis, I let it go” (earlier sex with condom), “I woke up with him penetrating me. I asked him “are you wearing anything”, he said “you”, I said “you better not have HIV”, I let it go, I couldn’t be bothered to say anything, I’d been nagging him all night (the incident which later becomes the ‘rape’ allegation when Ny takes up the case). IMPORTANT: Interview is broken off by WILEN becoming ‘distressed’ and rushing off as soon as news comes through that’s there a warrant for Assange for ‘rape’ – it’s Wilen who breaks off the interview is what I’m getting at. There is no time to read back her statement to her. She doesn’t sign it. She apparently made a 2nd statement on 2nd September. Presumably voluntarily, presumably signed. This second statement has never surfaced. It is not in the police file the Guardian newspaper had leaked to it in December 2010. It is not in the police file leaked to the internet in February 2011. It is not in the evidence file given to the defence in December 2010 or included in any submission to the UK court (as far as I can tell). Why not? Why has Ny held this back, if it exists. We only have Claus Borgstrom’s word that it does. Borgstrom enlisted as “complainants’ helper” role in Swedish law to BOTH women on 23rd/24th August. He ‘revises’ Wilen’s statement sent to him by Gehlin on 24 August. Following day Gehlin asks Krans to put revised statement on police computer system. She’s unhappy about doing this, but does. Wilen statement therefore has ‘official’ date 26 August. This is the one we’ve all seen. It’s not the one Eva Finne saw on 21 August. Sophie Wilen has vanished pretty effectively.
Gehlin (?) leak to Espressen 20 August: Assange hunted for DOUBLE rape.
Ardin statement to press 21 August: It was consensual, turned non-consensual. He is not violent/not afraid of him. Did not wish to file a complaint [ie. we were only “seeking advice” about HIV] but he’s got ‘problems’ with understanding the word ‘No’. [Both women’s formal statements make it clear they never used this word to him]
Lab report, received 2 condoms from Gehlin on 25 August, BOTH submitted under Ardin’s case number because Eva Finne has closed Wilen’s case, formally, by this date:
MA2 – torn, used condom [collected 21 August] has no DNA, male or female. Gehlin requested analysis of the tear, but didn’t request DNA test.
MA1 – piece of condom retrieved from under bed is tested for DNA. It has male DNA on it which matches a swab from Wilen.
MA1 condom piece (is it only a piece, not a full condom?) dates from night of 16/17th August, but we don’t know when it was collected from Wilen. Possibly as late as 24 August.
MA2 complete condom dates from night of 13/14 August, collected from Ardin 6pm 21 August (is this after arrest warrant rescinded by Finne?)
Gehlin’s notes on lab report: “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” (ie, this is Wilen’s FIRST story to Wassgren?)
Ardin, in one of the other witness statements [could be Bostrum]: “The other woman wanted to report rape. I went along to support”
Bostrum statement: Assange said he’d spoken to Sophie on Friday morning (20 August) when she was at the hospital. Long phone call, according to Assange, and everything’s fine, it’s all sorted out. They are due to meet the following day and he’ll get a HIV test when the clinics open again. (Two hours later Wilen is at the police station (reporting ‘rape’ to Wassgren while “seeking advice” about some common experience with Ardin? / telling Krans she was unhappy he didn’t use a condom in the morning but didn’t protest at the time, is worried about HIV))
Wilen’s ex-boyfriend’s statement (taken, by phone, by Gehlin, much, much later): Sophie contacted me out of the blue. Said she’d been raped. We never, ever had sex without condoms. She’s paranoid about that.
End of conjecture.
The answer’s all going to be in those texts between the two women and between them and Assange that George Galloway’s got hold of, isn’t it?
John Goss 1.47pm
Clark 1.58pm
Bravo! Both of you. Two statements that are bang on the money. I’ve been outraged at the corruption our courts have shown in the Assange case. It’s just so bloody see-through to anyone who’s been following the case closely. And Big Brother’s message has come through loud and clear in the ‘reporting’ (and I use that term loosely) of it in our corrupt press.
“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.”
No one is saying trial by jury is infallible but what’s the alternative Craig? Should we just let the non-useful idiots decide on the basis of a handful of newspaper cuttings and their own gut feeling?
@CE – “… (btw, can we turn the darned spellcheck here to proper English rather than American?)”
Hey, thanks for the previous questions CE but I’m thinking about something else now. Your fragment, above, got me pondering why someone who is clearly familiar with using a browser would ask such an odd question. It is not like you only visit this website. Surely you post on other blogs, do some home banking and use webmail. You must have encountered the embedded spell checker in your browser before and experienced the same frustration with US English – but chose to reveal your problem with “American” on this blog. Why?
You also referred to it as a “darned” spellcheck. Darned?
I’m not one for beating around the bush so I’m going to come out and ask, are you an American posing as just another casually interested English poster?
Yes, a really constructive, erudite and thoughtful comment on the Assange Case and the errors that have been made by ALL parties.
A valid correction of errors does not have to be taken as a personal insult.
A lot of Assange defenders seem to getting awfully irked by the thought that he may have deceived them.
Jemand, even if your suspicion were correct, CE could simply lie in reply to you, so there seems little point in you asking the question. I’ve inspected some site logs, and the evidence does not support your suspicion.
Note also my comment above of 18 Sep, 10:25 pm. The language tag of each page on this blog is set to en-US, and some browsers may use that tag when they set their internal dictionary.
Jemand, 😆 you might be thinking too much for your own good.
1) I have been posing as a Scotsman, not an Englishman.
2) Thanks, but the above post you wasted your time on was not by me! 😉
CE, I must point out that most reports of “mistakes” by Assange’s supporters are brought to us through the corporate media. They are distorted in the establishment’s favour en route.
The release of the Cablegate password is the most obvious example. Anyone with an interest in computer security knows that using a strong password and keeping it utterly secret is absolutely essential to security. Assange would have to have been unbelievably incompetent to not have impressed this upon Leigh of The Guardian.
Personally, I take Leigh’s publication of that password as a malicious attack upon Wikileaks, with callous disregard for all the people mentioned in Cablegate. Leigh should have been fired for that, and his reputation should be in tatters, but in fact Assange has been handed as much of the blame as the corporate media could dump on him.
But the corporate media has spun that issue in its own favour, raising irrelevant issues like other copies of the file, the file might have been “temporary” (whatever that is supposed to mean), etc. etc.
Assange would have said, forcefully, something like:
“Never, ever, release that password under any circumstances. Do you understand? Do you promise? Even if you think you’ve deleted your copy of the file, traces will remain on your computer, and there could be copies elsewhere. That password IS the security; never, ever, release it.”
Any other advice from a Hacker would be unthinkable.
Clark,
Thanks for that info re the cablegate password, I am pretty computer and illiterate and a lot of the Guardian’s explanation seemed plausible to me?
If what you say is true than surely the Editor in Chief must have been aware\complicit in this?
Kempe, the case against Assange is so weak and so flawed that it should be dropped immediately. The breaches in police procedure, the immediate leaking from Swedish police to the Swedish corporate media, and the prejudicial corporate media reporting all make the case impossible to try without prejudice in any court.
The disadvantage with dropping the case is that Assange can’t secure an acquittal. But I sincerely believe that Assange will end up “disappeared”, tortured and/or dead if he submits to custody. And Assange’s reputation is now beyond salvage in any case.
CE, you wrote: “If what you say is true than surely the Editor in Chief must have been aware\complicit in this?”
I haven’t looked into the details, because
(1) I know it is unnecessary; passwords matter more than anything else, and Assange would have said so in no uncertain terms if he has half a brain;
(2) Whose report of the matter could we trust? I’m already convinced by what I’ve seen that the corporate media are not to be trusted.
I’d be very surprised indeed if the editor-in-chief wasn’t complicit. In my opinion, nearly everyone in the corporate media is complicit in distortion which is favourable to the established powers, and the problem is getting visibly worse. That’s why we’re all spending so much time exploring the news via websites like this one, isn’t it?
CE, may I suggest you subscribe to Media Lens e-mail alerts? They e-mail subscribers about once per month on average. They are non-commercial and they have never spammed me. They highlight bias in the corporate media by asking simple questions and looking at matters from different viewpoints.
http://www.medialens.org/index.php
Clark,
I’m beginning to doubt there is any evidence that could convince you that JA is anything other than blameless victim, you seem to placing a lot of blind faith in a man who may not deserve it, faith that as far as I can see, is not strongly backed by evidence or reason.
Ps. Wasn’t it JA’s lawyers that leaked some of the information? Sorry I may be mistaken but I’m sure I’ve seen evidence of that.(On mobile at the moment, so can’t really search).
Before someone accuses me of being a “conspiracy theorist” for my 19 Sep, 5:41 pm comment, I should point out that I do not believe conspiracy to be the mechanism by which distortion occurs. Personally, I accept Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Propaganda Model as the relevant mechanism.
Anyone who was brought up to hold dogmatic religious beliefs which they later overcame (as I was and have) will be familiar with the power of group belief systems in defeating rational evaluation and enabling the belief of utter nonsense in the face of all available facts.
Clark,
This is what Goran has to say about the ‘leaks’;
To make one thing very clear from the beginning: as far as I know, no documents have been “leaked” from the police or the prosecutors. Not one single document.
The only confirmed leak is the “Detention Memorandum”. The 100 page file containing interviews with Julian Assange, the two women and a number of witnesses. This leak originates from the office of Julian Assange’s lawyer as one can easily tell by the first page. I know who uploaded the file to the Internet, information that I intend to keep to myself. The person has no connection to the police or the prosecutors or the accused or the accusers.
If there are no leaks from the police and the prosecutors, why are official documents in the hands of the media? It all has to do with the Swedish law Offentlighets- och Sekretesslagen (2009:400), a law similar to Freedom of Information Act. The law simply states that all documents in government and public institutions are public unless they contain information that, if revealed, would cause harm. It includes police documents. Anybody can apply to see a specific document. The government must release the document unless it decides that the document or parts of the document should be classified.
In the Assange case the media asked for the police files around 21st August 2010. The files were released with details edited out some days later. Details that were regarded sensitive to the ongoing investigation. In the released files there are some documents that explain the police department’s reasoning behind editing out some sections. I have condensed the file that was released to the media to include only the police department’s decision and the first interview with Miss W.
Julian Assange’s lawyers have complained on numerous occasions that the media were given more information than they were: a statement that is utterly false. If one compares Miss W’s interview in the Detention Memorandum with the one that was handed out to the media it is evident that the lawyers were given much more information.
According to Offentlighets- och Sekretesslagen (2009:400) anybody can apply to get information from the police department. It is also a fact that anybody who applied to get the same information as media received in late August 2010 would get it. A letter from the Australian High Commission on 20th December 2010 confirms this. “If the Embassy so wishes, it is possible to get the file which has been released to the media.” Julian Assange’s lawyers never applied to get the file.
Preparing for my witness statement for the February hearing, I was asked by Assange’s lawyers on the 21st January 2011 at 17:42 to send a copy of the files that were released to the media. I sent the file 12 hours and 2 minutes later.
We have to remember that the police and the prosecutors have made mistakes revealing the fact that Julian Assange was wanted for rape. I wouldn’t call it a leak. It is an unauthorized confirmation. In the eventing of 20th August 2010 a number of media organizations were informed that Julian Assange was wanted by the police for rape and molestation. These organizations tried to confirm the information by calling the prosecutors’ office. The only organization that was successful was the tabloid Expressen. They called the prosecutor in charge, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, and after Expressen revealed all the details of the case finally the prosecutor confirmed that Julian Assange was wanted. It was this confirmation that was the mistake. The prosecutor did not reveal any details of the case.
Who informed the media organizations about Julian Assange’s arrest? Nobody knows. But my view, which could be wrong, it is just as likely that someone close to Miss A informed media as it is that someone in the police and prosecutors office did it. Until we know, we have to accept that we don’t know.
CE, Naomi Wolf may have been wrong in her evaluation of the legal position, but she made one vitally important point. It is utterly unusual for such minor sexual transgressions such as those that Assange is accused of to be pursued with such fervent vigour as we are seeing in this case.
So if sex isn’t the motivation, what is? Oh, it couldn’t be Wikileaks and the exposure of government and corporate corruption. Surely, no, unthinkable…