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.
I agree Axel, Anne Ramberg seems a principled lawyer. I hope she brings down Borgström who will hopefully one day be judged on the company he keeps.
you’re in point of fact a excellent webmaster. The web site loading speed is incredible. It seems that you’re doing
any unique trick. Also, The contents are masterpiece.
you’ve performed a great activity in this matter!
Hi there this is kinda of off topic but I was wondering
if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with
HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding skills so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience. Any help would be enormously appreciated!
Here’s a bit of confirmation that indicates the Wikileaks Grand Jury is set on “conspiracy to commit espionage” charges (probably already in a sealed indictment):
This article is about the recently unsealed subpoenas for the Gmail accounts of Smari McCarthy and Herbert Snorrson:
http://mashable.com/2013/06/22/google-wikileaks/
Key quote from the article: “The information seized is a vast trove of metadata going as far back as Nov. 1, 2009.” – That date is the one that US prosecutors in Bradley Manning’s trial have insisted on for the Garani video being sent to Wikileaks (despite clear evidence to the contrary that Bradley sent it in April 2010), because otherwise they can’t say Wikileaks’ tweet of 8 January 2010 about their receipt of an Afghani airstrike amounts to evidence of a conspiracy.
Hey there are using WordPress for your site platform? I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying to
get started and create my own. Do you need any html coding expertise to make
your own blog? Any help would be really appreciated!
My family every time say that I am killing my time here at web, except I know I am getting experience
all the time by reading such good content.
My letters to Elisabeth Massi Fritz to which I got no reply were published on the Professors Blogg with my rationale for writing them.
http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/letter-to-new-legal-representative-of.html
Can the mods please have a look at some of the spam comments. Thanks.
Good letters, John – Flashback have had quite a lot to say about them. All good stuff – it’s made them wonder again at what point the Swedish Ombudsman and their Bar Association will finally be able to conduct a decent investigation of wrongdoing during the course of this investigation.
Slightly O/T, but still connected. I was struck by these comments by White House press spokesman Jay Carney on Edward Snowden’s escape from their clutches in Hong Kong:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/us-urges-russia-edward-snowden-pursuit
Contrast that with Marianne Ny’s secret 27 September 2010 arrest warrant for Julian Assange, which was issued by her at 2.45pm on that day (without informing Assange’s lawyers of its existence until 30 September) but which still failed to prevent him from boarding his flight for Berlin (for a pre-arranged meeting with Der Spiegel journalists), which took off at 5.20pm that same afternoon.
I have always believed that that arrest warrant was something of a legal fig leaf, and was in fact accompanied by some form of instruction to border control – “do not detain” – in order to enable a situation whereby the Swedish authorities could resort to the far heavier detainment provisions of Interpol warrants designed for “fugitives” and extradition orders, because she simply didn’t have a case to warrant his detention in Sweden if she had interviewed while he was still there and learned nothing new from that interview.
Am currently watching “We Steal Secrets”.
Arbed, you make some very good points, especially the Snowden/Assange arrest warrant comparisons. If there is an arrest warrant for someone all the airports are notified. There is no way Assange could have got past check-in if they really wanted him. Like you say it’s a fig-leaf. My guess is that they did not want to arrest Assange because they did not have a case against him. I believe they do not have a case against him now, and never have had.
Snowden though is a slightly different whistle-blower and up to now the ‘dirty tricks’ brigade have not been able to set him up in any kind of trap because they were not expecting his revelation, which must have come as quite a shock to them. They will stop his money.
I think the Russians will help him. He is a bright young man who I assume must have made some contingency plan (like safe-storage of his data-pool) before embarking on this life-changing decision to reveal the pure evil of US foreign and internal policy to spy on the general populace of all countries. Hopefully Snowden can evade the Feds and find safe-haven in Ecuador, or some other decent country.
Almost straight after I wrote the above comment I came across this. I must be psychic.
http://rt.com/usa/snowden-greenwald-encrypted-copies-227/
Hi John,
From that RT article you linked:
You’re aware, I assume, that Assange had three laptops stolen from his luggage on that flight from Arlanda airport on 27 September 2010? How very deja vu all this stuff going on around the US attempts to nab Snowden must seem to Assange, eh? Like I said, I’m sure the figleaf arrest warrant that day came with other instructions attached – maybe not just “do not detain”…
WikiLeaks Volunteer, Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson, Was a Paid Informant for the FBI:
“Thordarson was long time volunteer for WikiLeaks with direct access to Assange and a key position as an organizer in the group. With his cold war-style embassy walk-in, he became something else: the first known FBI informant inside WikiLeaks. For the next three months, Thordarson served two masters, working for the secret-spilling website and simultaneously spilling its secrets to the U.S. government in exchange, he says, for a total of about $5,000. The FBI flew him internationally four times for debriefings, including one trip to Washington D.C., and on the last meeting obtained from Thordarson eight hard drives packed with chat logs, video and other data from WikiLeaks.”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/wikileaks-mole/
Arbed, yes I was aware of Assange’s laptops being stolen. Hopefully all the data was so well password protected and encrypted that they got nothing from the theft. Only the USA and its proxy (I almost wrote poxey) partners are guilty of any crime in the Assange and Snowden cases.
Abc, thanks. I saw that about Thordason. You can’t trust anyone these days. To be a whistle-blower by exposing the truth is one thing. To be a traitor by exposing those who tell the truth sinks below the cesspit water-line.
@arbed.
Good point about the secret Sept 27 2010 arrest of Julian Assange. He left Stockholm for Berlin three hours after the arrest was issued. He was not stopped at the airport, and his laptops were stolen on the journey, presumably already at Arlanda airport in Stockholm.
A strong indication that there is something fishy going on, is that the Swedish Prosecutor, Åklagarmyndigheten, still does not publish the date of the arrest in September. In their chronology exact dates are given for most, if not all events. But for the arrest order it is only given as “September”. See here:
http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Assangearendet/Kronologi-i-Assangearendet/
It’s an interesting development, this withdrawal of travel documents issued by Ecuador to Snowden ostensibly because of a perceived usurping of the process by Assange. They have stated that he needs to be on Ecuadorean soil to apply for asylum. It comes after intense US pressure threatening the suspension of trade preferences benefitting Ecuador.
Now I read that Russia will decide where Snowden is to travel. It seems to me that Russia wants to relieve Ecuador of some the ‘diplomatic’ pressure. We shouldn’t expect this matter to unfold any faster than the time both Russia and Ecuador need to assess their options, all compliant with international law and conventions, to avoid a runaway diplomatic rift with the US. In monetary terms alone, these rifts can be costly.
For each of them, this is a public relations opportunity playing out on the world stage. The US is now being seen as an oppressor of people, its beacon of “Freedom and Democracy” dimming with each scandal and its inspirational calls to dissident struggles in oppressive countries sounding ever more hollow.
Whatever secrets Snowden has revealed, Russia would certainly have already been aware of most of them. So it is unlikely to be interested in much, if any, of Snowden’s ‘secrets’. More valuable, by far, is the slow torture of the contrived image of American liberty, moral superiority and good international citizenship. Defanging the US will make diplomatic negotiations somewhat easier in respect of the outstanding bilateral issues between the US and Russia.
What happens next? Nothing. It’s a waiting game. Snowden will stay at a hotel in the airport, taking advice from Wikileaks. Wikileaks will reveal more US secrets. Russia will drag the process out for as long as it tortures the US. Ecuador will patiently consult all stakeholders with a view to doing the right thing under international law and enjoy its raised profile in Latin America and around the world.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/snowden-hiding-in-a-moscow-airport-hotel.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/russia-to-decide-fate-of-fugitive-snowden/story-e6frg6so-1226672117053
I have just given thought to the possibility that the reported unauthorised issuance and subsequent withdrawl of travel documents to Snowden was contrived to allow him to exit Hong Kong for travel to a safe port. The withdrawal of the documents relieves Ecuador from pressure to act on something over which they no longer have any control, and Russia from obligations to compel Snowden to leave the country – although he is not *formally* in Russia.
Quite clever, I think.
This is the first article I think I’ve seen which reproduces in English a key page of evidence from the forensic report in the Swedish police protocol:
http://rixstep.com/1/20130630,00.shtml
Has an excellent video of an interview with Julian Assange by Swedish channel stv back in September 2010 in which he directly addresses the allegations.
As regards the rather startling evidence regarding what Sofia Wilen really told police, and the fragment of condom with Assange’s DNA on it “found” and sent to the forensics lab, two things which seem significant in relation to it. 1. Sofia Wilen was interviewed again by police on the day after Mats Gehlin made the notes on the forensic file (25 October 2010) that Rixstep reproduces:
http://rixstep.com/1/20130328,00.shtml
(note: wherever this article refers to “Ardin”, substitute “Wilen”; it was written before anyone had figured out that it was Wilen who elected to (urgently) change counsel. Wilen = Complainant A on Claes Borgstrom’s final invoice.)
and 2. the day after that – so, 27 October 2010 – Mats Gehlin interviewed the last of Sofia Wilen’s witness friends, Marie Thorne:
http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,03.shtml
It is extremely important to note that Mats Gehlin focuses a great deal on the content of SMS text messages between Sofia Wilen and Marie Thorne.
I do not know whether these particular messages – SW to/from MT – are part of the trove of approx. 100 said to be between SW, AA and Julian Assange which are still being withheld by prosecutor Marianne Ny, and which she refused Bjorn Hurtig to even make copies of. He has said these 100 are extremely strong exculpatory evidence. However, the SW/MT texts are not part of the protocol leaked at the end of January 2011, and I don’t believe they’ve made available to Assange’s defence team either.
Final point. Look at the sentence highlighted in bold in the transcript of Marie Thorne’s witness testimony:
The chief interrogator asked about the SMS message when I wrote that they have to figure out a good plan of revenge.
I wonder if that was the whole purpose of Mats Gehlin phoning this particular witness on that day, reflecting his thought processes as he noted down what he already knew about Sofia Wilen’s condom evidence on the forensic report that he had only just received back with its surprising discovery that Anna Ardin’s condom evidence had no DNA on it at all and therefore appeared to be fake?
Blimey, just as I was saying that article in my last post was the first time I’d seen the forensics report in English, look what I’ve found now:
Assange in Sweden: The Lab Results:
http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/07/01/the-lab-results/
There’s a lot to look into in this document. Here’s the three things that leap out at me:
1. In my reading of these English translations, it is clear the scientists had a high degree of confidence (Grade +2 is explained as The possibility of achieving these results if another hypothesis is true is assessed to be small) that their results for both Anna Ardin’s “torn” condom (the image that’s about 90mm long) and the fragment from Sofia Wilen (the image that’s about 40mm long) their conclusion is that the damage in both pieces of “evidence” match their test “tears” by “ripping” rather than by knife or scissors.
Verrrry interesting then that in the kabuki theatre section of the UK High Court’s judgment in Assange’s unsuccessful extradition appeal where the judges attempt to show they have considered the underlying evidence in the case (although EAW law forbids them from taking any of it into consideration, so why bother?), paragraph 94 has them clearly state that the forensic report they have looked at indicates the tear in the condom was “caused by wear and tear”:
Overlooked evidence in the Assange trial:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2325
Hmmm. Oh well, as if I didn’t already know the UK courts were corrupted in this case…
2. The forensic report states: “Vaginal swabs from complainant 1 [Wilén] had DNA from complainant 1 and a man.” – How likely is it that DNA from Julian Assange would still be present if these swabs were taken when Sofia Wilen was at the hospital on Friday, 20th August just before going to the police station with Anna Ardin? Perhaps then these swabs are from the earlier hospital visit Sofia Wilen made on 17 August? Perhaps that’s why Wilen went to that first hospital in the first place? Because that was before she had really spoken to many of her friends (a close reading of all their statements indicate most of them only heard about Sofia’s allegations against Assange on 18 August, or later) – yet she blamed “talking with friends” in her formal statement for having convinced her that she had been the victim of a crime. Perhaps the true purpose of the 17 August visit to a hospital – not a local one, mind, but one two hours’ journey away that had a specialised rape clinic – was to get a good sample preserved while she set about setting up the rest of her plan (phoning AA, phoning other friends with a tale of HIV phobia, calling Seth, etc)?
3. The other thing is this: “Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.” – So this does not relate at all to the morning incident after shopping and breakfast, when it would certainly have been daylight, and which is supposedly – according to her formal statement to Irmeli Krans – the only incident of sex that Sofia Wilen was troubled by, Assange not having a condom on when she was not quite fully awake.
@arbed.
Your point three is a good observation. The balloon sound condome episode has nothing to do with the alleged “rape”, since the “rape” event was a condom-less event. The latter took place just before nine in the morning when it would have been broad daylight in Sweden (On August the 17th the sun would have risen well before 6 in the morning.)
The darkness event, the balloon sound event, is another event entirely. It is not mentioned by Sofia when she was formally questioned. I can only guess that Gehlin (and Wilen?) was trying to create another point of accusation against Assange. It would perhaps explain why Gehlin interviewed Sofia immediately after the forensic lab report of October 25th. To get confirmation about the balloon sound…? Fishy.
Does anyone find Anna very attractive? IMO she is, and much more than Sofia. Question why would man with good taste swap nice sexy lady for somehow dull Sofia? Anna was jealous clearly, she enjoyed Assange as mucj as humanly possible, but not his betray. Sofia is totally boring creature. Craig don’t you think so? wouldn’t you mind to rock a bed with Anna?
Jemand “Russia will drag the process out for as long as it tortures the US.”
Made me laugh, I know I should’t.
Arbed, I agree with Axel, point three is a very astute observation. What has a condom that might have DNA on it, which might even be Julian Assange’s DNA, have anything to do with an alleged rape that allegedly took place without a condom? If I was Elisabeth Massi Fritz I’d get out now.
My own theory, and it has been for some time, is that Anna Ardin did actually keep a condom (why would anybody other than an agent who wanted somebody’s DNA keep a condom?) and then passed this on to the Swedish (or US – same thing) secret services.
I am not an expert in condom technology but my experience is that they are, were even in my day, pretty robust things. Yes, they did burst occasionally. But very rarely. Here is a confession. I have tried (not recently) to tear a condom. The rubber is stronger than in balloons, and lubricated. It is not something that would enter my mind in the course of a new relationship. But we are all different.
Anna Ardin, if my memory serves, said she heard what sounded like the deliberate tear of a condom. Even in one’s prime it is hard to imagine that by concentrating on trying to tear a condom the aim of the main objective might be lost. My further theory is that Anna probably supplied SS forensics with a condom containing JA’s sperm. They probably don’t know what to do with this any more as it’s not much use to them at all.
Perhaps Sofia is innocent in this, though I have never been convinced she is. I hope she proves me wrong. What she needs to do is show it is a political plot by stating to somebody that she is being coerced into testifying against Julian Assange. If she contacts me I would be happy to run her side of the story. After all relationships, even short ones, have two sides to them, but short relationships that last but a few days are and do not work out are generally put down to experience by most of us.
Hi John,
No, I’m sorry but you have it all backwards, I’m afraid. The only comment about sound in Anna Ardin’s statement is: “From the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange had removed the condom”. She did, of course, fake a completely DNA-free “torn” condom, but that has nothing to do with the other condom fragment supplied by Sofia – along with the report of “pulling balloon sounds” she heard in the dark (so therefore claims she could not see Assange actually damage a condom) – which does contain Assange’s DNA.
I think many people have been fooled by the reports of others that Ms Wilen is somehow “dumb” or “not all there” and a wish to see her as the vulnerable, “used” party. However, the most logical conclusion from the evidence given by Mats Gehlin on this forensic report is that she was the instigator of the whole thing, telling a story – and producing a condom fragment the lab found had clearly been deliberately torn – of “rape” by deliberately damaged condoms. No doubt, as it was she who contacted Anna Ardin and not the other way round, she found some way to rope Ardin into the scheme, and accompany her to the police station to lend credence to the report with her own tall tale of deliberately broken (DNA-free) condoms.
PS. In other words, this story of “not notic[ing] that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom” is the one that Sofia Wilen told Linda Wassgren, the first policewoman the women spoke to when they first arrived at Klara station, with Anna Ardin chipping in “I believe Sofia is telling the truth because a similar thing happened to me”. This, Anna told Donald Bostrum – and he quotes her verbatim – was the KEY sentence which changed their inital “enquiry for advice” (if you believe that) into a formal complaint. Hence, Linda Wassgren made the phone calls which led to an arrest warrant for “double rape” being issued.
Then Anna Ardin left the police station to go off partying and Sofia Wilen went into her formal interview with Irmeli Krans, in which she changed her story entirely to “soften” her allegations to the point of non-existence, for one of two possible reasons I can think of: to avoid any potential liability for making false allegations (punishable by two years in prison), or – if you are conspiratorially minded – to make any resulting case or charges so weak as to be easily dropped further down the line in favour of a US extradition request.
John Goss, condoms do break through normal use and I can vouch for that having happened several times. I think it is interesting that the two complainants never even claimed to raise the subject of hearing condoms being manually torn and subsequently discovering them to have been torn, with Assange after sex. Surely if they *insisted* on condoms being used, then *definitely* heard rubber tearing, then *discovering* that the condoms tore, they would have formed the idea at the time of the event that Assange tore the condoms manually.
Why did they not complain to him or otherwise raise questions about their suspicions of him deliberately tearing condoms? Ardin is evidently no shrinking violet, so I find her failure to clarify the matter with Assange, especially when there was some expectation of continued sexual relations, rather suspicious.
. . . .
Arbed’s last paragraph in last comment seems quite plausible.
To think we all (except for maybe Arbed) thought that Sofia Wilen was some kind of ingenue dragged into a storm of politics, sex and intrigue.
. . . .
After seeing “We Steal Secrets”, I am completely unimpressed with Anna Ardin. I have no kind words for her on this blog. Her presentation in the film is one of determined vindictiveness. The film wasn’t as bad on Assange as I expected it to be, although it was clearly unsympathetic and reluctant to grant any benefit of doubt to him, especially in relation to a discredited account of a conversation regarding the redaction of the names of US informants.
The opening title screen shows a graphic of Manning and Assange with the words “We Steal Secrets”. It’s only much later into the film that we hear the words being spoken by former Director of the NSA, General Michael V. Hayden.
James Ball struck me as being the kind of person that others accuse Assange of being – smug, attention seeking, untrustworthy etc. Adrian Lamo presented like a mental patient on medication. I originally despised him but now sympathise a little – he’s a bit of a basket case. Bradley Manning is depicted as a mentally unstable transvestite.
Gibney claimed that the chat text in the film, between Manning and Lamo, was a significant omission from the leaked version of the transcript. I can safely say that while the chat text is interesting, it does not change the tone of the leaked transcript and that criticisms of the film are perfectly valid without the chat text.
I am looking forward to the Wikileaks authorised documentary later this year.
Hi Arbed, Jemand et al
It seems I could have put my theory better because it has been misunderstood. In essence it is this. Nobody would save a condom. Would they? But Anna Ardin told police she might have the one Assange allegedly used. Yes she did take a condom with no DNA into the police station but that is not the one I had in mind. My theory is that because her own claim of rape was beginning to look flimsy, or because of her known work with Swedish embassies abroad, the authorities ‘found’ a condom under Sofia Wilen’s bed (if I recall correctly) and if my speculation is correct that this was the one that agent Ardin supplied the secret-services with, which did actually contain Assange’s DNA. An agent would certainly save a target’s DNA to use against that target then or even refrigerated and used in the future to discredit the target.
Of course this does not fit in with the ‘not using a condom’ claim of rape, as Arbed points out, and only really sets out to establish that Assange had sex with Wilen, which he has never denied. It is only speculation. I do not trust Anna (agent) Ardin one little bit. But the strangest thing to my mind is what it is with Swedes that they do not dispose of used condoms. I find this unhygienic and almost unbelievable but every time I see a condom when out walking the dogs I think of the bedrooms of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen, which are probably cluttered with the things, and reminds me of the unusual Swedish habit of keeping condoms for days on end, if not weeks.
This is from Rixstep’s translation of Anna’s statement.
“Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broke the condom at the tip and thereafter continued the sex with the resulting ejaculation. In answer to a question Anna says she didn’t look closer at the condom, if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it. She says that even the bed sheets used on that occasion are most likely still in her hamper.”
And Wilen’s alleged statement;
“She’d earlier got the condoms and put them on the floor by the bed. He reluctantly agreed to use a condom even if he muttered something about preferring her to latex.”
and
“They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he’d put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked ‘are you wearing anything’ and he answered ‘you’. She told him ‘you better not have HIV’ and he replied ‘of course not’. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn’t be bothered telling him again. She’d been nagging about condoms all night long. She’s never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn’t say when he’d done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards.”
No mention of a tear. So why a fragment and not the whole thing?
Hi John,
“An agent would certainly save a target’s DNA to use against that target then or even refrigerated and used in the future to discredit the target.”
Yes, and why could this not also apply to Wilen? She is the one, after all, who lives within walking distance of the Swedish military’s Psyops headquarters in Enkoping, and who claims to have bumped into her brother at 8am while waiting for her local shop to open (an equal distance from her flat to that of the HQ) although he lives the other side of town. This, of course, is shortly before her claimed time-sequence of phoning/texting several friends, getting a lift home with her brother, eating breakfast, serving breakfast in bed to Assange, talking, taking off clothes, having sex with half-on condom, falling asleep and then waking at 9am to the non-protected penetration attempt. Do you find that time-sequence at all plausible? (Not to mention this whole other story about hearing a condom break in the dark – which has to make it at least before 5am, I’d say) and a fragment of condom with Assange’s DNA on it being found under her bed which she has apparently told police at some point. Look again at that forensics report. They did not test the hypothesis “old or partially perished condom splits”; they tested three scenarios: cut with knife, cut with scissors, and “ripped at the back part”. Their finding is definitely that Sofia Wilen’s condom fragment (with Assange’s DNA on it, remember) was deliberately “ripped”.)
“So, why a fragment and not the whole thing?”
Now you’re asking the right questions!!
“Why a fragment and not the whole thing”?
The only reason I can think of is to fit into the story that both women had the same experience. If the torn condom from Sofa had actually been torn before use, it would hardly have been able to survive in that shape. Therefore it is likely that we see one torn condom which was never used (Anna) and another one which was torn after use (Sofia).
The surprising and unhygienic habit of keeping a used condom a week or so is absolutely not typical of Swedes. Most people would dispose of immediately. Which add to the oddity of the whole thing.
“The only reason I can think of is to fit into the story that both women had the same experience.”
Axel, you have no idea how much your post is music to my ears. I have been trying to get people to realise the significance of the information on the forensic file about the “pulling on a balloon” story for months and months.
Are you a Flashbacker, by any chance? I’m not, but I would dearly love for my posts of 1st July, 3.54pm and 7.53pm (complete with their bolding, so people don’t miss it) to get in there, for them to chew over…