Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar

by craig on September 11, 2012 1:05 pm in Uncategorized

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

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

There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:

“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”

Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.

If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?

Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.

Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .

11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.

13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.

14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.

Anna tweets at 14.00:

‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’

This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”

15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:

‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’

Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.

16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.

20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.

21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.

Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.

No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:

Either

Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.

Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.

Or

Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.

She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.

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

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

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

Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.

Conclusion

I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.

Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.

Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.

By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?

Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.

Tweet this post

1,986 Comments

1 3 4 5 6 7 20

  1. Warning about the following comment:

    Göran Rudling enjoys seeing Julian Assange victimised, he is not an impartial researcher. The following link is to Göran Rudling’s own blog:

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/07/julian-assange-journalist-or-spy-youre-the-judge/

    Craig Murray is currently researching full-time on an unrelated project, and does not intend to post again this week:

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/leave-of-absence/

    I edited the submission time of this comment so it appears before that of Göran Rudling.

  2. A summary of most of false claims in two articles by Craig Murray

    This is a list of 15 false claims. Or to be exact. 14 false claims and one insinuation.

    In my first comment on 7 Sep, 2012 – 12:28 pm I wrote:

    “Until you can show me a statement where prosecutor Marianne Ny says that “the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin,” I will regard you as an inventor of stories and a certified xxxx.”

    For more than 10 days I have asked Mr Murray to back up his claims with facts that support them and/or sources that supports them. Not one single fact have been shown. Not one single source is revealed. My conclusion is that the claims are all made up.

    The claims are made up in a loathsome effort to try to depict the case against Julian Assange as a conspiracy by lesbian feminist activists supported by state-feminist dominated Swedish authorities that for some unknown reason wants Julian Assange killed by US authorities. Sure. Well thought out. Oooh. I’m sooooo scared.

    Instead of Mr Murray showing facts and sources he now wants me to show him the real facts of the case. “Make a time line.” Something I am happy to do on the condition that Mr Murray simply states that all the claims below are false and reveal the sources that contain all this unreliable and false information. We will never get the true facts of the case until we can determine what sources contain made up stories and false claims.

    I have also noted that Mr Murray has great problems in finding out what is in two paragraphs of police interviews. I cannot say that I am convinced Mr Murray will do better if I gave him twice as many.

    Mr Murray’s 14 false claim.
    There is just a short comment to each one.

    1 “Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement”
    Not true. Evidence: Interrogators’ note Sofia Wilén’s statement

    2 “Sofia Wilén have not signed her statement to this day”
    Not true. On 2 September Sofia Wilén was re-interviewed. Extremely unlikely that the interview was approved during this interview.

    3 “The prosecutor told the British High Court that Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans were witnesses to Sofia’s interview.”
    Not true. There is not one shred of evidence suggesting this is true. Mr. Murray have been asked repeatedly to show evidence. Have flatly refused.

    4 “Anna Ardin did not take Sofia to the nearest and best police station.”
    Not true. Klara Närpolisstation was the nearest and best police station to go to.

    5 “Rather than see another officer, the two women waited two hours until Krans came on duty.”
    Not true. Evidence: Memo Linda Wassgren

    6 “Anna Ardin was present throughout Krans’ interview of Wilen”
    Not true. There is not one single piece of evidence that indicates this. All evidence shows just the opposite.

    7 “Anna Ardin did not report Julian until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.”
    Not true. Evidence: Anna Ardin’s police complaint

    8 “The Klara Närpolisstation does have video-taping facilities.”
    Not true. Evidence: Interview Chief of Klara Närpolisstation

    9 “Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret.”
    Not true. No trials in Sweden are in secret

    10 “Sofia Wilén’s statement alleging rape was drawn up by Irmeli Krans in Anna Ardin’s presence.”
    Not true. There is no evidence that suggests that Anna Ardin was present at Klara Närpolisstation between 18:40 and 19:28 when statement was finished

    11 “Anna Ardin discussed with Julian Assange his desire for sex with Sofia Wilén”
    Not true. There is no evidence that suggests that this is true

    12 “Anna Ardin took Sofia Wilén to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Sofia Wilén’s story into a sexual assault”
    Not true. The choice of the police station was the best and nearest. There is nothing in the police interview that is “twisted” in order to make it into a sexual assault. If there is anything, it is just information pointing in the other direction

    13 “Sweden has astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws.”
    Not true. Sweden’s laws are 120 years behind Canada’s and many years behind England’s, Australia’s etc.

    14 “Some days later than 22 August (25): Anna Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence;”
    Not true. Evidence: Evidence report. Condom was picked up by Sara Wennerblom on 18:12 August 21

    15 “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?”
    A silly insinuation that an accused like Julian did not know who his accusers are.

    In ten days not one single piece of evidence shown by Mr Murray that supports his claims. Pathetic. Don’t think it is ever gonna come.

  3. @Clark

    Do I get a delete button too? Please?

  4. Kathy Da Silva

    18 Sep, 2012 - 1:35 pm

    I am very thankful for the above article which should be read by everyone concerned to know the truth of what happened. I think what you have written explains the time line of events very well. Maybe in future, Julian will have to consider staying with known friends. Neither women seem to care about the future of WikiLeaks because they only care about themselves. But, globally we’re all benefiting. I feel a cloud of oppression got lifted off my head, when listening to all the interviews with Julian Assange explaining WikiLeaks work. It’s a shame that neither of the girls could think of the wider outcome, of their actions. If Anna was trying to widen her audience or increase her fame, then Julian became a first class mug for staying with her…she was poor company.

  5. Jemand, sorry; only Craig can appoint moderation privileges.

  6. @Göran – I know things have alternated here between hostile and friendly, and like Clark I have appreciated your change towards a conciliatory tone. Most of us here are convinced of Craig’s good faith and honesty, and have no reason to support something we find to be untrue. Most of us here have little views of Assange as a person, but are supportive of WikiLeaks’ work exposing the machinations of US foreign policy.

    I think Lastbluebell makes some interesting points about where (if any) your subconscious biases may come from. I am less sure of the assertion that your motivation is career building – rather, I think your committed work on changing sexual assault legislation, and the terrible experiences inside your family – has encouraged you to regard alleged, unconvicted rapists as real rapists. From this I wonder if it is possible that you are dismissive of Wikileaks because it is, in your view, lead by a sexual assaulter.

    Various folks here cannot of course state with any certainty what your biases are, but maybe I can encourage you to examine them yourself, privately? I know with some certainty what my biases are, and how they came from my harsh religious upbringing – they are difficult to escape. In one way or another, we all have them.

  7. @Göran – I won’t go through your points above in detail, but this stands out:

    15 “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?”

    You say this is “a silly insinuation that an accused like Julian did not know who his accusers are”, which shows you have misunderstood what was meant by it. I think it is quite plain that Craig was referring to details about the accusers in the public domain, with the implication that a conspiracy to punish Assange for his work would be less likely to succeed if the accuser’s connections to the CIA were well known.

  8. Göran, is it possible Anna left early that Friday evening to delete the emails you discovered she had deleted before coming back to make a statement?

    I was also under the impression that Anna Ardin was present when Sofia Wilen was interviewed. I am happy to retract that view if there is no evidence that she was. Perhaps the misunderstanding has come about because both women went to the police station together (about 2 p.m. when Irmeli Krans’ shift began) and Anna was not interviewed in the 2.5 hours or so she was at the police station. What then was she doing there all that time? There was obviously some discussion about the case before the Sofia Wilen statement was taken. Who was she talking with? What was she doing? Was she just sat in a waiting-room waiting for her friend to be interviewed by her other friend?

    It seems irregular to me, but perhaps not in Sweden. What is really concerning me now is how UK judges are hand-picked to deliver distasteful verdicts and then retired with a fat wad, including Phillips in the Assange extradition appeal. I’ve blogged on this very subject.

  9. Jon, you wrote:

    “…the terrible experiences inside your [Göran Rudling’s] family…”

    I did not know of this. Can you supply a source, please?

  10. @Göran, phew – just read “Assange, Journalist or spy?” on your blog.

    In a lengthy piece, intended to show that Asssage cannot be classified as a legitimate journalist, you’ve managed to shoehorn in Whoopi Goldberg, Swedish confectionery, Crocodile Dundee, a picture of someone who may be Lady Gaga, a fictional character called “Plot Assman”, people locking themselves in the loo, proctology and something about lawyers eating bananas.

    Sad to say, I cringed all the way through reading it – as an analogy it just falls apart, with each proposition not remotely leading logically to the next, and demonstrating not much more than a bouncy, cartoonish imagination. It is very odd, since it suggests to me that the author could not possibly be capable of rational, even-handed analysis, but some of your detailed contributions here have been very good.

    I really don’t know what to make of it.

  11. Göran Rudling, who or what is “samtyke”? Is it a contraction of “Sam Tyke”? It has confused me, and others, that your blog’s URL has a name different from your own.

    Also, if you’d be willing to provide a link to the “the terrible experiences inside your family” that Jon mentions above, please do so.

  12. Clark, sure. I didn’t want to be too specific because it is very personal in nature, and I didn’t want Göran to think I am undermining him with sensitive information about his family member. But this is in the public domain, and could well speak to motivation. See point 1 on the first page here:

    http://www.fsilaw.com/cms/documents/WitnessStatementofGoranRudling.pdf

    (Link retrieved from justice4assange.com/February-Hearing.html just now)

  13. Jon, Göran Rudling’s Assange, Journalist or spy? is an obvious smear article directed against Julian Assange.

    It opens with the false dichotomy that Assange is either a journalist, or he is a spy. It then smears the work of Wikileaks as if Wikileaks routinely publishes private sexual encounters between individuals, rather than governmental and corporate corruption and human rights abuses. It is full of misrepresentations, distortions, and amplifications of anti-Assange allegations that have already appeared widely in the corporate media, such as the smear that Wikileaks is opposed to redactions to protect innocents. It implies that Ecuador is a “banana republic”.

    It’s a dishonest hate-piece, pure and simple.

  14. Jon, thanks for posting the link to Göran Rudling’s statement. For other readers’ benefit, it is highly relevant to the Assange case and makes only a passing mention of sexual abuse in Göran Rudling’s family.

  15. Clark, yes; certainly the article is biased against Assange on very little argument and evidence.

    My instinctive response to the piece was not that it was dishonest, although that may be true in itself. Rather, it was that the mode of illustration throughout was oddly child-like: overly simplistic, heartfelt, giggly and cartoonish. I am quite mystified by the dichotomy between someone who wants to be taken seriously as a well-informed commenter on the Assange affair, and the author of such a piece, being the same person.

    I am becoming of the view that Göran’s underlying motivations are so powerful – whatever they are – that he could be making all the effort he does without intending to misrepresent. The human mind is quite a peculiar and frustrating device.

  16. Göran Rudling, I am mystified. It is as if you, posting here and on samtyke.nu, and the person submitting that statement, are two different people.

    Thank you for having the integrity to make such a statement despite your obvious hatred for Assange and the work of Wikileaks.

  17. Clark,

    Göran Rudling, who or what is “samtyke”? Is it a contraction of “Sam Tyke”? It has confused me, and others, that your blog’s URL has a name different from your own.

    I have tried to hint earlier that you may not be the best reader. The blog is called samtycke.nu

    I find your investigative techniques amusing. Have your tried to use google translate on samtycke nu? You seem more inclined to take the Sam Tyke road. Guess it more interesting. I know you want to take out Linda Wassgren’s memo. But why do wanna take the c out? Why not the K? Or the S? Am Ty Ke? Who is that? Is that something from “the terrible experiences inside your family”? And what has Am Ty Ke to do with jelly raspberries? Or am I an obsessive user of KY Jelly. The raspberries is just another a decoy like Irmeli Krans?

    I just cannot believe what you guys are up to.

    Samtycke means consent in Swedish if you cannot find google translating service. Nu is now in Swedish. Put the two words together. Get it?

    Are you less confused now? Or do you me to hand the keyboard to Goliath the Strongman and Professor Little Atom?

  18. To all of you thin men out in la-la-land

    I write a list of 14 false claims that Mr Murray have made in order to try to depict what has happened in the Assange case as some kind of bizarre conspiracy and freak show. I’ve asked him for facts backing up his claims. SILENCE, DEAD SILENCE

    And what do you guys do? You bring in some Muppet Show Shrinks trying to figure out “…the terrible experiences inside your [Göran Rudling’s] family…” without knowing shit. And not even quoting right. Why do you make false things up in front of my eyes? Think I am blind?

    And you claim that you are for openness and transparency? And you try to tell me that you really wanna know what happened in the case? If you are serious, ask Mr Murray to back up his claims for a start.

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/04/the-assange-case-thin-men-in-la-la-land-part-1/

    I have criticized Mr Murray for making stuff up. I don’t know, don’t really care to be honest, who the peanut brain is that cannot even quote properly. From my witness statement.

    “My particular interest in sexual offence law and the effective prosecution of rapists has come about because my mother was the victim of rape and sexual abuse by her step father and this has affected me and my family’s life.”

  19. @Göran, calm down. I also assumed that “samtyke” was a name – since you blog in English, it would follow that you might also have an English domain name. Most people here don’t speak Swedish, of course.

    I didn’t understand your point about “taking the C out … jelly raspberries … KY jelly” at all, sorry. Nor “Goliath the Strongman and Professor Little Atom” – are some subtleties getting lost in translation, or are you just being surreal?

  20. Göran Rudling, thanks for explaining the meaning of the name of your blog.

    Jon, Göran’s comment about “taking the C out” refers to my misspelling; “tyke” instead of “tyCke”. “Jelly raspberries” is a self-quote from Göran’s hate-piece. I cannot explain the other example (KY jelly) that you cite.

    Göran Rudling, I need to resort to psychology to gain insight into the extreme differences between your statement to the police, and {what you post here and on your blog}. As I said, they seem like the work of two different people.

  21. @Göran

    Regarding your list of claims:

    SILENCE, DEAD SILENCE

    So you missed my reply to point 15, then? Ahem.

    Why do you make false things up in front of my eyes?

    Clark hasn’t done this at all that I can see, and I’d call him out on it if he did. He was quoting me, correctly.

    In all honesty I am saddened that I am regarded as a “Muppet Show Shrink”. Self-examination of ones own ideas and motivations can be difficult, and I should know – I’ve done more of it than most. I tried as hard as I could in my earlier post to show that I was not being personal or malicious towards you, by explaining that the process of subconscious bias affects us all in varying degrees. I underscored this again by making the point explicitly to Clark above.

    I warmly commended you on your shifting to a conciliatory tone, and I hope you can go back to that – although I have not been much involved in this thread, I did see parts where there was a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. I’d like to see that again if possible.

  22. Jon,

    I am cool and having fun.

    I have learned a lot in my life by asking questions. I go to people that are smarter than me and pick there brains. Been very helpful. Recommend it.

    “I also assumed” Yeah. I know. You assume stuff instead of finding out what it is really like. Can you see?

    “are you just being surreal?” I am being as nice as I can. Trying to be like you guys.

  23. Four more days…

  24. @Clark – ah yes, thanks – we made the same spelling mistake.

    @Sunflower :) – the auto-close on comments extends automatically when a new comment is received.

  25. Jon,

    ” I’ve asked him [Mr Murray that is] for facts backing up his claims. SILENCE, DEAD SILENCE”

    Don’t assume stuff. Read carefully.

  26. Clark: “Maybe Villager will find Marianne Ny’s statement to the court on the bailii.org site.”

    Clark, thank you for that. While i fully know that it was well-intentioned, i also know that the following statement made by Craig is, like it or not, simply NOT TRUE. And it makes no sense. Krans was not a witness to the interview; she was the interviewer. Therefore, I will not go off on a wild-goose chase.

    Craig Murray: “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.”

    This remark was included in Craig’s blog of 6 September, i.e. I suspect even before Goran joined the ‘conversation’, so don’t be surprised if he hasn’t ridiculed it. I think this needs to be cleared up one way or another, for the sake of Craig’s own credibility.

  27. Clark, sorry i just started to read Goran’s comment of 18 Sep, 2012 – 1:14 pm, so i retract that part of my 5.20pm comment where i refer to him.

  28. Clark:
    “Göran Rudling, I need to resort to psychology to gain insight into the extreme differences between your statement to the police, and {what you post here and on your blog}. As I said, they seem like the work of two different people.”

    With all respect, Clark, and others, it is not so difficult to reconcile. Goran is disdainful of people who are

    (a) too lazy too research things for themselves before opening their trap, and/or
    (b) not smart enough to ask the right questions.

    Without sounding judgmental, there is ample evidence of that throughout these relevant threads. Conversely, Goran is not contemptuous of the Courts.

    Jon is right, the quality of tone on this thread was markedly improving, but then Clark sorry you jumped a few guns without having done your research or having been up-to-speed, e.g. Goran’s witness statement. You called Goran a liar when he stands as a crucial witness in the defence of Assange. In effect, as declared Assange supporters, shooting yourself (if not Assange) in the foot.

    Hundreds of comments on these Assange case threads (some very helpful and interesting, some utterly stupid and naive), but as far as i have seen, after questioning everything, Goran is the only ‘expert’ here.

    Make peace, resist personal attacks, allow him to make his analogies, however satirical or hyperbolic it may sound (not unusual in the legal world), but please get down to brass-tack facts if not for JC’s sake for JA’s and for the sake of sanity.

    Finally, Goran is also highly critical, to the point of contempt, for most of Assange’s legal eagles. I’m hardly surprised about that. Lawyers are not angels sent as guides in difficult times. They are self-serving, fallible human beings. Its not unusual for them to advise on the basis of what yields them top fees.

    Goran has complimented Hurtig for having given Julian the right advice very early on: complete the interrogation promptly. If you read his first, and only, witness statement, it was a cake walk. He could’ve nipped it in the bud. But he was, and is living in fear. That is also normal. When you avoid something, fear magnifies. He may have won some reprieve through Ecuador but i’m still trying to figure out what kind of hand of cards do they really hold. What leverage do they really have? We’ll wait and see.

  29. Jon: “I’ve not read the primary evidence as much as various folks here have, but on the question as to whether AA and SW were present in the same interview, perhaps no definitive public written evidence exists? That would be why, as each person here reads the various items of evidence, they interpret various events according to their pre-existing biases!”

    Not true, Jon….its all there in the thread above. DB’s witness statement + Linda Wassgren’s memo. Its crystal-clear, unless one is thick or deliberately obstinate, neither of which is you.

    I admire your moderation. I think Goran would’ve made a brilliant lawyer (he may have missed his true vocation), equally i think you would’ve made a brilliant judge. Now its for you to arbitrate and find an honourable solution to these significant discrepancies. (btw, can we turn the darned spellcheck here to proper English rather than American?).

    Lastbluebell, reflect on the above–i was surprised by your rather suspect extrapolations on Gorans motives. Come on folks, is it the first time in your life that you’re coming up against a highly competent intellect, but who is also a difficult person? I admit to my bias towards Goran: i’m a huge fan of Bob Dylan as he is.

    As for Assange, if i were you Julian, based on all one has read and seen, i would invite Goran to every key meeting with your legal team to play the Advocate’s Devil. Good luck!

  30. I must be looking at a different site than Clark, I can’t see anything ‘hate-filled’ on Goran’s blog link. Yes it may be a bit rough around the edges and strong in it’s use of language, but he poses some pertinent questions for JA and his cheerleaders on the publishing of unredacted information.

    If you want to see something ‘hate filled’, you must have noticed the reaction those critical of JA get from some of his more partisan supporters.

  31. Goran, belated thanks for that Linda Wassgren translation–very helpful.

  32. Göran, about “The complaint was started 16:31 and finally entered into the system 17:46 when Linda Wassgren tried to ask the claimant some questions and noted the she wasn’t at the station anymore.”

    It’s not what it says. That document is only about information given to the claimant, and it is written at a later time than the registration of the complaint itself. If you look at Linda’s choice of words, and compare to the exact words on page 8 (especially line 10) of http://info.publicintelligence.net/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf then I don’t see how you can say that Linda says that Anna was at the police station at 16.31.

    My interpretation is that as soon Sofia was handed over to Irmeli, Anna Ardin thought she had nothing more to do at the station and left, perhaps telling Sofia to call her later. When Anna said “now Sofia is with the police” it’s likely that she knew exactly which police inspector she was with, don’t you think? It must have been either Linda or Irmeli.

    About the choice of police station: I do agree that if someone from out of town wants to report something to the police in Stockholm, then Klara isn’t a strange choice. Still, there are many police stations to choose from, and I doubt it was a pure coincidence that she ended up with a friend of Ardin interviewing her. It’s just too much of a coincidence. Because they came in together and their stories support each other, Irmeli should have asked someone else to handle it, and she was taken off the case after the weekend.

    Now that we have read the publicly available interviews it seems strange that the police was so utterly convinced early on that it was rape. That makes me wonder what the first, informal interviews looked like. How could they be so sure when today it look as if no crime took place? Nor do I see how Anna filling in a sentence could change anything for Sofia. All it meant was that the police had to do a separate interview with Anna and file a complaint on her behalf as well. How could it possibly change anything for Sofia except that Anna might be a witness on Sofia’s behalf, as well a complainant on her own?

  33. Villager,

    “Goran, belated thanks for that Linda Wassgren translation–very helpful.”

    Oh Dear, I blush, I can’t be rude. I have to talk to the Muppet Show Shrinks. It seems like I have lost my nasty streak.

    Sure I help you if you want to know. Anything more?

  34. Villager, there is no spell-check associated with this site. It is on your own browser. If you’re using Firefox, proceed as follows. In, say, the comment box on this page, right click. A context menu will open. Point at Languages, and you will see a list of dictionaries. If “English/British” is in the list, click to tick it. If not, click on the bottom entry, “Add Dictionaries…”. A new tab will open to this page:

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/language-tools/

    Find the appropriate dictionary and click on “Install Dictionary”. Once the dictionary is installed, you’ll need to right-click in a text box again and ensure its entry is ticked.

  35. CE, you can’t see the hatred? Laughing because Assange is imprisoned? Denigration of Wikileaks work as spilling private photographs rather than exposing abuse?

    Wikileaks previously released unredacted information. They were criticised for that, and henceforth collaborated with the corporate media. A corporate media journalist released the password to the unredacted Cablegate files, and the corporate media blamed Wikileaks and Assange.

  36. Orb, there is a large collection of information at the Flashback.org site. You’ll find a couple of links on this page:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20111028,00.shtml

    Flashback is a Swedish language site, so I cannot assess it myself. Göran Rudling is, I think, contemptuous of Flashback, as he is of nearly all sources of support for Julian Assange.

  37. Hi Clark,

    I’m sorry I didn’t see any hate there, maybe a touch of schadenfreude and misplaced humour, but not hate.

    And I think you oversimplify the release of the unredacted information being purely down to a journalist releasing a password in which JA played no part. This was a very serious matter, sex crime victims had their identities published and many informants and dissidents may have been tortured or worse. The latter dispute and subsequent release of the unredacted cables was also reported to have been the decision of JA alone in something resembling a fit of pique.

    This old Der Spiegel article is pretty balanced, and much like the Swedish case, indicates JA is pretty far from blameless despite he would have us believe.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-wikileaks-a-dispatch-disaster-in-six-acts-a-783778.html

  38. CE, there is only one important piece in the article you link to:

    “In his book Leigh didn’t just describe his meeting with Assange, but he also printed the password Assange wrote down on the slip of paper complete with the portion he had to remember.”

    David Leigh of The Guardian published the password. Assange did not further publicise the password “in something resembling a fit of pique”. The password was further publicised to make the unredacted information more widely available than parties with a vested interest in the case. Vested interests would primarily be intelligence agencies and governments. The password was further publicised by Assange or Wikileaks so that the people affected would know that they were in danger, and could take whatever meagre steps possible to protect themselves.

    Assange/Wikileaks were left with no other ethical choice but to further publicise that password, but the blame was pinned on Wikileaks/Assange.

    Who’s the villian? The corporate media, as usual.

  39. @ Villager 5.20pm

    Can I put in a plea that you don’t consider Craig’s assertion about what Ny did or did not submit to the UK court a wild goose chase, on the basis that Krans couldn’t be considered a witness to Wilen’s interview as she was herself the interviewer, and DO check this out for us?:

    “Craig Murray: “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.”

    Marianne Ny has flatout lied in at least three other ways in the course of this extradition case, both to the press and to the UK courts directly. She goes through long bouts of “no comment” when events take an awkward turn for her, to very, very carefully worded statements. If you don’t find this information in any High Court submissions (or statements made by Clare Montgomery on her behalf during hearings) or that judgment, you could try the District Court. She faxed a statement across on the first day of that hearing – in which she basically misrepresented both Swedish law and the stage which investigation proceedings had reached – but refused to fly over to be cross-examined on it, thereby preventing the legal basis on which extradition was being requested from being properly examined by the court. In my view, that faxed statement swung the District Court judgment and Judge Riddle’s decision to over-ride the objections made on the basis of proportionality.

  40. The idea that Wikileaks scorns redaction and thus recklessly endangers innocent lives is, to use the language of Assange’s enemies, a “Zombie” lie that just won’t die. Yes, the Iraq material was released unredacted. Wikileaks learned their lesson and tried to do better, but were thwarted by the establishment at every turn:

    http://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5/

    What could have been the Pentagon’s motives in refusing to cooperate?

    # Maybe they considered it more important to smear Wikileaks and Assange than to protect third parties.
    # Maybe if they’d cooperated as requested by Wikileaks, they would have weakened the legal case they were preparing against Assange/Wikileaks.

  41. Villager, as I said above, there isn’t any spell-check software associated with this site, but there is an entry in the source of every page that is set to “en-US”, which your browser could be using automatically. My advice above, or something similar on other browsers, could sort it out, but I’ll e-mail Jon and see if he can change that entry.

  42. Villager 7.26pm

    Can I suggest that the Wassgren memo is not good evidence to use in defence of Goran’s arguments? You have to remember that it is dated 22 August, ie. AFTER the international scandal of having a too-hasty arrest warrant (requested by herself, albeit in consultation with her colleagues) rescinded VERY firmly by a senior prosecutor less than 24 hours after issue with comments to the effect of “I don’t disbelieve the complainant but I can see no evidence that a crime has been committed in the statement”. So Wassgren is writing some time after the huge hoohah – remember the incredulity of the interviewer to Karin Rosinder stuttered responses in that Al-Jazerra interview? – so I think this memo may be an exercise in post-facto justification. Also, bear in mind it is heavily redacted.

    There is also what Orb posted:

    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.

    Which Goran answered with:

    You have to read the document in great detail. Now, look at the time when Linda Wassgren makes that note. You will see the time 17:46.
    The complaint was started 16:31 and finally entered into the system 17:46 when Linda Wassgren tried to ask the claimant some questions and noted the she wasn’t at the station anymore.
    So Anna Ardin left between 16:31 and 17:46. She had to give Linda Wassgren some information in order to make a complaint. So my estimate is that Anna Ardin left somewhere between 16:45 and 17:46.

    I may be being VERY dense here but doesn’t this contradict Goran’s assertion that Ardin definitely WASN’T sitting in on Wilen’s interview because she had already left the police station. Wilen’s interview starts at 16.21 and is hastily terminated at 18.40. So, she could have been sitting in for 10 minutes, or up to an hour and 10 minutes.

  43. Clark,

    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?

    With regards to the MSM and the Pentagon, I don’t think any sensible person is prescribing to the notion that they are whiter-than-white or without ulterior motive in this matter, but I do find the notion that JA is some form of innocent victim just as fanciful. There is surely a hint of truth in Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s charges of slack security at wikileaks. Did wikileaks also deny the Guardian’s claim that they were led to believe this was a temporary file and the server would be taken offline after a period of hours? Again, much like the Swedish Case, I don’t think things are as black-and-white as JA would like us to believe.

  44. Clark @ 10.06pm

    You may be interested that further information about the error of the unredacted names in the Afghan War Diaries has now come out (the Iraq War Logs were later and a different, techie approach was tried, resulting in over-redaction if anything).

    It’s buried in the documents that Wikileaks released after the failed Ofcom complaint:

    http://wikileaks.org/The-public-relations-state-full.html

    About halfway down the page: “agreement that it was the job of the newspaper journalists to identify document types and patterns that likely needed to be redacted. The programme deliberately excludes this fact and instead allows Guardian interviewees to blame WikiLeaks for the failure to redact these names and the subsequent agrressive stance of the Pentagon.” There’s more detail in the transcript of Assange’s interview for the programme that’s attached at the foot of the page.

    and

    signed witness statement from a Der Spiegel journalist who says Assange never said “they’re informants, they deserve to die”

    wlstorage.net/file/cms/Folder%204/1.%20Signed%20statement%20by%20John%20Goetz.pdf

    and book extract also from Der Spiegel indicating Assange was working on redacting the Afghan reports anyway:

    wlstorage.net/file/cms/Folder%204/3.%20Translation%20of%20pgs%20165-167%20Staatsfeind-wikileaks.pdf

    So I think that old article by Der Spiegel from around the time the unredacted cables spilled out which CE links to above must be the one that David Leigh strong-armed all the other media partners into putting out jointly (apparently told them all they were all in the firing line for extradition, owtte)

  45. Arbed,

    Craig claims specifically that, ‘ Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s police interview.’

    This seems to be impossible and should be corrected. The evidence in fact leads us to believe she was not present at all.

  46. Arbed 18 Sep, 2012 – 10:04 pm

    Still trying to get Anna Ardin into that interview with Sofia. Never give up on dream!
    But let’s say for arguments sake she was in for 10 minutes. Or an hour if you feel better.

    What does that make Craig Murray that claims Anna Ardin was in for the full interview plus the time Irmeli Krans typed up the interview and that the two women waited for two hours not talking to any other police officer? Four letter word is ok. It is not love.

    Can I suggest that the Wassgren memo is not good evidence to use in defence of Goran’s arguments? Of course Arbed, it is much better with NO EVIDENCE.

    You mention that Marianne Ny has “flatout lied in at least three other ways in the course of this extradition case I’m not going to contradict you now. That is in 21 months roughly.

    I am doing a piece on ONE brief by Jennifer Robinson, Brief to Canberra MPs re Assange. From early March 2011. In her piece I counted to 57 varieties of errors, misrepresented facts, Craig Murray’s, Naomi Wolf’s etc. Just one article. Jen’s para 3:

    3. It is mutually concerning that an Australian citizen like Julian has been treated in ways which would not accord with the standards of Australian law or indeed international law. As I set out in this note, 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 on allegations which are weak and which would not constitute a crime in Australia or in the UK. In such event, it can be predicted that Australians will be outraged and that considerable damage will eventuate in respect of relations between Australia and Sweden.

    Now compare Jennifer Robinson’s statement with Ms Ny’s para 12-14 in doc below and just tell me your opinion.

    http://samtycke.nu/doc/new/M-Ny-feb11.pdf

  47. Is Julian Assange charged?

    On numerous occasions we have heard Julian Assange say that he is not charged with any crime. But is it really true? Is Carl Bildt lying? Is Julian Assange lying? Or do they just don’t know? Or is it just lost in translation?

    Tomorrow at 08:00 London time you may find out a new twist in the never ending story?

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/julian-assange-is-charged-there-is-no-doubt-about-it

    My view is evident, isn’t?

  48. Chapeau Goran,

    Despite, or maybe because of, your idiosyncrasies and your distaste for some of JA’s tactics, you have managed to gather a great deal of information about this case and make it more accessible for a wider audience. Even if people wish to dispute your analysis, for that you should be applauded.

  49. CE

    Touché

    I am most interested in what you will think about the coming article. Now I am up against a lot more people. Legal scholars. Swedish Prosecutor’s office, JA’s lawyers. Almost everybody. In 8 hours I will know if I am a certified legal-midget or if there are a lot more midgets in this wonderful world.

    Thanks a lot dear. People like you sure makes it easier to take on almost anybody

  50. 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.

    Arbed, thanks. Yes, it was the job of the corporate media staff to apply redactions to the documents. Leigh should never have published that password. Assange would have told him that, because you can never be sure that a file hasn’t been copied, in fact, you have to assume that any given file will proliferate. Leigh was given access to the file. Leigh used Microsoft Windows, and there is no facility in Windows for truly deleting anything. Assange knew all this; it’s a basic Hacker understanding; “Information wants to be free”. Assange didn’t even write down the complete password. Leigh was responsible, not Assange.

    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.

    It Says Here by Billy Bragg:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWXA8O28fso

    I’m off to bed now. Goodnight.

  51. 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?

  52. 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.)

  53. 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

  54. 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.

  55. Clark, thanks for your replies and also the link to Goran’s video. Have a good day!

  56. 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.

  57. 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?

  58. 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?

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

    But let’s say for arguments sake Anna Ardin was in for 10 minutes, or an hour if you feel better, in on Sofia Wilén’s interview. What does that make Craig Murray that claims Anna Ardin was in for the full interview plus the time Irmeli Krans typed up the interview and that the two women waited for two hours not talking to any other police officer? Four letter word is ok. It is not love.

    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.

  61. 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

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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

    Look, we’re entirely benevolent. Assange is not under any threat at all. By exposing our secrets HE HAS BLOOD ON HIS HANDS. He has RAPED TWO WOMEN. He has RUN AWAY FROM JUSTICE and has taken refuge with an ENEMY OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, but we have NO PLANS TO ACT AGAINST HIM, because we’re entirely benevolent.

    It is true that MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE, but it is entirely coincidental that those mistakes all align so as to get him into custody, and anyone who suggests to the contrary is A MENTALLY UNBALANCED CONSPIRACY THEORIST.

    Remember, the secrecy we maintain is entirely for the greater good, including yours. You’ll see, as soon as Assange is in custody, the mistakes will stop, and treatment of Assange will be ENTIRELY UNBIASED from there on. You do believe us, don’t you? After all, who would distrust their highly protective BIG BROTHER?

  65. Good comment Clark, you sarcastic man!

  66. 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?

  67. 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.

  68. “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?

  69. @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?

  70. 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.

  71. 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.

  72. 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! 😉

  73. 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.

  74. 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?

  75. 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.

  76. 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

  77. 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).

  78. 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.

  79. 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.

  80. 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…

  81. CE, the allegations were in the Swedish Expressen before Assange had even been informed of them himself. That’s a leak.

  82. It doesn’t matter whether you drill outwards or inwards on a bucket. You still end up with a leak.

  83. Kempe, correction.

    “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} replace with {persons unknown}] 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.”

  84. Clark,

    I would hardly call the alleged offences(including sex without consent) against SW ‘minor sexual transgressions’?

    Nor does quoting Naomi Wolf lend your argument any credibility, she has been proven to be wrong on nearly all maters she has commented on in this case. In fact to see her sacrifice her lifelong work advocating feminism at the altar of JA has been one of the sadder aspects of this sorry story.

  85. Clark,

    I appreciate I may be coming across somewhat as a medialens style shrill nitpicker, but I believe 100% accurate reporting in this case is vital if we are trying to understand it correctly. If this means slight corrections in Craig’s work, I’m sure he’ll agree the Truth is more important than anyone’s reputation in this matter. Especially when we have seen so many mistaken ‘facts’ on this case grow legs and be repeated often enough that people believe them to be true. Again I ponder if JA has turned a blind ear to some his supporters repeating things he knows to be false?

    I’m heading out to watch the football now, so I’m not ignoring you if you reply.

    Please feel free to rubbish my thoughts as usual and I’ll catch up later. :-)

  86. Can I ask one very naive, and possibly stupid question, of Goran? Can you please explain why, Goran, you (I think, voluntarily? Correct me if that’s wrong) appeared for the defence (I assume the defence was Assange’s party?) at the extradition hearing in London, if you believe so firmly that the most appropriate thing to happen would be for Assange to go to Sweden and face the charges? Thank you for your time.

  87. CE, I’ve nothing against establishing the facts, but it seems pointless as regards any potential trial against Assange, which was prejudiced as soon as Expressen published the allegations. But maybe Sweden doesn’t have those laws about disclosure and prejudice.

    The Wilen/Krans statement doesn’t indicate sex without consent. There is no report of Wilen retracting consent before they went to sleep, nor of her objecting to sex when she was more awake. It does indicate condom-less sex against expressed wishes, but from the statement that seemed to be a fairly minor matter between the couple, too.

    So far as I know, Wilen never wanted Assange charged at all. So I do call this allegation minor. It seems that the first prosecutor agreed with this viewpoint.

  88. CE, I don’t expect Naomi Wolf to be expert in the Swedish legal situation.

    In Naomi Wolf’s position, I think I’d be really angry. If I’d been advocating on behalf of victims of serious sexual assault, sometimes over the course of years and/or involving coercion, intimidation and/or violence, and I’d seen foot-dragging by the authorities, refusal to take complainants seriously, refusal to commit resources to investigations. And then along comes this case, and suddenly the whole huge resources of two states are thrown behind it, including hundreds of police to surround and intimidate an embassy, yes, I think I’d be furious at the hypocrisy. I’d be asking what was so special about this particular case that it deserves so much more effort from the authorities than they usually expend.

    CE, there’s no need for you to “sacrifice [Wolf’s] lifelong work advocating feminism”; you could instead consider that she’s making a very valid point for valid reasons.

  89. From CE’s quote attributed to Göran Rudling:

    “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.”

    But who would have known “all the details of the case” apart from someone within the police? Surely even Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen should only have known what they themselves had said. Would that have included “all the details of the case”?

    Göran and Orb, is there an English translation of that original article? Have you looked through it, assessing who could have been the source based upon what information it contains?

  90. “Assange’s reputation is now beyond salvage in any case.”

    True, but mainly as a result of his own actions. He’s dumped on everyone that has tried to help him including the people who stood bail for him. He and the courts in Sweden and Britain have now been painted into a corner, nobody is going to risk losing face by backing down and Assange is trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy and going nowhere. I don’t know how this is going to end and frankly it’s getting to the point where I don’t care.

  91. Clark, there is an English translation of Expressens article on 21 August 2010 at http://rixstep.com/1/20100821,00.shtml. I didn’t follow the case from the start, so there are lots of things I don’t know much about. The original article can be found at
    http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/wikileaks-grundare-anhallen-for-valdtakt/

    There’s a strange piece of desinformation/misunderstanding (Göran would of cause call it “a lie”) in Expressens article:

    ‘The women are scared to death and therefore do not want to cooperate with the police. The police believe that in this case it’s the suspect’s position of power that the women are afraid of. This makes matters difficult for the police and the prosecutor’, says a ‘source’ to Expressen.

    It was set straigth the next day when one of the women (probably Anna Ardin) called the paper saying they were not afraid of him and that he wasn’t violent. I’ll look for a translation of that article as well.

    So perhaps the person leaking to Expressen wasn’t one of the two women, or even a close friend, but someone who had a hand in the arrest warrant. Not necessarily the prosecutor herself, but someone among those who consulted with it each other about it, like Linda and her colleagues. The decision to issue the arrest warrant wasn’t made by Linda Wassberg, but it was based solely on her presentation of the case to colleagues and prosecutor, that’s the impression I get. Even if Linda didn’t leak the story, the impression that the women were afraid must have come from her, unless it was a groundless embellishment made by someone else along the line. Who thought the women were afraid and why? Did they give that impression during the initial interviews?

    Another piece of misinformation is

    He was to have met one of the women between Saturday and Sunday last week in a flat on Södermalm in Stockholm.

    which makes me think that it might have been someone present at the crayfish party on Saturday night, or someone who knew about it. It was in fact the previous night, between Friday and Saturday, that the alleged broken condom incident is said to have taken place.

    An individual close to the girls reveals: ‘The girls know each other and they know they’ve both run afoul of the same thing.’

    They didn’t have any friends in common, or did they? How many sources did Expressen have?

  92. Clarification: In my previous comment (which may not be visible yet because it’s awaiting moderation, because it contains links I suppose) I put the words “The police believe” in bold. That’s not the “lie” I was talking of before the quote. I highlighted it to make it clear that the “information” that follows seems to have the police as its source.

  93. To all my friends. That means all of you.

    I am very busy with another issue that is more important than answering questions. Excuse me.

    But since I found a very good document that in detail explains the Swedish Criminal Procedure I think you would like to have it. It is written by Professor Christoffer Wong, a lecturer in criminal law at Lund University in southern Sweden and expert on the European arrest warrant. Him being an expert knows a hell more than I do. If you find anything I have said that is not correct I would very much like if you can correct. I don’t like to be in the wrong.

    I will also source some videos for you that explains the case much better that Mr Murray and Arbed does.

    Reading thru it proves to me that the legal team of Assange have missed something. I will not say how much because it leads to arguments. Read and be better informed.

    http://samtycke.nu/doc/new/crim-pro-swe.pdf

    Best wishes,

    Göran

  94. Clark@806 – CE, I don’t expect Naomi Wolf to be expert in the Swedish legal situation.

    In Naomi Wolf’s position, I think I’d be really angry. If I’d been advocating on behalf of victims of serious sexual assault, sometimes over the course of years and/or involving coercion, intimidation and/or violence, and I’d seen foot-dragging by the authorities, refusal to take complainants seriously, refusal to commit resources to investigations. And then along comes this case, and suddenly the whole huge resources of two states are thrown behind it, including hundreds of police to surround and intimidate an embassy, yes, I think I’d be furious at the hypocrisy. I’d be asking what was so special about this particular case that it deserves so much more effort from the authorities than they usually expend.

    CE, there’s no need for you to “sacrifice [Wolf’s] lifelong work advocating feminism”; you could instead consider that she’s making a very valid point for valid reasons.

    ———————————————————————————–

    Hi Clark,

    If only Naomi Wolf had put forward such a considered a position as you credit her with.

    You don’t need to be a Swedish Legal expert to see that some of her arguments have been utterly invalid and sometimes offensive. Including these infamous nuggets of vitriol;

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html

    Naomi published this letter in the Huffington Post without bothering to research the case properly. She based her opinion on an entirely discredited article in the Daily Mail and a retraction was printed since Wolf got the facts wrong. In this letter, she writes numerous rape myths. The actual title is Julian Assange: Captured by the World’s Dating Police. This is only one instance where Wolf’s words make a complete mockery of the We Believe You campaign

    When you describe a rape charge being investigated by the “dating police,” then you are undoubtedly operating with skewed morals.

    And her much cited and fanciful – http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/

    Thoroughly proved to be nonsense by Goran – http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/checking-naomi-wolfs-8-big-problems-in-the-assange-case-and-coming-up-empty/

    The only thing Naomi Wolf has been on the Assange Case is consistent, consistently wrong and misguided at every turn.

  95. Arbed 2:59 pm

    I think it’s a pretty good compromise. But note that the “rape” part of the Krans interview is extremely short. In the Swedish original it’s about four lines out of four pages of text. If Anna serves as a witness, all it takes is, I suppose, that she witnessed that part, whether it was when Sofia told Linda or Irmeli.

    What was the significance of the morning sex really? Had she wanted to report it even if a condom had been used? Perhaps not. It wasn’t even the unprotected morning sex that made her worried about HIV. This is from one of the witness statements, found at http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,03.shtml . The witness is labeled by the letter I which shouldn’t be confused with the personal pronoun.

    The night of the incident “I” was lying asleep and awakened when she received SMS messages from Sofia. What “I” remembers the contents weren’t positive. That it had been bad sex, that Julian was nuts. That she has to go test herself because of his long foreplay.

    Sofia complains about many things. Most of them can’t possiby be described as crimes, but one of them, the morning “surprise” sex, was made into a rape allegation by a litigious prosecutor, possibly without Sofia’s consent. More from the same interview, which was held on 27th of October, long after Marianne had taken over the case:

    “I” wants to point out that when Sofia was at the hospital and went to the police, things didn’t turn out as Sofia wanted. She only wanted Julian to test himself. She felt she’d been overrun by the police and others around her.

    If only they could realise the case has come to a standstill because of the current prosecutor and let someone better suited take over. But who could make such a decision?

  96. Clark @ 734 – CE, I’ve nothing against establishing the facts, but it seems pointless as regards any potential trial against Assange, which was prejudiced as soon as Expressen published the allegations. But maybe Sweden doesn’t have those laws about disclosure and prejudice.

    The Wilen/Krans statement doesn’t indicate sex without consent. There is no report of Wilen retracting consent before they went to sleep, nor of her objecting to sex when she was more awake. It does indicate condom-less sex against expressed wishes, but from the statement that seemed to be a fairly minor matter between the couple, too.

    So far as I know, Wilen never wanted Assange charged at all. So I do call this allegation minor. It seems that the first prosecutor agreed with this viewpoint.

    ————————————————————————————

    Clark I’m afraid you’re skating on pretty thin ice here with your interpretation of the SW/IK statement and your definition of a minor matter. Try to dissociate the statement from your support of JA and your desire to believe he is innocent. I fail to see how forcing unprotected sex on someone who had a deep fear of it, without their consent, is not an extremely serious allegation.

    I’m not saying this is definitivley what happened, how can any of us say that, that should be for the court to decide, but it is a credible version of events according to SW’s statement that you seem to agree on as the condem-less sex incident. So a woman gives her consent to a man she has just met for sexual intercourse, only under the explicit rule of a condom being used, they then have protected sex, they then fall asleep, the man makes up, and despite knowing full well he does not have the women’s consent for unprotected sex and they she would not let him, he decides to enter her without a condom anyway.

    No matter how you that dress that up it is patently not a minor matter of bad sexual etiquette.

  97. CE, yet again, you’re failing to factor in the maliciousness of the corporate media. You say yourself that Naomi Wolf based her “Interpol Dating Police” article on an article in the Daily Mail. It was that misleading article that led Wolf to get her article so wrong as to have to publish a retraction later. So the corporate media misled Wolf (among many others) into making a fool of herself.

    So why do you place all the blame on Naomi Wolf, yet have little criticism for the Mail article which misled her? No, you needn’t answer that. It’s pretty obvious what your motives are. You wrote:

    “When you describe a rape charge being investigated by the “dating police,” then you are undoubtedly operating with skewed morals.”

    No, Wolf’s morals are not skewed, she had been misled. Earlier you’d written:

    “In fact to see her sacrifice her lifelong work advocating feminism at the altar of JA has been one of the sadder aspects of this sorry story.”

    Do you give a damn about Wolf’s work and feminism? It looks like your overriding concern is to see Assange taken into custody, and you’ll help to trash Wolf’s reputation if it helps towards that goal.

    You are hypocritical, CE.

  98. CE, at 2:11 am you wrote: “that should be for the court to decide”.

    CE, do you know whether Sofia Wilen wants a court to decide about that? Do you even care? Or do you just want the authorities to get custody of Assange?

    When it comes to using women, you seem to score full marks. Twice.

  99. Göran Rudling, I am sorry that I called you a liar. I still think you deceived me, going on about the two paragraphs, implying I was stupid, and then introducing additional material. I’ll amend my comment if you so request.

    Orb, thanks for finding that translation, and the interesting anomalies it contains. I’ll read it tomorrow. Goodnight.

  100. John Goss,

    “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?”

    It’s nothing personal. I get quite a few questions. And I have to repeat my self. Makes the workload.

    My English blog is only 21 posts. Please read all of them. Why not interviewed in England. Julian is charged. Julian’s lawyers set conditions impossible to meet.

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/04/the-assange-case-the-reason-julian-wasnt-interviewed-in-england/

1 3 4 5 6 7 20

Leave a Reply

Basic formatting: <strong>Bold</strong>   <em>Italics</em>  <blockquote>Indented/quoted</blockquote>  <a href="http://example.com/link">Link text</a>

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud