I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.
The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.
There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:
Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?
On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:
“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”
Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.
If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?
Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.
Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .
11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.
13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.
14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”
15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.
16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.
20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.
21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.
Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.
No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.
It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:
Either
Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.
Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.
Or
Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.
She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.
At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”
At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.
The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.
Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.
Conclusion
I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.
Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.
Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.
By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?
Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.
Arbed, no worries. I’ve reset this post so it stays open for a month after the last comment, but if you ever find a thread closed and wish to comment on it, just ping me in the latest thread, and I’ll sort it out.
I am still trying to get my head round Swedish laws on what violates a person’s rights, since the man masturbating on the beach had not got anyone’s consent, whereas Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin both had consensual sex with Julian Assange. Oh well.
http://www.thelocal.se/50392/20130923/
Don’t bother even trying to get your head around it John, Sophie Wilen’s lawyer Elisabeth Massi Fritz has just explained how Sweden’s sex crimes laws “are a lottery”:
Advokat: Våldtäktsdomar är ett lotteri
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/advokat-valdtaktsdomar-ar-ett-lotteri (use Google translate)
I – and others – wonder whether articles like this by Sophia’s PR-focused lawyer are a way of prepping the ground because she knows her client’s allegations could well get thrown out of court.
Found this and thought it worth passing on. Unfortunately, it’s in Swedish and Google translate mangles it a bit but the basic message comes through ok, I think. One thing to bear in mind is that this contributor to Flashback is a high court judge themselves, speaking anonymously. (That status is not referred to in this comment, though.) She/he says that what Julian Assange is accused of is not even a crime in Sweden, and that the allegations/arrest warrant against Assange have no legal basis in Swedish law. In fact, she/he says the entire way he has been treated has no legal basis in law in Sweden.
https://www.flashback.org/sp45549543
Note: the bit about “a promiscuous woman drawn to Islam” is a reference to Anna Ardin having now gone back to university and become heavily involved in supporting Omar Mustafa of the Swedish Muslim Brotherhood, who is accused of extremist views about women under sharia law and of funding jihadists. As with her adventures in Latin America and Cuba, she seems to have a talent for getting involved with extremist opposition groups.
There’s also this, about a recent Svea Appeal Court decision regarding the concept of “helpless state” (widened in July 2013 to “particularly vulnerable situation”) in rape cases:
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http://www.svea.se/Uppmarksammat-avgorande-i-valdtaktsmal/
Again, the meaning gets a little mangled in translation but I think the court’s decision was to dismiss a case of aggravated rape by a group of teenage boys of a 15-year-old girl that involved intoxication and a threatening situation (something about a door being locked at one point) on the grounds that “helpless state” had to be interpreted narrowly.
Anyone watch the BBC’s excretable By Any Means last night? The propaganda was so crude I thought I was watching William Hague’s wet dream. I was waiting for the cum shot but, well, I guess ‘dysfunction’ is a word that easily came to mind re Mr Hague… But it had all the correct ingredients needed for little Willy’s nocturnal imaginings: based in the Columbian embassy, Ecuadorian-style flag draped outside the building; monstrously egotistical villain claiming diplomatic asylum for non-political crimes; police entering an embassy lobby to seize villain, then having to stand down, curses!; it even had a balcony speech. MI5 saves the day with their oh-so-clever surveillance tricks and bugs in the embassy walls. Hurrah!
Really hokey plot and the dialogue was terrible, but there were so many UK government wish-list bits in it. I thought the scenes showing the Columbian ambassador didn’t really want his guest around and couldn’t wait to get rid of him were a nice touch. Hmm, maybe they were dear Willy’s cum shots…? Like I said, really crude propaganda but the UK public didn’t seem to have much difficulty getting the message:
“By Any Means is to taking the p**s out of Assange’s situation … LOVING IT”
https://twitter.com/hab318princess/status/386951753746247680
“I hope David Cameron and William Hague are watching By Any Means, could teach them how to get Assange out of th embassy.”
https://twitter.com/matthewshev/status/386952059763040256
“If only MI5 had gone after Julian Assange the way this lot on #ByAnyMeans have captured their man. *rollseyes*”
https://twitter.com/scotbot/status/386957877736259584
“Just finished watching #ByAnyMeans Let it be a lesson for Assange…”
https://twitter.com/accra71/status/386975931287343104
Arbed wrote at 6 Oct 2013 9:25 am:
“One thing to bear in mind is that this contributor to Flashback is a high court judge themselves, speaking anonymously. (That status is not referred to in this comment, though.)”
My question:
Arbed, are you sure? This is new to me. Or are you mixing this Flashback contributor (“Vresrosen”) up with another legal expert writing under pseudonyme: “Tuscana”.
Hi Axel,
Yes, I think I am mixing them up. Thanks.
Yes, I agree with many other posters. It is best if this goes to court. But it unfortunately seem like the Swedes have little or no interest in that ever happening. The whole thing stinks to hell and high waters and JA knows that if he ever sets foot on Swedish soil, he will be on the next Westbound CIA Learjet pumped full of drugs and wearing diapers. That is how “sovereign” and “independent” the Kingdom of Sweden really is. There was a reason why Snowden never wanted to go anywhere near Swedish territory. This whole thing is a setup.
Duncan Cambell’s witness statement in the European parliament revealed that Swedish FRA works hand in glove with GCHQ and NSA. The EU parliament has called for the director of FRA to come to Brussels to be questioned. FRA refuses, supported by the Swedish government. Everything is done according to Swedish law a FRA spokesman responds, ignoring the fact that there are obvious breaks of European law and the European convention on human rights. The committee should call the prime minister to witness now.
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/it_telekom/allmant/article3779597.ece
what is happening? Suddenly ten spam posts in a few days. Did we hit a raw nerve somewhere?
[Mod: I’ll try to keep an eye on the spam – all sites get them, I doubt it’s anything to worry about. All deleted now]
What is this? Can any moderator clean up the spam?
Some good souls have launched a formal complaint to the Swedish Bar Association about the conduct of Sofia Wilen’s lawyer Elizabeth Massi Fritz. Apparently their first submission got a response that personally signed submissions from each person are required (this is now being organised) and that the investigation will take 6 to 12 months to reach a conclusion. Here’s wishing very best of luck to this initiative!
Here is the full text of the complaint:
To the General Secretary of the Swedish Bar Association, Ms. Anne Ramberg
Dear Anne Ramberg,
We the undersigned are lodging a formal complaint against lawyer Ms. Elisabeth Mazzi Fritz to the Swedish Bar Association. It concerns her dealings with the press in the Julian Assange case. Elizabeth Massi Fritz represents the complainant Sofia Wilen. Ms. Massi Fritz has made two conflicting statements one to the international press and one to the Swedish press which are outlined in the last link contained in this email.
An article published on her official company website seeks to blacken the character of Julian Assange and it contains potentially libellous and certainly incorrect statements made by James Ball, a former and disgruntled employee of Wikileaks. Despite contesting that her motives, and those of the prosecution service, are not political, Ms. Massi Fritz published a false political statement on her company´s website to the detriment of Julian Assange under the heading “Fallet Julian Assange”.
http://www.advokatfritz.com/?page_id=684.
We find it objectionable at the very least that a professional versed in legal matters can try to influence public opinion against someone who has not been charged with any crime. We query whether such behaviour is legal in Sweden and whether it adheres to the ethical stipulations of the Swedish Bar Association. The following link brings up the article by Mr. Ball which she includes on her website.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/exclusive-former-wikileaks-employee-james-ball-describes-working-with-julian-assange.html
There are glaring errors in the article which are prejudicial to Mr Assange. Mr Ball stresses that during a John Humphrey’s interview Julian Assange initiated an assault on the characters of the two accusers, when in actual fact Assange said quite the opposite:
“It’s a matter of public record as far as the courts are concerned but I’m not going to be exposing other people’s lives or my own more than is absolutely necessary. That is not what a gentleman does. We don’t know precisely what pressures they [the women] have been under, exactly. There are powerful interests that have incentives to promote these smears. That does not mean that they got in there at the very beginning and fabricated them.”
Ball also selectively misquoted Assange taking what Assange said in the Humphreys’ interview out of context. Ball claimed Assange said: “I’m not saying it was a honey trap. I’m not saying it was not a honey trap” when what Assange actually told Humphreys came in a series of questions and answers which are reproduced here.
“Q: So you’re not suggesting that this was a honey-trap? That you were
somehow set up by the Americans, by the CIA? You don’t buy into that idea
because your lawyer’s suggested that that’s the case.
JA: He says that he was misquoted. I have never said that this is a
honey-trap.
Q: You don’t believe it?
JA: I have never said that this is not a honey-trap. I’m not accusing
anyone until I have proof.”
The interview in full is available in two parts here. The second part contains the above misquote starting at around 1 minute 15 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFAAIsk9t90 (Förhandsgranska)
and here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKjXaTxH8AI (Förhandsgranska)
Ms. Massi Fritz has also issued two separate statements, one to the domestic and one to the international press. There are tangible differences in these separate press releases and they contradict information released to Mr. Assange´s defence team in the available police protocol.
Contained in this link are the press statements from the office of Elizabeth Massi Fritz:
http://rixstep.com/1/20130614,01.shtml
The first released statement is the one to the right, containing the information that Sofia Wilen herself reported a rape. The statement to the left is released later (June 4th) is ante-dated to May 21st and no longer claims that Sofia Wilen herself reported rape to the police.
We suspect political motives because, firstly, the government of Ecuador has repeatedly offered the use of its embassy premises in London for the Swedish prosecutor or prosecution officials to question Mr. Assange. Secondly, it is internationally known there are no known obstacles in Swedish legal procedures to prohibit questioning of a suspect abroad, because there are precedents. In April, the senior Swedish Supreme Court judge, Stefan Lindskog, delivered a public lecture at Adelaide university – Australia. He made it perfectly clear that pending legal obstacles any final decision on an extradition request by the United States government rests with the Swedish government. He also made it clear that there is absolutely no hindrance to questioning Mr. Assange in London. The Swedish prosecutor has refused to go to England to question Assange, despite the issue of questioning being the only objective of the European Arrest Warrant.
Lastly, in exclusively blaming the government of Ecuador for the legal stalemate that has arisen Ms. Massi Fritz has been unfair to Ms Wilen, as well as Mr. Assange, through deliberately protracting the case. She has published two separate statements using her position as a legal representative on behalf of her client, the named accuser mentioned above. Because she is fully aware – as well as any other informed person – that the deadlock could be broken if the Swedish prosecution service were to interview Julian Assange in London, as outlined above, or to guarantee that Mr. Assange would not be extradited to the United States. Her refusal to take either of these initiatives demonstrates that there are political motives, rather than legal representation, underlying her actions.
We respect the integrity of your office and call upon you to investigate the professional behaviour of lawyer Elisabeth Massi Fritz regarding the human rights of Mr. Julian Assange to see whether discliplinary action is appropriate under the Swedish Bar Association´s regulations.
Yours sincerely
Okoth Osewe – journalist and author – Kenya and Sweden
Rafik Saley – general secretary African Committee for Sustainable Development – Sweden
John Goss – writer and researcher – United Kingdom
Hi Alex,
I understand that Jon, the unpaid moderator of Craig’s blog, has had to give up the role. I suspect that is the real reason behind this sudden influx of spambots, ie. there is always this many but we don’t usually see them as Jon did an excellent job of blocking them.
Meanwhile, to cheer you up, here’s a report about UK MPs insisting on firmer safeguards and a proper repatriation of powers to the UK before it opts back in to the European Arrest Warrant. They call the EAW system “fundamentally flawed” and say it has “caused many miscarriages of justice”:
MPs condemn European Arrest Warrant:
http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/mps-condemn-european-arrest-warrant-8916769.html
Arbed, thanks for your two interesting posts. The first one made my day. I hope the initiative to write to the Swedish Bar Association will be successful. And that it will reach Swedish and international media.
Arbed thanks for that letter at 2/11, @ 11h12.
The letter is rife with typos, which is ok for the blog but not a good idea for the formal letter of charge of such gravity. Kind of ironic that two of the signatories describe themselves as writers! Even Ms. Fritz’a name has been misspelt.
As for: “Because she is fully aware – as well as any other informed person – that the deadlock could be broken if the Swedish prosecution service were to interview Julian Assange in London, as outlined above, or to guarantee that Mr. Assange would not be extradited to the United States. Her refusal to take either of these initiatives demonstrates that there are political motives, rather than legal representation, underlying her actions.”
I question whether it is for SW’s counsel to “take either of these initiatives” in the first place?
Overall, the letter seems to carry a ring of desperation, clutching at straws. Never say never but, in this case, I think its easy to predict the outcome of this. It would be good if real-world strategies were to be deployed, imho.
Fritz’s! We are all vulnerable to being attacked by the devil which is why proof-reading becomes important.
“… The letter is rife with typos …”
Presumably the actual letter is written in Swedish and the text above is a translation into English?
“Presumably the actual letter is written in Swedish and the text above is a translation into English?”
Why presume? Find out. Besides typos are possible in languages other than English, inter-alia with names. No?
I think Jon forgot to close this. In case he does, you are welcome for now over at http://squonk.tk/blog/
Current thread https://squonk.tk/blog/2013/11/04/battling-the-bots-fail2ban-seems-to-work/
http://squonk.tk/blog/2013/11/04/battling-the-bots-fail2ban-seems-to-work/ that should have been to avoid being asked to confirm a self signed certificate. No harm if you do or don’t.
Hi AA, good initiative!
In addition, why not let others also know that this thread is open…
PS to AA: i’m sure Arbed and others won’t mind since they are hopefully believers in Freedom and free speech.
Arbed, in case you haven’t seen this for context:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/10/edward-snowden-gets-sam-adams-award/comment-page-17/#comment-436922
Ardin’s lawyer, Claes Borgström has suddenly left the Social Democratic Party today. He complains that”they are not interested in me any more”. There seem to be a rift between him and the new party leader Stefan Löfven. Anna Ardin has previously attacked Löfven on political grounds.
Whether this has any consequences for the Assange case is difficult to say. Perhaps Ardin will rethink her decision to keep Borgström as her lawyer?
Link to previous post here (only in Swedish unfortunately):
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article17812952.ab
Hi AlcAnon,
Not forgotten, no – was kept open deliberately as Arbed, Axel and a few others were/are still discussing their research. I’d be inclined to request that it does not become a general chat room, and that readers await Craig’s next post for that purpose. Ditto the Al-Hilli thread.
Best wishes to all here.
Thanks Jon,
Yes, we are still discussing our research – specific to the theme of this particular post of Craig’s – and I apologise that I’ve been too busy to contribute recently.
As soon as I get a chance, I plan to post on:
– Issue of Sofia Wilen’s three hospital visits – why three?
– Issue of chain of custody of ripped condom fragment – and whether Swedish law allows evidence for which there is no proper chain of custody showing how it came into police hands.
– Issue of which of the two women complainants was the first to contact Claes Borgstrom – recent developments
– Side issue – will recent developments in the scandal of the Thomas Quick(lawyer = Claes Borgstrom) have a knock-on effect on the Assange case?
Some good thinking going on in Flashback today: https://www.flashback.org/sp46244652. For the non-Swedish, Rixstep has whipped up an English translation pretty damn quickly: http://rixstep.com/1/20131121,00.shtml
But here’s what I’d add to Trenterx’s analysis:
There are a few more clues about when exactly the smokescreen about the women’s motivations first came into play. Recently, Julian Assange launched a new preliminary investigation into the disappearance of laptops from his luggage at Arlanda airport on 27 September 2010. Buried in his affidavit (paragraph 97) were some text messages sent by Sofia Wilen while she was at Klara police station on that fateful summer’s day of 20 August 2010. She wrote that she:
did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him (sv: få tag på honom) (14:26)
and that she was
“chocked [sic: shocked] when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test (17:06)
It’s the timing of these text messages that is so curious: 14:26 is approximately 25 minutes after the two women first arrived at the station, but nearly two hours before Sofia is interviewed formally by Irmeli Krans. Some would find it remarkable that, according to Sofia, the Klara police were keen to “get a grip on” Assange almost as soon as she and Anna Ardin had sat down with Linda Wassgren, the police officer who spoke to both women together, to explain her story. What did she say exactly that created such a speedy reaction? Surely a few shy and hesitant questions about HIV testing wouldn’t get everyone that excited so quickly?
Similarly, 17:06 is precisely 6 minutes after the arrest warrant for Julian Assange was first issued (see paragraph 6 of link). But Sofia was giving her formal statement to Irmeli Krans between 16:21 and 18.40. How can she know about something happening in another part of the station – presumably Klara conducts interviews with alleged rape victims in private rooms – almost immediately? Was she allowed to wander around the station while her formal interview was still in progress, and she just happened to be hanging around the desk of the duty prosecutor as the warrant was issued? And she felt compelled to immediately text her friends about it?
And what sense does this make of Sofia Wilen’s shock and distress just before 18:40, when Irmeli Krans records that she felt it necessary to terminate the interview because they had both just learned about the arrest warrant? According to Krans, Sofia only had time to express that Assange was “angry” with her after she learned this news; there wasn’t even time to “read back to Sofia nor review[ed] for approval” her statement. How can a simple statement “Julian is angry with me” possibly account for the time between 17:06 – when, according to Sofia’s text, she first heard about the arrest warrant – and, roughly, 18:40, when Krans judged Wilen was too distressed to go on with giving her statement? Alternatively, if 18:40 is the second time Wilen heard about the arrest warrant for Julian Assange, why did it shock her so much?
Or is there something else entirely going on here? Are those SMSs pure “decoy” sent by Sofia Wilen to disguise her true motivation for visiting Klara police station? Are they part of what Trenterx describes as a “smokescreen”? If they are, then it’s beginning to look like that smokescreen may have been erected with the full complicity of Sofia Wilen from the start.
Hah! That’s a bit confusing. Rixstep seems to have updated his article I linked to in the above post – to incorporate the above post…
Oh well, I’m chuffed he liked my ideas enough to work them into his piece (in the Postscript: One Hour Thirty-Four Minutes):
http://rixstep.com/1/20131121,00.shtml