Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar 1988


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.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

1,988 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar

1 4 5 6 7 8 67
  • nuid

    “If he botched evidence that would otherwise free innocent men, then he would have been promoted, along with all the others.”

    Usual supposition by you, Jimmy. Something that can neither be proved nor disproved.

  • nuid

    @JimmyGiro

    I find your level of bias very worrying. I don’t know what your background is, or what happened to you, but nevertheless, I find your attitude scary. You remind me of a guy I know (other side of the world) who had his children taken off him by family services, and custody given to his wife, who promptly took them several hundred miles away. He hasn’t stopped talking about ‘Feminazis’ since.

  • nuid

    The Witch of Buchenwald? LOL!
    I don’t suppose it would be of any help if I told you I’m squarely behind Julian Assange, would it? Or if I told you that the guy on the other side of the world was using drugs and sleeping with every woman he could find? That’s what he told me, much later. I don’t personally see why the children had to be taken so far away … But I can see how the custody thing happened.
    Anyway, thanks Jimmy.

  • Jon

    @JimmyGiro – I think Nuid’s comment [12 Sep, 2012 – 4:03 pm] is very generous and understanding towards you. In general I note you are quite open about your life/real identity on the web, so perhaps you could blog about how you came by your perspectives on women/feminism? You mentioned your mother earlier in a way that seemed relevant.

    Critical self-examination is tricky, but fascinating once you get into it. Getting a psychoanalysis is one way to do that – I got mine, and although some of it is arguably conjecture, it is eye-opening. Depends how much stock you put on it, I suppose.

  • Jemand

    @Jon

    Re Positive Discrimination. I dont’ have a problem with PD for indigenous people. When a problem is so bad that it looks like it’s not self-healing, some experimentation is ok. Some people resent it because they’ve had to work hard without assistance but they are unaware of the big picture benefits. But trying to force equalisation of other groups might be fundamentally impossible. Some see dragging down others to a lower level achieves the same outcome.

    On matters related to “racial” equity, I think the solution is education. Not propaganda, not brainwashing, but quality education. I find it rare to find genuine racism among the educated people I know and work with.

    However I also think there is another factor that nobody talks about. Personality. You can meet people with the very same personality completely unrelated to their so-called race*, religion, national origins, intelligence level or sex. There are some profound differences between personality types that manifest as social problems that are mischaracterised as some other problem. Sometimes these personalities are strongly associated with neuropsychological differences. No one to my knowledge has addressed this issue nor, obviously, offered solutions. We are only just coming to terms with the reality of workplace psychopaths and what we can do to identify them and prevent them from doing damage.

    *http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

  • Jon

    JimmyGiro, your link isn’t an answer to my question – though I accept I probably won’t get one! I’d ask why you post here, given that you very rarely give a straight reply to anything, but then you likely won’t answer that either 🙂

    As to your video series, I’ll see if I can get time to watch some of them. They look interesting, though – in my view – of no relevance to the topics in hand.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    What a pity the Far Right – opportunists, if nothing else – has jumped on the bandwagon, travelling in both directions.

    ‘Race’, gender, class…

    And so, voila! We have the amusing spectacle of the Far Right (Neocon tendency) suddenly, for the first time in their lives, finding their feminist bone (ah, the chevaliers!) and having a love-in with supposedly loony-Left, supposedly social engineering, definitely Scandinavian Sweden, and the other Far Right (Xenophobes) finding – presumably in the closet, somewhere behind the black shirts and white hoods – their deeply-held passion for (Rebel Yell!) anti-militarist, hippie-hacktivist liberty.

    Strange fruit.

    None of this does anything for whistleblowers or the search for truth, far less the struggle against militarism, imperialism and so forth. Quite the opposite.

  • Jemand

    @JimmyGiro + Jon

    I am watching the series and it is very interesting. Thanks Jimmy.
    What you take from it will depend I think on how much you are prepared to accept that what Yuri Bezmenov discusses, is actual working policy in the foreign operations departments of intelligence agencies, or at least the one-time KGB. And also to what extent people are able to be manipulated for strategic geopolitical outcomes. Anyone remember the 20th century?

  • Phil

    @jemand
    “I read your link on worker owned companies and recognised one – Golder and Assoc. To get into that company, you have to pay US $50,000. ”

    Well, that’s certainly not the model I was advocating. I hope workers take it at no cost – but understand that is a minority opinion at the moment.

    “you can keep your Bulgarian workers party shoes, i’ll stick with some shabby Nikes made in the 1980s.”

    No nikes regularly worn last that long. Do you keep heels in the closet?

  • JimmyGiro

    “None of this does anything for whistleblowers or the search for truth, far less the struggle against militarism, imperialism and so forth. Quite the opposite.”

    Neither does moral relativism.

    People need to reconnect with virtue; and assert their understanding of right and wrong; to know the difference between a hawk and a heron; and to judge the sexual aesthetics between ‘quim and arse’.

    Failing to make moral distinctions, is a divorce from humanity.

  • Göran Rudling

    @TFS

    I note that you link to an article by Naomi Wolf. An interesting article.

    She uses the creative trick to relocate important events in the case to another town in Sweden in order to try to prove that Swedish authorities are involved in some shady business. I have been told it is not appropriate to call Naomi Wolf liar. She is geographically disadvantaged and just made a “honest” mistake like so many that support Julian Assange.

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/the-assange-case-naomi-wolf-errs-on-facts-and-basic-geography/

  • evgueni

    @Michael, 8:05 am

    Thanks, it is good to have first-hand information from a Swiss national. Although you appear to be contradicting my argument, in fact I think we do not disagree except for minor details. On the point of how old Swiss direct democracy is, the establishment of the abrogative referendum in 1847 is considered by some to be the beginning of Swiss DD at state level. Of course at canton level DD dates back even further. But this is minor detail, the point I wish to make is that DD in Switzerland has been tried and tested long enough to draw conclusions.

    I accept without reservation that pre-referendum discussions are imperfect and less factual than they should be. I do not wish to portray DD as a panacea but in my mind there is no doubt whatsoever that a more democratic system is preferable to a less democratic one, and the Swiss system is vastly more democratic than ours in the UK.

    As for the media laws in Switzerland, I cannot recall precisely where I got my ideas and I was only vaguely aware of some obligation to give even coverage. A quick scan of the Swiss Constitution reveals that you are right, only TV and Radio are obliged to be impartial: “Radio and Television …shall contribute to the free formation of opinion.. They shall present events factually, and reflect diverse opinions fairly and adequately.” Already this is a great improvement on the situation that exists in the UK with regard to media bias. On the other hand I have said before that the Swiss democracy only has one good leg, so to speak – popular sovereignty is strongly established there. The other leg – popular, “agenda-setting” news media to use a Chomsky & Herman term, suffers from the same structural weakness as ours here in the UK and indeed around the world. It is for the most part privately owned, for-profit, advertising revenue driven. Constraining it by law not to be too biased and partisan is, I agree, a sticking plaster. Anyway thanks for your suggestions regarding Weltwoche and Wochenzeitung – sadly my attempts to learn Schweize Deutsch during my stay in Zuerich were foiled at every turn by the natives who insisted on speaking perfect English 🙂

    As for popular sovereignty versus a sovereign Parliament, for me it is popular sovereignty every time. Simply because – the problems of less democracy are demonstrably greater than those of more democracy. Our sovereign Parliament rubber-stamps wars of aggression, can you trump that with a particularly ‘nasty’ referendum outcome?

    Bis spaeter!

  • evgueni

    @Phil
    12 Sep, 2012 – 8:08 am

    “The occasional referendum is not direct democracy” – I beg to differ, along with many others better informed than me and you. That includes the Swiss federal government. You need only google the relevant terms.

    “Yes, political power is somewhat decentralised” – Switzerland is a confederation, to be precise. That means, in layman’s terms: ‘as centralised as necessary, as decentralised as possible’. Authority is ceded from local to national government level as necessary but can in principle be taken back.

    “However, the tax system insanely favours the supremely wealthy. And their finance sector rivals the city of london in it’s readiness to make money from the misery and murder of others.” – I didn’t notice this particularly during my 2 year stay. But let’s assume this is true – why shouldn’t it be? Aren’t you fundamentally misconceiving democracy? Democracy is for the benefit of those who participate. You and I do not participate in Swiss democracy. Why would we expect the Swiss to sort out our super-rich for us. And what of the banking sector – if it exploits people around the world who cannot participate in Swiss democracy, few people in Switzerland would notice or care enough. Just like few notice or care in the UK, most of those that do are probably here on this blog already.

  • evgueni

    Jemand,
    I dig your evolutionary analogy for ‘isms’. I’ve thought along similar lines. Once a “committee for the eradication of …” is established, what are the chances of it disbanding itself on account of it succeeding in its objectives. More likely the objectives will evolve, the challenge will turn out to be ‘greater then previously thought’, so long as a decent living can be made out of the pursuit. Goodbye, rational thought!

  • Göran Rudling

    @Mary 11 Sep, 2012 – 1:18 pm

    You ask a good question. Is what Christine Assange is saying about the case true? To answer simply, no she is not telling the truth. I’ve read the links you referred to and there are so many factual errors it will take me all night to correct them. So I will just comment on the lines that are below.

    “Is this true about the Assange case, and sex and politics in Sweden
    Posted by walter on September 11, 2012, 10:50 am

    From Christine Assange:
    “Interestingly, there is a domestic political agenda involved in Sweden. When the rape allegations were made on August the 20th, in one month’s time there was to be local and general elections in Sweden. And, “coincidentally”, woman AA, the police officer that interrogated woman SW, and both the lawyers in the law firm that picked up the case against Julian after it was dropped by the chief prosecutor, were all running for the same party, in the same elections, on the same platform of widening the definition of rape within consensual sex”.”

    It is correct that there was a general election in Sweden on 19 September 2010.

    It is correct that AA and the police officer Irmeli Krans were running for seats in the local Stockholm assembly (Kommunfullmäktige) for the Social Democratic party.

    The Social Democrats did not have a platform of widening the definition of rape. They have never had and they still don’t. I will deal with the so called “widening the definition of rape within consensual sex” later. It is a total misunderstanding by law illiterates.

    I don’t know what you mean by “the law firm that picked up the case against Julian”. To me that suggests a totally different role of the individuals involved. It is a case of willful misrepresentation of facts.

    In Sweden since 1988 a victim of a serious crime like rape is entitled to assistance paid by the state. The person that is appointed by a court to support the victim is called “mĂĄlsägarbiträde”. He/she is an assistant to the plaintiff. The function of the “mĂĄlsägarbiträde” is to provide support and assistance to the injured party and defend his/her interests in the case. It is also the duty of the “mĂĄlsägarbiträde” to look after the economical interests of the injured party. To call him the “lawyer” for the two complainants could give quite the wrong impression to an English-speaking audience who are unfamiliar with the role of “mĂĄlsägarbiträde”. The “mĂĄlsägarbiträde” is not active in the trial. A “mĂĄlsägarbiträde” often is a lawyer, an assistant in a law firm or an individual that knows how police and prosecutors investigate a crime and how a trial is conducted.

    The court appointed “mĂĄlsägarbiträde” for AA and SW is Claes Borgström. One of his partners is Thomas Bodström, Minister of Justice until 2006. Both are Social Democrats. It is fair to assume that both men would have played important roles if the Social Democrats would have won the election. They didn’t. AA and Irmeli Krans did not win seats either.

    Now, what is “widening the definition of rape within consensual sex”. It is a term mostly used by a sub-group of men that are law illiterate and very loud. Maybe male chauvinists is a fitting description, you get the idea. The origin of the term comes from a willful misunderstanding of the sex law reform from 2005 (Thomas Bodström being Minister of Justice). One of the changes in the law was that having sex with someone asleep or incapacitated was defined as rape. In earlier legislation it was regarded as unlawful sexual exploitation. The change in the law was in my opinion cosmetic. Men that don’t think that sex with someone asleep is a crime is the group using the term “widening the definition of rape within consensual sex”. Christine Assange has picked it up without knowing how ridiculous it is.

    The discussion in Sweden is not about “widening the definition of rape” as some are suggesting. The discussion is about basing the law on consent instead of as it is now, based on the use of force. What I want and the people that are for consent is that we should have laws similar to the laws in England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. Laws that are easy to understand. As a matter of fact Swedish law defines rape much narrower than countries with a law based on consent. There are many acts that are rape in England that are not even criminalized in Sweden. That is why we need a reform. The punishment is also much tougher in England, Australia, Canada etc. Our legislation is actually very similar to medieval legislation. That is why I say it is very discriminatory against victims, read women.

    What are the Social Democrat’s position? They are against consent and have been so as far as I can remember. Thomas Bodström was the architect behind the sex law reform 2005 and he is very much against a law based on consent. I do not regard Claes Borgström or Thomas Bodström activists for new sex legislation. They are actually against it. Hopefully they will change.

    The people that talk about “widening the definition of rape within consensual sex” are mostly misogynists that believes that a law based on consent means that you have to sign a contract before sex. They claim that a law based on consent as it is in England and Australia does cannot work. How they ended up in that position beats me. But following the Assange case, many people’s positions are very difficult to understand.

  • Roderick Russell

    @Evgueni – If I may quote you. Your comment is absolutely bang on and worth repeating. — “As for popular sovereignty versus a sovereign Parliament, for me it is popular sovereignty every time. Simply because – the problems of less democracy are demonstrably greater than those of more democracy.”

    As I have learned the hard way, representative democracy, such as we have under the Westminster System, doesn’t even adhere to the concept of rule of law where the establishment is concerned, and is no real democracy at all. It may, of course, be that it is difficult to fit Monarchy into a democratic system. When one looks at the other major Monarchies of old Europe (Russia, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman) that were got rid of post WW1, it is noticeable that none of these countries or successor States have every invited them back again.

    Incidentally I have just spent a month in Zurich and I too was most impressed; clearly they have a system of government that is worth emulating since it seems to work well for the people as a whole and not just for self power elites.

  • ADL Walrus

    [Preface: 2nd para not trolling]

    Well, Craig, I see that you’re clearly some kind of bigoted, victim-blaming, misogynist monster out to oppress women and perpetuate patriarchal rape culture! Don’t you have any sympathy whatsoever for the trauma that is sexual assault? The nerve you have, to write a post like this one as a white heterosexual cisgendered male! How dare you?!?! Don’t you know that being a woman in this society is hard enough without being disagreed with?

    Seriously, though, fabulous article, Craig. I think I’ll link to it from my campaign. I’ve only just begun to look into your work since you started becoming vocal in regard to Julian’s case, and since I have, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed everything I’ve come across. You’re a brilliant writer, and your take on so many issues is simply spot on. I would love to read one of your books sometime. Major respect.

  • Jemand

    @Technicolour – it means for people in genuine need, not harpies like you seeking concessions for phony disadvantages. It’s unfortunate that everything has to be spelt out for you. Why don’t you actually contribute something here of value instead of asking sneering rhetorical questions?

    – – –

    @Evgueni – Remember the “Real IRA”? Or the fictitious American pop band “The Monkees”? There’s always a residual element that doesn’t want to disband. I’m not sure if the IRA would appreciate being compared to the The Monkees tho’.

    This reminds me a little of a book called “Freakonomics”. It looks at social issues and uses economic theory and thinking to identify interesting patterns. It compares apples with oranges, something that stupid people who use the cliche just wouldn’t understand. There’s a chapter on the decline of the KKK, and another that compares crack dealers with McDonalds store managers. Available as a pdf online – you’ll have to look.

    – – –

    @Phil – I fix my shoes when the sole wears out. I’d like to hear some economist explain to me how the disposable society is more efficient than one that makes goods to last.

  • Göran Rudling

    @N_ 11 Sep, 2012 – 7:31 pm

    There are many factual errors in this Craig Murray article and the one about Irmeli Krans.

    “Have we got exact times for the Wilen and Ardin police statements?”

    I don’t know if you got them. I have them of course. Anna Ardins complaint was registered at 16:31 by Linda Wassgren. Sofia WilĂ©n’s interview started at 16:21. Anna Ardin left the police station before 18:02. This is hard proof that Anna Ardin was not present for the full length of Sofia WilĂ©n interview as Craig Murray claims. In fact there is nothing that support the claim that Anna Ardin was present at all. Just another made up story.

    It seems obvious that after Ardin took Wilen across town to meet Krans,.
    There are no facts supporting the idea that “Ardin took Wilen across town”. The chosen police station was the nearest and best choice for the two women. Geography proves it. Just look at a map of Stockholm. You don’t have to be Magellan to see it. Just another made up story.

    “What a shame that the police broke the internationally well-known rule on interviewing witnesses who allege rape, and (what a coincidence!) they also didn’t manage to record the interview either, so there is no record of Ardin’s role in the interview.”

    There aren’t any facts supporting the idea that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia WilĂ©n’s interview. The police did not break any rules. Just another made up story.

    “Wilen refuses to sign the statement that Ardin’s friend Krans asks her to sign.”

    Irmeli Krans never read back the interview to Sofia or offered the interview for reading for the simple reason the interview was not typed up before Sofia left. This means that Irmeli Krans never asked Sofia to sign the interview. A normal person would understand that under those conditions it would be difficult to refuse to sign it. The claim that Sofia refused to sign the interview is a totally false claim.

  • Göran Rudling

    @Craig 12 Sep, 2012 – 8:46 am

    “It is a very good point. Keeping a used condom for 10 or 12 days is very weird, especially as we are being urged by Ardin’s apologists to believe she had not psychologically realised she had been “assaulted”. So if she did keep the genuine condom, why?

    The condom was not kept for 10 or 12 days. Guess again.

    It is obvious that you haven’t read all relevant police documents. Why pretend?

  • Jemand

    @Göran Rudling
    13 Sep, 2012 – 4:55 am

    The link Goran provided is interesting, but perhaps not for the point he wants to make. There is a predictably scornful comment on the site that attempts to discredit the claim that identifiable DNA should remain on a condom for many days after normal use. What this overly confident poster seems to be unaware of is the fact that DNA lasts such a long time that one can extract mappable DNA from a fingerbone of a 50,000yo Denisovan woman. I have a friend who is a molecular biologist and will consult with him on this issue. I will report back on this point when I get a response from him.

  • craig Post author

    Yep, they are trying to get DNA out of Richard III at the minute. Goran specialises in talking nonsense with an air of great authority. Must ve the subglasses.

1 4 5 6 7 8 67