Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar 2008

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:


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.


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.


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.

Liked this article? Share using the links below. Then View Latest Posts

2,008 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar

1 64 65 66 67
  • John Goss

    “I don’t think anybody cares anymore.”

    I don’t think Kempe ever cared, not for anyone or anything anti-establishment. No loss without his snide comments.

  • free european

    The dark connections Ms Ardin has make her a first class suspect for being an aide of some organizations which are not Swedish. She might just disappear if inquiries become too intense – and stay gone forever. Time will tell.

  • Jemand

    I wouldn’t trust the Swedish offer of questioning. There might be technical reasons for it in relation to statutes of limitations. It might be to keep the investigation legally ‘alive’ and Assange effectively sequestered.

    Also, after questioning Assange in London, they can move to either issuing a warrant for his arrest for the purposes of charging him or for prosecution if they charge him in absentia. The merits of their case are irrelevant. Sweden would be no different to any other country in having people charged and tried, only to see their cases dismissed by the courts for lack of merit.

    What that would do, is flush Assange out into the open where all manner of threats await him. There’s been plenty of time for someone to concoct a solid plan to neutralise Assange under circumstances that only ‘crazy conspiracy theorists’ would ascribe to the US.

  • John Goss

    Free European, I tend to agree regarding Anna Ardin, and perhaps Sofia Wilen too. She almost certainly has links to the CIA.

    Jemand, I would not trust them either. The only thing that makes me think positively is the fact that since the new government came to power it was the first country to recognise Palestine. Of course Assange has to be careful. If after questioning him there is no case to answer, he should be free to return to Australia (a country which has really let him down) and that is where he would be safest. There is a lot of support for him in Australia, if not from the Australian government.

  • Clark

    Reuters report:


    One of Assange’s lawyers said he welcomed the request but expressed concern the process could take time because approval was needed from British and Ecuadorian authorities. […] Ecuador’s embassy in London could not immediately be reached for comment.
    Even if Sweden drops the investigation, he faces arrest by British police for jumping bail granted while the UK courts considered a European arrest warrant issued by Sweden. Samuelson said Assange and his lawyers had to discuss the request from Swedish prosecutors, who also want to sample his DNA, before responding. A Swedish appeals court late last year upheld a detention order on Assange, but said prosecutors had not made enough effort to question him.

    The main reason for prosecutors’ change of heart is that several crimes Assange is suspected of are subject to a statute of limitations expiring in August. Prosecutor Marianne Ny said she still believed questioning him at the embassy would lower the quality of the interview and he would need to be in Sweden should the case come to a trial.

    “Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies to the investigation,” she said in a statement.

    Sweden’s Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to hear his request to lift the warrant for Assange’s arrest and has asked the prosecutor to submit an opinion before a decision can be taken.

    London’s police chief said last month the cost of keeping watch on Assange was a drain on police resources and the operation was under review.

    (This version of the story corrects paragraph 8 to show Sweden has not charged Assange)

    (Additional reporting by Michael Holden and Guy Faulconbridge in London; Editing by Niklas Pollard and Tom Heneghan)

  • Jemand

    “If after questioning him there is no case to answer, he should be free to return to Australia (a country which has really let him down) and that is where he would be safest. There is a lot of support for him in Australia, if not from the Australian government.”

    John, absolutely. The tricky part is the journey.

  • Arbed

    Marianne Ny’s face-saving statement that she will need to take a DNA sample from Assange as part of the Ecuadorian embassy interview is a busted flush.

    First, she’d already agreed in the UK Supreme Court’s Agreed Facts that Assange gave the Metropolitan police a DNA sample, taken “under lawful authority” on 7 December 2010 (paragraph 38 of the Agreed Facts)


    Second, Marianne Ny’s own Gothenburg Development Centre guidelines on DNA sampling say that a 2nd DNA sample should NOT be taken if one is either on the DNA register or a DNA sample has already been taken as part of the investigation (page 7)


  • Arbed

    On top of that she has some rather stringent hoops to jump through in order to meet the criteria for Mutual Legal Assistance from the UK police (see Section 2)


    She won’t like having to produce her evidence to back her LoR (Letter of Request), but I doubt the Home Office will throw the request out on the basis that the investigation is “trivial”. The UK wants shot of that £10m-and-counting policing bill soooo badly…

    Meanwhile, a former high-ranking prosecutor wrote a very damning op-ed in Sweden’s SvD newspaper. Said she has brought “disgrace to our country” and should resign. Also, points out how “it is not common” for a prosecutor to elect herself to be lead investigator too. Which is precisely the point Assange argued at the UK Supreme Court – how can a “lead investigator” be an “impartial judicial authority”? Such a corrupt ruling that Supreme Court decision…

    http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2015/03/17/the-prosecutor-in-the-assange-case-should-be-replaced/ [English translation]

  • Arbed

    Translation of Swedish Supreme Court’s 4:1 verdict on Assange’s appeal, with the dissenting opinion that the current detention order should be dropped:


    In summary, and quite ludicrously, the court used the fact that Marianne Ny agreed in March 2015 (4.5 years late!) to travel to London to interview Assange as justification that the arrest order should stay in place. As if an investigation in which the suspect is wholly co-operative – in fact has welcomed the questioning, agreeing to all Ny’s special conditions (even though some are not in accordance with Swedish law) cannot continue regardless of whether the detention order is lifted or not.

    A month ago Marianne Ny claimed she was putting in the formal paperwork for a London interview – http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/The-prosecutors-ask-Assange-for-clarifications/. It was a lie. Today Ecuador announced that they are still waiting for her application to arrive:


  • Arbed

    Couple of interesting articles, perhaps giving further explanation of Sweden’s treatment of Assange:

    US data: Swedish money to the Clinton Foundation would prevent Iran sanctions:

    Bill Clinton’s foundation cashed in as Sweden lobbied Hillary on sanctions:

  • Arbed

    Two very interesting FOIA requests to the UK Home Office.

    One concerning the number of times between November 2010 and March 2015 Sweden has requested to interview someone in the UK under MLA:

    FOI – MLA requests from Sweden asking for individuals to be interviewed:

    Answer: Sweden would not interview Assange in UK but made 165 other requests to UK including 22 for GBH/murder, and asked to interview 44 people during 1,594 days it refused to question Assange.

    The second FOIA asks whether the UK police deploy the same hand-held surveillance radars being used in the US that can see through walls (these: http://www.mintpressnews.com/new-police-radars-are-being-used-to-see-inside-homes/205424/) a) at all and b) at the Ecuadorian embassy:

    FOI – UK surveillance of Ecuadorean embassy in London:

    Answer: UK Home Office refuses to confirm or deny, both questions.

  • Arbed

    Thanks mods for re-opening the comments so I can post this latest bit of news in the Assange v Sweden saga. It’s really useful to have somewhere that can be a sort of one-stop-shop archive of the case. Thank you.

    Latest Assange v Sweden news

    The Will She, Won’t She game by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, who promised the Swedish Supreme Court back in March that she was finally going to question Assange in London, continues. The statute of limitations runs out on most of the sex allegations against Assange on 18 August. Latest news is that the appointment agreed for the long-awaited interrogation on 17 Jun – cancelled by Ny at the last minute – turns out to have been nothing more than a PR stunt gone wrong. Apparently, she’d deliberately sent her formal application to Ecuador to use their embassy too late for them to process it but had tipped off a tabloid paparazzi about the time of the supposedly secret interrogation so he’d be there outside the embassy in Hans Crescent to capture the moment her deputy prosecutor Ingrid Isgren was turned away at the door.

    And booked herself on holiday from the following day to 8 July, though her spokesman claimed yesterday she’s still on holiday and there “unavailable for comment”.

    Details here: http://wiseupaction.info/2015/07/16/sweden-fails-to-call-another-chapter-in-the-pre-trial-punishment-of-julian-assange/

    Ecuador’s press release: https://archive.is/i3Cwv

    Assange’s press release: https://justice4assange.com/Prosecutor-cancels-Assange-meeting.html

    The Swedes are getting fed up with her and want her gone:


  • Arbed

    So, most of the case against Assange has collapsed, with Marianne Ny – and now the full Justice Department behind her – foot-dragging in the most painfully visible way to avoid questioning him before the statute of limitations expired on Anna Ardin’s allegations (and her patently fake “torn during sex” condom revealed by the forensics report).

    For those of us who’ve watched this investigation from the start, Ny’s press release of 13th August 2015 has virtually no truthful content in it:


    Except for this bit:

    “Today, 13 August 2015, an incident of suspected unlawful coercion and an incident of sexual molestation will be time barred. On 18 August, an additional incident of sexual molestation will be time barred. Concurrently a suspected sexual molestation, of which Julian Assange has not been detained, will be time barred.”

    Cleverly worded. Note how that’s 4 allegations dropped there, not 3 as reported by most of the press. The fourth allegation – a “molestation” offence – wasn’t on the EAW (“of which Julian Assange has not been detained”). This is the allegation for which AA’s easily disproven allegations was a “placeholder” – and relates to Sofia Wilen’s torn condom fragment that also appears in the forensic report.

    Fuller explanation in my post of 4 Feb 2014:

    Looks like the Swedish prosecutor is going to protect Sofia Wilen too from prosecution for handing in faked evidence. The case now rests solely on whether Marianne Ny thinks she can prove that Assange knew Wilen was “asleep” or “half-asleep” for 30 seconds before she consented to unprotected sex.

  • Arbed

    The Italian newspaper L’Expresso has obtained 222 pages of FOIA documents between the UK Crown Prosecution service and the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. Also between her and the Ecudorians about the embassy interrogation. The emails reveal that in January 2011 the CPS advised against interviewing in London, on the basis it might show the Swedes had no case.

    L’Expresso [in English] Five years confined: New FOIA documents shed light on the Julian Assange case:

    Pdf of source docs: http://speciali.espresso.repubblica.it/pdf/ja-foia-files.pdf

    Press Association write-up, including reaction of CPS to disclosure:

    (The statement by CPS that “the Swedish Authorities were and remain ready to prosecute Mr Assange” is knowingly false, as evidenced by Ny’s 19th January 2011 email to the CPS included in the FOIA cache, in which she sets out why, under Swedish law, she’s unable to make a decision to prosecute until the preliminary investigation – including, of course, questioning Julian Assange – is completed.)

    Guardian write-up, including reaction of Swedish Prosecution Authority and that Assange team may launch legal challenge to extradition now:

    (Ny’s unavailable to comment as she’s “on holiday” – again… – and the prosecutor sent to interview Assange on 17 Jun (cancelled at no notice) “has no information on the case before 2013”)

  • Arbed

    It seems Sweden’s Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ann Linde, who has been put in charge of negotiating the Mutual Legal Assistance treaty with Ecuador necessary for questioning of Assange in the London embassy, has since been keeping some very distinguished company in UK and US natsec intelligence circles. Oh, and she’s a friend of Anna Ardin.

    How impartial are the Sweden/ Ecuador Mutual Legal Assistance talks?

  • Jemand

    Now that there is only one outstanding complaint under investigation, one of the women should(?) be free to discuss the matter publicly. Which one is it? What attempts are being made to contact and interview her?

  • Arbed


    That would be Anna Ardin (the one who handed in the falsified torn condom with no DNA), so I doubt if she wants to speak to the press – at least not openly… These are from a couple of days ago:



    If you’ve ever seen what O’Ren Ishii does in Kill Bill, I guess that means Anna Ardin’s contacts in Sweden’s Foreign Office (for a while, she even dated the guy in the Americas Section who, back in July 2012, diverted Ecuador’s hand-delivered offer to facilitate questioning in their embassy before it could reach prosecutor Marianne Ny) gave her some news she didn’t want to hear…

  • Arbed

    Fuck me, looks like Ecuador has achieved a bit of a coup. Julian Assange is to be questioned under Ecuadorian law, which means – I think – that the Swedish prosecutor’s questions will be passed to Ecuador’s own prosecutors, who will conduct the actual questioning, with Swedish representatives present, if they wish.

    Assange: Ecuador Reiterates Disposal to Cooperate with Sweden:

    or, in better English

    Ecuador: We’ll cooperate with Sweden on Assange:

    In the original radio interview by Ecuador’s FM Ricardo Patino he says any future trial, if necessary, will be held in the London embassy.

    At last Julian Assange has a chance to be given a fair legal process, now that Ecuador has found a way within the Ecuador/Sweden bilateral treaty negotiations to take the corrupt Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny out of the picture. I just wonder whether this was also intentional on the part of the Swedish Foreign Ministry negotiators? Rumour has it there has been an internal struggle within Sweden between the Foreign Ministry, who want shot of the whole bloody Assangefallet mess, and the Justice Ministry, who have been desperate to save face.

  • Arbed

    Hello, Out of the Blue!

    Please tell the Flashbackers that I do still keep posting updates to this blog, and pass them the link. Thanks!

  • Arbed

    Wikileaks Twitter has pinned the 4 SMS messages Sofia Wilen sent during and immediately after her visit to police on 20 August 2010, the same ones quoted in Julian Assange’s Affidavit from 2013.

    The news has gone viral on Latin American social media and it’s been picked up by some of the Latam press:




    I don’t blame Wikileaks for highlighting these SMS – most European media won’t report the case fairly (they won’t report it at all nowadays – the more the case falls apart, the more silent the MSM becomes). At face value, the SMS don’t show a situation where police are investigating suspicions of rape even though a woman is reluctant, Wilen is literally claiming to one of her friends that “the police made it up”.

    Although people who’ve followed the case very closely and have studied the witness statements in depth may suspect Wilen used these SMS as a smokescreen to cover her tracks at the same time as she knowingly made false allegations, the vast majority of the public simply don’t know that Wilen has changed her story several times.

    It’s worth remembering again that Gehlin interviewed Marie Thorn – the friend who Wilen texted most often – two days after the ‘no DNA’ results came back from the forensics lab (and that he re-interviewed Wilen herself 1 day after the results arrived). Gehlin specifically asks Marie Thorn about SMS messages between Wilen and Thorn about “revenge” and selling the story to the newspapers. Obviously, the lab results simply didn’t square with what he previously thought he knew about Wilen’s allegations.

    Also worth remembering that Wikileaks has published 4 of Wilen’s SMS, but know the contents of 22. I doubt that Ny knows which 22 of the 100 she is furiously trying to prevent courts or anyone else seeing Wikileaks has tucked up its sleeve. That Jessica Valenti’s interview with Wilen didn’t get published after all once WikiLeaks put out a pre-emptive statement quoting the 4 SMS was very telling. Wilen understands the SMS mean she is hoist by her own petard.

  • Arbed

    This has been a long time coming (the original submission to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was in September 2014) but, finally, the UNWGAD is to announce its decision on Friday, 5th February. Fingers crossed, but the coverage so far looks positive (and the complete lack of coverage of it in UK and Swedish press tells its own story…)

    UN could order Julian Assange to be released on Friday


    Fact-checker and background here:


  • Hieroglyph

    It appears that spokesthings for Sweden and the UK are already telling us that they’ll just ignore the UN ruling. If Assange walks out of the door, they’ll just arrest him anyway. Kafkaesque, as they say in Breaking Bad. The UK is still obligated to extradite Assange, we will say, though it’s evidently bollocks. I suspect the UK Government would like all this to go away, and wouldn’t be averse to Assange fucking off to Ecuador, or Australia, but life is never that simple.

    What do we think Assange’s play is now? If he is ill, and perhaps Craig knows the truth here, he might be considering leaving the embassy, accepting arrest, getting some treatment, and carrying on the legal fight. A legal fight he has won of course, not that the UK authorities care for such pleasantries. Lordy but our Government is an embarrassment, like so many others …

  • Karl

    Hi Arbed

    Thanks for all your great contributions on the JA ‘case’ !

    Could you help me clarify something ?

    Do you know if SW was subsequently re-interviewed by the Swedish police after the initial interview on August 20th 2010 ?

    This link suggests that she was but it’s confusing as it seems to refer to a bill from Borgstrom to AA for services rendered. But then below has a note saying that Complainant A is in fact SW. Which if correct, would mean that she was subsequently interviewed 9 times by the police.

    <a href=" Link text

  • Arbed

    Yes Karl, according to the invoice submitted to the authorities by her then-counsel Claes Borgstrom when she sacked him, Sofia Wilen has been interrogated by the police eight – count ’em – EIGHT times (up to the sacking in 2013). At first it was believed that it was Ardin who sacked Borgstrom but that was later corrected, see:


    If you look at the detail of the invoice, further light is shown:

    1. Sofia Wilen had been interviewed 3 times before Marianne Ny gave Assange permission to leave Sweden on 15 September 2010.

    2. The police had retrieved 100 x SMS text messages from her phone – which lawyers who have viewed them (but not been allowed to copy or take notes) say are extremely exculpatory – five days before Ny gave Assange permission to leave Sweden.

    3. Claes Borgstrom amended Wilen’s 20 August testimony AFTER Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne closed down the case.

    4. Claes Borgstrom amended Wilen’s 20 August testimony BEFORE *his* version was input to the police computer system on 26 August purporting to be the original (the DurTva computer system won’t allow any trickery with the time/datestamp, you see).

    5. Sofia Wilen went to visit Borgstrom (who at the time was known as a *defence* lawyer) on the first working day after Eva Finne cancelled the Assange arrest warrant saying “there is no reason to believe he has committed rape”.

  • Arbed


    The Wilen interrogation transcript I would love to read is the one on 26 October 2010, the day after the forensics report came back showing the “torn during sex” condom submitted by Ardin was unsullied by anyone’s DNA – that’s anyone’s at all, not even Ardin’s…

    The reason the forensics report would prompt police to re-interview Wilen again is clear as soon as you actually look at the report, which contains photos of TWO “torn” condoms – one from each woman.

    And two women went to police together… just to ask for advice about HIV testing, of course…

1 64 65 66 67

Comments are closed.