Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar

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

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

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

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

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anna tweets at 14.00:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:

Either

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

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

Or

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet this post

1,986 Comments

1 6 7 8 9 10 20

  1. Guapo,

    “Regarding the first interviews, not only are they unrecorded, but, they lack essential information such as good time estimates and details of what happened. It’s remarkable that an arrest warrant was issued before the interviews and that Anna’s interview wasn’t even performed the same day and still … they did not manage to record the phone interview. It’s obvious that if you don’t make an effort to document the first interviews as well as possible it’s impossible to judge witness statements in a fair way. It’s not fair for the complainants but you can’t put people in jail because the police is not doing it’s job (in a fair legal system, in banana monarchies it works differently).

    I don’t agree with your comments.

    Read what a seasoned prosecutor says about it. He is more informed than you are. The article is in Swedish. Google translate works fine. If you have problems just ask and I help you.

    The title is “The prosecuter that arrested Julian Assange only did his duty”

    http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/08/25/klagaren-som-anh-ll-julian-assange-gjorde-bara-sin-plikt

  2. Göran

    “Jennifer explains as she understood the texts. She claims the text from Sofia is between sexual encounters. This means Sofia claims she was half asleep at a totally different time than what you guys think.”

    Would you care to explain? First what time do you think us “guys” think? What time do you think, know?

  3. Göran

    I see you have already addressed that. I should have refreshed the screen. I’ve just been trying to catch up after working away from home.

  4. I think burying that legal argument regarding when the text was sent is a good idea. According to the original statement of Ms S after Julian entered her, from behind, apparently after the text had been sent, she was smiling. This, as I mentioned in my blog last month, I find hard to believe of a woman being raped.

    http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-rape-of-julian-assange.htm

  5. Here is an article in the Guardian about the text messages:

    “Julian Assange’s accusers sent texts discussing revenge, court hears”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/08/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-texts

  6. Johan and John Goss,

    “Here is an article in the Guardian about the text messages:

    “Julian Assange’s accusers sent texts discussing revenge, court hears””

    I think you are going totally in the wrong. Direction. No matter what you find in the texts it is only relevant in Sweden. You like spending time speculating

    If the texts in any way proved that a crime has not been committed the case would have been dropped a long time ago.

    The texts are discussed with witness Marie Thorn. Her story is to me credible. Read the interview and you’ll find this a nothing story blown out of proportion by lawyers. Guess who’s?

    Swedish
    http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police_marie.pdf

    English
    http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police-marie-en.pdf

  7. John Goss,

    “Would you care to explain? First what time do you think us “guys” think? What time do you think, know?”

    In my 8:24 pm comment I showed that Jennifer’s comments about the texts cannot be true. Her claims about the texts have no bearing on what happened during the reported sex.

    From the interviews the text about half-asleep seems most likely be sent between 1:00am and 2:00am or there abouts. It is not likely sent around 8:40a or there abouts.

    Again. It is a non issue. Just for the Swedish process. Please don’t go into another hole. I’m not comment any more on this because is totally unimportant for the understanding of the case.

  8. John Goss,

    “I think burying that legal argument regarding when the text was sent is a good idea. According to the original statement of Ms S after Julian entered her, from behind, apparently after the text had been sent, she was smiling. This, as I mentioned in my blog last month, I find hard to believe of a woman being raped.”

    Sorry. I don’t understand you reasoning. The rape occurred after the event you describe.

  9. Btw, anyone in Sweden know anything about Mrs Al-Hilli’s mother, who was murdered in France, along with her daughter and son-in-law, two weeks ago? Please see the very long ‘Al Hilli’ thread on this blog, just next to this one. I’m posting this here in case anyone has seen anything in the Swedish press – please forgive the intrusion from another thread’s topic – but it seems too obvious an opportunity (if that’s the right word) to miss. Goran, Orb, Arbed…?

  10. Göran

    I think the research you have done is commendable. I wish I had access to the documents you have and a knowledge of Swedish. But as you question your own translation sometimes, as with the “charge”, “formally charge” and “indict” I am happy to trust that your translation is good.

    However, you keep saying “the rape” as in “The rape occurred after the event you describe.” Whether this is factually correct or not I do not know. But really at this stage, since we do not even know whether he has been “charged” or not, and he certainly has not been tried, and, or, convicted, it ought to be “alleged rape”. I’ve noticed the same pre-judgment on your blog pages. So please, Göran, can you write “alleged rape”, for your own good.

    My understanding is that the text was sent after he lay snoring and before he had sex from behind in which she was smiling. See To Enköping and the SMS messages to her friends part in the following link.

    http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml

    I think you sometimes play Devil’s advocate. I think too that you believe there was no rape, certainly not in the sense of violent rape. Everybody should question. You too my friend.

  11. @Göran, “I don’t agree with your comments.

    Read what a seasoned prosecutor says about it. He is more informed than you are. The article is in Swedish. Google translate works fine. If you have problems just ask and I help you.

    The title is “The prosecuter that arrested Julian Assange only did his duty”

    http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/08/25/klagaren-som-anh-ll-julian-assange-gjorde-bara-sin-plikt

    You don’t have to worry about my knowledge in Swedish (for sure alot better than my English). I read the Hillegren article when it was published. It does not address my criticism. It says nothing about the fact that the warrant for Assange was issued before the interviews with Anna and Sofia. Regarding my other points, that you should interview and tape all involved ASAP have a deep foundation in how the brain works. If the legal system disagrees that is because it is not based on science. This is elementary knowledge. In statistics, it’s common that people think things works in a certain way and don’t investigate enough. However, when it comes to how useful (not in the legal sense but in the sense of being the truth) a witness statement is, I feel confident to say it’s BLOODY OBVIOUS that the value (and the truth) of any such statement derogate quickly and the more time you have to think about a situation and the more you talk about the situation with others the farther away from the truth you will be. This happens even if you try your very best to be objective. It’s a fact of how the brain functions. Did you disagree with the quality of the interviews as well? I don’t see how it’s possible to get a just perception about what happened in the interviews. As an example, after emptying the house on food so she could not provide breakfast to her guest, Sofia went to buy more breakfast food. She returned home and they had breakfast. They undressed and had volontarily sex and just before they dressed and she gave Assange a ride on her bike to the railwaystation she mangaged to fall asleep (or as I interpret the material, she is in this moment half asleep, but let’s wait until we see what comes out in the end) and she now has intercourse for the forth time with Assange the same night. OK, so to estimate the likelyhood that she was asleep, it would be good to know how much time was there between the previous intercourse and the ride to the railwaystation. The impression is for sure, that we are not talking about lot of time, but how short was it (5 min, 15 min, 30 min?) if the store opens early, it could be longer time (how far was it to the store). However, the interviews lacks a lot of relevant information. A problem is that it’s no problem to fill in those gaps in a trial in Sweden even though years have gone by since the actual situation. A funny thing is that she managed to somehow meet her brother in the food store (this is before breakfast and the last two intercourse’s), it should also be noted that at the timepoint for the last intercourse she was already late for work so a person with good working ethics would not have been asleep at that timepoint.

  12. @ John Goss 10.24pm

    FYI, there are more than 100 text messages. Some are from Ms Wilen to her friends both during her night with Assange on 17 August 2010 and some from the following days.

    Then there are texts between the two women. These are presumably dated between 18 and 20 August 2010.

    Then there are texts between the two women and Assange. Presumably these date between 19 and 20 August 2010.

    These were shown to Bjorn Hurtig by Marianne Ny on either 17 or 18 November 2010, but she wouldn’t let him take notes or copies of them. The only reason she showed them to him at all was because she had to under Swedish law immediately prior to the Svea court hearing.

    Given that no notes were taken I am at a loss to understand how Goran could possibly know which text was the one in which the “half asleep” comment by Wilen comes, or on which day that text was sent, or at which time, let alone between which “insertion” to borrow Galloway charming turn of phrase…

    So, let’s review what is known about these texts: There are hundred of them, Marianne Ny has withheld them from UK courts and defence team. Bjorn Hurtig has seen them on 17/18 November 2010. They speak of revenge and going to the press/making money (according to Hurtig) and in one of them Wilen says she was “half asleep” (this seems a credible claim because one of the other witness statements by a friend of Wilen’s says she said that to her too).

    That is the totality of the known facts. Jennifer Robinson’s statement quoted above is general enough to fit the known facts and therefore seems credible.

    Goran’s claims include all sorts of “details” that NOBODY else knows.

  13. John Goss,

    “However, you keep saying “the rape” as in “The rape occurred after the event you describe.” Whether this is factually correct or not I do not know. But really at this stage, since we do not even know whether he has been “charged” or not, and he certainly has not been tried, and, or, convicted, it ought to be “alleged rape”. I’ve noticed the same pre-judgment on your blog pages. So please, Göran, can you write “alleged rape”, for your own good.

    My understanding is that the text was sent after he lay snoring and before he had sex from behind in which she was smiling. See To Enköping and the SMS messages to her friends part in the following link.”

    I sometimes make mistakes too. I always mean alleged rape. I know. I regard Julian as innocent until he is proved guilty in a court of law. I have in a number of places stated that I think Anna is making a false accusation. But she too is innocent until convicted.

    I do think it is going to be difficult to convict Julian if the case goes that far. But I don’t have all the information that the police and prosecutors do. Believe me they are not employed by CIA so there is nothing strange in this case. I can admit that it sometimes look really weird though. I think Julian made a big fat mistake of not showing up for an interview.

    I do think you are correct in placing the texts where you did.

    Charged, formally charged and indicted. I’ve noted that some times in English court documents a Judge can write charge when he means formally charged. Normally you can figure out what he means from the context.

    I’ve spent an unbelievable time with this case. I am in nobody’s corner. I follow the facts and then I form my opinion. If I am wrong I admit it.

    One thing is clear though. We need laws that are similar to the ones in England. They are far more advance than ours. And we do need much better police investigations. All interviews in sex cases have to be video documented.

  14. Guapo,

    I read the Hillegren article when it was published. It does not address my criticism. It says nothing about the fact that the warrant for Assange was issued before the interviews with Anna and Sofia.

    I think you are missing prosecutor Hillegren’s point. If the police hears about a serious crime and the suspect is a foreigner with no real connection to Sweden and it is likely he will leave the country they have to immediately arrest him. That is the duty of the police in order to protect the victims. Then you make an investigation including interviews. I see nothing wrong in the first prosecutors decision to arrest Julian immediately.

    I had a similar opinion like you before I understood what Hillegren is saying. And I think you agree with me that Julian should have been arrested on 1 September. Then the case would have been finished. The prosecutors trusted Julian when he said he would come in for an interview. Similar to the bail. The court thought Julian would behave. He jumped bail and fled to Ecuador’s embassy.

    I am pleased to see that you agree we have to have better police interviews in sex cases. That is the only way we will find real perpetrators and make sure we do not arrest innocent people.

    Hope you agree we need laws based on consent too, just like the laws in England.

  15. Arbed,

    You wrote earlier
    “Words. Fail. Me.”

    I know it wasn’t true. Now you are trying to say something that isn’t very clever.

    “Given that no notes were taken I am at a loss to understand how Goran could possibly know which text was the one in which the “half asleep” comment by Wilen comes, or on which day that text was sent, or at which time, let alone between which “insertion” to borrow Galloway charming turn of phrase… “

    I said it before. I say it again. I do not know what is your problem. I don’t know it it is the reading or the understanding of what you have read.

    The text I was referring to was the one Jennifer was referring to in her brief to Canberra MPs. If you read my comment again slowly, with your glasses on and your brain switched on you would immediately understand Jennifer does not talk about 100 texts.

    John Goss, with a Sherlock Holmes brain, has no problem of understanding which text it is and roughly when it was sent. He put it like this:

    “My understanding is that the text was sent after he lay snoring and before he had sex from behind in which she was smiling. See To Enköping and the SMS messages to her friends part in the following link.” Pick a fight with him.

    Arbed, I know that you are “at a loss to understand”. Why don’t try to understand before you tell everybody that you simply cannot understand. Leave the keyboard and think.

    Jennifer Robinson on the text I commented, para 16
    http://wlcentral.org/node/1418#8

  16. John “Sherlock” Goss,

    I forgot something in my last reply. You are probably aware that I don’t regard Rick Downes at Rixstep a credible source. I show with an example why am of this opinion.

    The document you linked to http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml is about Ms S interview.

    Rick made a reasonable translation. There is a section in the end. The interrogator’s comment. It says in the real interview.

    “Sofia and I were notified during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. Sofia had difficulty concentrating after that news, whereby I made the judgement it was best to terminate the interrogation. But Sofia had time anyway to explain that Assange was angry with her. I didn’t have time to get any further details about why he was angry with her or how this manifested itself. And we didn’t have time to get into what else happened afterwards. The interrogation was neither read back to Sofia nor reviewed for approval by her but Sofia was told she had the opportunity to do this later.”

    If you read the second and third paragraph in Rick Downe’s article you will find:

    Krans and Wilén were informed during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia and that the police were hunting for him in the Stureplan nightclub area.

    Krans, an acquaintance of Anna Ardin, notes that Wilén seemed to go to pieces on hearing the news and that she therefore decided to abort the interrogation without the protocol being read back to her or approved by her.

    Rick sticks in “the police were hunting for him in the Stureplan nightclub area” even though there are no facts supporting it. Then he changes “Sofia had difficulty concentrating after that news” and makes up this “Krans, an acquaintance of Anna Ardin, notes that Wilén seemed to go to pieces on hearing the news”. “Difficulty concentrating” is changed into “seemed to go to pieces.”.

    Rick is willfully changing the meaning. And then later on some other page he takes these twisted bits and makes up another story. I can’t say with 100% certainty that Rick is responsible for the story that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview but it wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve seen Rick do things like this over and over and over again. Sometimes he makes up stories out of thin air to.

    Not only that Rick changes meanings. He is trying to convince us that Irmeli Krans changed the interview from 20 August to something else on 26 August. The crook is not Irmeli Krans, it is Rick Downes.

    The worst part is that WikiLeaks regards Rick Downes is credible (they must know he makes stuff up) and link to stories he makes up. If you check Justice4Assange there are many links to Rixstep. That is the reason that I regard Justice4Assange as unreliable.

    According to my sources Rick Downes serves in some editorial function within the WikiLeaks group. It is disastrous for the credibility of WikiLeaks. Unfortunately it seems like Julian Assange does not care. As long as a story supports him it does not matter if it is made up.

    That is why ask for sources. If I know it is Rixstep it is most likely that story is twisted if it is not totally made up.

    Just wanted you to know.

  17. @ Göran Rudling, 24 Sep, 2012 – 3:24 pm

    You write; “Jennifer is referring to texts sent between sexual encounters. As all of you who read the police interview with Sofia know it is the last encounter that is reported. I don’t think it is possible that Sofia, between sexual encounters, could have texted what state she would be in the future.”

    According to the police questioning of S it is there stated that JA had foreplay with S that went on for a very long time, so they had sex but not intercourse, and JA went to sleep. S was shocked and upset, went to get a blanket, and while JA was asleep she texted a friend (a friend who has been questioned by the police and whose testimony is also in the leaked police report on the net, for ex at Rixstep). In S:s messages she mentions about the long sex-forplay, and she states already there in her textmessage that as he was not using a condom S wrote to her friend that she now had to go and test herself for STD (note: obviously S let JA have sex with her as foreplay is sex, even though it is not intercourse, and she let him have that sex without a condom, so how would JA then know she “only” wanted to have sex with a condom?!). Then in textmessages some time AFTER the final intercourse, S mentions to her friend that she was half-asleep, and therefore not fast asleep as S has stated in her police interrogation. This is mentioned by this friend when she gives her statement to the police, that S had in a textmessage said that she was half-asleep or half-awake or the correct swedish word she used was “slummrade”, dosing/dosing off (JA and S had just a short period before this already had intercourse, which was the time S saw that the condom was only on at the top of JAs penis, but, again, she did not say anything to him about that, though it could easily have slipped off, just as she did not say anything the evening before during the long sex-forplay without a condom, or that she did not say that she did not want to continue the very last intercourse without a condom, though she did talk directly to JA during that very last intercourse and asked immediatly as she “vaknade till” (woke to – indicating not being fully asleep because then you say “woke up”) if he had a condom on, and when he answered he didn’t she did not tell him to stop instead she said “You’d better not have HIV” and he answered “Of course not” and the sex without a condom continued till he came inside of her). Back to the friend and the textmassages. Because this friend had in her police interview mentioned these textmessages, S had to come into the police station again and was questioned about this statement, and S then had to admit that she had not been asleep, but half-asleep/half awake/dosing. These textmessages were shown to Hurtig, he mentions them in court (strange you missed that), and in the live broadcasting from the last days in court it was also mentioned. I recall it also to be mentioned in the written statement to the court from Hurtig, but there I might remember wrongly, but that is so very easy to check! Judge Riddle for example did mention this in his written statement, but said that the english court was not to go through the statements but he did urge the swedish court to do so, he did find it strange, he did emphasize it. You only look at what J Robinson has written when she met politicians in Australia, but you overlook what she and Hurtig and others such as Judge Riddle actually did say in court, both verbally and in writing. THAT does not make sense! The police interviews and so on is translated from swedish to english at for instance Rixstep, and very easy to check!

    Besides; how could JA be “åtalad”, when M Ny has said both verbally and in writing that time and time again that she will decide after the interrogation with JA concerning S (JA has already been questioned concerning A)whether or not she will “åtala” (charge him). Judge Riddle said, sardonicly, that he assumed/took for granted that she would “åtala” (bring charges), meaning, why otherwise persue this in an english court, using the EAW, which is only to be used when “åtal” (charges) are brought. In swedish you say that you may or may not “väcka åtal” (bring charges), and on numerous occations on the swedish prosecutions homepage it has been stated that when JA comes to Sweden, he will be put in “häkte” (detention) and within a few days in front of a judge it will be decided if he is to be held or not, and if held the “förundersökning” (preliminary investigation) will continue until prosecutor M Ny has decided whether or not she has enough evidence to bring the case to “åtal” (charges) in court, for a “rättegång” (trial). The seminar you are to attend – they misrepresents facts when they say that JA are to stand trial (rättegång). This has by prosecuter M Ny still not been decided! And as the spokesperson from the prosecuters office has stated in for example an interview in english recently, it is up to the individual prosecuter to decide whether or not for example conduct interviews, police interrogation in another country, and in other much more serious cases Sweden has done this (the children murderess from Germany for example) but again Rosander stated that it is up to the prosecuter who handles the specific case. JA has said that he welcomes “åtal” (charges), because then, as M Ny also has written to Hurtig, he is entitled to get the accusations specified and see the material. Evidently not easy to built a defence if not. By the way, this organisation arrangeing the seminar originally wrote that JA was suspected (or maybe even accused) of TWO cases of rape and in year 2010! They now have changed these two big errors, not very trustworthy!

    You have done some tremendious work, like detecting the deleted twitters, and the PM from the first police that questioned S and A informally for 2 hours, before Krans got in, first she questione the two together but later separately, in the PM you got from the police she states that both women came in together to the police station and she mentions in the PM that rape was almost immediately mentioned, it is also this police woman, Wassberg junior officer, who calls the first prosecutor while S is still being questioned by Krans senior officer. Krans states in unofficial mails that she was upset that she was not asked, as she had a different take on it. I don’t quite get your “angle” nowadays, what you really want to accomplish, what your purpose is. Personally I want JA “åtalad” (charged) and stand trial, because then everything will or at least should be exposed, as the “secret” sms between the two women that Hurtig was told not to mention, but did anyway! But as everything would be exposed, a trial will never ever take place! Yet how embarrising for M Ny and Sweden if the case does not lead to “åtal” (charges) and not brought to trial! Judge Riddle for one will be surprised, he did write in his statement that he anticipated a trial in Sweden! Rape is one of the most horrific crimes, and should therefore never be lied about, or handing in not sufficient “evidence”. No sane woman would go to the police only to ask questions about if somebody could be forced by the police to take a STD-test, most people know that is not the case, and if not, you use the telephone or ask the nurses and doctors at the hospital which they had been to earlier that day! Real rape victims do not get this kind of “attention” and help, but these two do. No, rape is far to serious to let anybody make a mockery out of it as these two and officials have done! And so is a suspect’s rights, in this case JA!

  18. @ Göran Rudling, 25 Sep, 2012 – 12:41 am

    You write: “Not only that Rick changes meanings. He is trying to convince us that Irmeli Krans changed the interview from 20 August to something else on 26 August.”

    But that is true, and you know it, or you should know it if you have been following this case the whole time. Krans was told by the police in charge of the case, Gehlin (same police who went to one Estonia och Lethuania and questioned a suspect!), to make necassary changes, there are email-correspondance between the two and these can be found on the net. Krans when she was going to enter her handwritten notes from the interview with S a few days later was not able to enter the system, her file had been locked. She then contacted the police who was then in charge, and contact person, Gehlin, and he told her to re-write it and make necassary changes. At Flashback more than a year ago someone made tremendous work and through some program managed to compare and see what had been changed, for instance small things but things, statements, which gives a total different implication. For instance that JA pushed S down on the bed – and added – “as a real man”. That is Krans interpretation, not S:s. There are a quite a few changes like that, where certain things have been stressed, to lead the reader to a certain interpretation and by that a certian impression of JA.

    As a swede who has read the swedish material (interviews and so on), you do know that Rixstep made an outstanding job on the translations of all this material from swedish to english! What you are mentioning now is an article, and people who write articles or other kind om non-legal or research material, they, like Krans, twists the facts just a little, but enough to make it a bit more dramatic, but still the essence is there in his article. No matter what, the translated material is just about perfect!

  19. Fredrick Jansson

    25 Sep, 2012 - 5:00 am

    This sums it all up!!!. Do a google translation.

    Sweden is a sick fucking country!!!

    Det intressanta är, att det föreligger tydligen en massa missuppfattningar om det mesta kring Assange.

    Har är alltså inte åtalad.
    Han skall höras om sin version av en händelse, som inte ens enligt flickorna var våldtäkt, utan rädsla för eventuell HIV-smitta. (Som nu är konstaterat rent medicinskt att de inte har)
    Hur det sedan blir fråga om våldtäkt, kan Ni fråga åklagaren.
    Eller den Svenska Lagstiftningen.
    Eller eventuellt genus”vetenskapen”.
    Gå på kurs om på Södertörns Högskola.

    Han kunde först inte förhöras i Sverige medan han var här.(Oklart varför)
    Först när han rest ifrån Sverige blev det intressant. (Också oklart varför)
    Han kan inte höras i England heller (oklart varför), fast han gärna ställer upp.
    Han måste utlämnas till Sverige (oklart varför), som upprepade ggr meddelar att man inte ger några garantier om vidare stopp för utlämning till USA…???

    Vad är det som framstår som oklart för ett helt gäng dumskallar på tråden….???

    Fråga gärna mig…Jag svarar garanterat.

  20. Göran:

    I know that you are obsessed with irrelevant details, but don’t you think it’s getting a bit ridiculous? You are now accusing Jennifer Robinson of lying because of a missing comma in her statement. Let me add it for you:

    At that time he was also shown more than 100 text messages between the two complainants and their friends, which contained important evidence about the allegations and the women’s motives. For example, the second complainant had been texting her friends in between sexual encounters with Julian over the course of the evening in question –> , <— and states that she was “half-asleep” at the relevant time at which the arrest warrant asserts she was “asleep”: a very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case.

    Better like that?

    Jennifer Robinson speaks of “more than 100” text messages. What makes you think that they were all sent between sexual encounters? Did the missing comma really confuse you that bad? The context makes it perfectly clear that you are wrong (she was “half-asleep” at the relevant time at which the arrest warrant asserts she was “asleep”).

  21. Thanks Arbed for clarifying the texts issue. So nobody but Ms Ny has access to the content of these messages! So she could selectively question Julian on issues he has no knowledge of, which he has to hear through an interpreter for the first time. It is no wonder he does not want to throw himself on Swedish justice.

    Göran, Arbed, Fredrick Jansson and other Swedes. My satirical video has taken 335 hits in just over a week. I am sorry to see that more people have viewed it in Canada than Sweden. Please spread.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nIrLS3gI8A&feature=context-gau

    And that goes for other nationalities. Thanks, you lovely people.

  22. Göran, @ 9.30 p.m. 24 Sep 2012. I meant to write last night, but was prevented. Having read the statement of Ms S’s friend and work colleague it seems to me to be an honest statement in that she is not clear about everything because they discussed the events so much together. Unfortunately witnesses who are not absolutely sure about things are ‘turned over’ by legal interrogators, and what they say loses credibility. So much for honesty. There is nothing in her statement that labels Julian a rapist or even an alleged rapist. I would be annoyed if I had to pay for everything, but in his interview for Hard Talk Assange mentioned how accessing money was difficult for him, so I can understand Ms S’s annoyance. As well as the sentence which I presume you emboldened the following sums up, in my opinion, why an accusation of rape is ludicrous.

    “Marie wanted also to say that, when Sofia visited the hospital and the police, it did not turn out as Sofia wanted. She only wanted Julian to get tested. She felt that she had been run over by the police and others.”

  23. By the way, Craig Murray met with Julian Assange last week and will do agin this week.

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/aiding-and-abetting/

  24. Who are these people who send multiple text messages about what they are/have been doing while (or ‘in between’) having sex? Is this not an indication of the extent to which humans have entered thmselves, not only into a sort of dependent cyborgism, but also wholly into the society of the spectacle? And this entire farrago – which of course is many things – not also an illustration of that? This is something which Orwell never foresaw (though Huxley did). One might posit the vaguely incestuous title (and of course, it’s already been done by the wonderfully enematic Endemol TV) of, ‘In Bed with Big Brother’.

  25. One objective datapoint on charged vs. indicted usage in UK (etc.) legal circles is the number of documents matching a search of each word respectively at the British and Irish Legal Information Institute. http://www.bailii.org

    charge: 74265
    charged: 33525
    indictment: 11051
    indicted: 1657
    indict: 159

    of which in UK:

    charge: 17913
    charged: 9268
    indictment: 2538
    indicted: 264
    indict: 32

    Searching for both terms, this appears:

    The Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 No. 1726 (L. 6)
    (Coming into force 1st October 20120
    http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_reg/2012/uksi_20121726_en_1.html

    No doubt this will provide ample material for argument for those who wish to infer the meaning of words simply from their usage. :-)

    At a glance in that, the usage is ambiguous – it may be a historical or linguistic-cultural equivalent alternative usage, or there may be a very fine legal distinction between charged and indicted; such as the state of the indictment listing the charges having been served or not.

  26. Recent example of media usage by Swedish Radio of the term “indicted” in relation to Swedish offences:

    2012-09-22: Ecuador: Move Assange to Stockholm embassy?
    http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5280700


    Assange is wanted for arrest in Sweden for alleged sex offences, but is avoiding extradition from London by sheltering in the Ecuadorian mission there.

    Swedish prosecutors have previously turned down offers to go to London, saying that they need to question Assange in Sweden as he could be indicted straight afterwards, something which can only be done on Swedish soil as a court case would begin within two weeks of the indictment.

  27. How Borgström sees it: “IF he’s charged with a crime …”

    Earlier example of media usage by Swedish Radio of the term “charged” in relation to Swedish offences:
    2012-05-30: Swedish reaction to the Assange ruling
    http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5130486

    (A long article, also with an interesting legal opinion by Christoffer Wong on the Vienna Convention, and statements by Per Samuelsson.)

    Borgström said he expects Julian Assange will come to Sweden.

    He said after that, Assange would go to a remand hearing. Then he would be questioned and then the two women will be questioned again to comment on Julian Assange’s new statement.

    “And if he’s charged with a crime,” Borgström said, “then the women will participate in the trial, but they’re aware of that, and they are ready to face the stresses of that, and they want him to answer for what he’s done to them.”

  28. Another recent (unrelated) example of media usage by Swedish Radio of the term “indicted” and “charges” in relation to Swedish offences:

    2009-10-06: Police Not Indicted for Detainee’s Death
    http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=3147942

    Swedish Radio reporters have exposed unlawful procedures of judicial authorities in the case of a man’s death in police custody. The prosecutor handling the case admitted that he had been negligent.

    The incident dates back to April of last year, when a 24-year-old man was apprehended by police and died of injuries suffered after being arrested. Even though a coroner’s report pointed out that the man’s death was caused by the police officers who detained him, the public prosecutor had not brought charges against them.

  29. Returning to Craig’s title and the matter of inconsistent statements, right at the very start we have a very disingenuous claim of independence. To a casual listner, it sounds as if two women independently contacted the police, presumably even on separate days (details were unknown then).

    Claes Borgström is reported by Swedish Radio to have said that:

    (“) … the women did not know each other before and that they have filed their complaints with the police independently from each other. (“)

    Another inconsistency of fundamental importance concerns the statements regarding AA only wanting to support SW who was only wanting to have JA tested, as opposed to Borgström objecting about the initial charges being dropped and downgraded, and then his requesting that the case be reopened.

    2010-08-24: “The Women Have No Reason to Smear Assange”
    ( incidentaly this also apears with a freudian slip at SR as: “The Women Have No Right to Smear Assange” (Aug. 24, 2010) )

    http://sverigesradio.se/sida/gruppsida.aspx?programid=2054&grupp=13199&artikel=3946725

    Claes Borgström, representing the two women, one the other hand, is questioning why Assange still has not been questioned by police. In an interview with Swedish Radio News, Borgström dismisses the claims that the complaints have been filed as part of a smear campaign, orchestrated by Pentagon. Assange himself had earlier told the newspaper Aftonbladet that he had been warned this could be the case, after Wikileaks published thousands of classified US documents regarding the war in Afghanistan.

    But the two women have no reason to smear Assange, says Borgström, who points out that the women did not know each other before and that they have filed their complaints with the police independently from each other. That they would be tools in a smear campaign is “100 per cent wrong and has no substance” Borgström told Swedish Radio News.

  30. Johan,

    It is not details. Let’s not get down in the trenches. We are big boys. There are two issues. We can talk about them both if we separate them. Let me make the following division.

    1 How shall we interpret Jennifer’s statement?

    2 If we just agree for arguments sake there is a text saying she was half-asleep. What are the implications. I think you like the second one first so I start with nr 2. After we are through let’s look at number 1. It is good for my understanding of the English language. I am not saying that my interpretation is right, I just think so on reasonable grounds. I understand you can prove me wrong, fine with me, then I will know better.

    Number 2
    What effect does a text saying she was half asleep have on the case? I would say none what so ever where the case is now. Even if there were 10 texts saying she was half-asleep it does not change the case. The prosecutors have evaluated the texts and haven’t found them important enough to write off the accusation.

    What Julian has to to is to “begära resning” (apply for revision) (ask for new trial). He could do that without being present in Sweden. I do not know of any case where that has been granted. The normal way to sort things like this is done is to show up for an interview. So I cannot see any possibility for Julian to get away from the arrest warrant without going to Sweden. This is the heart of the matter

    Is it likely that the case will be dropped? I don’t think so.

    There is already a witness saying she was half-asleep. Katarina Svensson. If it is Katarina Svensson’s text it adds nothing.

    What have to remember it is the prosecutors that have more info than we do. In my view the whole text issue is a dead end.

    As you can see now that if my interpration on issue 1 is correct it does not change one millimeter.

    That’s why I say text talk is silly speculation and leads to no new knowledge.

    Comment on 2 and I go on the one i separate comment

  31. Johan,

    Jen’s statement

    For example, the second complainant had been texting her friends in between sexual encounters with Julian over the course of the evening in question and states that she was “half-asleep” at the relevant time at which the arrest warrant asserts she was “asleep”: a very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case.

    The only thing important to decide is when the text was sent. Then the issue is solved. From the statement above I take out only the relevant words. If thinkt I took out to many words say so.

    the second complainant had been texting her friends in between sexual encounters with Julian over the course of the evening in question

    Now we can take out some more

    the second complainant had been texting her friends in between sexual encounters

    complainant had been texting in between encounters

    This is what Jennifer states is the time when the texts were sent.

    Now the next bit. The reported encounter is the last one.

    To me it is impossible for the complainant to text anything between the last and second last encounters that concerns the beginning of the last encounter.

    Bring in the interview. Ms S states she went shopping, they breakfast, JA undressed her, they had sex, they fell asleep, she woke up with him inside.

    To me it seems extremely unlikely that Ms S texted between the last and second last encounter.

    When it is likely that the text were sent. Most likely when Ms S says she texted. Between the first non successful encounter and the first succesful. At this time it is likely talked about things in the future? Don’t think so. She can only have talked about things happening things that happened. She was half asleep between the first unsuccessful and the first successful.

    No lets look att Katarina’s statement.
    She says Ms S slept. Nothing about texts

    Marie’s statement
    She mentions she got a load texts. She says nothing of sleep half asleep. She knows little about the assault

    My conclusion
    Jennifer mixes things up. What she says has no bearing on if Ms S was half asleep in the beginning of the assault.

    Jennifer’s conclusion a “very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case” is not supported by any facts Jennifer offers.

    Jennifer’s claim is made up from thin air. Have we seen this before?

  32. KF

    Then in textmessages some time AFTER the final intercourse, S mentions to her friend that she was half-asleep, and therefore not fast asleep as S has stated in her police interrogation. This is mentioned by this friend when she gives her statement to the police, that S had in a textmessage said that she was half-asleep or half-awake or the correct swedish word she used was “slummrade”, dosing/dosing off

    I’ve checked the interviews for the 40th time. I cannot find support for your claims. Can please specify where you found this info.

  33. Göran:

    I believe you may have missed my point. Hopefully the following quotes from your own comments will make it clear enough:

    Jennifer’s comments about the texts cannot be true

    Jennifer does not know what she is talking about

    Jennifer’s statement does not make sense

    Jennifer Robinson can’t even interpret the so called facts properly.

    Jennifer is mixed up in confusion

    and finally, when you are challenged:

    text talk is silly speculation and leads to no new knowledge.

    If text talk is indeed “silly speculation”, why are you wasting so much energy on said text messages, to the point of nitpicking about missing commas in Jennifer Robinson’s statement?

    My conclusion is that you are willfully trying to derail the discussion and obscure the important issues.

  34. Lastbluebell, Arbed, Johan and friendly others,

    nice to see some insightful and constructive comments here and on earlier pages. I hope it quietens down here and that you keep a presence. I have various ideas and questions and articles I have noticed, and started with a few posts in a earlier blog topic (AA’s PS) and above. Most is probably known to you veterans, but not so much here. Do you have any insights perhaps on my remarks above about inconsistencies?

    On the Wassgren’s memo – what prompted her to be at work at ca. 6pm on Sunday 22 Aug in the middle of summer (weather? work roster?) so as to write it then and not say on Monday?
    Did they already know about the complaint filed against the duty prosecutor on the Monday?

  35. Thought I might as well post my find on this thread too…

    I found a very interesting open letter to the Swedish Prosecutor-General Anders Perklev requesting that Marianne Ny be investigated for the way she’s handled the Assange case:

    http://justice4assange.com/Action.html#SE

    there’s a translation into Swedish too.

    Note to Snap: Yes, up the thread a bit I suggested that the reason for the 22 August 2010 date on Wassgren’s memo was post-facto justification, because of all the fuss and international scandal of an arrest warrant being withdrawn within 24 hours. Now someone has pieced together a good attempt at filling in the redacted gaps in Wassgren’s memo I’d say she was trying to cover herself and explain her own part leading up to the decision by the duty prosecutor to issue an arrest warrant. So she’s writing out a full account of the story told to her while speaking to the two women before she split them up and sent Wilen in to be formally interviewed by Krans (who seems to have been told a very different story, or at least a very watered-down version to the one Wassgren heard – I have my own theory about why that might be the case, explained in my earlier posts, if you’re interested).

  36. People in the world get the personal loans in various banks, because it is easy and fast.

  37. Greetings Arbed!
    See also the even earlier thread where I posted about AA.

    On your find – readers appreciate being given some idea of the date, and the outcome if it has been decided. Is this recent?
    I recall there were numerous such complaints a year back, as well as some consitutional? complaints against the government regarding some matters disclosed in Cablegate; did any cause more than brief embarrassment? Usually they find some hilarious legal argument to wrangle out of it, as in US consular surveillance is fine since they are immune and hence not breaking Swedish privacy law. On the US side, I once saw that since the data collected is of foreigners, it is not subject to US data privacy rules.

    There was a complaint much earlier against Ny (not certain) about a man kept detained a long time since a file was misplaced. If I dig up the reference, are you able to read the Swedish and briefly summarise?

    Indeed you wrote some great posts a page back. It seems to be worth piecing together all the times and documents and events of 20-23 Aug in fine detail, and then 18-27 Aug or so. Also look at when various narratives changed, perhaps indicating new players getting involved (lawyers, politicans, higher prosecutors, other agents). See my remarks above about inconsistent statements at 2:38 pm.

    Is there a good page somewhere setting out the recent documents appearing from FOI requests? There are a few things I’d suggest trying to FOI if not already tried.

    On Wassgren’s memo – surely the date was valid from the computer document system. I was looking at it from the other angle. Did Kjellstrand maybe know of this by Sunday and contact/help Wassgren? (Oh, was she in the same building or city?)
    On the other hand, perhaps she was on duty that weekend and then had days off and such a memo was just standard procedure… :-)

    See this SR article, it captures a lot of the events then,
    as do a few others there around that time period.

    2010-08-23 15:01: Prosecutor Under Fire for Charging WikiLeaks Founder
    http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=3942732

    … “On Monday, the Swedish justice ombudsman received a complaint against the prosecutor on duty Friday, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand.” …

  38. Rudling on 24 Sep 11:28 pm I think you are missing prosecutor Hillegren’s point. If the police hears about a serious crime and the suspect is a foreigner with no real connection to Sweden and it is likely he will leave the country they have to immediately arrest him. That is the duty of the police in order to protect the victims. Then you make an investigation including interviews. I see nothing wrong in the first prosecutors decision to arrest Julian immediately.

    That makes you wonder why the women waited until Friday afternoon to contact the police. If they wanted him caught and tested, they could have made at least a phone call earlier than that, while he was still living in Ardin’s flat. He moved out from her flat on the same day that they went to Klara police station.

    According to page 18 of this set of documents http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09/UC-ARKIV-120903171025.pdf he appears to have checked in to a hotel at 21.20 pm on Friday. (Look a little below middle of the page, the line marked 2010-08-21 19:25:12.) Was he at her flat until he went to the hotel? She didn’t spend the last night (between Thursday 19th and Friday 20th) at home, and was quite busy on Friday going to the police and then to a party in the evening, so perhaps they never met after Thursday.

    If the area code (områdeskod) 116 21 found higher up on the same document, under “—- Adressinformation —-” is anything to go by, he didn’t move far. According to google maps there are five hotels with that area code, located 200-700 meters from Ardin’s flat. Still the police searched for him around Stureplan? In a totally different part of Stockholm? What kind of information did Ardin give the police?

  39. Hi Orb,

    Thanks for the pdf. How would you describe this set of documents, ie what is it called please? I can work out what some elements are but I want to know more about it. Is it part of the FOI documentation that has recently been requested. Finally, is there an English translation available, or at least of any particularly significant pages (I don’t speak Swedish)?

    Thanks.

  40. Göran

    I hope you’ve read and signed the open letter posted by Arbed (25 Sep, 2012 – 10:50 pm). It clearly shows that Marianne Ny had an agenda beyond her legal brief. You have been so supportive of Marianne Ny when all along it appears she was not following Swedish legal protocol. So we have a prosecutor who does not follow legal protocol, a police interrogator who spices up an unsigned statement from a complainant who “only wanted Julian to get tested” and who “felt that she had been run over by the police and others.”

    There is, and never was, a case to answer. It wants dropping and those who concocted it should face charges and pay compensation.

  41. Arbed, I’m sorry I don’t know much about it, it’s just a link I saw at the Flashback forum, in the very long thread about the Assange case, https://www.flashback.org/t1275257 . Perhaps someone else knows more. I think they’re FOI (freedom of information) request.

    At http://undermattan.com/2012/08/27/assange-handlingar-fran-domstolar-och-annat/ this set of documents is called “*Åklagarmyndigheten – Assange* – Diverse kommunikation”
    (*Swedish Prosecution Authority – Assange* Various communications) and there are a few more links on the same page, but I don’t know of any translation to English.

    On page 36-37 in the same set are the documents that didn’t ask for DNA analysis of Ardin’s condom. On page 36 photo (“foto”) is requested, and on page 37 the code M31 can be found, which according to page 14 at http://www.skl.polisen.se/PageFiles/205660/Bestallningskatalog2012_04_05.pdf , the catalogue for tests available at SKL, the Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Science, is “undersökning av skador i material med avsikten att fastställa hur/varför skadan uppkommit” (examination of damage in material to determine how/why the damage occurred). The odd thing about those two documents from the 24th and 25th of August 2010, is that the crime code (brottskod) is 0661, which means rape (woman, indoors). Who decided to describe Ardin’s case as rape? It’s not what it said when the complaint first was registered at 16.31 on the 20th.

  42. Belinda Harman

    26 Sep, 2012 - 9:05 pm

    A well written piece making a very good point I hadn’t thought of that my self why didn’t she warn Sofia Wilen? This whole case is so obviously flawed I don’t believe it would ever make it into court with the evidence available, Its shambolic.

  43. @ Orb 8.50pm

    Thanks. Very helpful

  44. Reading the polis memos in this case, thanks Orb, is shocking and disgusting. I read Swedish and the political interference here is so bloody glaring. The police involved here are like savages.

    The Assange defence team has been too lame in tackling the Swedish authorities. There must be a concerted international campaign to expose these crooks.

  45. Here is bit of ancient Mesopotamian poetry. (Can’t all blogs use some?)

    “The wild bull who has lain down, lives no more,
    the wild bull who has lain down,
    lives no more,
    Dumuzi, the wild bull, who has lain down,
    lives no more,
    …the chief shepherd, lives no more,
    the wild bull who has lain down, lives no more….

    “On his couch you have made the jackals lie down,
    in my husband’s fold you have made the raven dwell,
    his reed pipe – the wind will have to play it,
    my husband’s songs – the north wind will have to sing them”

    — “The Most Bitter Cry”

  46. @ Rico Santin 27/9 5.11am

    Rico, can I ask a favour? Can you give me an English translation of the passages in the police memos which so outrage you and/or reveal political interference please? It would be great to have these with a teeny bit of explanatory detail, ie: sender/recipient, date, page number.

    Only if you have time/the inclination…

    Thank you.

  47. Hello Orb,

    your thoughtful posts here are much appreciated. Your recent one at 26 Sep, 3:36 pm makes one wonder, when exactly did the storyline “we only wanted to have him tested” first actually appear in print etc. and by whom?

    Was it perhaps in the Aftonbladet newspaper on the Sunday Aug 22, when the women (one or both?) were speaking out, which was after the charges having been dropped leaving one downgraded charge remaining on the Sat. and hence they were perhaps backpedalling to avoid being caught making false accusations?

    Looking at the English versions of the police interviews for SW and AA there does not seem to be any mention of going there wanting to force him to be tested. JA is not questioned about it, nor a lot of other points either for that matter.
    It is mentioned in Donald Boström’s interview made 1 month later. (Are there any doubts on his reliability?)

    So what is your take on this? Was it first in some paper around 22 or 23 Aug?

    Another detail caught my eye in Boström’s interview, reportedly
    the two women were seated together. So unless that station has a very informal open plan design, that would generally imply that they were not simply standing at the front desk counter making enquiries at that stage, but had by then been taken to some office or interrogation room. So what does Klara front desk and offices look like?

    … “And then Anna rings again and says now we’ve been with the police and Sofia told her story and, yeah because I sat there so I added a comment of my own. This is very ‘word for word’ and as I remember her telling me.” …

    Some commenters have been trying to infer a lot from the verb tense used in this statement “now we’ve been with”, which is a translation from Swedish from a record of an interview recalling a phone conversation one month previously. In English it sounds like it could also be an ongoing situation, as in “we’ve been here waiting…”, so that does not seem very conclusive. Perhaps the Swedish verb usage is clearer?

  48. Hi Arbed,

    Sorry, I thought you were Swedish, and probably followed flashback.

    To clarify, when I earlier asked you about recent documents appearing from FOI requests, this was referring to the various pdf files appearing at undermattan.com, as well as a few at samtycke.nu/doc/new. Somewhere there had been talk of new FOI requests, presumably these. Like you I was hoping someone had more details what these all were, and agree it would be very helpful to have English translations. A first start would be some sort of list of the documents and what they are and any key dates or main points they provide.

    I don’t read Swedish either. There are at least 17 pages on undermattan.com starting at undermattan.com/2012/05/14/assange/,
    but perhaps there are older ones deeper down. Some of these link to pdf files; about 6 for 2012/08 and /09. Shall I post a list of these pdfs here for you?

    Anyone Swedish,

    kindly explain the word undermattan and tell us in general terms about this site. Thanks.

  49. I don’t know anything about the site itself, but under mattan means literally under the carpet and is probably related to the expression to sweep something under the carpet as an easy way to hide something you don’t want in the open. Like dust, or information. Undermattan is looking under the carpet.

  50. Rico Santin,

    I don’t know if you were at the seminar yesterday. At least you did not introduce yourself and you did not ask me any questions.

    I will in the near future write a full post of the translation errors involved in the case and what happened at the seminar. I will also reveal my conversations with the Prosecutor General. A conversation that looks much more like it is out of a comedy book.

  51. Snap 1.21 pm,

    Thank you. I didn’t follow the case from the beginning so I’m not sure where the idea that they only wanted him tested first came from. I think Donald Boström’s account is reliable. Reading the original interview in Swedish, the description of his communication with Ardin and Assange on that day sounds genuine to me. At one point he reports that they wanted Assange to take a test or they’d go and file a complaint, a little like a blackmail. Did they think they could file a complaint just to have him tested? Or did they challenge him with “have a test or we’ll file a sexual assault complaint”?

    According to the same interview, when Assange thought he had sorted it out with Wilén, perhaps by by assuring her that he didn’t have HIV or by a promise to get tested, or by arranging to meet and talk about it the next day, he thought everything was fine. But, according to Boström, Ardin said (she’s the one Boström is communicating with, I don’t think he talked to Wilén that day) that they didn’t want to talk to Assange. It is as he says confusing, lots of conflicting messages. According to Assange’s interview Ardin did talk to him that day, accusing him of a lot of things.

    I never thought of the significance of the word sat in that context. It’s basically the same word in the Swedish original, satt, so there’s no problem with the translation. I’ve never been to Klara police station, but I’d expect people to stand when they first announce their business, that’d be normal. I’ll see if I can have a look next time I’m nearby.

    The original Swedish behind the now we’ve been with the police is nu har vi varit på polisen “på” is to me a slightly odd preposition to use there, but I’d rather translate it as now we’ve been at the police (station) indicating that it is after they’ve been there. They could of course have taken a short break, perhaps while Linda Wassgren consulted with others on the phone, in which case it’d be quite natural to say so even of they were going back there shortly after.

    I wonder when and how Ardin was told about the arrest warrant. Wilén was informed during her interview, about an hour after it was issued. Did someone call Ardin if she wasn’t still at the station and tell her? When did she first learn about it? Later than Wilén? Assange said he didn’t know until he read about it in Expressen (online, I suppose). If so, nobody warned him.

  52. “is there actually any evidence that AA was present during SW’s interview? Where does this information come from?”

    Yes, during the the interview conducted by police Linda Wassgren.
    No, not in the interview conducted by Irmeli Krans.

    The confusion stems from this chain of events:

    1. At 2pm August the 20th: Anna and Sofia enters the police station together, met by police Linda Wassgren.
    2. Linda Wassgren interviews both of them together. “Already in the beginning rape was mentioned and both women were victims” (my translation from the Swedish memo)
    3. Linda Wassgren separates the two women and interviews them one by one.
    4. Linda Wassgren talks (on the phone) to head of the police station Johan Hallberg, police Mats Gehlin and others.
    5. At 4.21 pm August 20th 2010. Formal questioning of Sofia starts by police Irmeli Krans.
    6. Before 5 pm August 20th. Linda Wassgren summarizes the case to Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, prosecutor on duty.
    7. 5 pm sharp. The prosecutor on duty decides that Assange should be taken into detention, suspected for “rape etc”.
    8. 6.40 pm August 20th. The questionnniong of Sofia stops because Sofia collapses when she hears that the police is out on town trying to catch Assange.

    Note 1: Irmeli Krans questioning of Sofia did not influence the prosecutor at all. There was no contact between the two at all. In fact, Irmeli K was blocked from taking to the prosecutor by Linda Wassgren. Linda Wassgren’s interviews with the two women, partly together partly separately, were all that was needed to go for Assange in a big way. Thus, it is correct that the procedure was highly irregular.

    Note 2: Linda Wassgren’s interviews are not taken down on paper or tape recorder. The only evidence is the memo that she was forced to write by the second prosecutor, Eva Finne, who closed the rape case on day 2.

    Yes, it smells….

    Irmel

  53. Orb,

    thanks for responding. Donald Boström seemed reliable, I was just considering all posibilities, such as his memory had been affected from a month of media bombardment, or he was pressured by someone like his newspaper employer, or whatever.
    In a proper investigation, all these sort of points should be checked by cross-questioning. There are probably also SMS and phone records.

    One mostly gets the impression that Ardin was saying different things to different people. If she didn’t already know about complaint procedures and if they could force a man to be tested, she certainly would have had contacts to ask and would quite likely have made a few phone calls rather than spend hours at the police. Wilen seems more innocent and anxious and trusting of Ardin. Didn’t Wilen go to some medical centre for tests earlier that day? When? Was that at Ardin’s direction? Did she receive any sort of counselling or psychological examination there then or later, or “guidance” about what had been done to her and that she must report it to the police? Having seen the scandals in other Swedish cases as a result of such psychological interpretations, one wonders if there is some such report lurking in a drawer…

    As well as the timing of the “want him tested” story, it seemed odd that there was no emphasis on that in the initial witness statements, nor did there seem to be any ongoing concern by Ardin about getting him tested and finding out the results, in the media or Boström’s account. And as I pointed out in at 25 Sep, 2:38 pm, if indeed testing was all they wanted, then why did they not let the matter of police drop once it was all cleared? i.e. asking for the case to be reopened, was a willful accusation of rape made in the name of the two women by their lawyer. (Or was that still “only to get him tested”? …)

    The initial media headlines were about him being a serial offender, which sort of has overtones of a serial killer on the loose endangering the public. Talk about character asassination! Is that also some sort of police standard practice to immediately hunt down such suspects?

    Thanks also for looking at the words.

  54. Orb,

    you ask when she found out? One report says she went to a party with Kajsa Borgnäs.

    It also seems hard to believe that after having made a remark that gave rise to the manhunt for Assange, the police did not ensure that she was formally interviewed there and then, either with another investigator, or to insist that she waited there that afternoon/evening until a statement was recorded. Hardly standard operating procedure to let such a witness go off to a party and then just do a telephone conceptual interview the following day.

    For a background on standard (medical) procedure, see the following document from Uppsala Uni. (www.nck.uu.se):

    NCK-Report 2008:1 (English version)
    National Action Programme for the Health Care and Medical Services’ Reception and Care of Victims of Sexual Assault
    http://www.akademiska.se/upload/55973/NCK_Handbook_EN_www.pdf

  55. Goran,
    I’m here and interested. Look fwd to it…

  56. And the UK’s posture that “there is nothing in UK law which recognises diplomatic asylum” / “we are under a legal obligation to extradite Assange” [to face QUESTIONING in a case where there is forensic evidence that one complainant has faked evidence to back her allegations] collapses:

    http://rt.com/news/ecuador-uk-talks-assange-162/

    No wonder the BBC and other UK mainstream outlets are flooded with the ‘story’ of Amnesty calls for Sweden to provide [basically worthless] guarantees against onward extradition.

    Diversionary tactic? Whoops, our hogwash has been exposed – Quick! Get that spin mojo rolling…

  57. And cherry on cake time…

    Ooh, look…

    Following on from that open letter to Anders Perklev regarding investigation of Marianne Ny’s abuse of prosecutorial guidelines in the Assange investigation, here’s chapter and verse of Swedish law under which she could be sentenced to six years for it:

    http://proassange.blogspot.se/2012/09/swedish-prosecutor-should-be-convicted.html

    As the Flashback commenter quoted at the bottom of this article states, it’s interesting that this is longer than the maximum term Assange could receive for ‘rape’. Quite right too.

  58. Arbed, 6 years is not enough for a member of the legal profession who perverts the course of justice. Every thinking person from the start suspected this ‘set up’ had political motives behind it, and now the truth is out. Marianne Ny needs to answer these accusations against her. I see that our media have been silent on these accusations. Now there’s a surprise!

  59. Hello Arbed,

    What would it take to get such a charge up and to court? Who gets to select which judges sit on the case? Some appeals court rulings have shown they are not all happy with the way lower courts are working, so there might be a distant hope there…

    There is an Justice Ombudsman who normally looks at complaints about the administration of justice, but does it have any powers beyond investigating for a year or so and making a report telling them to do better next time?

    Perhaps there is a way to get it out of these closed circles to some EU court eventually?

    So it looks like a cake that will be a long time in the kitchen :-)

    PS. If you are so inclined, to move the dicussion along I left some questions to you above. I’ve found now my notes on the 2 JO complaints that mention Marianne Ny in them, but they are all in Swedish.

  60. My Wikileaks tapes Thing2Thing (T2T)arrived yesterday. From what I’ve seen up to now worth every penny with John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Christine Assange(40 participants in all) and of course footage of the dreadful war-crimes the United States and NATO countries have inflicted on the poor people of the Middle East.

    http://thing2thing.com/?p=2693

    The other thing is your small contribution is helping to fund one of the few firewalls against US and Israeli-funded expansionism. You know what you should do.

  61. @ Snap 28/9 5.43pm

    Here’s a Flashbacker’s take on which clauses of Swedish law regarding arrest, detention etc Marianne Ny has disregarded. Looks well researched. Use Google translate.

    https://www.flashback.org/sp39571395

  62. Villager,

    Just short on what happened at the seminar. There will be more info in coming posts on my blog.

    Krister Thelin, a former judge, reported his work on the Swedish extradition laws. Krister Thelin has just finished a “green paper” on extradition. That is he has researched the laws and come up with proposals for how the laws should be changed. I think it is fair to say that Krister Thelin is one of the experts.

    Krister Thelin’s view is that Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the US from Sweden. It is easier to have him extradited from the UK. He is also of the opinion that no guarantee can be given since it would interfere with the process.

    Brita Sundberg-Weitman spent 15 minutes talking about the issue of proportionality. She is of the opinion that Julian Assange should be questioned in London. The only problem is that Julian Assange’s lawyers have had conditions for an interview. They wanted the complete case file, preferably in Enlish before Julian would take part in an interview. See Jennifer Robinson’s brief to Canberra MPs. Paragraph 13, 18 and 37. The lawyers have effectively stopped an interview in England and are trying to blame the prosecutor.

    http://wlcentral.org/node/1418

    I talked about the fact that Julian is to be considered charged. The Prosecutor General is i fact confirming that Julian Assange in charged. I have formally asked the Prosecutor General for a statement on the issue. I still have not received a formal reply. I have had some strange and comical phone conversations with people in high up places that I will reveal if the Prosecutor General does not make a statement.

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/swedish-prosecutor-general-confirms-julian-assange-is-charged/

  63. “The only problem is that Julian Assange’s lawyers have had conditions for an interview.”

    Göran: As far as I can tell they have only asked for his rights under the ECHR to be honoured. I’d be interested to know why you think this is unreasonable?

  64. At this stage the technical details of what “charged” means are a masturbation with words.

    The process is at a highly advanced international stage and involving national states. Most of the international community DO NOT trust the so called neutral Sweden involved in CIA rendition flights to the gulag. WE have seen from the Thomas Quick case, the Tito Beltran case etc, what a banana republic justice system this it. NO one has accounted for the rendition flights and no one will in this spineless “neutral country”

    Sweden to regain some ounce of international credibility has to back down and behave in a civilised manner. Go to London and interview Assange immediately and throw out this shit bogus rape nonsense.

  65. Hello Arbed,

    was your remark at 10:51 am intended for me? I hope we can still get on the same page here and engage in meaningful discourse.

    My posts bear re-reading more closely, as my words are usually carefully chosen and subtly hinting at matters where I do not wish to make outright accusations. Also, my questions may border on the rhetorical. I have been researching this since the start.

    Given your earlier engaging discussions with other posters, I am at a loss that you hardly reply to my questions and my offers to help with info.
    Given your post on 21 Sep, 1:00 pm beholding the wonder of “the tortuous legal knots the judges go through”, while not wanting to spoil your glee at the prosecutor serving 6 years, I was hinting that there is more to it than having a list of charges.

    Hence, I don’t take kindly to being “tweeted” to with an “@” and little connect to the meaning of my message, nor told to “Use Google translate.”

    So what’s up?

  66. Johan and other Swedes,

    A small treasure hunt for the weekend:

    Which two words most easily find in the JO-beslut search at http://www.jo.se/ the two JO decisions which in some capacity include reference to Marianne Ny?

    Now for the real treasure hunt:

    Almost 2 years ago I was looking around the rulings made by the Justice Ombudsman (Riksdagens ombudsmän – JO) which are online at http://www.jo.se hidden away in a database in Swedish under JO-beslut. Put in your “favourite” name and see if they turn up, however it takes a reader of Swedish to carefully decide if they are:
    1. an innocent bystander
    2. someone maybe a bit involved
    3. the main subject of the complaint

    Then one would need to look further with great skepticism at those with names of interest still at 2. or 3. and then make an abstract of the main points, and consider if there may actually have been a more plausible interpretation of what occurred, or if blame was being deflected.

    For reference, it is best to use the Diarienr. and name, e.g.:
    3912-2007 – Magnus Bolin – [1, 2 or 3]

    Suggested interesting names include (a few are not there, which is information itself):

    Borgström
    Bodström
    Eva Finné
    Lambertz
    Magnus Bolin
    Marianne Ny
    Perklev
    Pirate
    Rolf Hillegren

    Of course, most interest should first be given to the two decisions (any more than 2?) which in some capacity include reference to Marianne Ny.

    Now, machine translation just does not make the grade for legalese, so we really need someone who can make sense of these documents and draw up a list and scrutinize them, and then to have the grace to return the goodwill by reporting back in detail in English, so this is not lost to us in some flashback post or Swedish blog. Any volunteers?

    Happy Hunting!

  67. I’m so sorry Snap – I’ve offended you and that wasn’t my intention at all. In these very long threads I generally use a @ username/time format to help people locate easily which post I’m replying to (or think I’m replying to…) I’m sorry if my re-posting of a Flashback comment on the possibility of action being taken against Marianne Ny was less than you were looking for.

    As you’ve probably realised by now I’m UK-based and my remarks about “tortuous legal knots” were in connection with the court judgments in Britain. I don’t know enough about Swedish law to comment on possible remedial action over there.

    I would very much like to respond to your offers of help but, forgive me, I can’t identify which post you’re referring to that has your questions in it. If you don’t want to use the @ / time marker yourself, perhaps you’d be kind enough to re-post the questions below? Thanks very much.

    I do know journalist Helene Bergman tried to file something recently via JO, which was turned down flat, and there was an earlier “investigation” of the on-duty prosecutor via the same Judicial Ombudsman – also quickly shut down with a “nothing to see here” fob-off, so I had assumed that attempts by that route generally fail. I’m pretty sure I’d have no standing as a UK citizen to make legal complaints in Sweden, and I don’t personally know anyone in Sweden who could do so.

  68. Hello Arbed (29 Sep, 9:54 pm),

    it is encouraging to hear you are aware that I am (mildly) offended, and that your intentions are well disposed. Thanks, that is a good starting place. It is tricky to convey the usualb nuances of tone of normal conversations in such posts in a public blog with so many different people.

    Since I don’t want this to develop into further misunderstandings, I’ve been pondering how to respond without writing more and more words explaining details to you. Besides, I get the feeling you hardly read the detail of what I actually say and carefully think about it, so what is the point? Before any more time passes, here is a start, nonetheless.

    Reading some of your posts over the previous weeks, they indicated you had an aptitude for researching details and thinking sceptically, and awareness of legal machinations. So I hoped that the second paragraph of my 29 Sep, 7:15 pm post would have lead you to use those skills to re-read what I had written with the guidelines for interpretation of my tone and wording as I set out in that paragraph. Hence, I hoped this would lead you to see that my 28 Sep, 3:37 pm post did not ask for any list of charges, rather it was leading beyond that with rhetorical questions, taking a broader prespective that it is a long road from having a list of (potential) charges to securing an actual outcome in a court.

    So would you kindly read again those posts I’ve just referenced and let me know if you now follow how I was using rhetorical questions to try to provoke some thought and discussion, and if you appreciate the disconnect I experience between my posts and your seemingly hasty replies.
    Then I’ll continue…

    kind regards.

  69. Ok Snap, got it now. These – I think – are the rhetorical questions you are asking as possible avenues to somehow bring actual Swedish charges for the mess of this investigation to fruition:

    1) Wilen seems more innocent and anxious and trusting of Ardin. Didn’t Wilen go to some medical centre for tests earlier that day? When? Was that at Ardin’s direction? Did she receive any sort of counselling or psychological examination there then or later, or “guidance” about what had been done to her and that she must report it to the police?

    and

    2) if indeed testing was all they wanted, then why did they not let the matter of police drop once it was all cleared? i.e. asking for the case to be reopened, was a willful accusation of rape made in the name of the two women by their lawyer. (Or was that still “only to get him tested”? …)

    and

    3) Is that also some sort of police standard practice to immediately hunt down such suspects?

    I’m assuming 3) relates to the Wassgren/Kellsborg over-hasty decision to arrest, which has already been referred to JO and suffered a whitewash there. One possible other avenue to explore, though I’m not sure how far it will get, it that Kellsborg’s husband was attending Reinfeld’s annual crayfish party at Harpsung at the same time that Nic Svensson of Espressen newspaper (also at the party) received the tip-off about the complaints (likely suspect for that tip-off Mats Gehlin, supervising police officer at Klara). Carl Bildt is also known to have been at the Harpsund party.

    2) I assume relates to possibly reporting Claus Borgstrom to the Swedish Bar Association for misconduct. I believe he is already under report there for blatantly prejudicial remarks made to the Swedish press at the time of the asylum being granted. However, perhaps something can be done here, given the scandal which is erupting around Lundgren and the way the Quick case has been conducted.

    1) I disagree with your first sentence here (but, also because this is a public forum, I will not go into my reasons why). However, I don’t think there’s much mileage in pursuing that line in terms of getting the mishandling of the case before the courts. There could be some mileage in getting an investigation into the routine misdiagnosis of hospital “rape testing” from a certain Stockholm hospital and its chief clinicians. I believe Flashback has already done a considerable amount of investigation here, the results of which can be read on Rixstep. As I said earlier, as someone who is UK-based and not a Swedish speaker, I think Flashback are in a very much better position than I am in exploring further options for you to pursue criminal charges against the various miscreants in this investigation. They really do know chapter and verse on what is allowed/possible in the Swedish judicial system.

  70. Arbed (1:32 pm),

    actually, my rhetorical questions in my 28 Sep, 3:37 pm post were being far less detailed than that, and concerned directly the matter of a list of (potential) charges against Marianne Ny.
    It was really just a train of thought, though I would welcome further info, I am not really pushing for it. You respond as if I am asking for advice or something. Not at all.

    [NOAD] “Rhetorical”: asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.

    Perhaps I can start the chain of thought off this way:

    A. “What would it take to get such a charge up and to court?”
    Well, given someone has all these details from flashback, and whatever documentary evidence etc., do they just saunter down to the local police station and make some inquiries and present the evidence, and the police are compelled by law to immediately investigate (and – flight of fancy here – have the suspect MN immediately arrested to prevent her from interfering with evidence etc.)? I hardly think so? Maybe there is somewhere they can go – some anti-corruption unit? Maybe they first have to go to the JO, and it is for the JO to instigate charges. Maybe it has to be a directly affected party, such as Assange, so then he would become entangled in another process there, so that is no option [and indeed would highlight the cross-border impuity the EAW gives prosecutors].

    So, first comes the task of getting the charges laid against MN following an investigation.

    B. “Who gets to select which judges sit on the case?”
    I was really just alluding to the way there are political-appointee lay judges, no jury as we know it, and so on, bearing in mind such examples as the Pirate-Bay trial.
    So don’t count on it reaching the “obvious” outcome.

    C. “Some appeals court rulings have shown they are not all happy with the way lower courts are working, so there might be a distant hope there”
    So maybe some long time down the track it gets to an appeal court with judges who care sincerely about principles of justice etc., depending on luck. Now finally, MN is sentenced, and now maybe the little matter of an EAW and questioning of JA etc. gets dropped (or hopefully at some earlier stage in all this). By now Julian has grey hair.
    [Also alluding to some interesting rulings I have seen relevant to discussion of the matters of consent, evidence etc. that bear on any potential case MN may have against JA, which I would like sometime to eventually get this topic moving along to].

    D. “There is an Justice Ombudsman who normally looks at complaints about the administration of justice, but does it have any powers beyond investigating for a year or so and making a report telling them to do better next time?”
    See above re JO, your own comments, and my “treasure hunt”. Did I see that the JO didn’t enter JA’s breach of privacy complaint as it was still a case in progress?
    So that’s a toothless tiger.

    E. “Perhaps there is a way to get it out of these closed circles to some EU court eventually?”
    One last hope way down the track… By now Julian has no hair.

    OK. So that’s a little elaboration of the thinking behind those brief rhetorical questions A.-E. I posed. Are you with me now?
    If so, then great as I would like to move on to other perspectives.

    I appreciate your looking at other aspects I had been raising in other posts than the two I had referenced with times, so I’d like to get back to those too. Is there any point there you’d most like me to pick up on?

    kind regards

  71. Arbed (1:32 pm),

    very briefly on your points, taken aparently from my 27 Sep, .6:44 pm post to Orb, which for some reason you have brought into this whole matter of your post about charges against MN.

    1. I emphasise “seems”. Who knows? Following Daniel’s timeline above, it would be nice to extend it earlier, as the whole matter becoming formal really starts at this Clinic. Rixstep/DaddysSverige etc. suggest may MN has some report from there, which could then be used by her as some sort of “evidence” in court, and as grounds to charge him.
    http://www.daddys-sverige.com/3/post/2012/08/is-this-the-prosecutors-ace-in-the-hole.html
    (see also the NCK_Handbook_EN_www.pdf link above)

    2. Regards inconsistencies with the narrative and the motivations of CB etc. and the topic of Craig’s post here.
    What I’d much prefer to be spending time on to explore and get some info. and write on!

    3. Emphasis “serial” = such suspects. (more than 1 woman, same man, start manhunt) See full quote.

    Oh, did you know that CB was a member of the Swedish Bar Association disciplinary board 1992-2000. He even once reported himself (Quick case?).

    Clearer now?

  72. Hi Snap,

    Yes, I did know Borgstrom once reported himself. Absurb man.

    Did you know Marianne Ny is due to retire January 2013 (according to Flashback)? I suspect therein lies the way in which Sweden will be able to drop this by now highly embarrassing non-case.

    I am now much clearer on the points you’re making, Snap. They reveal very interesting and smart deductions and I think we are basically in agreement on many, many issues. I just don’t know what it is you want ME to do about any of them. Or at least you seem to be looking to me to do something, but I’m afraid I don’t feel qualified to pursue matters within Sweden – I don’t have legal standing for that for a start, and I don’t have the language or cultural knowledge to do it.

  73. I’m not sure if she’s certain to retire. Apparently her 60th birthday is in January, and it’s been speculated that she might want to, or be “kindly encouraged” to take an early retirement then. Normal retirement age in Sweden is 65. An early retirement could be a way to solve the locked position that has developed without anybody losing face, because then the case would have to be taken over by another prosecutor who could take a fresh look at things. Not sure if Marianne Ny sees it that way herself, though.

  74. Thanks, Orb, for the extra detail. No, very likely that Ny doesn’t see things that way. Ny privately admitted she wouldn’t change her stance even if she was wrong, DN.se, 19/8/12:

    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.dn.se/debatt/fallet-assange-ett-hot-mot-den-svenska-rattsstaten&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.dn.se/debatt/fallet-assange-ett-hot-mot-den-svenska-rattsstaten%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D959%26bih%3D680%26prmd%3Dimvns&sa=X&ei=FOkzUMzbC4aH0AW8_oHoBQ&ved=0CEsQ7gEwAA

    Google Translate has mangled the actual quote but I’m pretty sure what the original Swedish is saying. Hopefully, the whole thing is getting just too damn embarrassing for both the UK and Swedish governments and someone will see sense and put pressure on her.

    I notice UK Prime Minister has now committed to pulling the UK out of the EAW in three months’ time:

    “Asked by the BBC whether Britain would opt out of EU justice and
    policing powers, he said: “That has to be done before the end of the
    year, and the opt out is there. We’ll be exercising that opt out.” His
    remarks mean Britain will withdraw from 140 measures on justice and
    home affairs, including the European arrest warrant, later this year.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/28/david-cameron-nick-clegg-european-arrest-warrant

    Note the wording of that quote – it’s a definite. Was confirmed in the FT too. I couldn’t be more pleased with this news, whatever effect it has for Assange’s situation, because of the huge number of miscarriages of justice in the EAW here in the UK. UK gets a disproportionate number of the wretched things.

    I’m also pretty sure Assange’s case has hastened this decision. The way his extradition has been strong-armed through has brought new and dangerous precedents – no charge, investigator able to issue, etc – for all citizens. I guess the Supreme Court subverting parliamentary intent in their ruling was just about the final straw.

    I’ve always suspected that – cf the Baker Review whitewash – the UK government was holding off its long-promised review until Assange was (from their perspective) safely off UK shores, but the Wikileaks One’s asylum bid nixed that one and now the whole embarrassing quasi-judicial spectacle is reaching Gigantic Spud proportions, how the hell do they get out of it? Is this how – withdraw from the EAW, grant safe passage and tell Sweden “you want him, go chase him yourselves”?

    It’s a nice thought, but who knows. Perhaps another way to resolve it – more in line with what Snap envisages above – is to get Marianne Ny busted in Sweden for issuing the EAW without proper judicial oversight or informing the defence. This article from Espressen (sorry, Google Translated again) is dated 20th November 2010:

    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/assanges-forsvarare-till-attack-mot-overaklagaren/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.expressen.se/nyheter/assanges-forsvarare-till-attack-mot-overaklagaren/%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D959%26bih%3D680%26prmd%3Dimvns&sa=X&ei=FuQzUIioDqWG0AWApYD4BQ&ved=0CDwQ7gEwAA

    so that’s after the rubberstamp exercise she sent her assistant Erika Leijnefors to Stockholm lower court on 18 November to get, but before the appeal to the Svea court on 24 November.

    I know Hurtig was at the hearing on 18 November because he’d been shown (but not allowed to copy) the infamous SMS texts between the women the day before. Now, this is where I get confused… Is it the 18 November hearing which took 1 hour, 15 minutes to review a 100-page protocol, or is that the Svea appeal on the 24th? Who was at the Svea court on behalf of Assange? Were the defence fully informed there? Were all Assange’s legal rights respected, or did Ny do her usual fast-and-loose with the ethical guidelines of her office? Rixstep has outlined some of the laws Hurtig feels she’s broken; anything pursuable in these:

    http://rixstep.com/2/20120806,01.shtml

    There’s also an open letter to Anders Perklev (available from the Justice4Assange site’s Action page) that I’ve posted in one of Craig’s blog threads somewhere here, which points out her behaviour around the forensic report does not meet the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s guideline “Objectivity Demand” – I think that’s a definite possibility for bringing some sort of charges against her.

    Thoughts, please?

  75. Arbed, et al, I find it fascinating that Marianne Ny is due to retire in January 2013. The president of the Supreme Court here, Lord Nicholas Phillips, retired at the end of September to take up his reward in Qatar. I think they use people about to be retired to take on uncomfortable tasks. Then they reward them for their services.

  76. Orb,

    thanks for correcting the impression Arbed gave that this was more or less a certainty. From what you say, it seems a more cautious interpretation would be:

    “Marianne Ny becomes eleigible to early retirement in January 2013 when she turns 60, but may stay in office until 65.”

    Is that about the gist of it (assuming her birthday is then)?

    Other such turning points may be elections – Sweden in ? Sept. 2014.

    As an aside to Arbed – please take more care that when you state something in factual terms – “is due to retire” – you stand by that as an assertion of fact. That will let us spend more time on researching new facts…

    more to follow soon…

    regards

  77. John Goss,

    if it is something you take an interest in, I’d appreciate your take on the lecture given by Lord Phillips on judicial independence, complaining about the part funding by the Ministry of Justice, sometime around Feb 2011.

    Seeing a reference to this recently by pure coincidence, it raises the question, might this have been a sort of veiled complaint that the Ministry had been using a review of funding as a leverage to exert pressure on them regarding say the upcoming EAW case of Assange?

    One wonders if anything encouraged him to brush up on his French?

    Isn’t that humiliating to the Monarch/Establishment that English law is now subject to French interpretation?
    Aha – but that is due to those foreign EU frameworks, so lets free ourselves from all those and go back to having our own laws…
    Which ties back to what Arbed posted about what Cameron said on this.

    Hmmm, by golly Eccles, you are onto something… :-)

  78. Hello Snap, I did bracket my assertion with: (according to Flashback).

    Apologies if it wasn’t clear to you that I was quoting a secondary source.

  79. Arbed,

    I thought you might bring that up, and hoped you would reflect more on my request, and consider how it might possibly apply, and not try to pick more petty arguments, after having taken up so much time explaining my rhetorical questions to you where you have displayed similar propensities in word use.
    I also emphasise the word “impression”.

    Of course I saw that, and I resent the implication you try to make about what was not clear to me, since there is more to quoting secondary sources than that. Have you ever written a refereed paper in the scientific literature?

    flashback has a solid reputation of reaching decent conclusions, so did you consider that Orb corrected in a very polite way the wrong impressions you had given to avoid further misinterpretations of this in their name?

    (PS. this further delays my responding on other questions you made to me.)

  80. Finally back to some research…

    On Borgström’s “didn’t even know one could reopen…” quote.

    Does someone have a precise reference to a mainstream media report that quotes Claes Borgström making his “gaffe” on the reopening of the investigation. The one where he explains that she/the women (one or both?) didn’t even know one could reopen a preliminary investigation that a prosecutor had already closed.

    I know it is mentioned multiple times in Rixstep, I am after a more first hand reference, which is proving hard to find. Perhaps it was mainly on TV. A date of the media event would help. Pity the MSM don’t provide full transcripts.

    thanks.

  81. Orb and others,

    Continuing on researching the “we only wanted to have him tested” narrative:

    I have been tracking down when this first appeared in the media, as discussed earlier, and have it back as far as early on the 24th Aug 2010. More on that in a longer post in future.

    It would help to know if there were any earlier references in Swedish mainstream media on the 23rd or 22nd of Aug 2010. (Indeed did it appear in Swedish mainstream media on the 24th either?) Perhaps Aftonbladet?

    Does anyone who reads Swedish want to check those few days in a few such papers online to be certain.

    much appreciated.

  82. Arbed 3 Oct 7:26 am,

    Thanks (again) for a great post. To answer a few of your questions

    I know Hurtig was at the hearing on 18 November because he’d been shown (but not allowed to copy) the infamous SMS texts between the women the day before. Now, this is where I get confused… Is it the 18 November hearing which took 1 hour, 15 minutes to review a 100-page protocol, or is that the Svea appeal on the 24th? Who was at the Svea court on behalf of Assange?

    Yes, it’s the 18 Nov 2010 hearing that took 1 hour 15 minutes, and that’s when the 100-page protocol was presented. Obviously that doesn’t leave much time to read it, it took me hours to work my way through it. The explanation I’ve heard is that it’s the oral presentation that matters, and that the protocol is there for reference, if needed. Doesn’t make much sense to me because in this case, a thorough reading of the protocol should have shown how twisted the allegations are. It is as if there is no real safegueard against unnecessary arrests warrants. The protocol for the hearing can be found at

    http://undermattan.com/files/2012/08/aktbil-16_M%C3%B6tesdokument_889637_15181291.pdf

    I don’t know much about the Svea appeal on the 24th, but the protocol can be seen at

    http://undermattan.com/2012/08/23/assange-protokoll-fran-svea-hovratt-overklagande-2010/

    About Marianne Ny’s statement that she wouldn’t change her mind, the Swedish word “ny” means new which is why the automatic translation gets into trouble, but you’re right, that she “wouldn’t change her stance even if she was wrong” is a correct translation and shows how rigid she is in her thinking.

  83. If Marianne Ny ‘wouldn’t change her mind even if she was wrong’ it is likely that the reward to her for a successful prosecution must be something special. Perhaps she’s going to be joining Lord Phillips in Qatar on £300,000 a year.

  84. I’ve been amusing myself making another video about how Assange was set up. This episode comes chronologically before ‘Enticement’. Please enjoy and spread.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVGdiuzLLo

    Thanks.

  85. Hello Orb (4 Oct, 1:25pm) and others,

    you are not the only one trying to fathom the way that in court hearings in Sweden primary importance is given to what is said in the present!

    More so in he-said, she-said cases, finally heard years after, with the events being retold. So even if there were properly recorded interviews made by the police in the first hours, perhaps they hardly get to be presented in court. That would then help explain why the police and prosecutor may not bother doing more than conceptual interviews over the phone etc. One also wonders to what extent cross-examination takes place.

    Listening to the UK Feb 2011 hearings by the superb tweets of Federica Cocco of owni.eu, one was left wondering similarly what part all the documents and “skeleton arguments” played, as opposed to the theatre of cross examination and tripping the opponent up on some small detail to make them look bad. One got the impression that the Swedish lawyers who appeared as witnesses there were not so used to such an adversarial hearing.

    The legal principles are called “immediacy” and “orality”, which may help when searching. If anyone finds a nice readable article that looks impartially at the real ins and outs of all this or a few case examples, please post a reference.

    I have earlier alluded to some appeals judgements in Sweden concerning the need for evidence in he-says, she-says cases; when I get time I will write more on these and on ousting prosecutors, however I have no appetitie to be dragged into arguments on the “social correctness” of certain matters they will inevitably refer to.

  86. How does one best translate this to pick up any nuances:

    “Bada malsagandena besokte mig pa mitt kontor [date].”

    or, trying to get the fonts working:
    “Båda målsägandena besökte mig på mitt kontor [date].”

    It is something like:
    “Both victims visited me at my office on [date]”,
    in a fairly formal tone. Any better words?

    Does it imply both were together at one time? Does it somehow imply this was a first contact? That they just turned up unannounced, or was it an appointment, hence one way or the other prior communications had been made?

    thanks.

  87. Snap 1:55 am,

    The phrase doesn’t give away much, but I think complainant is a more precise translation of målsägande. “Both complainants visited my office [date]” looks ok to me.

  88. Yesterday was National Poetry Day in the UK. So I penned the following.

    The sycophant

    Justice Phillips in your ermine gown
    you really look the part,
    establishment’s own sycophant,
    a venerable fart.

    Justice Phillips in your cloistered world
    made only for the rich,
    with tightly-knit embroidery
    it only takes a stitch,

    Justice Phillips, in your toadyness,
    to stitch-up a good man,
    with tightly-knit embroidery,
    regrettably you can.

    Justice Phillips, it’s regrettable,
    Assange regrets it too,
    but sad regrets are coronets
    to sycophants like you.

    Justice Phillips, you are leaving us
    while Julian remains,
    it must be really paining you
    for all your toady pains.

    Justice Phillips, I hope Qatar gets,
    right up your beakish nose,
    a country full of sheikhs and slaves,
    and oil-rich slimy toads.

    John Goss

  89. Thanks Orb! (10:24 am),

    Oh well, so it is everyday speech. Not much to infer from it then beyond the date, as the line stood alone in a lawyer’s letter. Still, I presume he mentioned this to establish some legal point, but then it seems like there would have been a more formal expression to describe that. It is preceded by another point with a date. Do I spot a few more words there giving a litle emphasis to “me”?, as in:

    “Bada målsägandena besökte mig på mitt kontor [date].”
    (hope that looks better)

    “Both complainants visited me at my office [date].”

    Hopefully these few key letters get translated soon!

  90. Arbed, 3 Oct, 2012 – 7:26 am

    “¨I know Hurtig was at the hearing on 18 November because he’d been shown (but not allowed to copy) the infamous SMS texts between the women the day before. Now, this is where I get confused… Is it the 18 November hearing which took 1 hour, 15 minutes to review a 100-page protocol, or is that the Svea appeal on the 24th? Who was at the Svea court on behalf of Assange? Were the defence fully informed there? Were all Assange’s legal rights respected, or did Ny do her usual fast-and-loose with the ethical guidelines of her office? Rixstep has outlined some of the laws Hurtig feels she’s broken; anything pursuable in these:

    http://rixstep.com/2/20120806,01.shtml

    I see you are at it again. Using sources that are not reliable. Ever thought of what that make you?

    What do you think is real and true in Rixsteps article? And what do you base it on? Just want to before setting things straight-

    And how about charge and indict? Are they the same to you still?

  91. Arbed,

    “I do know journalist Helene Bergman tried to file something recently via JO, which was turned down flat, and there was an earlier “investigation” of the on-duty prosecutor via the same Judicial Ombudsman – also quickly shut down with a “nothing to see here” fob-off, so I had assumed that attempts by that route generally fail. I’m pretty sure I’d have no standing as a UK citizen to make legal complaints in Sweden, and I don’t personally know anyone in Sweden who could do so.”

    Have you tried to think the “unthinkable”? That you and Helene Bergman and many more are simply wrong about this case?

    I will help you contact JO (Parliamentary Ombubsman) and make sure that they will accept a complaint from you. Since you are most likely wrong nothing will happen.

    If there was something seriously wrong in this case it would have been reported a long time ago. The problem is you and many of you on this blog are so ill informed about what has happened. Sources like Rixstep, Daddy’s, Professor’s Blog, Justice4Assange are not telling the truth. And neither is Julian Assange and his flock of lawyers. The defence they produced was totally worthless. The more facts that come out the sillier the lot looks.

    And please tell me, what is the difference between charge and indict?

  92. Rico Santin,

    “At this stage the technical details of what “charged” means are a masturbation with words.”

    What you do to yourself with or without words is not the issue here. You may use a rubber doll if you are so inclined.

    Julian Assange was charged on 20 August 2010. His and his lawyers lack of understanding the Swedish criminal procedure meant that they spent lots and lots of time arguing something they could never ever win. If your comment is supposed to mean that the lawyers were also into some weird form of masturbation I think you are right.

    The Judges didn’t use their hands to play with themselves. They used their fingers to turn pages in law books and found out that Julian was to be considered charged. Case lost.

    Proving it takes more to be a lawyer than just a wanker.

  93. Rico Santin

    5 Oct, 2012 - 5:47 pm

    Rudling, you are bullshitting. The chickens are coming home to rooost. The Swedish establishment that is. They are now in panic mode, knowing their called rape case is just bollocks….

    This condom affair has already made Sweden an international laughing stock.

  94. Rico Santin

    5 Oct, 2012 - 5:50 pm

    Rudling, while at it, what funding are you getting for peddling the bollocks on the pathetic SAMTYCKE site you push out???

  95. Rico Santin

    5 Oct, 2012 - 6:19 pm

    Rudling…..

    The text below is from the Swedish Prosecution Authorities wesite:

    Varför kan inte åklagaren förhöra Assange i Storbritannien?

    En förklaring till åklagarens beslut att inte förhöra Assange i Storbritannien.

    I ärenden där en misstänkt person befinner sig utomlands måste åklagaren överväga vilka förundersökningsåtgärder som är möjliga enligt svensk rätt och internationella instrument. Vidare måste åklagaren överväga vad som krävs i det enskilda fallet för att utredningen ska kunna genomföras på ett rättssäkert och effektivt sätt utan att kvaliteten åsidosätts. Åklagaren måste också överväga hur en eventuell rättegång ska kunna genomföras, om utredningen leder till att åklagaren väcker åtal, och hur ett eventuellt straff ska kunna verkställas.

    I detta ärende utmynnade åklagarens överväganden i att Julian Assange begärdes häktad för de brott han var misstänkt för. Med stöd av domstolens häktningsbeslut utfärdade åklagaren en europeisk arresteringsorder.

    Åklagarens bedömning är att Julian Assange av utredningsskäl behöver vara tillgänglig i Sverige under förundersökningen. Det som kan nämnas, utan att gå in på utredningsarbetet i detalj, är att det finns behov av att vid förhör med Julian Assange kunna presentera och höra honom om den bevisning som kommit fram i utredningen samt att i den fortsatta utredningen vid behov kunna genomföra kompletterande förhör med Julian Assange och andra inblandade personer.

    Enligt svensk lagstiftning krävs att den åtalade är personligen närvarande vid rättegången när det gäller den här typen av brott. Om förundersökningen leder fram till att bevisningen bedöms räcka för åtal mot Julian Assange krävs hans personliga närvaro i Sverige för att en rättegång ska kunna genomföras och för att ett eventuellt straff ska kunna verkställas. Domstolens häktningsbeslut innebär att Julian Assange är häktad för att säkerställa detta.

    Where the fuck does it say that he is “CHARGED”????

    There is also no logical reason in terms of civilised proportionality not to interview him in the UK at the Equador Embassy.

    Tell your government to subsidize dildos for the largely sick Swedish female population. In this way the world will be a better place.

  96. Hello Rico Santin, I wonder if you can help with this. I’ve posted the following on two of this week’s Assange-related articles because I think it helps readers to get to the heart of the issue reasonably speedily. Any chance you could translate and spread further into Sweden?

    ****

    It’s a pity that the extradition request for Assange and the UK court hearings agreeing to it were based on false evidence handed in by one of the women complainants – a torn, “used” condom which the Swedish national forensic lab could find NO DNA, male OR female, on it – and that the Swedish prosecutor was fully aware of that forensic lab report before she issued the EAW for Assange’s extradition:

    Mats Gehlin 20/10/10 15:08

    In conversations with SKL up came the following.

    On the condom from MA2 home has not found any DNA.

    On vaginal swabs from MA1 found DNA from MA1 and DNA from a man.

    The condom bit that was found in the MA1’s apartment found DNA from MA1 and from the same man who was on the vaginal swab.

    MA1 have not noticed that some condoms have been broken when it was dark in the room and she heard that the suspect put on the condom it was part sounds like he pulled a balloon. Condom piece found under the bed, under the part of the bed that suspect was then put on the condom.

    Oh, what’s that about Sophie Wilen (MA1) hearing “popping balloon” sounds and finding part of a destroyed condom under the bed? She doesn’t mention anything about that in her formal (unsigned) interview with Irmeli Krans, which Eva Finne reviewed and decided there was no case for Assange to answer and “there is no reason to suspect that he has committed rape”.

    Oh, how odd! Well, perhaps it relates to Ms Wilen’s informal interview with Linda Wassgren that Anne Ardin sat in on and, as she told another witness, said “I believe Sophie is telling the truth because the same thing happened to me”? That’ll be the same Anne Ardin who’s handed in a fake “deliberately torn during sex” condom. And that’ll be the same informal interview on which the first prosecutor decided to issue an arrest warrant for double rape before Sophie Wilen’s formal – you know, the one missing any details about “popping balloon sounds” – interview has even finished.

  97. Sorry Rico – meant to say I’d posted it on two of this week’s The Local.se articles.

  98. Please feel free to edit or amend as you see fit. Perhaps the sarcasm in the first sentence wouldn’t come across if you translated word-for-word. What the whole is hinting at is that the two women did indeed tell EXACTLY the same story when they first visited Klara police station – about condoms being deliberately damaged by Assange – but Wilen told a different, watered-down story in her formal statement to avoid being busted for false allegations.

  99. Orb

    at the top of this page you wrote (21 Sep, 1:17 pm):

    “It’s not just US that has troops in Afghanistan, Sweden does too, and perhaps Sweden wants a go at him for any Afghanistan related leaks, or something else, before handing him over to the US. Even if the immediate goal may not be to send him to US, once in custody they can always do so later.”

    I’ve posed a question on this on the Aiding and Abetting thread, since I felt it was a better place to continue Wikileaks related discussion. I recall seeing something once – by Carl Bildt maybe?

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/aiding-and-abetting/

  100. Dear Swedish readers and sleuths,

    I was hoping to stimulate some curiosity about cases where complaints have been made about their incorrect handling by prosecutors or police, and these have been taken up and investigated by the Justice Ombudsman (Riksdagens ombudsmän – JO) which are online at http://www.jo.se hidden away in a database in Swedish under JO-beslut.

    In particular I am aware of at least two reports in there which may illuminate the working practices of Marianne Ny, and the department she is part of. There are also other names of interest which appear in other reports in some capacity.

    This could help to give context to a broader discussion about the particulars of the Assange case mishandling and on the sort of delays in detention while investigations proceed, files are left on the shelf etc. that could await him should he get to Sweden.

    Given all the investigative sleuths on flashback, I humourously called it a “treasure hunt”, but if there are signs of serious interest I’m happy to indicate the references. What we most need is someone who can report back in English the essentials.

    Any other ideas how to encourage some engagement on this are most welcome.

    Thanks.

    ——————–
    See the earlier post (Snap, 29 Sep, 8:43 pm):

    A small treasure hunt for the weekend:

    Which two words most easily find in the JO-beslut search at http://www.jo.se/ the two JO decisions which in some capacity include reference to Marianne Ny?

    Now for the real treasure hunt:
    [part 2 ….. ]

1 6 7 8 9 10 20

Leave a Reply

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

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