Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar 1988


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

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

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

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anna tweets at 14.00:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:

Either

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

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

Or

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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


Leave a comment

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

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

1 6 7 8 9 10 67
  • technicolour

    ‘Jemand’ (German for ‘somebody’ isn’t it?) – please answer the question. What do you mean by ‘PD for indigenous people’?

  • Göran Rudling

    Jemand,

    I wasn’t aware that article was yours, on your blog. I don’t think that makes any difference, I stand by my comments.

    Now we not what the problem was. I will off course not remove any comments. Thanks for sorting it out.

    Most interesting comment was this one. By Mr Murray.

    “Goran specialises in talking nonsense with an air of great authority. Must ve the subglasses.”

    Jumping to conclusions again. Is he?

  • Jon

    @Jemand – it is a fair point that I need to strive for even-handedness. It’s the mods’ curse! However I don’t know @tech any more than I know you – not met either of you; my request for sticking to arguments was in a personal, not modding capacity 🙂

    @technicolour – PD would be positive discrimination. I created an acronym earlier, my fingers were getting tired!

  • Jemand

    ‘Jemand’ (German for ‘somebody’ isn’t it?) – please answer the question. What do you mean by ‘PD for indigenous people’?

    So now you’re accusing me of being German? “Technicolour”, like a rainbow, no?

    “Please answer the question”

    Are you the self-appointed Political Officer here?

  • Jemand

    @Jon, I authorise you to speak on my behalf regarding PD for indigenous people. The obviously sly, sneeky and cowardly implication from another commentator here is that I am a German (Heil Hitler!) and that the indigenous people I must be referring to are the otherwise adorably friendly Germanic people who rained hell on earth in Western Europe for six fun-filled years.

  • technicolour

    No (imagine patient tone) I said that ‘jemand’ was German for ‘somebody’. How can you be ‘accused’ of being German anyway?

    And no, again, I am quite clearly asking you to explain what you meant by ‘PD for indigenous people’.

  • technicolour

    Jemand, no need to keep trying to bring Jon into this. I’m sure he has enough on his plate modding. He has already explained that, as the context made clear, PD means positive discrimination. So you can answer the question with that clarification in mind. What do you mean by ‘PD for indigenous people’?

  • Jon

    @JimmyGiro – heh, yes that was me. Nothing to do with my gloopiness sadly – just Craig’s popularity. Serving 200 comments in one go is much faster than 1000+, and thus the server can handle more traffic during busy periods. Immediately after the Newsnight appearance, I think we were getting 1000 pages/min average, which is pretty good.

    If you want to see all comments (or to use your browser search feature over the whole thread) just use the View all comments link at the bottom.

  • Jemand

    “So you can answer the question with that clarification in mind. What do you mean by ‘PD for indigenous people’?”

    Of course I never brought Jon into anything. You invited yourself into our conversation.

    It’s rather curious that you persist when it’s perfectly clear I am disinterested in engaging with you. Now is that a polite enough reply to satisfy the requirements of gentle intercourse on this page?

    Another person, certainly not me, might even suggest that one could scribe the message on a bullet, plug it into your head and the message would still not penetrate. Again, I would never phrase it in such unseemly terms, but one could see his or her point.

  • Villager

    Craig: “Goran specialises in talking nonsense with an air of great authority. Must ve the subglasses.”

    Craig, not many people here, other than Goran, seem to have asked you to reconcile the discrepancies that Goran has pointed out. Probably because initially as someone said he entered all guns blazing accusing you of lying. You refused to dignify his remarks but, at some point you responded and one hoped that grown men could clear things up so that we could all arrive at the truth of things. Especially so, because we all believe that Julian should be positively cleared of the accusations in the case in Sweden and be free of them.

    Meanwhile, Goran has argued strongly, rationally and persistently re the *FACTS* of the case, to which he is also a KEY witness. Further, he mellowed in the course of a couple of very long, interesting and revealing threads. In the process he had no end of abuse hurled at him–water off a duck’s back, he stayed the course and refused to be distracted. One has learnt a huge amount in the course of this debate from Goran. One fact at a time he laboured and cleared up a number of items of hearsay or plain lies.

    He invited you on a number of occasions to enjoin and sort through the facts. You haven’t. One hoped there would be a diplomatic solution to the impasse, but it wasn’t happening. Instead what we see, in the microcosm of this blog, is the same story of human conflict in the macrocosm of what many of us see in the big bad conspiratorial world out there. If we can’t sort little things out here amongst the most intelligent and ostensibly mature adults here, what chance does Julian Assange have of finding a fair diplomatic solution in his situation where they are ‘shooting real bullets’. Think of the practical difficulties and hurdles of solving that one. Ours is to jump over croquet lawn hoops compared to the walls that Julian has to climb over. And we’re struggling with that?!

    Your remark that “Goran specialises in talking nonsense with an air of great authority” is unhelpful and, after all, simply untrue. If you really believe that, you have to come out and play and do some real convincing, through engaging not mere dismissing. As long as the case is open, so is my mind. Its your choice. As for ” Must ve {sic] the subglasses [sic]”, its a cheap shot that doesn’t score ANY points, that is, if you consider the debate to be serious.

    Credit to you and your site for the air of freedom here. But let’s be clear: it is a disservice to Assange and his supporters to have untruths floating around in the guise of actual facts. Thank you for your hosting.

  • Jemand

    @Nuid – “I’ve rarely, if ever, seen such a blatant case of avoiding the question. Except from JimmyGiro.”

    Yes, I am avoiding the question because I am answerable to nobody here. If I refuse to answer questions that any educated person could answer on my behalf, does that mark me for any special attention? What does it say about someone who insists that their question be answered?

    There’s an old saying that says – a freedom that is not exercised is a freedom that is soon lost. I assume that I am free to ignore questions and engage with those of my own choosing – would that be a fair statement?

    It’s interesting that you should characterise my avoidance as blatant. Is that because the question was asked repeatedly? I have asked questions here, once only, and not received an answer. Should I repeatedly hammer away with my question until I can accuse someone of blatant avoidance? What would you suggest I assume from such a blatant avoidance of questions?

    Now, will you answer my questions and if not, what can i say about that?

  • technicolour

    “What does it say about someone who insists that their question be answered? – it says that, despite the sweeping generalisations, the disturbing comparisons, and the persistent abuse, that someone would like their question answered.

  • Jemand

    I’m going to call the umpire in here and ask a direct question that I hope that he will be allowed to freely answer without prior appeal in protest.

    @Jon – Am I welcome to visit this website and post comments on the same terms as everyone else and be free to engage with others of my own choosing as they are presumably free to do likewise?

  • nuid

    “Yes, I am avoiding the question because I am answerable to nobody here.”

    In that case, I wouldn’t expect too many people to debate with you, or take you too seriously in debate either. I don’t see what your problem is about clarifying a remark you made.

    “If I refuse to answer questions that any educated person could answer on my behalf, does that mark me for any special attention?”

    Yes, when you could do it yourself in about 20 seconds. It’s “noteworthy” to me.

    “What does it say about someone who insists that their question be answered?”

    That they’re interested in the subject and frustrated by your refusal to clarify?

    “I assume that I am free to ignore questions and engage with those of my own choosing – would that be a fair statement?”

    Sure. But it doesn’t do you any favours as a commenter here. Neither did you do yourself any favours when you baldly announced to Goran that “I wasn’t aware that article was yours, on your blog”. If it were me, I’d say, “Sorry Goran, I didn’t realise that was yours”. ‘Sorry’ being the operative word. Especially as you’d already put the problem down to HIS bad English.

    “It’s interesting that you should characterise my avoidance as blatant. Is that because the question was asked repeatedly?”

    No, it’s because I was interested in the answer myself. And have been rather pissed off by your avoidance.

    “Should I repeatedly hammer away with my question until I can accuse someone of blatant avoidance?”

    That’s up to you.

    “What would you suggest I assume from such a blatant avoidance of questions?”

    Up to you, again.

    “Now, will you answer my questions and if not, what can i say about that?”

    Say whatever you like, about whatever you like, Jemand, but don’t be surprised at what I take from what you say. Or not, as the case may be. When someone like you – who seems to be a rather opinionated, even arrogant – starts ducking simple questions, I find it … em … interesting, to say the least.

  • Jemand

    @Nuid – thank you for answering my questions, and for the lecture in good manners. Incidentally, it’s “boldly”, not “baldly” but then we all make small mistakes, no fuss.

  • nuid

    “I’m going to call the umpire in here and ask a direct question that I hope that he will be allowed to freely answer without prior appeal in protest.”

    Good lord, man, why do you keep appealing to Jon?

  • Villager

    Nuid, Technicolour,

    On a recent thread, after having received the *usual* abuse from Jamend, i asked him to kindly stop addressing further posts to me, he turned around and said words to the effect “What an unusual request. No.”

    And here’s another one from him at 05.43 today:

    “Lastly, I didn’t want to rehash this subject because it has been done to death. Why should we have to drag out and read the whole story every time someone objects to a transient point? I’m not referring to you Jon, but to the usual “watchers” who jealously deconstruct our every comment looking for evidence of thought crimes and when they find one, point us out with an accusatory siren of abuse.”

    He’s playing victim here; unbelievable. I say he has a chip on his shoulder, beware, and he is unwilling to look at himself in the mirror, even when the mirror is held up to him. Leave him alone for he is sure to drown out a good debate.

  • Jemand

    @Nuid

    “Good lord, man, why do you keep appealing to Jon?”

    What do you mean? I haven’t appealed once. Jon, as you well know, conversed with me as a comentator on a detail of positive descrimination and I hand-balled the question over to him as his explanations are received more agreeably than are mine. I simple expressed confidence in his possible reply. Am I wrong?

    But Jon is also one, or the only, moderator here and he has advised me on the tone that he, or Craig, expects people to observe when posting comments. I simply thought it appropriate to have him also advise on my, and other’s rights to post here, free from unwelcome and repeated demands to engage. So am I allowed to ask for an umpire’s decision here or not?

  • Jemand

    @Villager – If you want to be left alone, which is fair enough despite what i said in my moody reply, why are you interceding here? Is this an indication that your request was disingenuous and you are happy to continue to exchange unfriendly comments? I will kindly oblige and I will use this exchange here as a defence against any criticism. Otherwise you can let sleeping dogs lie. What do you think is the best course in support of the common cause? (JA)

  • Jemand

    @Jimmy

    Conventional wisdom here says that conversing with you is evidence of guilt by association. I’m not one to be told who I am allowed to communicate with nor what I communicate about.

    That video you posted is amazing. I’m so sick and tired of people, here and elsewhere, pretending that humans are so damn unique and don’t conform to abstract patterns of behaviour observable in other phenomena.

  • nuid

    “But Jon is also one, or the only, moderator here and he has advised me on the tone that he, or Craig, expects people to observe when posting comments.”

    There are two moderators, Jon and Clark. Just FYI.

    “So am I allowed to ask for an umpire’s decision here or not?”

    It’s not up to me to answer that. Jon and Clark have very general rules regarding comments here. I’ve never seen any reference in the rules to “clarifying remarks for other commenters”. I would have thought it came under normal adult behaviour. What I do know is that it’s not normal for regulars here to ask Jon or Clark to “umpire”. It’s more a case of them being forced to intervene when we get too boisterous.

    And if you’ll excuse me now, I have stuff to answer elsewhere, and a dinner to eat.

  • Jemand

    @Nuid – I don’t know Clark. I’m new here, not a regular. And what has “normal” got to do with anything these days? I thought that word was struck from the dictionary by the end of last century. Bon apetite!

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Nuid, bon apetit! Oops, wrong thread. This is about Sweden, not France. What’s Swedish for ‘bon apetit’?

    Technicolour, re. avoidance of answering very simple questions, does that not sound somewhat familiar. Positive discrimination in favour of “indigenous” people. In the UK context, hmn.

    I think that Goran has posted some thought-provoking material here. Whatever one’s views on the matters at hand, I think one would welcome rational discourse, factual information and so on, esp. from someone who has read so much on the subject.

    ‘Jimmy and Jemand’ – sounds like a double act on ‘Britain’s Got Talent’. What ya gonna sing for us, lads?

    Incidentally, I am neither amoeba not plasmodium. I am the walrus.

  • JimmyGiro

    More on Marxist subversion, and how it can act in symbiosis with the top 1% of society:

    1. Starvation induces crisis, then fear and panic for the individuals.
    2. A desperate chemical call for synchronization.
    3. The individual collapses into the fascist plasmodium slug, for the ‘good’ of the whole.
    4. The plasmodium moves as a unit, but finds no new resources.
    5. Plan B, the Nomenklatura form the elite escape, at the expense of the masses they duped into feeding them:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkVhLJLG7ug

1 6 7 8 9 10 67