Stockholm Syndrome 66

Most of the Stockholm hearing into the Assange case yesterday was held in secret. It is plain from comments on my blog that many people have not grasped this point: if Assange goes to trial in Sweden it will be mostly held IN SECRET. There will be no jury. There will be a judge and two assessors. The assessors are nominated one each by Sweden’s main political parties.

It will not be like the Oscar Pistorius trial, where justice is open and society can form a fair view of the strength of the evidence against the member of society who has been accused. It will be a secret proceeding in which you will hear little more than the verdict. You will never know what the evidence was. All this is to “protect” the false accusers from the public obloquy they so richly deserve.

I have yet to hear a single one of those jumping on the “Assange should face a fair trial” bandwagon address the point that it will be a secret trial, stitched up in advance by Sweden’s political parties who are, to say the very least, CIA-friendly.

I am not therefore in the least surprised by yesterday’s Swedish court verdict, which Assange’s lawyers will appeal, probably pointlessly. The fix is well and truly in.

For me, the most important point at yesterday’s trial was about disclosure. The defence was applying to see the hundreds of texts from and between Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen in the possession of the prosecution, including texts they sent when at the police station making their complaint.

Now in every other legal system I know, those would have to be shown to the defence. Weirdly, in this case they were shown briefly to defence lawyers, but they were not allowed to have copies or write anything down. What on earth can be the purpose of that? Can anybody explain to me any principle of law that might explain why defence lawyers should be allowed very quickly to read them but not have copies or ever see them again?

In the UK, the US, France, Spain, South Africa, Ghana and Russia those texts would have to be available to the defence. Anyone with knowledge of other jurisdictions would be welcome to contribute. The EU has made plain that the ability of Swedish prosecutors to hide evidence tending to innocence is contrary to the human rights of citizens. Accordingly, Sweden has been obliged to amend its law for the first time, to bring it a step towards civilised practice and institute disclosure. This has just happened, and this appeal by Assange was viewed as an important test case for the new duty of disclosure.

The Prosecutors however said that the new Swedish legislation makes plain that they do not have to disclose the case file to the defence. That appears to make some sense, in that the prosecution has to be free to set out its case in court. But it cannot possibly mean that the prosecution can make the EU obligation a dead letter, simply by hiding any evidence that tends to innocence inside the “case file”. That would negate the entire purpose of the new law, and Sweden plainly is still not meeting its international human rights obligation. The hiding of these texts should be a severe concern to anybody whose concern is genuinely for justice.

Finally we have the strange question of the refusal of the prosecutors to advance the case by taking up the offer to conduct initial interviews with Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy. It is perfectly known procedure for investigative authorities to
travel to conduct interviews in other countries. It happens pretty frequently.

The question here is, what do they have to lose? If they travel to interview Assange in London, and they believe the interview clears up the questions outstanding, that may resolve the case. If they feel it does not clear up the case, then they are still a bit further advanced than they were before, having conducted the interview, and the difficulty of Assange’s physical location will have been no better of worse than today. For the cost of a short haul air ticket, it is truly worth a try.

The prosecutors’ argument against interviewing Assange smacks of desperation. They could not compel Assange to take a DNA swab in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Well, have they asked him if he is willing to provide a sample? Knowing Julian he will happily agree. (You would, incidentally, have to be extraordinary naïve to believe that the security services have not had Assange’s DNA on file for years.)

But what is the DNA sample for. There is no question of identity in this case. Nobody has ever argued that the man who Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen eagerly got into their beds was Julian Assange. The argument concerns the wearing of condoms whilst there. Anna Ardin produced a torn condom, not at her first police interview but several days later, and by then weeks after it had allegedly been used by Assange. She had told police at interview that she “might” be able to find it. One does have to wonder about her sanitary habits that she was able to find an allegedly used condom weeks after the event. Strangely, the torn condom she eventually brought in had nobody’s DNA on it but her own.

Secret courts, no jury, no disclosure of evidence tending to innocence, refusal to interview Assange in London. To believe that this is a genuine attempt to pursue a crime, you need to have had every critical faculty removed.

The trolls will be out big time on comments now. I am more than happy for contrary opinions to be addressed, provided the commenter actually includes a response to the specific points which I make above. Otherwise they will be simply deleted.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

66 thoughts on “Stockholm Syndrome

1 2 3
  • Kempe

    The Swedish legal system doesn’t use juries, we’ve been over this before besides you’ve been critical of trial by jury for jailing innocents such as the Birmingham Six.

    The Swedish authorities have also denied that the trial will be held in secret; but of course that means nothing.


    I am quite gobsmacked by how the Swedish authorities are behaving in this case. They clearly don’t care about the rights of the alleged victims or they would have moved forward to a trial via video link with Assange not required to attend in person (and while encircled in the Ecuador embassy he is not going anywhere) then if found guilty they can sentence him and have him serve any punishment in Ecuador. It could be done – had they the will.

    It seems obvious they have an ulterior motive – as we have all long suspected.

  • craig Post author


    “The Swedish authorities have also denied that the trial will be held in secret”. I don’t believe that is true. Link please. I have suspended your comment because it is a classic troll tactic to immediately post an untrue assertion contradicting flatly the premise of the article. If you can provide evidence of such a commitment to public trial by the Swedish authorities I will reinstate.

    Yesterday’s proceedings were held in secret because they were considering some of the same evidence the trial will consider.

  • craig Post author


    They first have to interview the accused as part of the process of ascertaining whether there are grounds to have a trial at all. Frankly I do not think it entirely unreasonable not to want a trial by video link. But the refusal even to travel for the initial interview makes it more than plain this is already not a genuine process.

  • antony goddard

    Pursuit of Assange is natural given that Wikileaks annoyed so many
    people in powerful positions. Notoriety and technical skills gave Assange entry to a high society of activists who are Pirate Party supporters.
    Apparently Assange had sex with two women who subsequently
    filed complaints about mis-use of condoms, or mis-timing of sex.
    These complaints were enough to get Assange detained in a British
    jail until he jumped bail and obtained refuge in the Ecuadorian
    Everyone, including Assange, acted as though some sort of conspiracy was going on.

  • Peter Kemp

    Well said Craig.

    The excuse by Swedish prosecutor(s) of not disclosing the texts was an issue from the beginning ie because Assange hadn’t been charged, which is pathetic.

    It is a fundamental obligation of any reasonably decent criminal justice system (Australia UK Canada NZ etc etc, USA excepting GITMO Chelsea Manning etc etc) in any prosecution to not only disclose exculpatory evidence but to follow all leads and investigate potential exculpatory evidence. This the Swedish authorities have consistently refused or failed to do, which makes a mockery of EU law, (especially the EU laws of human rights) and a mockery of procedural fairness.

    As a defence lawyer myself I say this: refusing to disclose exculpatory evidence is prosecution by ambush.

    This is what Sweden is doing, in refusing to disclose that evidence, it is deliberately (with malice aforethought?) subverting a fundamental legal concept for political gain, ie 1) it panders to the internal dynamic of ‘lock up all those men accused of sexual assault before trial’

    Bail? did you say, bail?? What is bail??? Ooops, (Proof of Sweden being 100 years behind the times, they did not understand that at Julian’s bail hearing in London, strength of the prosecution case was a factor for bail as it is in any DECENT legal system.)

    and 2) it panders to the USA for which I have no doubt within the bowels of the DOJ there is a sealed indictment.

    The trolls will be out big time on comments now.

    Indeed, but be prepared for a hammering.

  • guano

    Craig, with regard to Justice, is there not at least an element of honesty in the Swedish Legal system, even now circumventing pressure to be more open, compared with the UK hypocrisy which declares humanity and adherence to law, but in fact has no respect whatsoever for international law, or any other type of law, in practise?

    I had a little smile to myself about your rant yesterday about Arab hypocrisy. Everyone’s entitled to a little rant from time to time. I don’t share your feelings on that particular one.

    Sometimes the bit that is annoying about other people is when they hold a mirror to ourselves. We Brits are suspended in our own, sealed bottle of highly hypocritical self-interest and we look across at another nations sealed bottle of self-interest and cry foul.

    Fair play to you for campaigning for a Scotland that has a Utopian element. I also have a Utopian dream about Islam. But I haven’t found either Scots or Muslims always living up to my dreams which is annoying of them.

    My best advice to Mr Assange is not to get involved with Swedish women next time.


    As I understand it Assange is unlikely to leave the embassy even after a preliminary interview – he would I think be foolish to risk it given the forces arrayed against him. As such – if following an interview in the embassy the Swedish police felt they had grounds to proceed any trial would have to be by video. That’s why I mentioned the video linked trial. They may not like it – but I don’t see they have another option as things stand.

  • Ex Pat


    After the fake 2001 US Presidential election, when Bush was appointed Boy Emperor by the US Supreme Court led by Cheney’s hunting pal Antonin Scalia, Noam Chomsky says that a well known historian said “No, it’s a good thing.” “I thought he was mad,” said Chomsky.

    Today the world knows a great deal more about the fascist US Empire and their use of the methods of the Nazis, and of the UK playing Mussolini to the US Empire Nazis.

    The world also knows a great deal more about the US as an Empire and colonizer, with its subversion of those in power in countries around the world.

    As we see in joke that is the ‘rule of law’ in Sweden. ‘Rule of the US Empire’ possibly. Rule of a democractic state? Hardly.

    It is of course hard luck for the 1.7m dead Iraqis (excess deaths – Orb study) and also for Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and many, many others who are either imprisoned, in exile. Never mind those murdered by the US Empire in their war of terror – Michael Keeting (?), Riad Hamad (?) etc.


    Claes Bergstrom the Left Party (??! Ed.) politician who decided to overrule the Swedish prosecutor who ruled that Assange had no case to answer. (Thank you el CIA-Duh ?!

    Carl Bildt Karl Roves special ‘friend’ Dear Dog In Heaven, what is it with these Log Cabin Republicans and their ‘friends’?? (ER, One more bent than the other? Ed. Criminally sociopathically. ; ) )


    The sooner Tony Blair and the other European US fascist Empire Quislings get their long drop on a short rope the better. Nuremberg Mk I for comparision –

    Johan Galtung – US Imperialism – See Online Papers and Editorial Archive. His weekly editorial is a breath of fresh air usually. Not so sure that Fascists can be dealt with by peaceful means – See Deutchland 1933-45 for details! ; ) –

  • Peter Kemp

    My namesake with an e Kempe, from that 11/02/11 BBC link

    Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said evidence from a trial would be heard in private but the arguments would be made in public.

    Hearsay from the bar table, by Clare Montgomery, I think we need some better up to date pronouncement by the Swedes, mmmm? In any event, from that statement from Montgomery, complainant evidence to be given in secret, yes?

  • John Goss

    “How can any troll defend the indefensible?”

    They can’t. They get rolled over time and again in almost all their arguments, ever ready to support a government with a proven track-record of deceit and complicity with US global aims. I have no doubt that if Julian Assange stepped foot on Swedish soil he would end up in a US prison. Thank you Craig for this measured assessment of Sweden’s new law. Those of us who have been supporting Julian are gutted because we held out high hopes that the e-correspondence would be released, and likewise Julian.

    I have reason to believe that Anna Ardin was/is a secret services (CIA/Swedish) asset, or an extremely gullible woman. I have no evidence that Sophia Wilen is an asset, but honey-traps are a favoured tactic of the spooks. Wilen did a degree in Wales and could have been recruited by our spooks.

    What is most disturbing is that Assange’s own government Australia has totally neglected one of their key citizens. As one of the five eyes it has as much investment as the US and UK in seeing Assange in prison so it can continue having the Aussie populace spied upon with impunity. I’ve said it often before that unless we get rid of secret-services and secret societies the planet cannot live in peace. They are unpunished and unpunishable perpetrators of the worst kind of crimes against humanity and never ever prevent terrorist activity but very often start it. Give me a party or government that promises to abolish secret societies and secret services and it will get my wholehearted support.

  • John Goss

    “My namesake with an e Kempe, from that 11/02/11 BBC link”

    Thankfully Peter there is no way anybody on this blog would confuse you with Kempe. 🙂

  • craig Post author


    So your link states baldly that “evidence would be held in secret”. Only the BBC could spin that as a story that the trial would be public. The “arguments” being public is meaningless – that just means that, like yesterday people are allowed in at the beginning and to hear the verdict, but kicked out for the actual trial. The evidence is precisely what ought to be public.

    Anyway thank you for proving, absolutely beyond refutation, that it is a secret trial.

  • Peter Kemp

    Thanks John, especially my gravy pic, John Howard and Phillip Ruddock holding up a stinking dead rat depicting their sellout of David Hicks with Howard saying ‘A rose by any other name’ 🙂

  • kurtan

    They called the Assange case the murder of justice in Sweden.
    It is so very true.But then all of Europe swings to the right these days.
    The right wont get in next time around,but Bildt is very much a free radical somehow and maybe changes will not be fast.

  • Peter Kemp

    The evidence is precisely what ought to be public.

    Oh yes. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. ie witness demeanour to establish for starters, (leaving aside the lies that the defence might expose) credibility or lack thereof. That way the tribunal of fact, (in this case a judge and two flunky political party hacks) cannot get away with a perverse decision.

  • Peter Kemp

    A useful analogy for the Swedish prosecutors’ ‘witch hunt’ for Julian Assange:

    The witches exist; you are appointed to deal with these witches; testing whether there are witches is only a dilution of the witch hunt.

    (Hat tip Hans Blix)

  • John Goss

    We have big problems ahead. Our own Justice and Security Act (2013) allows for trials to held secretly although at the moment seems to be applied only to intelligence-related trials. Well that would probably apply to Assange here if the honey-trap, the big distraction in this politically-motivated affair, were removed from any trial. Fortunately, as things stand, we do not consider consensual sex to be rape yet in this country! So they would have to give a real reason to take away Julian Assange’s freedom.

  • JimmyGiro

    If Sweden needs to be told to be civil by an undemocratic court, then Sweden is definitely up the fjord without a paddle.

    And any system that puts feminism into law, is an evil corrupt system.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    If the Swedish arrest warrant is quashed, Assange will have to be sent by the UK to the USA to answer much more serious charges for which the DoJ will throw the book at him.

    He, in short, is apparently stuck in limbo by the Swedes for his own benefit.

  • Jives

    The whole case stinks to high heaven.

    Assange is being persecuted for revealing war crimes.

  • YouKnowMyName

    a possible opinion is that the soft assassination – the current predicament of Mendax – is fortunately an overt case of strategic paralysis (from a USAF theory of total dominance information warfare in the 1990’s, the author John Warden was a Strategist at the Directorate of Warfighting Concepts, his MILITARY technology is now obviously capable of being aimed at the CITIZEN)

    I say ‘fortunately’ above as we are aware of it, it would be worse would this be happening covertly.

    In fact, has the legal system in the UK/Sweden got any idea what the Snowden allegations mean for modern justice, in this time of admitted high-bandwidth information warfare? …on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt…


    Here are the actual dirty tricks in the British spy agencies toolkit, with hypothetical examples of potential misuses …

    CHANGELING: Ability to spoof any email address and send email under that identity. Fake an email from a privacy advocate to make it look like he’s proposing terrorism
    SCRAPHEAP CHALLENGE: Perfect spoofing of emails from Blackberry targets. Fake an email from an opponent of bank bailouts to make it look like she’s proposing bombing a bank
    BURLESQUE: The capacity to send spoofed SMS messages. Fake a message from an an anti-war pacifist to make it look like he’s advocating sabotage of a military base
    IMPERIAL BARGE : For connecting two target phone together in a call. Fake a telephone connection to make it look like an opponent of genetically modified foods spoke with a leader of Al Qaeda
    BADGER : Mass delivery of email messaging to support an Information Operations campaign. Send out a fake, mass email pretending to be from a whistleblower “admitting” that he’s mentally unstable, disgruntled, dishonest and vindictive
    WARPATH: Mass delivery of SMS messages to support an Information Operations campaign. Send out a fake, mass message pretending to be from a whistleblower “admitting” he’s a Russian spy
    SPACE ROCKET: A programme covering insertion of media into target networks. Insert a fake video calling for jihad on a the website of a moderate American Muslim lawyer
    CLEAN SWEEP Masquerade Facebook Wall Posts for individuals or entire countries. Put up a bunch of fake wall posts praising the Islamic State on the Facebook page of a reporter giving first-hand reports of what’s really happening in a country that the U.S. has targeted for regime change
    HAVOK Real-time website cloning technique allowing on-the-fly alterations. Hack the website of a state politician critical of those who ignore the Constitution and post fake calls for terrorism against Washington, D.C
    SILVERLORD: Disruption of video-based websites hosting extremist content through concerted target discovery and content removal. Disrupt websites hosting videos espousing libertarian views
    SUNBLOCK: Ability to deny functionality to send/receive email or view material online. Block the emails and web functionality of a government insider who is about to go public on wrongdoing
    ANGRY PIRATE: A tool that will permanently disable a target’s account on their computer. Disable the accounts of an activist working for clean food and water
    PREDATORS FACE: Targeted Denial Of Service against Web Servers. Take down a website which is disclosing hard-hitting information on illegal government actions
    …Ad nauseam..

    at least the police will keep us safe – oops:

  • Mary

    This comes from Curtis on Medialens who says:

    The video which Julian Assange’s lawyers showed the court yesterday in Sweden to support their case that the U.S. will stop at nothing to see him neutralised including assassination.

    It’s very sad to see Sweden behave like an obedient client state of the empire, shredding whatever reputation they had (undeserved or otherwise) for following the rule of law and a supporter of human rights.


    It features all the usual suspects.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Of course, it stinks to high heaven because the Anglo-American spooks apparently killed Gareth Williams, Gudrun Loftus and Steve Rawlings because The Guardian and the WP published the unredacted Afghan File which Assange provided from Williams.

  • Mary

    Tomorrow is the 11th anniversary of David Kelly’s death. A small vigil will be held outside the Royal Courts of (In)Justice in his memory.

    Ms Chakrabati of Liberty regrets the loss of Dominic Grieve from the government, ‘one of the finest Attorney Generals this country has had’. etc, etc

    So fine that he refused to grant an inquest for Dr Kelly and the opposed the High Court challenge to that decision.

    Dr David Kelly inquest ruling challenge fails
    Dr Kelly was the source of a BBC report casting doubt on government claims about Iraq’s weapons
    A bid to bring a High Court challenge over the attorney general’s refusal to give his consent for a new inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly has failed.

  • guano

    The question Craig should ask about Julian Assange is why he felt compelled to prove his sexual potency to a colleague whistleblower. The scenario that a professional whistleblower would be unaware of the danger of honeytraps or HIV is ridiculous.

    I find it unlikely that two spooks on a mission to expose the NWO would be so vulnerable to their sexual feelings as to go to bed together just when they were about to whistleblow.

    It smells of the old scandals like Profumo. The public is given a saucy tale to distract them from hard, nasty politics. The main components of the plot, such as Israel doing 9/11 or ISIS, fade away.

  • Kempe

    A quote from the link:-

    “Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said evidence from a trial would be heard in private but the arguments would be made in public. ”

    Private, not secret, there is a considerable difference.

    Interesting how the focus of Assange’s supporters have shifted from the fear that he’d be immediately extradited to the US to the conviction that he won’t get a fair trial in Sweden. It seems that the impression we’ve had all these years that Sweden as an open and liberal society (one reason Wikileaks moved their servers there) have been wrong and it’s really a neo-fascist police state that indulges in secret show trials.

    Funny how we never noticed.

  • craig Post author


    “The evidence would be heard in private”. OK, please explain to us in what ways that is different from secret?

    As far as I am aware the primary concern of Julian and those close to him is extradition to the US. I have seen no sign their focus has shifted from that, and indeed it was the primary thrust of their case at the court hearing yesterday.

    That he would be stitched up in a secret trial in Sweden and branded a rapist is my own, personal interpretation. It has always been my focus. Whose position do you feel has changed?

1 2 3

Comments are closed.