Why the Assange Allegation is a Stitch-up 73

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 genuine investigation are and no charges. 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.

The original post with all the links functioning and some 2,000 comments is here.

There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. Before ever meeting Assange, she had been expelled from Cuba by its government as a suspected CIA agent. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anna tweets at 14.00:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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>

73 thoughts on “Why the Assange Allegation is a Stitch-up

1 2 3
  • John Spencer-Davis

    09/02/16 2:02am

    Kathy, much obliged for this marvellous source.

    “New documents” my arse – these are clearly the police statements at least some of which Craig has been working with since the beginning. How comes it that this is the first time (to my knowledge) they have shown up in a mainstream media source?

    What these documents make crystal clear is that, whatever the merits of the criminal charges under Swedish law, the complainants did not exactly take the matter all that seriously themselves at first. They seem, as I believe the second complainant said herself, to have been “railroaded” by zealous police and prosecutors into much more serious territory than they contemplated. Not to say that their statements should not be taken seriously, they should, but we get a strong insight from this article into why the first (female) prosecutor chucked this case out on looking at it.

    Hopefully this is a crack in the wall, and now we will see a fair and honest examination of all the evidence by the mainstream media. As I said, what prevented this kind of reportage before? If Craig could do it, why not people who are paid to do it?

    You’re a star. Thanks,


  • Ethan Allen

    Re: Kathy & John Spencer-Davis 9 Feb
    Kudos to you both for not falling prey to the dissembling corporate media and corruptive use of law enforcement by the various governments involved in this farcical inquisition. From my view, the only partially redeeming act of conscious by either one of these women is Ms. Wilen’s refusal to sign the fabricated charges and accusations; crafted as they apparently were by the questionable actions of an overzealous police officer and a third party witness(Ms. Arden) not properly or legally present at the interview.
    Thank you both for your thoughtful comments, and to Craig Murray for being an honorable example of public service.
    “The public good before private advantage.”
    As Usual,

  • CE

    “I don’t know how these two women can live with themselves”

    Wow. More of what we’ve come to expect from the myopic Assange supporters, unfortunately.

  • Alistair W

    Rob Baggott wrote on 7 Feb 2016 5:40pm, full quote

    “The UK’s response even rested its assertion on a Supreme Court decision which even the Supreme Court has distanced itself from. In the Bucnys case, the Supreme Court revisited its split decision in Assange vs. Swedish Prosecution Authority and explained that the single argument which had become the decisive point in Assange had been reached incorrectly.

    Nevertheless, the corrective legislation in domestic UK law excluded any individual whose case had been already decided by the UK courts. Thus Mr. Assange was frozen out of a remedy, further contributing to his legally uncertain and precarious situation, without a willingness on the part of the United Kingdom to review the case given the subsequent circumstances (the granting of asylum), and with it, the principle of the retroactive application of the law which was favourable to the accused, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. The corrective legislation was passed to prevent arbitrary detention – to prevent people languishing in prison awaiting trial – but now the United Kingdom is not remedying the very case that led to it. The passage of the new legislation is an admission of previous unfairness and the very person abused by it is not getting its benefit.”

    To fully comprehend Supreme Court Decisions it is a good practice to read them. Facts are more important that opinion. The issue the Supreme Court (SC) had to rule on in Assange vs Swedish Prosecution Authority was if a prosecutor could be regarded as a “judicial authority”. The Court ruled 5 to 2 that a prosecutor could be a regarded as a “judicial authority”. Assange lost the appeal.

    Now Assange, and others of the similar beliefs, have stitched-up with a “new legal argument”. An argument that is false as all Assange arguments are if examined. The argument below, similar to Baggot’s, is from Assange’s first submission to the UNWGAD.

    “The recent UK Supreme Court decision in Bucnys v. Ministry of Justice Lithuania (and others) decided that the “fifth reason” for refusal of the Mr. Assange’s case in the challenge in the Supreme Court was wrongly decided. The court recognised that this fifth reason was, “the only one that received any real endorsement even in the other majority judgments in the case.” Had the fifth reason not been factored into the decision in Mr. Assange’s case, the result would have been different and by that route also, his extradition would now, if decided today, be decided differently. In that case the issue raised by Mr. Assange in the Supreme Court for the first time, had argued that the requesting judicial authority, could not be a prosecutor (as is the case in Sweden). Instead, the requesting authority must have the true hallmarks of a judicial authority, in particular independence from the executive.”

    If one bothers to read the SC ruling one will immediately note that the case is called Bucnys v. Ministry of Justice Lithuania (and others). Anybody with some sense would realize that this extradition case is between Bucnys and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Lithuanina (and others). It is not between Bucnys and Lithuanian Prosecution Authority.

    The issue for the SC to rule on in the Bucnys’ case was if a Ministry of Justice could be regarded as a “judicial authority”. It was in no way a new ruling on whether a prosecutor could be regarded as a “judicial authority”.

    The reason SC had to rule on whether a MoJ could be regarded as a “judicial authority” had a connection to the Assange case. Not in the way as Assange and Rob Baggot suggests. In the Assange ruling the judges seemed to support the notion (from the High Court ruling) that a MoJ is not a “judicial authority”. After the Assange ruling a large number of appeals were based on the fact that an EAW was issued by a MoJ. In order to once and for all deal with the issue, five SC judges heard the arguments. Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson. In a unanimous decision the court ruled that in some circumstances a MoJ is a “judicial authority”. Bucnys’ appeal was dismissed. Sakalis’ and Lavrov’s appeals were allowed.

    The legal situation after the Bucnys case is that a prosecutor AND also a Ministry of Justice (in some cases) are to be regarded “judicial authorities”. This is very very far from what Assange and Baggot are claiming. The ruling had no impact on a case like Assange. Today Assange would have lost his appeal too. To state something else is grossly misleading.

    In Assange submissions to UNWGAD there are a number of false arguments. It seems like the panel in some respect has based its opinion on incorrect facts.

    Just one note of interest “Since preparing this judgment, the court has been informed by those instructed by Bucnys that he has died, presumably since the hearing. The issue raised remains of general importance, and this judgment records the Court’s conclusions on it.”

  • Alistair W

    Craig Murray’s article and comment 7 Feb 1:13 pm

    “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.”

    “My own concern is that the secret nature of rape trials in Sweden, and the lack of a jury, make it the perfect opportunity for a stitch-up and false conviction. Of which I am sure the CIA are perfectly aware.

    Once you are a “convicted rapist”, the political opposition to extradition to the US on espionage charges will evaporate. Much of the support of the left for Assange has already vanished just by the expedient of getting a CIA asset to cry rape.

    I do not understand why you so often make false/misleading statements in the Assange case. Are you afraid of the facts? Or are you simply unaware of them?

    There are no secret trials in Sweden. Period. Your article and comments displays your ignorance.

    It is correct that some parts of a rape trial in Sweden are behind closed doors. The evidence and witness examinations are mostly behind closed doors as you correctly state. If a case is to be behind closed doors is a matter for the court to decide. Most of the time both parties ask for closed doors.

    Some cases in England and Wales are also behind closed doors. Or “secret” as you prefer to call them. There are trials in England and Wales that are much more “secret” than Swedish rape trials. The existence of closed material procedures and closed judgments is a far more “secret” concept than closed doors in Swedish rape trials. In Swedish rape trials the judgment is always open. See Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury,

    The High Court accepted the Government’s case that the evidence in question had to be dealt with by a closed material procedure, and handed down an open judgment that dismissed the bank’s application, and a closed judgment only seen by the Treasury. The Court of Appeal held a largely open hearing, with a short closed hearing which considered the previous closed judgment, and dismissed the bank’s appeal.

    Now on to a more interesting subject. Your way of thinking. Or not thinking. Your write:

    “Once you are a “convicted rapist”, the political opposition to extradition to the US on espionage charges will evaporate.”

    Let’s put things straight. Extradition cases in Sweden are decided by the Swedish Supreme Court. (Another CIA puppet in your world of constant paranoia). Extradition cases are not decided by political opposition, mobs, blogs or minds like yours. If and only if the Swedish Supreme Court rules an extradition is admissible the Government can, if it so decides, stop it.

    I cannot stop wondering on what charges you think Assange can be extradited to the US from Sweden. Charges of rape? Copyright infringement? Clownish behavior in general? Self-imprisonment? Or do you think it would have to have some connection to political and military crimes?

    If you think it has to do something with military or political crimes, what is it that makes you think that the Swedish Supreme Court would allow an extradition? For the last 65 years not one person has been extradited from Sweden to the US for political or military crimes.

    Next time you try to stitch-up some general accusations, why don’t you talk to a tailor. Maybe you can learn some tricks of the trade.

  • CE

    Mr Assange is still (ab)using the wikileaks twitter account to promote the same BS about extradition.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Alistair W
    11/02/16 11:50am

    “The ruling had no impact on a case like Assange.”

    On the contrary, the issue is of the highest importance in its applicability to the Assange judgment.

    The question before the Court of Appeal (Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority) was whether or not a prosecutor could be regarded as a “judicial authority” within the meaning of the Council of the European Union Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States of the European Union, and hence the Extradition Act 2003, which the Court stated “must be given the same meaning in the 2003 Act as it bears in the Framework Decision”.

    In his affirmative judgment Lord Phillips gave five reasons for accepting that a prosecutor could be so regarded.

    In Bucnys v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania, the respondent Ministry relied upon the five reasons given by Lord Phillips to argue that it also was a “judicial authority” in the same manner. But the Court noted that the only reason Phillips gave that was at all relied on by the other affirmative judgments in the Assange case was the fifth reason: “But only one of these reasons received any real endorsement even in the other majority judgments in that case: see Lord Walker at para 92. Lord Brown at para 95, Lord Kerr generally and Lord Dyson at paras 155 to 159 and 171.”

    It is therefore a reasonable inference that if the fifth reason given by Phlllips fell to the ground, the majority verdict by 5 to 2 in the Assange case would also have fallen to the ground.

    So what was this fifth reason that was so important to the Assange case? It was whether or not common practice in member states could be taken into account when ruling on the legal definition of “judicial authority”. More specifically, whether the principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which “permits recourse, as an aid to interpretation, to “any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation”.”, were relevant to the legal definition in question. The Assange judgment assumed that they were. The Bucnys judgment emphatically did not.:

    “As appears by the five paragraph coda which appears at the end of the Court’s judgment in Assange as published in [2012] 2 AC 471, 569-570, the relevance of the principles in the Vienna Convention was assumed, not argued, in Assange. When, after the draft judgment on the substance was handed down, Miss Rose QC applied to re-open the appeal to take issue with the relevance of the Vienna Convention, her application was rejected as being without merit, not because the point she wished now to raise would itself have been meritless, (my italics), but because it was too late to do so on that appeal. She had had her chance to raise it during the course of oral argument before the hand down, but had accepted that the Vienna Convention applied and that state practice was a potentially relevant aid to construction. .. On the present appeals, there has been no such acceptance. The applicability of the Vienna Convention and the relevance of state practice have been put squarely in issue… As to the question of principle, whether the Vienna Convention is applicable to the Framework Decision, in my view it is unlikely as a matter of European law that it is or would be so regarded.”

    So the fifth reason accepted by Phillips and the other majority judgments in the Assange case was regarded as falling to the ground in the Bucnysjudgment, which is obviously highly relevant to whether or not Assange’s appeal should have been allowed.

    “In a unanimous decision the court ruled that in some circumstances a MoJ is a “judicial authority”. Bucnys’ appeal was dismissed. Sakalis’ and Lavrov’s appeals were allowed.”

    Your assertion here is strikingly dishonest in what it leaves out in terms of differences to the Assange jusdgment. In the first place, your summation is wrong: the Court found against both Bucnys and Lavrov and in favour of Sakalis. In the case of Bucnys, the EAW was issued in order to return him to prison according to a court judgment. In the case of Lavrov, there was a court judgment against him. In the case of Sakalis, his appeal was allowed because the warrant was clearly not issued by a judicial authority. These cases are obviously different from an EAW issued regarding someone not even charged with an offence.

    Your discussion of these questions also fails to address the point made by the Working Group that the “corrective legislation also barred extradition where no decision to bring a person to trial had been made (s. 156)”.

    Don’t give me the name of your tailor, Alistair W. I think you still have some unstitching to do.


  • Alistair W

    I understand that you are interested in the real meaning of Bucnys v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania. If so I am willing to discuss it with you in order to reach a common conclusion.

    In order to do so let’s take out unimportant bits and see if we agree. You write:

    “Your assertion here is strikingly dishonest in what it leaves out in terms of differences to the Assange jusdgment. In the first place, your summation is wrong: the Court found against both Bucnys and Lavrov and in favour of Sakalis.”

    I assume we agree that the court’s decision is what is important, not Assange’s or your interpretation. So lets look at the decision. From section 67:

    “The conclusions I reach on these appeals are that:
    The European arrest warrant issued in respect of Bucnys by the Ministry of Justice of Lithuania at the request of the Vilnius City 1st District Court was a valid Part I warrant under the 2003 Act, and Bucnys’s appeal should accordingly be dismissed.
    The European arrest warrant issued in respect of Sakalis by the same Ministry of Justice at the request of the Prison Department was not a valid Part 1 warrant, and Sakalis’s appeal should accordingly be allowed.
    The European arrest warrant issued in respect of Lavrov by the Ministry of Justice of Estonia at the request of the Viru County Court was a valid Part I warrant, and the Ministry of Justice of Estonia’s appeal in the case of Lavrov should accordingly be allowed.”

    I think we can agree that the court ruled against of Bucnys and in favour of Sakalis and Lavrov.

    Can we agree that you are wrong here.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Alistair W
    12/02/16 1:53pm

    “I think we can agree that the court ruled against of Bucnys and in favour of Sakalis and Lavrov.

    Can we agree that you are wrong here.”

    No, of course we can’t, what on earth are you talking about? Your own cut and paste shows that the court ruled against Lavrov. Can you read?

    (i) Bucnys (Appellant) v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania (Respondent)

    Court found against APPELLANT, i.e. BUCNYS.

    (ii) Sakalis (Appellant) v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania (Respondent)


    (iii) Lavrov (Respondent) v Ministry of Justice, Estonia (Appellant)

    Court found against RESPONDENT, i.e. LAVROV.

    Can we agree that you are wrong here.


  • Alistair W

    I’m pleased that you are interested in discussing Assange’s legal arguments, the interpretation of the Bucnys case and the corrective legislation, 12A in the “Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014”. Since it is a large subject I will divide it up in a series of comments.

    Firstly I agree that I made a clumsy error in the summation of the Bucnys’s case. The Court found against both Bucnys and Lavrov and in favour of Sakalis as you correctly state. Now when that unimportant issue is agreed on let’s move on to the important questions.

    1.) The Assange case in Supreme Court (SC) was and is confined to the status of a public prosecutor. Is a public prosecutor regarded as a “judicial authority”. It was not SC’s intention to rule if a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was a “judicial authority.

    2.) After Assange many EAW appeals were based on the argument that a MoJ was not to be regarded as a “judicial authority”. The reason for this is found in the High Court’s decision, s.47.

    “For example, if a warrant was issued by a Ministry of Justice which the member state had designated as an authority under article 6, it would not, in our view, be a valid EAW under the Framework Decision.”

    3.) In Assange this issue was not addressed. Therefore SC decided to rule on some appeals where it was argued that a MoJ was not a “judicial authority”. The Bucnys case was and is confined to the status of a MoJ. Is a MoJ regarded as a “judicial authority”. It was not the court’s intention to make a new ruling if a public prosecutor is regarded as a “judicial authority”.

    4.) As mentioned earlier the court ruled in two cases that a MoJ is a “judicial authority” since the warrants were backed by court decisions. In one case, Sakalis, his appeal was allowed because the warrant was clearly not issued by a court.

    5.) If the ruling in Bucnys in any way could be interpreted as if public prosecutors were not to be regarded as a “judicial authorities” one would assume that a large number of EAWs would be challenged and won simply by stating that the EAW in question was issued by a public prosecutor. Obviously this is not the case.

    6.) After Bucnys it is evident that a public prosecutor is still regarded as a “judicial authority”. A MoJ can be regarded as a “judicial authority” if the warrant is issued by an independent court.

    7.) In the Assange case, the action of the prosecutor has been subject to independent scrutiny by judges in Sweden which as judges in another Member State should be accorded due respect.

    I’ve numbered the sections so it will be easier for you to comment. It would help the discussion if you can tell me what sections you agree on.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.