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
  • ben

    vital info. and you have the eye of many media cognoscenti, so they’ve no excuse for not knowing all this after seeing your neatly drawn up analysis.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Let us assume that the case might be dropped and the EAW becomes moot.

    Or, alternatively, that charges are brought, the matter goes to trial and Mr Assange is convicted and sentenced – or the opposite.

    Under all these hypotheses, Mr Assange will – sooner or later – walk the streets a free man.

    What is to prevent the US authorities – if so inclined (that is still to be seen, of course) from then requesting Mr Assange’s extradition from wherever he happens to find himself at any particular time?

    We remember the case of Mr Roman Polanski, who came within an ace of finding himself extradited to the US when he left France (of which he is a citizen).

    I see few countries where he would be entirely safe from extradition – at least, few countries where a person of his apparent beliefs – would care to live.

  • craig Post author


    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.

  • craig Post author

    Assange has no intelligence training or tradecraft. Accepting an offer from a young woman to stay in her flat in her absence, and then she unexpectedly turns up. Should have rung massive alarm bells.

    Perhaps I should run intelligence training for dissidents?

  • Anon1


    Do you know for certain that the trial would be held in secret? Clare Montgomery QC for the Swedish authorities, said it would not.

    Certainly, as the details and alleged victim are already known to the public, there could be little justification for holding it in secret, especially given the high-profile nature of the case.

  • Republicofscotland

    I thoroughly agree with your conclusion Craig, from what you’ve said it does appear to be a fit up.

    And as you also say when mud is thrown some of it sticks unfortunately.

    What should Julian Assange do now? Should he leave the Ecuadorean embassy? He will however be arrested.

    But with the UN finding in his favour, I’d imagine that there would be no better time than the present, to push for his vindication, without extradition to Sweden, if possible.

    Westminster would need to agree to give Mr Assange safe passage to Ecuador, but in reality that will never happen.

    I’m afraid Mr Assange will hung, drawn and quareted, so to speak, regardless of his innocence, and set as an example to other whistle blowers.

  • craig Post author


    Clare Montgomery was being deliberately disingenuous. The opening and closing sessions are not secret. The evidence and witness examinations are.

  • Republicofscotland

    It was my understanding that the SPA, had intended to interview Mr Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, I wonder what became of that?

    I’d also like to know why the Swedish Supreme court, failed to hear the appeal by Julian Assange’s lawyers over the EAW.

    Id also be interested to know why the High court in London failed to listen to all four appeals, put forward by Mr Assange’s legal team. Instead the court upheld the extradition warrent.

  • Iain Stewart

    Thank you for the very convincing and disturbing article, Craig. When I read it earlier today around two thousand comments were listed, which seem to have vanished. Martin Rowsons’s guardian cartoon yesterday on Assange is still closed for comments, I notice. All very sinister.

  • Bob Smith Walker

    Intrigued as to why JA was led to believe Sweden was a save haven, if the rape trial process is so kafkaesque as per your summary?
    I’m not convinced of his innocence and would prefer he was tried. However, it’s not beyond realms of possibility that someone somewhere considered it useful for him to visit Sweden especially if any trial of rape would be so secretive, and if, God forbid, an alleged CIA asset alleged rape against him.

  • bevin

    “I’m not convinced of his innocence.”

    It is not just that Assange has not been charged, but that there are abundant reasons to believe that it is not even being alleged that he might have done anything remotely close to “rape” either as it is generally understood or according to British law.

    To call this much ado about nothing would be to give it a substance that it lacks. And that is before considering the import of the fact that Ardin is almost certainly a CIA asset. By this time, after such yeoman service, she is probably a very rich one too.

  • Jane

    I happened to read Marina Hyde’s article in the Guardian about Julian Assange, the nasty rapist, on Friday evening shortly after it appeared. At that time one of the early comments contained a link To Craig Murray. When I looked again today at Marina Hyde’s article that comment, with the link, had been removed by the moderator. The Guardian obviously does not want to make it easy for its readers to find out the other side of the Julian Assange sotry.

  • Mark Golding

    Foot-note – Windows 7 has a self-destruct switch that results in a black screen of death (BSOD)

    Those folk put into this immutable failure – please contact me.

  • Resident Dissident

    “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.”

    I appreciate this is only one of the scenarios – but why should a rape victim have a duty to remind other potential victims so soon after the event? Perhaps they might just have other things on their mind.

    Yes all of the other scenarios should be looked at and examined – but that is why you have judicial processes to do this rather tnan blogs. No one is saying that Assange shouldn’t have defence lawyers or be able to challenge the evidence – and I have no reason to believe that this isn’t possible in Sweden (in fact there is plenty of criticism in Sweden, as in the UK, of the low conviction rates in rape cases – though I daresay this will be blamed on the international neo con feminist conspiracy).

    Also why do Craig and others think they are in a position to stand as judge and jury over the Swedish legal system – which whatever they might say has a far better reputation than many others that they are prepared to accept elsewhere? Is the UN system of justice really one that is without its failings – what is its record of bringing about justice.

    It will be interesting to see if Assange tries to take his case to the ECHR? If his case is so water tight why hasn’t this happened so far?

  • Clark

    Resident Dissident, 2:40 pm:

    “Perhaps they might just have other things on their mind”

    Yeah like organising a crayfish party for the “rapist” and bragging that she’d got off with him to the world at large.

  • CE

    Extremely disappointing but not entirely surprising to see more than a whiff of misogynistic victim blaming going on here. God forbid some nations actually try to protect rape victims during the judicial process.

    And yes it’s quite obvious that these matters should have been tested in court. Just because miscarriages of justice can and have taken place doesn’t mean that’s what we’re seeing here.

  • Clark

    CE, who are you to say it should be tested in court? Assange hasn’t even been charged, and that is because the Swedish prosecution authority have refused complete the initial questioning.

  • Clark

    Look at you lot all saying it should go to court. The first prosecutor a woman, dismissed the accusations immediately. It took a politically connected man to ressurect what was a non-case.

  • CE

    Around and round we go.

    Call me crazy but I’m guessing that Mr Assange leaving Sweden,skipping bail and hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy after exhausting all his legal options might have played a small part in the failure to question him. But yet again that’s not his fault, of course.

    Better than I could articulate myself “Can accusations of sexual assault be used to bully men into silence, and smear their reputations? Of course. Would the security world use such accusations to achieve their own ends? Oh, of course. But Julian Assange is no such hero to the anti-surveillance movement, nor the information freedom movement. Rather, he’s a man with a long history of fleeing his personal, ethical, and legal obligations.”

    At first I was mildly dumbstruck and amused by the ludicrous majority opinion of the UNWG but the more I think about it, it’s quite a kick in the teeth for the cause of human rights and those with genuine grievances. Yet more collateral damage in Mr Assange’s quest to be above the law.

  • Resident Dissident

    “and that is because the Swedish prosecution authority have refused complete the initial questioning.”

    And whose fault is that? Of course there are different accounts of what happened – that is why we and the Swedish have judicial processes, before and after court, to look at the evidence. I’m afraid trial and acquittal by blog isn’t a process that I would like to see as an alternative – and neither would you if you were to think about it.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    07/02/2016 3:45pm

    Of course, the Ecuadorian authorities allow a man wanted for questioning for rape to “hide out” in their embassy and grant him diplomatic immunity and accept all the public vilification that this necessarily entails merely for the purpose of allowing him to flee due process. Just to help out some suspected criminal.

    The prosecutor allowed allegations of sexual assault to become time-barred rather than go and interview Assange in the embassy, as he and his lawyers have repeatedly invited her to do. That shows how much she cares about the women in the case.


  • Clark

    Assange has repeatedly requested the Swedish authorities to complete the questioning in a manner that keeps Assange safe from the threat of extradition to the USA. Despite precedent, the Swedish authorities have delayed and dissembled. The accusations have clearly been kept on life-support for political purposes.

  • Clark

    CE & RD, you seem to think that you’re standing up for protection of women. In fact you’re arguing for the political exploitation of a woman by powerful but covert political forces.

  • Republicofscotland

    “At first I was mildly dumbstruck and amused by the ludicrous majority opinion of the UNWG”


    I’m mildly dumbstruck, that you were mildly dumbstruck at the UNWG’decision.


    “Call me crazy but I’m guessing that Mr Assange leaving Sweden”


    Certainly not crazy naive, perhaps.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.