If Assange is ever extradited to Sweden, the danger is that the evidence against him will be held entirely in secret. ALthough published in Sweden, the evidence so far has not been published in the UK except for some extremely selective quotes designed to damage Assange as much as possible.
This is (in translation) the full Swedish police statement arising from Ardin’s interrogation and approved by Anna Ardin. I gave it here without comment. Some further analysis of Ardin will follow in a later post, along with Sofia Wilen’s full statement.
I will however note here the fact that, following this statement, Ardin did produce a condom split across the top to police as evidence. However forensic examination showed not only that there was none of Assange’s DNA on the condom, but that it had never been worn by anybody.
It is impossible to put on a condom and leave no microscopic traces of the fact.
That does not of itself make Ardin’s story untrue. This is her statement:
The chief interrogator rings claimant Anna Ardin (hereafter ‘Anna’) for the purpose of conducting an interrogation because of the event described above (‘rape or sexual molestation at Tjurbergsgatan 36 up to 2010-08-14 12:00’).
Anna says she’s worked as a press secretary and political secretary for Sweden’s christian social democrats – the brotherhood movement. Anna says she was involved in organising a seminar that was to take place on 14 August where Julian Assange had been invited in as a lecturer.
Because Anna would be out of town 11 – 14 August she lent her flat to Assange. But Anna returned to Stockholm already Friday 13 August because she had a lot of work to do for the seminar. Anna and Assange have never before met personally but only had contact via mail and the telephone.
The Friday in question Assange and Anna went out and ate dinner together. They’d agreed that Assange would go on living in Anna’s flat despite her coming home a day early. After their dinner on the town they went back to Anna’s flat and drank tea.
In answer to a question Anna says that neither she nor Assange drank alcohol that evening. When they sat and drank tea Assange began caressing her leg. In answer to a question Anna says Assange earlier in the evening had not made any physical approaches save now which Anna initially welcomed. But it felt ‘uncomfortable from the get-go’ as Assange was rough and impatient. According to Anna, ‘everything happened so fast’. He ripped off her clothes and in conjunction with this pulled at and broke her necklace. Anna tried to put some clothes back on again because things were going too fast and it felt uncomfortable but Assange immediately took her clothes off again. Anna says that she thought she actually didn’t want to go any further but it was too late to say ‘stop’ to Assange when she’d ‘gone along with it this far’. She thought she ‘could blame herself’. So she let Assange fully undress her.
Then they lay in the bed. Anna was on her back and Assange was on top of her. Anna thought Assange wanted to immediately put his penis in her vagina which she didn’t want as he didn’t have a condom on. So she tried to twist her hips to the side and squeeze her legs together to prevent a penetration. Anna tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange stopped her from doing by holding her arms and prying open her legs and trying nevertheless to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Anna says that in the end she was ready to cry because she was pinned and couldn’t reach a condom and thought ‘this might not end well’. In answer to a question Anna says Assange must have known she was trying to reach for a condom and he was holding her arms to stop her.
Assange asked after a while what Anna was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Assange released her arms and put on the condom Anna got for him. Anna felt a huge unexpressed reluctance from Assange to using a condom which led to her getting the feeling he didn’t put on the condom she’d given him. She therefore reached down with her hand to Assange’s penis to check if he’d really put the condom on. She could feel that the edge of the condom was where it should be at the root of Assange’s penis. Anna and Assange resumed having sex and Anna says she thought ‘hope it’s over soon’.
Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off. He entered her again and continued the act. Anna again checked his penis with her hand and again felt the edge of the condom where it should be and so let the sex continue.
After a while Assange ejaculates inside her and thereafter withdraws. Anna saw that the condom didn’t have semen in it when Assange took it off. When Anna began moving her body she noticed how things were running out of her vagina. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange’s semen. She pointed this out for Assange but he denied this and told her it was she who was wet with her own juices. Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broken the condom at the tip and thereafter continued the sex with the resulting ejaculation. In answer to a question Anna says she didn’t look closer at the condom, if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it. She says that even the bed sheets used on that occasion are most likely still in her hamper.
After the above mentioned incident Anna says she and Assange didn’t have any more sex. Yet Assange went on living with her up to and including Friday 20 August. According to Anna Assange made sexual overtures every day after that evening when they’d had sex. For example by touching her breasts. Anna rebuffed Assange on all these occasions and Assange accepted it. On one occasion, Wednesday 18 August, he’d suddenly removed all his clothing on his lower body and thereafter rubbed his lower body and his erect penis against Anna. Anna says she thought this was strange behaviour and uncomfortable and had therefore moved down to a mattress on the floor and slept there instead of up in the bed with Assange. The next night Anna stayed with a friend because she didn’t want to be around Assange because of his strange behaviour. She even pointed out after Wednesday 18 August that she didn’t want Assange staying any longer in her flat which he didn’t respond to until Friday when he took his things and returned her flat key.
In answer to a question Anna says Assange lived with her but they hardly slept together because Assange was up at night working with his computer. She mostly got up in the morning about 07:00 when he went to sleep.
In answer to a question Anna says she knew of Sofia when she’d been in contact with Anna before the above mentioned seminar and been part of the audience. According to Anna Sofia had purchased electrical cables for Assange and been with Anna and Assange at the lunch after the seminar. Anna noticed Assange flirted with Sofia during the lunch and understood that they’d afterwards begun some sort of relationship when Assange rang Sofia later in the evening when he was at Anna’s at the crayfish party.
She received an email message from Sofia Friday 20 August where she wonders if she can reach Assange as she had something important to tell him. Anna understood immediately what it was about and contacted Sofia who then told her what had happened to her, that she and Assange had had sex and that he didn’t want to use a condom etc. Sofia wanted to follow this up with the police and Anna decided to follow along, foremost as support.
Anna says she already heard from several sources that Assange ‘chases all women who cross his path’. Considering Assange’s reputation Anna felt it very important that they used a condom the time they had sex, that is the day before the seminar.
Anna says she’s felt terrible after the occasion when she and Assange had sex. Foremost because of the worry she’d been infected by HIV or some other STD. Anna says she freely consented to have sex with Assange but she couldn’t have let it happen if she’d known he didn’t have a condom. Anna has been in contact with the health centre and been given a time for tests next week. Anna approves of the police having the results of these tests.
Anna does not want any help from the crime victims unit but will get back to us if she feels it’s necessary.
Interrogation read back and approved.
Sorry if that was a bit opaque… I was replying to a post by Fickel saying what a great site this is, but after I hit “submit comment”, his post disappeared!?! Weird… anyhow…
@Komodo, I’ll have a look at the rest of it when I’ve got time, not sure when that will be at the moment.
LOL…Fickel was a spambot – Jon probably shot it.
Yep, spambot skewered! In general if a post has a website link, and is written in a very non-specific way, then it’s likely to be automated spam.
Nevermind: This from Guy Rundle at Crikey.com.au…
Meanwhile, Ardin sends a tweet: “Julian really wants to attend a crayfish party, anyone got two spare places”?*(*crayfish parties are a traditional summer activity in Sweden, less formal than usual, but more formal than, say, a barbecue. You can’t just turn up with extra guests. There being none going, it appears that Ardin arranges an impromptu one at her apartment.)
There is also this:
7) On Wednesday August 18 or the 19th, Ardin and Wilen exchanged texts and arrange to meet. (Unconfirmed: tweets from Wilen are made at this time regarding the events of the previous days. Wilen’s internet presence later disappears so completely that Swedish hacker sites conclude that a professional clean-up job has been performed).
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/13/rundle-timeline-of-assanges-visit-to-sweden-and-events-that-followed/
Although not certain that these are all accurate, somebody posted a list of facts about Ardin;
“It is a fact that Anna Ardin organized the press conference, and that she is not a “wikileaks volunteer” or an “intern” or a “girl.
It is a fact that Ardin was planning to bring Assange to Sweden months in advance.
It is a fact that Ardin sent Assange and another journalist plane tickets.
It is a fact that she arranged that he would stay in her flat, “while she was away” and that she arranged this in advance.
It is a fact that Ardin showed up at her flat and invited Assange to share her bed.
It is a fact that Ardin recruited Sofia Wilen, who is not a journalist, to attend the press conference in advance.
It is a fact that Ardin and Wilen communicated by email prior to the press conference.
It is a fact that Wilen was admitted to the press conference, by Ardin,, on the day of, without a reservation.
It is a fact that Ardin introduced Wilen to Assange, described her as a volunteer, and arranged for her to interact with Assange.
It is a fact that Ardin invited Wilen to a luncheon after the press conference, and seated her next to Assange.
It is a fact that Wilen hung around after everyone else had departed, including Ardin, and subsequently invited him to her apartment, where they had sex.
It is a fact that Ardin was arranging a party for Assange, after leaving him inn the company of Wilen.
It is a fact that Ardin boasted about sleeping with Assange to two witnesses, at that party, in addition to tweeting about her happiness at the party.
It is a fact that she later tried to delete this tweet, and all other information she had posted on the internet about this time period.
It is a fact that Ardin was aware Assange was sleeping with Wilen, and she acknowledged her comfort with it to a mutual friend, saying Assange could continue…”
Bit more Stratfor here:
http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1056763_re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html
I still think that the best analysis of Ardin’s statement is by Goran Rudling, apparently also a defence witness at an extradition hearing.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/
He also highlights in another blog that Assange’s legal team stipulated that he was open to questioning in London provided all information re the charges made by the accusers was relayed to them in advance. If that is true, i believe that to have been a strategic blunder, given how weak the case against him appears to be.
Still, who knows he may yet negotiate himself a fair hearing session with the Swedish police without being held in jail. Someone suggested, as a middle-path, the questioning could occur at the Ecuadorian embassy in Stockholm. Interesting solution?
Problem there is he can’t get to the Embassy in Stockholm without being arrested en route – unless some kind of guarantee is negotiated.
Swedish plod have no interest in questioning Assange further – they just want him in jail awaiting charges.
Daily Dogwhistle: You’ll see your money again if you get him out of the embassy:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/make-assange-leave-embassy-court-tells-his-bail-backers-8104324.html
(all papers)
It is not often I overstep the mark, mods.
Interesting legal point: you’re Australian, you’re going home, and you’re STILL on a watchlist?
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/assange-lawyer-wants-answers-on-watch-list
Oh, just a minute. You’re Australian and you’re representing Assange…
The same crooked legal system that imposed a ridiculous bail amount (and conditions) will now extort all the money it can from Assange’s backers – regardless of the fact that they can’t prevent his seeking asylum and shouldn’t anyway as it can’t by any reasonable measure be considered ‘jumping bail’. It has to be considered part of the appeal process. But they’ll take the money – you can bet on it.
Komodo, the Evening Standard article shows just how desperate Hague and company are to fulfil their obligations to their US masters. I think a fund should be set up to cover the losses of those who stood surety for Julian Assange. If all his supporters slip in a fiver it will probably solve the problem. I know I’d contribute.
Appealing will just increase the sum. Are we seeing a new tactic here, more psy ops? will this bail bondage be a new lever on JA? And if anyone can’t pay, an arrest, court case and subsequent jailing might now be considered the only way of forcing him out of his refuge.
Is that the plan?
@Macky:
Those facts you presented re-inforce the view that Assange was set up, an idea beyond the pale for the AAA (Anti-Assange Alliance) – BBC, neo-cons, extreme feminists. Being a conventional Brit, I always found it strange that Ardin seemed happy to share Assange with the other girl. But then I suppose the AAA would argue that there is nothing wrong with that and in fact that is the beauty of Sweden – an egalitarian society where people share everything. And naturally, Swedes are so honest that if one of them shouts rape, that alone is proof.
The AAA has cleverly taken advantage of Sweden’s long-standing image as a judicial and moral paradise – sexually liberated but honest to a fault. On the facts alone, the case against Assange looks like a farce. The real battle is being fought at a public relations and image level. This is exactly how the AAA wants it.
@Komodo:
I salute your bravery for daring to enter the unindicated war criminal’s website. Hope the feeling of nausea has subsided.
If you are unable to speak up and say “I want you to wear a condom” and instead expect your partner to read your mind then you are not mature enough to engage in sexual activity. It’s not your partner’s problem, it’s your problem.
If this was a man his behaviour would be rightly ridiculed. Instead, because we have this infantilised conception of female responsibility, Ardin has gone to the police to complain about “feeling uncomfortable” during sex as a result of her own immaturity. Do we honestly still think that a woman needs a man to take responsibility for her?
Assange: bail conditions, £240 K surety with deposit of £200K, tagged, “house arrest”, not yet (after ten months) charged with any offence.
Rebekah Brooks: Police bail (can’t find surety, anyway): to live at home, give police 7 days warning of intention to travel abroad. Not tagged. Charged*.
*http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/05/charging-announcement-in-relation-to-rebekah-brooks-and-others.html
LOL @ Viva…we dragons have strong stomachs. We need them.
John Goss:
I would contribute too, but I think Goldsmith, Pilger et al should be consulted first. I think the sum could easily be raised, but it could be bad PR for Assange – could it look like the legal process of posting bail was being circumvented? Maybe that would be a small tolerable issue – at the end of the day, asking for small individual contributions is very democratic!
If you’re on Twitter, how about tweeting to Pilger to see what he thinks? Or, email him if you think it is best done outside social media.
Good idea Jon.
Let’s clarify something here. Either Ardin was the witting honeytrap here or not. If she was, then it is exceedingly unlikely that she would be leaving a trail of text messages indicating that she was happy with entertaining Assange. A much more cautious attitude would have been assumed.
My opinion is that neither girl was a knowing participant in a so-called honeytrap. Although they may have been used by others when Assange went to Sweden in expectation that he would certainly slip up.
@Jemand, I have tended towards the view that AA wasn’t a honeytrap to start off with, and the encounter happened naturally. However when she was spurned for another woman, her frustration – plus her interesting political history – made her ideal for a tap on the shoulder. Hence the deleted trail of evidence – the story was being changed to suit the new circumstances*.
(* happy to put small print against each of my honey-trap theory posts: I still think Assange should face the allegations, if a safe way can be found for him to do so).
Assange thinks Assange should face the allegations, if a safe way can be found for him to do so.
One thing strangely absent from this debate is ‘what else was Assange doing in Stockholm?’
Assange was finalising a deal with the Pirate Party, offered two weeks previously, in which the PP would host Wikileaks’ servers (along with Pirate Bay’s, which Wikileaks had previously been using, and which, following Wikileaks Afghan releases, had come under scrutiny and attack).)
Assange’s naivete re. the Swedes is horribly apparent here:
Assange also hopes that the new Swedish Parliament will assist the site in other ways. Passing legislation that guarantees press freedom so Wikileaks and similar operations can do their work freely, is high on his wish list.
But the timing (13-17th Aug 2010)does suggest a causal connection between the reinstatement of the rape allegation by Ny and her Social Democrat friends (20th Aug 2010) and attempts to shut down Pirate Bay and/or Wikileaks. (The Pirate Party is the largest party outside Parliament in Sweden, and had at one point 2 MEP’s.)
Link to the above:
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-strikes-hosting-deal-with-wikileaks-100817/
@Steve Cook, indeed. Just insulating myself against potential “above justice” rejoinders that I’ve addressed many times elsewhere 🙂
Komodo @ 1.23,yes, that is what I thunked perplexing isn`t it (or maybe not at all).
Does anyone have a link to Ardin`s stunning electoral performance where she received SIX votes.
@Jon – I agree. Opportunities arise and people are approached. The FBI often operate in this way, especially when they’ve got the goods on someone.
One person however, who I think was possibly prearranged was Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Assange doesn’t talk about him anymore despite accusing him of irrevocably deleting important files on the Bank of America. Is there more to know regarding him? I think there is.
DDB got the payoff with a book deal and a phony alternative to Wikileaks calling it OpenLeaks. Perhaps fortunately, Openleaks will never open for business. It wouldn’t surprise me if he got a cheque from BOA. Anyone fool enough to associate with this creep deserves to get burnt.
Nice to see that the Ecuadorians aren’t as stupid as Bully boy thinks. But additionally, why should anyone be extradited to a country that has torn up its own constitution and due process, the potus taking to himself the power to order the assassination of even US citizens without trial. The US is simply no longer a republic. It is no longer a society of laws, and no one ought to be extradited to face arbitrary detention in that lawless place. America is broke, in every way.
.
“A spokesman for the Ecuadorian government in London said Hague’s statement didn’t answer all of Ecuador’s concerns.
“While we accept that there are provisions in the European Human Rights Convention that stops the extradition of a suspect if they face the death penalty, what the UK government have failed to address over the last three months, including today, is the inhumane treatment that Mr. Assange would face were he to be extradited to the USA, including solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, limited access to legal representatives and punitive sentencing should he be found guilty in a military of special court,” he said.
“If the UK provided these basic human rights guarantees then we believe that there would be a quick, fair and honourable solution to the present impasse.”
The fascinating standoff between Ecuador and Britain has pitted a former colonizing superpower against a small South American nation that refuses to give in to threats and intimidation. In a letter sent to Ecuador, the Brits tried to cite a little known law that alleges Britain has the authority to suspend the embassy’s diplomatic protection and allow authorities to go in and get Assange.”
.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/09/04/uk-tries-to-dismiss-assange-claim-hed-face-death-in-u-s/
Domscheit-Berg, according to Wikileaks:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2171
Think I’ll look elsewhere for my next used car, then.