This statement was written by Irmeli Krans, a Swedish police officer, on 20 August 2010 and amended on 26 August 2010. It purports to be the record of an interview with Sofia Wilen, but Sofia Wilen refused to sign the statement and has not done so to this day.
It is nevertheless this unsigned statement which the British High Court stated contains an allegation which would, if true, amount to rape. Some may recall that fact being triumphantly and aggressively read out to me on Newsnight by Gavin Esler, with no mention that the statement referred to had never been signed by the “complainant”.
The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law (it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.
Contrary to police protocol in virtually every developed country, including Sweden, the interrogation although in a police station had neither been audio recorded nor video recorded. Irmeli Krans has claimed she could not find a working dictaphone – in a major Stockholm police station that does of course have video-taping facilities.
Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin had known each other for at least two years before they were present together at the police interview of Sofia Wilen. They had been on the same ballot paper as candidates for the same political party in a council election. They were facebook friends and had exchanged messages on a relevant subject, the abuse of power by white men:
Irmeli Krans to Anna Ardin April 2009:
Hello! Thanks for the compliment. And like you say, white men must always defend the right to use abusive words. Then they of course deny that these very words are part of a system that keeps their group at the top of the social ladder.
I will analyse Anna Ardin’s behaviour in detail in a further post in a few days. According to Ardim, Sofia Wilen contacted her concerned that unprotected sex with Assange may have given her a sexually transmitted disease. Rather than take her to a medical facility, Ardin took Wilen to a police station, under the pretext that the police might be able to compel Assange to take an STD test – which even in Sweden must be an extraordinary proposition.
Ardin did not take Wilen to the nearest police station. She took her right across Stockholm to the police station where Ardin’s friend, lesbian feminist campaigner Irmeli Krans, was serving. They arrived at 2pm and rather than see another officer, they waited two hours until Krans came on duty. Then Ardin was present throughtout Krans’ interview of Wilen – which appears to have very much informed Ardin’s presentation of her own subsequent allegation against Assange. Ardin’s “assault” by Assange took place several days before the Wilen “assault”, but was not reported by Ardin until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.
And always remember, Wilen refused to sign the resulting statement, given here, as a fair account of what occurred.
Statement of Irmeli Krans
Following is Krans’ interrogation of Sofia Wilén 20 August 2010, subsequently modified by Krans 26 August 2010.
Background
Sofia says she saw an interview a few weeks ago on TV with Julian Assange who is known to be behind the WikiLeaks publication of US military documents from Afghanistan. Sofia thought he was interesting, courageous, and admirable. For the next two weeks she watched the news carefully, she read a lot of articles, and saw interviews. One evening when she sat at home and Googled the name Julian Assange she discovered he was invited to Sweden to hold a lecture arranged by the social democrat brotherhood movement. She posted a message to the brotherhood press secretary Anna Ardin whose contact details she found on their website and asked if he would be coming to Sweden and if she in such case could attend his lecture. She offered to help out with practical details in return. Anna Ardin replied that she’d forward her message to those in charge.
But Sofia got no further reply and suddenly one day she saw an ad with the time and place for the lecture. The lecture was to be held in ‘LO-borgen’ at Norra Bantorget Saturday 14 August. She rang those in charge on Friday and asked if it was OK to attend. She was told she was one of the first to apply and it’d be OK. She took the day off from work and went to LO-borgen on Saturday. She saw a woman who she presumed was Anna Ardin standing outside LO-borgen and went up to her and introduced herself. Anna told Sofia that she was on the list so she was welcome to attend. At the same time the lecturer himself, Julian Assange, approached with a man in his 30s. She got the impression the man was Julian’s press secretary or something similar. Julian looked at Sofia as if he was amused. She got the feeling he thought she didn’t belong there in her shocking pink cashmere jumper amongst all the other gray journalists.
The Lecture
She sat at the far right front when she entered the venue, the lecturer would stand all the way to the left. The room seemed full of journalists. A half hour before the lecture was to begin, Anna approached Sofia and asked if she could help buy a cable for Julian’s computer. They needed a cable and Sofia had offered to help out. Sofia went up to Julian to ask what type of cable he needed. He explained what he needed and then wrote it down on a small piece of paper. She took the paper and placed it immediately in her pocket. Julian looked contemptibly at her and said ‘you didn’t even look at the note’. She told him she didn’t need to as he’d already explained what type of cable he needed.
She took a cab to the ‘Webhallen’ boutique on Sveavägen but they were closed. The time was 10:30 and the store would open first at 11:00. But that’s also when the lecture was scheduled to begin, so Sofia started feeling stressed. The cabbie drove her instead to the Haymarket where she purchaed two types of cable for safety’s sake. She got back in time, she had the right type of cable, but she wasn’t thanked for her help by Julian. The lecture went well.
The Lunch
There were many journalists who wanted to interview Julian after the lecture. Sofia stayed around because she too wanted to speak with him. She asked Anna if this was possible and Anna said Julian would stand outside the entrance to LO-borgen to be accessible to the public in case anyone wanted to ask him questions. Sofia went out and sat in the shade and waited for the interviews to be over. There were more interviews outside. Sofia approached LO-borgen again and overheard that the brotherhood people were going to treat Julian to lunch. Sofia asked if she could come along too, after all she’d helped them with the cable. She was invited and went together with Anna, Julian and his entourage, and two members of the brotherhood to a restaurant on Drottninggatan across from the Central Bathhouse. She ended up next to Julian and started talking with him. He looked at her now and again during the lunch. On one occasion when he put cheese on his knäckebröd she asked him if it tasted good and then he reached over with his sandwich and fed her with it. Later during lunch he said he needed a charger for his laptop. She said she could get one for him, after all she’d got the cable for him earlier. He put his arm around her and said ‘yes you gave me the cable’. Sofia thought this was flattering for it was obvious he was now flirting with her.
The others left after lunch, leaving only Sofia, Julian, and Julian’s companion. They went off together to buy an electric cable for Julian’s computer. ‘Kjell & Co’ didn’t have the product, so they went on to Webhallen but it was closed again. They walked back on Sveavägen towards the Haymarket and talked about what they’d do next. Julian’s companion asked him if he wanted to come along and help move furniture for his parents and Sofia offered Julian a visit at the natural history museum where she worked. It was decided Julian would accompany Sofia to the museum and his companion left them. Julian and Sofia went into the Haymarket subway station where she purchased a blue access card good for the day as he didn’t have the monthly commuter card and no money either as he said. They took the train towards Mörby Centrum and stepped off at the university stop. A man in the subway recognised Julian and told him how much he admired him.
The Natural History Museum
On the way from the university subway station Julian stopped to pet a few dogs, which Sofia thought was charming. In the museum they went to the staff room where Julian sat down and starting surfing the net, he was looking for tweets about himself. They sat there waiting for a film that was to be shown at Cosmonova at 18:00.
They were let into the cinema by Sofia’s colleague and Julian held Sofia’s hand. In the darkness of the cinema he started kissing her. A few latecomers arrived and sat behind them and so they moved to a row at the back. Julian continued kissing her, touched her breasts under her jumper, undid her bra, unbuttoned her pants, caressed her buttocks, and sucked her nipples. He muttered about the armrest being in the way. She was sitting in his lap when the lights went on and he tried to put her bra back on. She thought it embarrassing to sit there in view of her colleagues who she knew could have seen it all.
They went out through the inner courtyard and she went to the toilet. When she came out, he was lying on his back on a picnic table resting, he said he was very tired. He was supposed to be at a crayfish party at 20:00 and wanted to sleep 20 minutes before leaving. They lay down together in the grass next to each other and he had his arm around her. He fell asleep and she woke him twenty minutes later. Then they promenaded over lawns, passed cows and Canadian geese, he held her hand, it was wonderful in all possible ways and he told her ‘you’re very attractive to me’. He’d also told her in the cinema she had pretty breasts. She asked him if they’d meet again. He said of course they would, they’d meet after the crayfish party.
She accompanied him to the Zinkensdamm subway station where he caught a cab back to Anna Ardin’s where the party was to take place. He gave her a hug and said he didn’t want to part from her and encouraged her to charge her cellphone. She went home to Enköping, arriving at home at 23:00. She had a voice message waiting from Julian from 22:55 when she’d recharged her phone, telling her to ring him when her phone was working again. She rang back at 23:15, realising he was still at the party. She’d developed a stomach cramp from a sandwich she’d eaten on the way home and told him she wanted to go to bed. He insinuated it wasn’t about stomach cramps as much as a feeling of guilt.
On Monday
She rang Julian twice on Sunday but his phone was turned off. She told her colleagues at work on Monday what had happened at the weekend. They told her Julian felt dumped and therefore hadn’t rung back so that the ball was in her court. She rang him and he answered. She asked if they should do something together. He said he’d be at a meeting which could take a long time up until 20:30 but he could ring her back later. He also asked about her stomach cramps. He insinuated she’d lied about her cramps and he used the third person to tell her. She promised to wait for him so after she finished work at 19:00 she went to Kungshallarna and had sushi. Afterwards she strolled about town and ended up in the old town where she rang him back at 21:00 when he still hadn’t got back to her, asking what was going on. He said he was in a meeting in Hornsgatan and he wanted her to come there. She got the address and went there. She couldn’t find the address when she arrived, rang Julian, and spoke with a man who spoke Swedish who explained she was to get in through a side entrance. She stood there and waited for him when he came out together with a another man, they said goodbye to one another and looked very happy.
Julian and Sofia walked up Hornsgatan towards Slussen and from there to the old town. They sat by the water at Munkbroleden and he commented on girls who sat there as ‘lonely and abandoned’ and who ‘probably need saving’. They lay down and starting making out, heavily. Amongst other things he put his hands under her jumper and when they left the area she noticed people were looking at them. They decided to go home to her place. They went into the subway where his card was now invalid and she got him through by swiping her own card twice. They took the train to Enköping from the central station, she paid for the tickets, SEK 107 (~$10) each. He claimed he didn’t want to use his credit card, he didn’t want to be traced. They sat in the direction the train would move all the way back in the car. Julian connected his computer and started reading about himself on Twitter on the computer and on the phone. He devoted more attention to the computer than he did to her. She’d suggested they take in at a hotel but he said he wanted to see ‘girls in their natural habitat’.
To Enköping
It was dark when they got off the train and they passed old industry buildings where he went off to pee. She also took a pee. When they arrived at her flat she went in before him into the bedroom to clean up a bit before he saw it. They took off their shoes and the relationship between them didn’t feel warm anymore. The passion and excitement had disappeared. They made out in the bedroom but she wanted to brush her teeth. It was midnight, pitch black outside, and they brushed their teeth together – it felt banal and boring.
When they want back in the bedroom Julian stood in front of Sofia and grabbed her hips and pushed her demonstratively down on the bed, as if he were a real man. He took off his clothes and they had foreplay on the bed. They were naked and he rubbed his penis against her nether regions without penetrating her but he got closer and closer to her slit. She squeezed her legs together because she didn’t want sex with him without protection. They carried on for hours and Julian couldn’t get a full erection. Julian had no interest in using a condom.
Suddenly Julian said he was going to go to sleep. She felt rejected and shocked. It came so suddenly, they’d had a really long foreplay and then nothing. She asked what was wrong, she didn’t understand. He pulled the blanket over himself, turned away from her, and fell asleep. She went out and got her fleece blanket because she was cold. She lay awake a long time wondering what had happened and exchanged SMS messages with her friends. He lay beside her snoring. She must have fallen asleep for later she woke up and they had sex. She’d earlier got the condoms and put them on the floor by the bed. He reluctantly agreed to use a condom even if he muttered something about preferring her to latex. He no longer had an erection problem. At one point when he mounted her from behind, she turned to look at him and smiled and he asked her why she was smiling, what she had to smile about. She didn’t like the tone in his voice.
They fell asleep and when they woke up they could have had sex again, she’s not really sure. He ordered her to get water and orange juice. She didn’t like being ordered in her own home but thought ‘whatever’ and got the water and juice anyway. He wanted her to go out and buy more breakfast. She didn’t want to leave him alone in the flat, she didn’t know him well enough, but she did it anyway. When she left the flat he lay naked in her bed and was working with his phones. Before she left she said ‘be good’. He replied ‘don’t worry, I’m always bad’. When she returned she served him oatmeal, milk, and juice. She’d already eaten before he woke up and spoken with a friend on the phone.
The Assault
They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he’d put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked ‘are you wearing anything’ and he answered ‘you’. She told him ‘you better not have HIV’ and he replied ‘of course not’. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn’t be bothered telling him again. She’d been nagging about condoms all night long. She’s never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn’t say when he’d done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards.
She told him what happens if she gets pregnant. He replied that Sweden was a good country for raising children. She told him jokingly that if she got pregnant then he’d have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he’d told her he’d slept in Anna Ardin’s bed after the crayfish party. She asked if he’d had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, she was lesbian. But now she knows he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him how many times he’d had sex but he said he hadn’t counted. He also said he’d had a HIV test three months earlier and he’d had sex with a girl afterwards and that girl had also taken a HIV test and wasn’t infected. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone. She thinks she got the idea of taking the drama out of what had happened, he in turn didn’t seem to care. When he found out how big her student loan was he said if he paid her so much money she’d have to give birth to the baby. They joked that they’d name the baby Afghanistan. He also said that he should always carry abortion pills that actually were sugar pills.
His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet on Tuesday at noon. She explained to him that he’d not make the meeting on time and he pushed his entire schedule forward an hour. Then they rode her bicycle to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they parted he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he’d ring her and he said he would.
Afterwards
She rode her bicycle home, showered, and washed her bed sheets. Because she hadn’t made it to work she called in sick and stayed home the whole day. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the bed sheets, she thought it was disgusting. She went to the chemist’s and bought a ‘morning after’ pill.
When she talked with her friends afterwards she understood she was the victim of a crime. She went into Danderyd hospital and went from there to the Söder hospital. There she was examined and they even took samples with a so-called ‘rape kit’.
Forensic Certificate
Sofia gives her permission for obtaining a forensic certificate.
Claimant Counsel
Sofia desires a claimant counsel she will identify later.
Sundry
Julian says his name is Julian Paul Assange and was born 31 December 1971.
Interrogator’s Comments
Sofia and I were notified during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. Sofia had difficulty concentrating after that news, whereby I made the judgement it was best to terminate the interrogation. But Sofia had time anyway to explain that Assange was angry with her. I didn’t have time to get any further details about why he was angry with her or how this manifested itself. And we didn’t have time to get into what else happened afterwards. The interrogation was neither read back to Sofia nor reviewed for approval by her but Sofia was told she had the opportunity
to do this later.
Rico, why would you take for granted that she was in a “traumatised” state? Strong word. Even if she was, she was meeting Anna to gain comfort and support. Its not as if she had been raped that morning. In fact our contention is that she wasn’t raped at all. Even when she discovered Julian was wearing “her”, she didn’t say stop.
You’re asking the wrong questions. The real question is why was she not attended to by the first available police person at 2pm. Why were they able to pick and choose IK who didn’t start duty until 4pm? Sounds unethical. AA’s mobile phone records would be revealing.
Goran has made the point earlier, which i agree with, why did the police not investigate immediately and properly the connection between Sw and AA? another critical issue.
these are pertinent points in sync with your disillusionment with the Swedish state.
@Villager
“I have only read your first line and won’t waste my energy reading your rant. Don’t patronise me and i would prefer it that you don’t address me at all. I am not interested in engaging your pathetic ego.”
I didn’t really write it for you. You’re not that important. Addressing you was merely a literary device.
“KINDLY RESPECT THAT.”
What an odd request after insulting me. No.
@CE
“Forgive me for using some football parlance, but it does seem that in relation to the knowledgeable Mr Rudling, a lot of posters are playing the man not the ball.”
What I find so amusing is that the posters do not seem to know where the goalposts are. The don’t have any idea of the rules of the game. They cannot count. They don’t know where the opponent is. But they are just as happy.
You must be a troll on steroids too CE.
@CE
“So Jemand, can we take that as a retraction of your ridiculous statement that me, Goran and Villager are the same person\sock puppet?”
Ridiculous? How hard would it be? I can comment under the name of Ghandi if i like. Ok, ok.. You are all equally important to me. Happy?
“Political dynamics take over? What does this mean in plain english and is this your excuse for being misguided\misinformed?”
You know i’m not misinformed or misguided. And I’m not going to teach you remedial English on a blog that prides itself on erudition. Get yourself a blinking dictionary you lazy dill.
Its Gandhi, not Ghandi.
Do i detect a lack of education, apart from the obvious lack of class (not something you can educate one on unfortunately)?!
Rich stuff, talking about erudition. LOL
Oi you lot, pack it in! Anyone complaining of “playing the man” should not be doing the same 🙂
@Jemand:
I have nothing against JA personally, but I don’t agree he’s irreplaceable. I think the threat from the US is intended to teach him a lesson, and to serve as an example to “the others” (inside and outside Wikileaks). It’s interesting that in the earlier days of WL, they considered that they would have no leader, somewhat like Anonymous is now (though WL would still be centralised and have some internal structure). However in the end it was thought that the media needed a spokesperson to “hook” media narratives on, and Assange had the right involvement/background (intelligent, political, successful ethical hacker, etc).
In fact WL has throughout it all continued on regardless, even though I should think the staff are concerned for JA, and about the possibility that it could have been one of them.
GR: “You make an interesting observation. Yes I am a troll on steroids. Of course I am. I am breastfed by CIA and MI5.”
LOL Goran. Without hesitation, i would add to my above list – A good sense of humour. I.e. the summary that seems to have rankled a couple of Assanges one-eyed subjects. You’re right, they don’t know where the goal posts are.
I support Assange and wikileaks but i’m no one’s sycophant.
@Zoologist – yes, JA would be able to continue his work. He’ll have his laptop, upon which he’ll have direct encrypted access to WL servers. That’ll permit him to access the internet reasonably securely, and to communicate as if he was in the WL office.
His primary problem in this regard is that he will be distracted by his legal problems, quite aside from the time actually taken up by legal documentation and speaking with lawyers, etc.
Goran,
I will state for the last time: You can twist the Klara police visit by Wilen / Ardin anyway you want given a point of reference.
As you admit the Södermalms police station is just a 1200 meter walk from the hospital. What then if she was so traumatised / upset, whatever the case of her mental at that time have to report at Klara and not the nearest 1200 meters away? Why does Ardin have to be present? Just you confirmed the nearest police station to Ardins work place at Sveavagen 68 is only a couple of blocks away…not even a 10 minute walk.
Please go and fool someone else.
@Villager – Ghandi, Gandhi, Commenter, Commentator, Tomato, Tomarto – I think you’ve finally found your calling. I can handle a bit of crap, it keeps me honest. But really,.. Nobody with “class” says class. We say “breeding”. Lolplop!
@Jon – you want to nominate someone? Because I can’t imagine anyone stepping in to the role, now.
Jon, thank you for that Anonymous analogy info–interesting, wasn’t aware.
Btw, while you’re doing a fine job of moderating, i found it a bit disconcerting that you engage anyone’s request for my IP address in any manner or fashion whatsoever. One doesn’t want even a hint of Big Brother lurking around at a blog like this. In the end what you said was inconsequential to me and gave some assurance to the other’s delusion, but even that was not necessary. It simply no one’s business. Please appreciate i am not making a mountain out of a molehill. Thank you.
Rico
“Why does Ardin have to be present? ”
You can not be serious in asking that question!
@ Jemand,
“You know i’m not misinformed or misguided.”
OK. We get it. But what are? Delusional? Just born that way? Just pretending to be a moron? Wearing Rico Santin’s clothes? Secretly in love with Julian Assange? Just happened to be on this website trying to look for a recipe on sauerkraut? Will Anger’s class mate that was picked on for not taking showers?
Please, don’t keep us in suspense. Tell us, please tell us.
@ VivaEcuador
“@CE:
I stand corrected. Bravo.”
RESPECT
Goran Rudling came onto this website guns-a-blazing declaring Craig Murray and alot of other people here liars. It was a very strange way to introduce oneself especially since he could have opened with, “I don’t believe Craig Murray is correct about Sofia Wilen and here is why…..”. It would have cost him nothing especially since, as we have seen, he has utterly failed to prove that Craig Murray is a liar.
So why does he continue with this nonsense allegation? Is the larger objective to destroy CM’s credibility? I find it hard to believe that a know-it-all like Mr. Rudling knew nothing of CM’s background before he came onto this thread. Why would he devote so much time and energy to this blog? GR’s aggression is doubly bizarre in the light of his role as witness for the defense not to mention that he and CM are in essential agreement that the charges against JA are extremely weak. GR’s venom seems very misplaced.
It also puzzles me that having lectured all of us on our ignorance of Swedish law, the Swedish constitution, Stockholm’s public transportation, Mr. Rudling sees nothing wrong about putting David Allen Green on a MUST-READ list. Extraordinary behaviour from someone who tells us that he only deals in facts since DAG did not even know that the Swedish govt. has the final say in an extradition proceeding.
Is GR a troll? A CIA agent? Or just a nasty piece of work? Who knows. I’ll just say that there is something about GR’s presence here that does not quite add up.
@Jemand – heh at nominating a new Wikileaks spokesperson, what a millstone! I think they will continue without a spokesperson in the short term, and not just to avoid underminding JA. I’d hope he’d relinquish the role if there were a democratic feeling within WL that it was time to pass the baton, but it would be a poor PR move to dump him early.
The figurehead was only necessary for the media anyway, and now the media’s decided there’s no more money in the Wikileaks cow, they’ve abandoned it.
@GR:
Yes. Unlike you, I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong.
@Villager – we do get sock-puppets here. If a allegation of sock-puppeting is made, I am usually happy to check – would you rather I didn’t respond, and let the rumour persist? Happy to hear what you think. (I’m just a volunteer, so have to rely on My Judgement, which is occasionally temperamental!)
Aside: I wouldn’t release IP data here willingly under any circumstances, but if you use the internet, you should remember personal information +is+ at risk of hackers and the like. I’ve had my email address nicked by hackers from a couple of “trustworthy” online shops – and this site is just a tinpot outfit with a donated server and a free blog installation 😉
VivaEcuador,
In the land of the blind the one-eyed has a huge advantage.
“I find it hard to believe that a know-it-all like Mr. Rudling knew nothing of CM’s background before he came onto this thread. Why would he devote so much time and energy to this blog?”
CM’s background is maybe important you you. Whatever background CM has he still is fabricating. Or as I call it, is a liar. I don’t know if the English class system regards a lie told by someone with a proper background as less of a lie than a lie told by someone with less of a background. I am maybe to much of a democrat and liberal not to recognize the importance of the English class system than you are.
I don’t know how much you read. And I don’t know how much you comprehend. Some time ago I wrote this comment as a response to Phil the frog. In it I state that Mr Murray is in the business of fabrication. And as I understand the definition of fabrication, Mr Murray is posting lies.
If you don’t think that Mr Murray is involved in fabrication, please make a coherent argument.
If you don’t think this is a good definition of fabrication, “A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.” please make a coherent argument
VivaEcuador, I never realized I was stepping into the protected boys-zone “guns-a-blazing” until you made the comment. I just thought I was stating the obvious, Mr Murray is posting lies.
Just read my comment and come back when ever you have the time.
@Phil the frog,
I have a tendency to calls things for what they are. A shovel is a shovel. It is not something between a tea spoon and an excavator. Is it a cultural thing?
Calling Craig Murray a liar has started lots of comments. You seem to be one person that is interested in finding out what it is exactly Craig Murray is doing.
“However, I was bothered that Goran calls Craig Murray a liar. That is not tone nor cultural misunderstanding. That is an accusation that I have not seen proven.”
English is a wonderful language. So many words. So many types of lies. Must say it is difficult to say what type of lie is Mr Murray’s type. Is it Bad faith, Barefaced lie, Bold-faced lie, Big Lie, Bluff, Bullshit, Butler lie, Contextual lie, Economy with the truth, Emergency lie, Exaggeration, Fabrication, Fib, Half-truth, Haystack answer, Jocose lie, Lie-to-children, Lying by omission, Lying in trade, Lying through your teeth, Minimisation, Misleading and dissembling, Noble lie, Perjury, Polite lie, Puffery, View from Nowhere or White lie. What is your opinion Phil?
It is difficult for me with a tendency to call things for what they are to pick what kind of lie Mr Murray’s is using. But I will make a try. I think we can rule out Fib. A fib is a lie told with no malicious intent and little consequence. Unlike a White lie, fibs rarely include those lies or omissions that are meant to do good. Do you agree Phil?
The best description for Mr Murray’s type of lies is FABRICATION.
“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.”
It is proven that Mr Murray has submitted the statement that Sofia REFUSED to sign her interview. Right Phil? And it is proven that he did not know for certain if that it was true or not. So it is a fabrication.
“A fabrication is a lie“ “A fabrication is a lie”
It is a lie Phil. What about your words “If Goran is correct then Craig looses much credibility.”
Mr Murray is a fabricator,
hence a lier
@VivaEcuador,
“@GR:
Yes. Unlike you, I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong.”
It is not a matter of who is being most afraid my Dear. It is a matter of frequency.
Goran,
Whilst undoubtedly being on your side of the argument and grateful for your knowledge, it may be stretching credibility to insist Mr Murray is a proven fabricator and a liar. We don’t know for sure, he may have just been repeating information that he had taken on board in good faith.
Has his judgement been clouded by JA, his legal teams deceptions, and a touch of anti-americanism? Almost definitely. Is he a proven liar and fabricator? Not as far as I can see, I would prefer to argue he is mistaken or misguided.
Mr. Rudling:
Let me see if I understand you. The other night I was watching a program on corruption. I was told that a provincial governor was corrupt. The evidence to me was pretty convincing. I told a friend the following day, “Did you see that program about that corrupt bastard xxxxxxx?”. By your definition I am now a fabricator because I cannot be sure that xxxxxxx is corrupt even though the evidence presented on that program seemed quite convincing. This is where your “definition” takes us. It is worse than meaningless.
While we are on defintions, I should also point out that the word “background” in English is not the same as “social class”. If you had bothered to read my post carefully, you would have known that I was referring to CM’s background as a whistle-blower, which strange as it may sound, has nothing to do with cricket clubs, Oxbridge or the type of people who appeared in Brideshead Revisited. You see, it’s his whistle-blowing that makes me believe it is unlikely he is deliberately spreading lies, fabrications or whatever evil you choose to imagine.
Like I said, Mr. Rudling, you appear to have come onto this thread with an agenda, namely to discredit Craig Murray. You have failed and all that is left is for you to “fabricate” a new dictionary straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
@ CE
“Goran,
Whilst undoubtedly being on your side of the argument and grateful for your knowledge, it may be stretching credibility to insist Mr Murray is a proven fabricator and a liar. We don’t know for sure, he may have just been repeating information that he had taken on board in good faith.
Has his judgement been clouded by JA, his legal teams deceptions, and a touch of anti-americanism? Almost definitely. Is he a proven liar and fabricator? Not as far as I can see, I would prefer to argue he is mistaken or misguided.
I understand you point very well. You would prefer to argue he is mistaken or misguided. Fine with me. You are entitled to your opinion.
Just let us change the argument for a minute. It is not about Julian Assange. It is about a racism. If Mr Murray in good faith had stated that blacks were mentally disadvantaged and he had “just been repeating information that he had taken on board in good faith”. would that make him untouchable of being branded a racist? Is ignorance a valid defence for making racist remarks? I don’t think so.
What is your opinion?
Goran,
I don’t think that anyone could make a statement in good faith that blacks are mentally disadvantaged. I don’t think that statement is a very helpful comparison to Mr Murray’s statements on the Assange Case. Who knows, maybe Mr Murray has seen some false information that looked feasible, was well presented, reinforced his own views and he wanted to believe it. Of course you have freedom of speech to call it as you see it, but personally I would refrain from calling someone a liar/fabricator\ect,ect, until I was absolutely certain.
Again none of us can be 100 percent sure of many issues on this case, that’s why I would like to see JA return to Sweden ASAP so these matters can be resolved.
I don’t wish to end up in a slightly irrelevant, blind alley argument, we may just have to agree to disagree.
ROFLMAO
Goran, why don’t you and CE run along and play at your blog tomorrow.
@Goran – it was the sauerkraut recipe your mother was taught by those handsome German officers she “entertained” during the years of Swedish collaboration during the war. Now if you could just post that delicious recipe, I’d appreciate it.
Re fabrication, I don’t care about your misusage of the word, that’s irrelevant. You are still carping on about Craig Murray’s honesty which is clearly in no doubt. If CM’s integrity is so dubious, then why do you continue to post here? What is bringing you back here to rant on so hard without any obvious purpose? Unless, of course, that purpose is to discredit Craig and diminish his public following. Maybe you could take some time out from reading the script and give us a sort of brief personal introduction and explanation of your motives.
@Jon – that is the first, albeit brief, analysis of Wikileaks internal structure that I’ve read. The issue of their business model is also relevant but where is the discussion of this important topic? Money, of course, is a dominating factor in developing a workable business model. So too are the business relationships they form with MSM. But if their income contracts for an indefinite period and relationships with MSM severed under pressure from the foreign offices in various countries, what are we to expect of WL in the future?
I’ve made the effort to locate and read some more official documents today. I also watched the 4 corners documentary again. They make plenty of errors I can see even before referring to the wiki above.
It seems Mr Assange, his lawyers and many supporters have not been honest about the events in September. They claimed and still claim to have sought an interview, which it seems is not true. It looks very much like Assange was avoiding the police – maybe ‘fleeing’ is a reasonable term to use.
I still want to give Assange the benefit of the doubt as to his motives in this. If he is really worried about some kind of ‘rendition’ then it is perhaps natural for him to avoid arrest any way he can. That includes all the convoluted appeals and now the asylum. Few people (and none of us here) are in the position Assange was in Autumn 2010. Factor in a paranoid personality with few trusted counsellors on hand and it’s not hard to see why he might have panicked and run away. The case was so weak (and can it really be much stronger now?) that he may have hoped it would all blow over. Perhaps there has been diplomatic pressure to keep open an investigation that would have faded away otherwise?
On the vexed question of MLA interviews, Assange and his lawyers repeatedly present it in the best light they can. If indeed the preconditions are such as to preclude an MLA interview (and it seems there is good evidence to that effect) then the Swedes are right to decline such offers. I gather it is only an option in any case and there is no obligation to use it.
One would have hoped for a little more humility from the Swedish prosecutors. They could have explained this (or done it better at least). Ny could have testified in London. It still seems Ny and her colleagues are being unduly stubborn, inflexible and also arrogant. A bad PR job all round. But perhaps they feel they have certain rights to question Assange on their terms not his. Fair enough I suppose.
All along, the paranoia of Assange and the real or imagined risk of somehow being surrendered to the US cannot be forgotten. The Swedish police discount it. Some claim it would cause a political storm and bring down the govt. Well – put yourself in Assange’s shoes and ask if that would comfort you?
Many people just ignore it. Some frankly don’t care. Others want to see Assange punished for his ‘crimes’ against the US and others so would like to see him extradited.
I think it’s unreasonable to expect Assange to surrender willingly to imprisonment in Sweden – even for a short period. From his point of view the risks are too great.
I predict Assange will stay a long time in the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Swedes won’t (maybe can’t) offer concrete guarantees. Neither can/will the UK govt. The US are keeping quiet on the issue. They have other things to do right now, and there is little political capital in bringing it up. If they do then they raise the collateral murder and other leaks again – something they want us to forget. And given he has been granted Asylum there is nothing they can do for several months.
I admit I approached the case predisposed to favour Assange. The case is weak and there were serious errors and possible outright mishandling by the Swedish Police. Assange’s supporters include very high profile figures whose courage, intellect and integrity I greatly admire. Some excellent PR has been done, much easily found online.
But the facts in the EAW appeals were not strong. It’s not surprising we have arrived at this point – all appeals exhausted and with Assange in political asylum. I thought he might abscond somehow, but I guess that is too risky and looks far worse from a PR point of view. Ecuador have taken his side (with good reason I think) and we have stalemate.
Goran Rudling appeared suddenly on this site and ruffled a few feathers. Not only was he brandishing disturbing facts he was abrasive and used words like ‘liar’ and ‘flee’ – which to most of us seemed excessive. Well – I think he would have got a fairer hearing with a milder, softer tone but it’s up to him. He was never abusive and he was ready to explain (if not retract) his language.
Even after all the harsh light GR and some careful reading of various official documents have shed, I still tend to favour Assange. In his shoes I think I’d have done much the same.
But we don’t do Assange any good by repeating things that are proven to be false or at best in grave doubt. It doesn’t help to claim SW refused to sign a statement. She didn’t sign it at the time but we can’t know why. Which police station is closest is a red herring too. The women may have had good reason to go to the one they chose or it may be to meet IK. If they did wait 2 hours to speak to IK that’s more significant but still not decisive. IK shouldn’t have taken the case but that is not SW’s fault.
GR is right in pressing his point that all this belongs in the Swedish court (however flawed it might be) and not in appeals of an EAW or a PR battle.
For me the key factor is that Assange feared some kind of rendition to the US or at least a lengthy stay in a Swedish jail at a time when he really needed to be active. Maybe Assange is wrong and paranoid and he’d be perfectly safe in Sweden – but who can guarantee it? No one even will. What platitudes we get from Sweden are easily circumvented. If the US wants him they will get him from Sweden – one way or another. They could get him from the UK too. If Assange stays in the public eye on territory of a country that is willing to protect him, he is relatively safe.
“It doesn’t help to claim SW refused to sign a statement. She didn’t sign it at the time but we can’t know why.”
Marianne Ny ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the 18th of November 2010. On that date, she presented a dossier of documents from the investigation before Stockholm District Court. This is the famous “häktningspromemoria” which later leaked onto the internet. It includes the “amended” version of the Wilén interview protocol, but three months later it had STILL NOT BEEN SIGNED.
At that time, a second interview with Wilén had already been conducted, but a protocol was not included in the dossier. Presumably because it would weaken the case (in the second interview, Wilén claims to have been “half asleep” and not fully asleep).
All the evidence suggests that Wilén did in fact REFUSE to sign the original statement, or else a signed copy would presumably have been included in the dossier three months later.
The unsigned statement looks bad from a UK legal standpoint but it is not abnormal in the Swedish system.
A common and natural mistake when taking sides in a case is to overstate it. This seems to make it stronger but obviously has the opposite effect.
I have done a complete 180 degree turn on the EAW appeals. I used to think Assange had been mistreated and the EAWs should have been obviously struck down. But I was basing my opinion on a number of facts that were not true or selectively cherry picked by various parties supporting Assange.
I now think the EAW was valid and fair and should stand. It’s a cruddy piece of legislation that needs reforming, but it is the only way the Swedes could apprehend Assange in London and compel him to undergo the interview. I now believe he was avoiding interview deliberately.
All that remains in Assange’s favour is his genuine fear of persecution and somehow being sent to the US. I think he is at least a little paranoid and exaggerates the risk – but at the time he left Sweden the fear was more tangible. I suspect he panicked and ran for his life. I think he is still scared that something nasty will happen if he goes to Sweden and that is only human.
One thing which I think is particularly damaging Assange is misrepresenting the rape allegations. This is the biggest mistake in the 4 corners programme in my opinion – and the easiest mistake to have avoided.
Men do indeed do what SW alleges assange did. There is a widely held belief among men (and women) that consenting to sex is or should be a complete surrender. This is false and a very old fashioned ‘macho’ opinion.
It might be very difficult to prove SW’s allegations. It might be that the Swedish courts are imbalanced in favour of the victims. But SW is entitled to report Assange if she wants to.
It’s not clear why SW has not gone public to clarify her position but it is her right to stay out of the media if she prefers. We can’t really blame her for it. In fact she is probably doing the right thing.