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.
@Courtenay Barnett
Thank you for elaborating on the subject. I agree with your view. Let me add two remarks. The internet being a separate country (part of the) Swedish can visit it, as we do. So why should they stick to their msm? And I approached Dutch MP’s with the question to mediate. The Netherlands is home to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. They answered Sweden knows the rule of law. That was the end of it for them. Such a thought ends all creativity and improvisation. I was surprised last week the German MP Sevim Dagdelen was the first MP to visit JA in the Ecuadorian embassy. That lack of initiative affects me more than the alleged apathy of the Swedish public.
@ George,
” last week the German MP Sevim Dagdelen was the first MP to visit JA in the Ecuadorian embassy.”
And so can the Swedish police – so – since Assange and the Ecuadorians are willing to facilitate the further interview there, or even via video link, if that is what “Swedish justice” wanting – then why not take this step?
Well – it is politics – not justice at play.
It’s true. This is going to interminable damage to the Swedish tourist trade. I’m definitely not going. But I add all the Swedes I have met have been lovely people.
Despite SW having been in long term relationships before, if she had never had, and had a pathological fear of, unprotected sex, is there not the possibility that she at least found the presence of semen unusual, if not disgusting?
Again I don’t know how any of us can claim to be thu ultimate arbiter of the alleged victims credibility, these matters are best settled by due process and the Swedish Justice System.
Dave,
I don’t believe your personal reasons for harbouring animosity towards lesbians really have any correlation to the JA case.
Courtenay,
JA is wanted for arrest, not ‘a further interview’. This could not be done in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Even if they could, since when did alleged sex offenders have the right to negotiate terms after exhausting their legal options and skipping bail?
CE,
Nothing personal,but also,run along now…
You’ve been owned too many times here already.
Don’t you ever get embarassed for yourself?? Or your line manager?
As expected, Sweden is beginning to attract the negative publicity it deserves. Looks like they are beginning to run out of their reserve of goodwill built up over the years.
Assange case: Sweden’s shame in violating human rights
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129674125619411.html
Sarita Hotti, chairperson for the Social Democrat labour and family committee in Eskilstuna, some 88 kilometres south of Stockholm, told SR that the situation is hardest for young Swedes and immigrants:
“Mainly its jobseekers below the age of 35, and this can be seen across the globe that young people can’t get into the labour market. The other group is those born outside of Sweden, that have no network or contacts,” said Hotti to SR.
http://www.thelocal.se/43078/20120907/
No network or contacts in Sweden. In a nutshell lthe reversed, diapositive of the JA-case.
Can people stop responding to CE please. It’s a troll. Yesterday I asked it and Michael to go do some reading regarding the misanthropy of Irmeli Krans. It said it had and could find nothing. I posted a relevant link though I really haven’t got the time to be doing work on behalf of trolls. There was no thank you and no comment. These people are here to disrupt the flow. Deaf them out.
I agree. Don’t block these trolls but don’t feed them.
In Irmeli Krans case it is misandry rather than misanthropy as I wrote in my last comment. Crucially Marriane Ny, the chief Swedish prosecutor, has also been described by a retired judge as a ‘malicious radical feminist’ and she just happens to be a member of the Social Democrat party, to which Anna Ardin, Irmeli Krans, Sofia Wilen, and almost everyone else on the prosecution team.
Still too much focus on the individuals and speculation regarding motives.
As others have pointed out, this does not appear to be a pre-meditated plan, but something that was exploited when it presented itself.
There need not be any suggestion of prior conspiracy, *corruption of process began at the Police interview.*
There need not be any debate about the seriousness of the allegations, they will have go through the court regardless.
The one crucial fact, which is ignored by the media, is that SW did not allege or complain of rape, nor sign or endorse any statement to that effect. Therefore there is no actual rape accusation in either case.
Without SW unsigned conceptual statement written by Krans, which only the Police’s second revision of qualified as a rape allegation, there could be no arrest warrant. AA’s case of molestation would’ve continued but without an arrest warrant. SWs case was crucial if Assange were to be taken into custody.
The railroading and subsequent revision of SW’s statement in order to enable issue of arrest warrant with a new prosecutor is ample evidence to suggest political and/or agency interference in this case, and nobody should be in any doubt about the urgency to get JA off the streets before publishing of Iraq War Logs and Cablegate.
The rest of the discussion surrounding the case is an moral and semantic trap which is successfully tearing the anti-war left to bits.
@CE –
Have you got a link for that? My genuine understanding is that he is wanted for questioning, and specifically not arrest. I’m aware of the anti-Assange argument here, that the Swedish system is different in that charges are normally brought later in the process, but I don’t find it persuasive. I differ from Craig slightly in that I think the case would collapse soon after Assange got to Sweden, leaving him open to onward extradition.
As I keep saying, if there is a public interest argument to doing the questioning in London, then it should be done in London. The public interest case in this situation, I think, is firmly demonstrating that the legal system does not entertain politically-motivated and malicious prosecutions. There is more than enough reason to suspect that is what is happening here, even though the claims must also not be summarily dismissed.
I responded to your earlier question by the way, and you’re very welcome to respond to my reply at [6 Sep, 2012 – 4:00 pm].
Dear Mr Murray,
I don’t know the reason you were sacked as an ambassador but if you were as careless with facts as you are in this article I fully understand that you were sacked.
You claim “Sofia Wilén refused to sign the statement and has not done so to this day”. I am asking you to show me where you got the information that Sofia Wilén refused to sign the statement. I cannot anywhere in the official documents find support for your claim. I am putting it to you straight. You are making that up. You lie.
You go on to claim “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.” I have not seen anywhere that the prosecutor, Marianna Ny, has stated that the interview with Sofia Wilén was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin. I am putting it to you straight. You are making that up. You lie. Until you can show me a statement where prosecutor Marianne Ny says that “the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin,” I will regard you as an inventor of stories and a certified lier.
I have not checked your other statements regarding this case. But I assume you make a lot of other claims that are not supported by facts as if you were in some kind of competition with another certified misrepresenter of facts, Naomi Wolf.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/checking-naomi-wolfs-8-big-problems-in-the-assange-case-and-coming-up-empty/
@Goran Rudling
You’re a multitasker in doing two things at a time. You ask Mr. Murray for an explanation regarding the facts, and you call him a liar. Why not wait for his explanation first? Where are you up to? Let’s work together in finding the truth about JA, AA en SW. Irregularities galore. And please give us an actual look on the political situation in Sweden.
@Göran:
I don’t imagine an abusive rhetorical approach will win you many converts to your perspective. I think it is reasonable to assume that Craig, and most people who post here, are interested in truth and justice – wherever the facts lead. Assume good faith of your opponents!
I didn’t think the fact that SW has not signed her statement was in doubt, but it is in the last para of the quoted official account above. Is this not conclusive: “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”?
CC, that’s a good logical summary.
What begun with political and/or agency interference, can also unravel with political and/or agency intervention. That is what now makes a diplomatic solution important. If one can see that, then one can easily see why Assange made the very calculated move of stepping into the Ecuadorian embassy. He is forcing a dialogue that would not have otherwise happened.
CE writes:
Dave,
I don’t believe your personal reasons for harbouring animosity towards lesbians really have any correlation to the JA case.
***
This is so boring. If you must know, I have several friends that are gay, and one of my closest siblings is in a gay marriage. It’s rather a sign of homophobia that you want to deny the importance of sexual orientation here. Just as there are ethical and unethical heterosexuals, and just as the orientation of these individuals becomes important when investigating the rape of men or women, so too is sexual orientation important when investigating the motives of homosexuals for dishonesty of the most serious kind.
Göran Rudling,
I put to you because; you are a crap researcher full of piss and wind, wanting an easy life, hence you go around accusing people with lying, and making it up, so you get the material you cannot find, to be provided to you freely and expeditiously.
This seems to be a national trait with Swedes given the furore about the Assange case. File plenty of inexactitudes (lying out of your butt) and then present it to the world with some kind of Scandinavian nonchalance and hope that everyone will buy in to the narrative.
It would be advisable to keep whatever credibility you people have, and be seen and not read, because the bollocks you have forwarded is just reinforcing the negative view of the world about your Nation as a whole; lying toads and lackeys of US.
However, world finally can understand the high rates per capita of suicides in Sweden; suffering the sanctimonious ceremonies of “intimacy” or going for hike in the snow?
Yeahp the poor bastards stand no chance, during the long nights.
Cut and paste from Goran’s website (which i have linked before):
Z on July 6, 2011 at 1:42 pm said:
Excellent article. The only thing that concerns me is that if the case is so obviously flawed, why hasn’t it been dropped (again)?
Reply ↓
Göran Rudling
on July 6, 2011 at 9:18 pm said:
Mysterious Z,
You know. I am just as puzzled as you are. Maybe the the people that are responsible are die hard vegetarians and hate “duck tests”. This case sure beats me.
But there is one thing that you should know about Sweden that most people don’t know. We are the only country in the world that invented driving on the left side of the road with cars that were equipped with the steering-wheel to the left. And in a referendum in 1955 82,9% of the population thought that it was the way to go. On September 1967, against popular opinion, we finally got right hand drive.
One day we will know why the case hasn’t been dropped a long time ago. And hopefully heads will roll.
Reply ↓
—–
Interesting exchange there and LOL on the LHD cars. I inserted this here because I sense we need some dramatic relief. But also, we are on the same page with regard to the bottom-line. Although i know and understand, that Goran disagrees with Assange’s strategy and doesn’t think much of his UK and Swedish lawyers, which also i appreciate.
Btw, Goran, your work is very solid–you don’t need me to tell you that. But can you tell us more on the ‘political temperature’ in Stockholm; why aren’t the investigators being investigated?
Can’t wait for those heads to start rolling.
Goran Rudling:
If Craig is lying, then we are all lying with him. FYI, it has been reported by a very respectable media source that Sofia Wilen never signed the statement:
http://www.daddys-sverige.com/3/post/2012/08/4-corners-paints-a-grim-picture-of-swedish-justice.html
Are they liars too? Do you think 4 Corners would have risked its reputation to deliberately spread a lie? Am I not allowed to believe anything unless I see it in an official document? Anna Ardin has not been shy to talk. Why does she not contradict the claims that the statement was not signed? Do you think the prosecutor would have been willing to drop the case and for JA to be allowed to leave the country had the statement been signed? Use your common sense instead of preening with wild allegations.
Re CE, I agree with everyone who thinks CE should suffer benign neglect. CE provides no developed arguments, no reply to specific questions, no links to support his/her views. Moreover, CE has demonstrated glaring ignorance. Classic time-wasting troll.
Goran Rudling:
Here’s the most common source of the police protocol, which you are familiar with.
http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml
Please address the substance of this piece with any corrections.
Could you link to any version of SWs statement that is read back, approved, signed, endorsed?
Do you contest that SW left the station before it could be completed? Irmeli Krans writes that herself.
Her brother and colleagues testimonies (which I quoted in a comment above) corroborate that SW was not intending to make a complaint and that the Police took that decision away from her.
From what is in the public domain, these are uncontested facts.
The focus has been on subsequent court documents derived from these unendorsed statements.
The SW statement is the most obvious weak link in this case and any subsequent legal documents based upon it are in doubt until it is proven that she did indeed wish to make such a complaint.
All available evidence in the public domain points to the contrary.
(Naomi Wolf’s article is not relevant here).
In those protocols that are circulating on the net one can read at the end of the questioning of SW by Irmeli Krans:
“Förhörsledarens anmärkning
Under förhörets gång underrättades jag och Sofia om att Julian Assange anhållits i sin frånvaro. Efter det beskedet hade Sofia svårt att koncentrera sig på förhöret varför jag gjorde bedömningen att det var bäst att avbryta förhöret. …
Förhöret är vakren uppläst för godkännande men Sofia informerades om att hon har möjligheten att göra det vid senare tillfälle.”
meaning …
“Note by interrogator
In the course of the questioning I and Sofia was informed that Julian Assange had been arrested in his absence. After this information Sofia had difficulties concentrating on the interrogation and I judged it better to stop it. … The interrogation has not been read out loud and not been read through but Sofia was informed that she has a possibility of doing this at a later occassion”.
certified it later? who knows? at least she was so upset that she didn’t even wanted to hear it, sounds like she walked out on them when she realized Julian would be hunted
details on the political connections mentioned above is explored here in a book (posting from book):
http://swedishsexbook.com/2012/08/31/how-the-assange-scandal-saved-the-swedish-social-democrats/
P Olsson,
Thanks for that link. Here’s an extract pertinent to this thread:
25 August 2010. Police interrogator (s) shocked by closed Assange case
Prosecutor Eva Finné closes the preliminary investigation for suspected rape against Julian Assange. He is still suspected of molestation, a much less severe crime. She says she believes what the women have told in the police interrogations and concludes about the rape allegation: “But the content of the interrogation does not support any claim that a crime has been committed.” This statement reaches the media at 3:00 p.m. At 3:43 p.m. the policewoman Irmeli Krans (s), who conducted the interrogation with SW on Friday and contacted the prosecutor on duty, writes on Facebook:
“SCAAAAAAAANDAL!!!!!”
Her Facebook buddies wonder what she is talking about and she clarifies:
“But for God’s sake!!!! The scandal in every paper and news on the air! But let’s hope our eminent and exceedingly competent dear Claes Borgström will bring some order!!”
—-
Also, the backdrop surrounding the election and the workers night with the prostitutes is good context.
But the key question now is what is the debate in Sweden re: investigating the mess created by the prosecutors, or is there no debate?
One good thing that has come out of the Assange entrapment in Sweden is that it was JA’s intention to look for somewhere in that country to base Wikileaks. This is highly unlikely now. And I’m sorry my Swedish friends on Gotland I shall not be visiting until the innocent are absolved and the guilty made to pay for their fabrications.
Some personal ruminations and thoughts about Sweden and the matter at hand…
One of the things that has struck me the most in following this process, is to my mind, the apparent credulity evident in the international reactions and opinions expressed by many global msm and commentators. The unquestioned acceptance of the alleged charges, the actions of the prosecutors, Swedish msm handling of the case and even the actions and reactions of members of the Swedish government.
As a thought experiment, just imagine if you please, if Sweden and Ecuador changed places with each other. If the same exact procedure and sequence of events were carried out by Ecuadorian police, prosecutor and government officials?
Maybe I am naïve, but I think the reactions would be slightly different.
I do not imply that you should take anything Ecuador would say at face value, but quite the opposite, that you should question and scrutinize a strange behaviour from Sweden as thoroughly as you would in the case of Ecuador.
One argument related to this, and that is constantly repeated, implicit or explicit, is of course, that this is Sweden… you know? That hard working, liberal, law abiding country. Home to meatballs, blond girls, tall vikings, Björn Borg and Ingmar Bergman. Everyone knows, (that knows anything about Swedes), is how honest, trustworthy and reliable we are.
The Nobel price, famous inventors and companies, the worlds best free healthcare and schools – and people from all over the world came to visit and marvel at our “Swedish model”.
This is an image I think Swedes (secretly) are immensely proud of, and that forms a significant part of our identity. We are truly special, and a little bit better then everyone else. This is of course something most (all) countries have to a degree or another and it can be a source of positive strength and unity, but to much uncritical self glorification can be a dangerous thing, and in regard to Sweden, I believe that for the last 20 years it has gradually turned very dark and destructive, and become a national obsession.
Officially and publicly, both inside Sweden and what we project to outsiders, is still (at the foundation) very much the same image, but to an increasing degree, this is a shadowplay.
But you really have to start looking behind the screens and under the freshly applied paint, to find the growing cracks in beams propping up our society.
I think that if you would ask a random person on the street, he/she would probably list lots of problems and grievances close to heart, but, he would not take the step and question the correctness of the broader foundation for his belief in Sweden and the Swedish model.
This leads to an ever increasing stream of apparent paradoxes in the Swedish society, and a widening chasm between the image of what Sweden is, and the true grey unvarnished reality.
And I also think, that that difference, between the reality today and the image of Sweden as it were 30 years ago, has been one of the reasons for the confusion and cognitive dissonance in this case internationally.
Which brings me back to the “reversed scenario” of Sweden/Ecuador, and where we maybe would have been today in this case, if everyone had objectively look into it, and without prejudice investigated the accusations, actions and details?
But maybe the fog is starting to lift a bit. I can only sincerely hope so, not because I dislike Sweden and wish it ill, but because I care about it, a lot.
/a swede
@CE – in case you’re no longer following the “The Assange case” thread, I’ve posted a reminder there about my reply to two questions you posted (you’re welcome to follow them up there if you wish).
@lastbluebell, thanks for your contribution. I wonder if I might ask some questions, regarding the process of law that would be used in this case, if Assange were to come to Sweden. My understanding is that it would be a “closed” court, with “lay prosecutors” who are politically appointed, there would be no jury, and that these are special features of rape trials designed to offer anonymity protection to the accuser.
First, do you know if my understanding is accurate? I should also be interested in what Swedes think about this kind of case generally. I’m a feminist, and am broadly in favour of trial systems that make it easier for an alleged sexual attack to be brought before a court of law. But it does rather seem that the features that would be used in this case undermine the impartiality of the law – having a jury and a specifically non-political judiciary help guarantee it.
@Michael et al. those who think sexual orientation is irrelevant.
It is a common and justified belief that lesbians are biased against men in the same way that it is a common and justified belief that elderly grandmothers do not engage in violent street crimes. Anyone want to debate me on this?
It is completely unbelievable that Krans, being a lesbian, was perfectly neutral in her duties. It is equally incredible that she was biased in favour of Assange. So what does that leave? The only conclusion is bias against Assange, but to what extent? Wilen’s statement is full of so many seemingly irrelevant, subjective and disparaging comments about Assange that it leaves me with no doubt that Krans was determined to see him arrested and charged with s-xual assault, whatever the evidence or lack thereof.
And what started out as an exercise in revenge by someone who has a prickly relationship with men, soon blossomed into a multi-faceted conspiracy.
Ardin would get her revenge, Claes Borgstrom would advance his legal and political career, Sweden would win frequent flunky points and the great USA would have their pesky little Australian goblin in a cage. They just didn’t count on Assange being smarter than them and having supporters that reach deep into intelligence and diplomatic services.