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.
@AAMVN, “This is highly possible and the assertion that the Sweden of 30-40 years ago was a jolly nice place and didn’t do anything nasty to anybody – ever – is irrelevent. The Sweden of today is a totally different proposition.”
Very well put.
But I would say that it is rather the “imagination” and the created “brand” both nationally and internationally of Sweden that is based on that picture, it is not so much an “assertion” I believe, because Sweden without question did do a lot of rather nasty things back then as well.
And the strength of that brand image is now I would guess, an important aspect of both what has been happening and what might play out in the future, and in part the reason stressing the credulity and hindering logical objective investigation into this.
@Colin Carr
“If Assange is extradited to Sweden, he would then be held in custody with limited access to lawyers, possibly for many months. During this time who is to say he would not (without judicial oversight) be put aboard a CIA operated aircraft and flown out of Sweden. To where, you ask. Well my guess would be to Guantanamo Bay.”
Colin. First I will argue just like you. When Julian is held in custody in Sweden who is to say he wouldn’t be beaten up by a one legged green faced sumo wrestler and fed to the wolf’s at Kolmården Zoo. He could disappear totally. It cannot be ruled out. But is it likely Colin? Should Julian also ask for a guarantee that he will not be beaten by one-legged sumo wrestlers?
The prosecutor has issued a statement on Julian’s future detention. He would be held in custody since he is a certified flight risk. His lawyers will have unlimited access to him. He will be able to watch TV and read newspapers. And make phone calls. And socialize with other people held in custody. I am not sure about Internet access. You and Per E. Samuelsson, his new Swedish lawyer, just make silly claims. I am sorry I have to point it out.
Mr. Rudling:
You flatter yourself to think that you are somehow getting under our skin. And clearly you don’t even understand what it means to spread a lie. I will explain it to you. Spreading a lie means stating something that you know NOT to be true. Since you are so interested in PROOF, I will now ask you to PROVE that Craig Murray knows that Sofia Wilen didn’t sign that statement. I will also ask you to PROVE that 4 Corners was LYING. Present us with the evidence.
I must also ask you to PROVE that ex-ambassador Craig Murray LIED when he wrote that insiders at the FCO informed him that the US government was very keen to lay their hands on Julian Assange.
I saw this on your website, Mr. Rudling:
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/08/a-must-read-analysis-of-the-assange-extradition-case/
You are obviously impressed by David Allen Green. However, are you aware that a central argument of his was debunked by Glenn Greenwald?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition
How about that! It looks like David Allen Green was LYING! But more importantly, why did you not take the trouble to research his claims more thoroughly?
I look forward to your reply.
Correction:
I must also ask you to PROVE that ex-ambassador Craig Murray LIED when he wrote that insiders at the FCO informed him that the US government was very keen to lay their hands on Julian Assange.
That should read – “was very keen to see JA extradited to Sweden”.
@Villager
Per E. Samuelsson is representing Julian Assange. Do I have to say more? Per E. still is of the opinion that the prosecutor did not try to interview Julian in late September. The fact that he is proven wrong does not change his “opinion”. I am sorry to say that Per E.’s involvement most likely is going to be a disadvantage for Julian.
The law in England is much tougher and the penalties are much more severe. I would say the legislation in England, and in countries with the law based on lack of consent, is far more advanced (feminist oriented if you will) than the Swedish one. Please look into it.
Canada has since 1892 based their legislation on lack of consent. In Sweden there is still talk about it. We are just 120 years behind Canada. How many years behind Per E. Samuelsson is it is not really of interest.
@Jon, another personal observation that might be relevant in regard to Göran Rudling, an many others acting in this case.
I don’t know how it is in Britain, but there exist an idea, or trend in the national Swedish discourse and debate, that if you can attach an apparent or concived lie or inaccuracy to anyone in any circumstance, you are then at leave to both ridicule and out of hand ignore any other argument he/she makes, regardless of context and situation.
It is in this regard not so much a common open honest discussion or search for observations, truth, logic or intellectual cohesion in the arguments, but a numbers game – a tit for tat. To concede ignorance or admit an error is in this setting today almost fatal, which I think has profound implications for what has happened in Sweden.
I think this, coupled with the aggression with which this game is played, is one reason for both the sometimes almost irrational obsession with nitpicking and lifting trivial details out of all proportion and relevancy and, as well as how cautionary and unwilling many Swedish intellectuals outside of political life is to engage in this and many other current important issues in Sweden.
I am sure this happens to some degree or another in most countries, but I have a feeling that there is a difference in degree, and it is very difficult to express the difference in intellectual level, behaviour and forms of discussion when for example comparing Swedish and English quality newspapers and newschannels.
@VivaEcuador.
I don’t know what you are on about. Maybe my English is of the Swedish chef style. Or you have a reading problem.
I have claimed that Mr Murray has no facts to support his claim that Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement.
I have also claimed that Mr Murray has no facts to support his claim “the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.”
I am very well informed about Mr Greenwald’s opinions. In an e-mail I asked him about extraditions from Sweden to the US:
“I’ve looked for any examples of extradition to the US from Sweden for
spying, political crimes or military crimes since late sixties. I have
not found any such event. Since I think you have studied the subject,
could you please point out cases that are similar to the Assange case
and where an extradition have been granted.”
His response, well researched one would suppose, was the case with the two Egyptian asylum seekers that were sent back to Egypt. So much for Mr Greenwald’s knowledge. First, it was not extradition. Secondly they were not charged for military or political crimes. Third, they were sent to Egypt. It is obvious that Mr Greenwald is not even geographically correct.
I do think that Mr Greenwald is very similar to Mr Murray and Naomi Wolf. They are not that concerned about facts. Stubborn facts my ruin a “good opinion”.
You write:
“I must also ask you to PROVE that ex-ambassador Craig Murray LIED when he wrote that insiders at the FCO informed him that the US government was very keen to lay their hands on Julian Assange.”
Naomi Wolf and Mr Murray make up claims that have no factual support. You are doing a similar thing. Trying to make up that I have ever commented on Mr Murray’s talks with insiders at the FCO. Please put your specs on and think for a moment before you put your fingers to the key-board.
Goran Rudling is raising a lot of interesting points.
From what I can tell, the attempt to interview Assange in late September consisted of three text messages on one day that were not answered. No follow up phone call was made – not very much effort really. Maybe she was busy and just half-assed it.
Did she make more of an effort? Send an e-mail? Send a letter? It seems pretty important especially since at somewhere around this time she has told Assange he is free to leave the country.
So that’s one point. If Per E Samuelson is exaggerating “not much effort” into “no effort” then it’s not helping Assange but it’s understandable. People do exaggerate like that all the time. But I agree, he shouldn’t.
Assange is paranoid. I think that is clear. But just because he’s paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get him.
And – one has to ask – if it is so unlikely – fantastically unlikely – why not humour the poor little creepy Ozzie and just say – “OK – if you come to our lovely Swedish liberal paradise we absolutely, 100%, on my own mother’s Swedish meatballs, swear, in blood, that we will not send you by hook or by crook to the US or any other place that you don’t want to go.” That would seem a pretty easy thing to say and the unwillingness of anyone in the UK, US, or Sweden to make such a guarantee is glaring.
I have read many claims that prisoners on remand for sex crimes are held in conditions that seem harsh – no visits, limited legal council access, suicide watch. These claims seem to be well documented and the Swedish system has been in trouble with EHCR I understand.
Goran Rudling tells us the Swedish prosecutor has made a statement to the contrary. Are the above claims wrong or has Assange been promissed better treatment. Can GR or anyone else provide a link or source?
Mr. Rudling:
What’s sauce for the goose…it would do you some good to re-read my post (and your own for that matter).
1) I was not referring to the extradition/rendition of the 2 Egyptians. I am referring to David Allen Green’s lie that the Swedish government cannot provide a guarantee that JA would not be extradited to the US. I understand your discomfort. Glenn Greenwald has blasted a huge hole in this argument (did you read the Guardian link?) which makes it look as though you are siding with, how shall I put it, a liar. At the very least, you fail to live up to your own standards of investigation, would you not agree?
2) No, you did not accuse Craig Murray of lying about what he heard from the FCO so do I take it that you accept his word that he received inside information that the US govt. is putting pressure on the UK govt. to grab Assange and ship him off to Sweden. Why would the US be so interested in seeing JA stand trial in Sweden, Mr. Rudling? Is this really of no importance? Or are you more interested in character assassination?
3) Where is the famous PROOF that 4 Corners is lying? You promised us the PROOF. Where is it?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/sweden-prison-assange/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous
I found this is wired which seems to be what GR meant. Is there a more detailed text of the statement anywhere rather than this rather vague description?
“AAMVN
The reason I made a claim that the prosecutor made a statement is the fact that the prosecutor made a statement.
“During his stay in jail, he will be able to have contact with the outside world, under conditions the jail’s safety and regulations provide. He is in custody because of the danger of flight and therefore will not have any restrictions limiting his right example to watch TV, read newspapers or socialize with other inmates.” That also includes that he can have contact with his lawyers. I may be incorrect in my previous comment about access to phones.
http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Assange-ska-overlamnas-till-Sverige1/
“From what I can tell, the attempt to interview Assange in late September consisted of three text messages on one day that were not answered. No follow up phone call was made – not very much effort really. Maybe she was busy and just half-assed it.”
You are not correct. There were phone calls between Mr Hurtig and the prosecutor. Mr Hurtig did admit that in the February hearing. I heard him say so because I was present. It is also in Judge Riddle’s ruling.
What is more important that an interview was set up for 6 October. Julian did not show. An agreement was made between Mr Hurtig and the prosecutor that Julian should appear on 14 October for an interview. Julian did not appear. He could “not be reached”. When the prosecutor was informed on 12 October that Julian could “not be reached” Mr Hurtig was warned that if Julian did not come in for an interview he would be arrested and an EAW would be issued.
You are right that prisoners on remand for sex crimes are held in conditions that seem harsh. Julian is not going to have that treatment. Per E. Samuelsson has written extensively on conditions that Julian will not experience. To me that seems a bit stupid unless you want to portray a picture that is not true.
On the issue on why Julian is not interviewed in England.
http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Varfor-kan-inte-aklagaren-forhora-Assange-i-Storbritannien–/
If Julian and his lawyers do think that the prosecutor is in error regarding this they can appeal the prosecutors decision. Just like Claes Borgström appealed Eva Finnés decision for closing the rape investigation. For some reason they have decided not to. A fact that speaks for itself. They very well know the reason why Julian is wanted for an interview in Sweden but they do not tell the public the full truth.
Thanks Goran, as others have said some really interesting stuff. I wouldn’t worry about Viva Ecuador, for him Assange is messianic figure who can do no wrong, and he does seem to get his panties in a wad far too easily.
@CE:
You are what Mr. Rudling would call a liar (as well as a troll). I have always said that JA should return to Sweden provided he is given a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the US.
@VivaEcuador,
1. Mr Greenwald has not blasted anything but his own feet. If he is not more careful he might end up blasting his head off.
Mr Greenwald makes a gigantic logical mistake in his reasoning. He argues like this. The government of Sweden has the last say in an extradition case. We all know that to be true. Nothing new. You may say that Mr Green got it wrong. But it is not important in the discussion of guarantees. In Mr Greenwald’s world he thinks that this means that the government can make guarantees about extradition cases that have not even materialized. Such a guarantee is against the constitution. The reason is that such a guarantee would short circuit the court system. Such a guarantee is also against the context of the extradition treaties.
If such a guarantee was possible under Swedish law, why is it do you think that not one of 349 members of parliament has not asked for one?
Mr Greenwald does not know Swedish law or the constitution. It is obvious. In order for you and Mr Greenwald to understand the matter let’s look at another example. The President of the United States can pardon individuals. With Greenwald logic that means that the President determines who is to serve time in jail. With Greenwald logic that means that the President can issue guarantees that an individual will not go to court for an offence and will not serve time in jail, no matter the offence. I don’t think you have to serve on the US Supreme court to understand that a Greenwald “get out of jail card” is unconstitutional.
To be frank. I think Mr Greenwald is more interested in his own opinions rather than interested in facts of the matter. And it goes for you too.
2. Mr Murray is the one that is of the opinion that the US is interested in seeing JA stand trial in Sweden. Ask him.
3. I am not sure if I ever stated that 4Corners lied. If I did, I slipped. My mistake and an apology. In their program they selected facts that they think are true. I will come back to you with a long list of what I think they missed, or deliberately did not show. Some of what the people say in the program is not true. For instance Jennifer Robinson claims that Interpol Red Notices are for terrorists and dictators. That a so called Human Right’s lawyer cannot discriminate between a Red Notices and an Orange Notices is typical for what many so called experts say in this case. There are so many errors and misrepresented facts in this case. And Julian and his defence are responsible for most of them.
I will publish a list. A full list. It takes longer than to write this comment.
Sweden is seeking the extradition of the Pirate Bay founder on a hacking charge rather than any copyright infringement laws.
It is tempting to see a parallel here with Assange – in that Sweden is pursuing those the US government wants stopped, on charges not directly related to the real issue.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/pirate-bay-founder-arrest/
The task of people like CE is not to debate rationally. It is to fill space with the establishment pov to give the impression to passers by that his nonsense has credibility.
Maybe he really is as stupid as he appears or maybe he is paid a mediocre wage by a PR company to endlessly repeat the same slant.
Either way you will never sway his blind ignorance. He is here to undermine debate. He is taking the p***.
I am way less forgiving than most here. I would delete his repetitive posts.
“AAMVN
“It seems pretty important especially since at somewhere around this time she has told Assange he is free to leave the country.”
Julian has never been told he was free to leave Sweden. Never. I think you would understand that prosecutors never make such statements. He has never been told that he was free of the suspicions of rape, unlawful coercion and sexual molestation.
The prosecutor told Mr Hurtig “det finns inga tvångsåtgärder” (there are no force measures. What it meant was that Julian was not at the time under arrest. His passport was not seized. He had not been given any travel restrictions.
It was interpreted by Julian that he could flee and he would not be stopped. So he fled and wasn’t stopped.
Could the Swedish government offer Assange political asylum from the United States? Would this be a way around the constitutional deadlock? Perhaps a silly question.
Personally, I don’t think he should go whatever guarantees are offered. He will not get a fair open trial and the EAW – despite the court rulings in the UK – is a bad piece of law that has been hideously misused.
He might be guitly of the crimes alleged and if he is then it is an injustice if he is never prosecuted. But it is not his fault if the Swedish police have so utterly mishandled the whole case.
They should have arrested him in Sweden in 2010 when they had the chance. They have shown utter contempt for the alleged victims. Leaking the details of their statements. Letting Assange leave Sweden and then painting themselves into a corner by not using established systems of mutual legal assistance.
Goran, do you have any alternative hypotheses as to why SW did not approve her statement on that Friday evening? Did she approve it subsequently?
As for Per E, is it normal/acceptable procedure in Sweden to summon an accused to the Police Station via text messages? I wonder if in the UK that would be considered formal notice. Anyone?
More importantly would you agree that it was very strange for Ny to allow or create, in a “rape” case like this (especially where the accused is a temporary visitor to the country), a delay of 21 days before inviting Assange in for questioning? In the interim, as i understand it, on or around 14 Sept she had indicated to Per E that Assange was free to travel?
Goran, sorry our posts crossed–i’m slow with the trigger, very slow. Besides, with my lawyer not sitting next to me, i have to watch my p’s and q’s with you.
Also BH was the lawyer at the time, i can stand corrected. You can answer me anyway…
@ Goran Rudling.
We are really splitting hairs here if you think I meant he was cleared of all suspicion. But NO WAY did he ‘flee’. If he’d had it in mind to flee he could have gone to country with no extradition treaty. He left with the understanding that he might be interviewed later. He offered to go back in October (9th?) but Marianne Ny said that the date at first agreed (with an assistant to Ny) was not soon enough.
Swedish may be a very different language than English – I’ve read that elsewhere – but if you have no travel restrictions then you can surely travel? She could have said something like – ‘You have no restrictions but I advise you not to leave Sweden or to be ready to return at short notice.’
I value you’re knowledge of the details of this case and insight as a Swedish speaker. I’ve read that Swedes are very indirect and you have to try to guess their meaning from context etc. I’m familiar with this problem having spent time in Asia where ‘yes means no’.
Perhaps Marianne Ny said one thing literally but meant another. But then how did his Swedish lawyer not understand? I beggers belief.
Anyway – if she can arrest him for questioning now why not then? What can they possibly know now that they didn’t know then? She has at the very least botched the investigation. No wonder she’s too afraid to set foot in London – even incognito.
Mr. Rudling:
Interesting how you now seem to be distancing yourself now from the position of your hero Mr. Green who said:
“any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported ‘guarantee’.”
Sounds like Mr. Green is not very well versed in Swedish law either, Mr. Rudling. I trust you will take him up on this lie. In any event, he is certainly not someone I would choose to place on a “must-read” list.
You talk about the Swedish government’s inability to provide a guarantee in advance of a case being heard but frankly, I find it very hard to believe that the Swedish government could not give a pledge in advance not to extradite Julian Assange for the “crime” of being in possession of and revealing (along with many newspapers) classified US information which is what the whole Wikileaks controversy boils down to. More than an anti-constitutional guarantee, it would be an eminently respectable statement of legal and moral principle entirely consistent with Swedish law (I presume) and in defiance of the reprehensible extra-territoriality practiced regularly by the United States. It would also put the ball back in Assange’s court and would prove that the Swedish government is serious about resolving this case.
You distort my point about Craig Murray. It is not just his opinion that the US has it in for JA. He was told by FCO insiders that this is the case, ie the US is applying pressure to the UK government. Is your information from within the FCO better than his? Why do you appear to be so uninterested in such a revelation? Now let me tell you why I listen to Craig Murray: Craig Murray has a track record of exposing the truth, not telling lies. He is a whistleblower who exposed UK government complicity in torture in Uzbekistan (I need to spell this out for you because you admitted that you have no idea why he was dismissed from the FCO) and who also revealed the extent of Adam Werrity’s presence in confidential UK foreign policy and defense discussions in flagrant contravention of security clearances, something senior UK government officials were very keen to hide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Werritty
We are all very interested in your critique of the 4 Corners documentary. I truly hope it lives up to its billing.
Here is a link to a long comment on the 4Corners documentary. I’ve been asked to fact check it and I have done my best. If you have any questions you can direct them to me.
http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/4corners/
I think the documentary on 4Corners is well made and interesting. It comes across as very pro-Assange. I can deal with it since I know the case and it is not as depicted in the film. Andrew Fowler have spoken to a lot of people. He has asked good questions and managed to get people talking and revealing important information.
I know that Per E. Samuelsson is saying things that aren’t true. I don’t think that is clever but Per E. is not the first person that lies in this case. Per E. also shows that he is not familiar with the case.
Rick Falkvinge, of lap-dog fame, claims that the two Egyptians were Swedish citizens. He obviously does not know that the law specifically prohibits Swedish citizens to be extradited. But it does not prevent him from making a silly comment about things he really does not understand.
Jennifer Robinson cannot discriminate between Red and Orange Interpol notices. It is pathetic. A human rights lawyer.
I also find the comments by McCarthy and Zimmmerman very interesting. When they relate their contacts with the FBI it seems to me that the FBI just want them to know that they are around. The FBI hasn’t interrogated them. The FBI agents seem more to be of the Ken Barbie type. Still it scares the living daylights out of Julian Assange. It says a lot about Julian’s imagination.
I do think that Andrew Fowler, if he did another documentary using other facts, would show that Julian Assange has done everything wrong in this case from the very beginning. Julian and his way of handling the case is the reason for the mess. It all is about really poor crisis management as one of Sweden’s best PR-experts has written in a really good article called, “So I advised Assange – and he did just the opposite”
“I think the truth is that Assange from the very beginning of this process has done everything absolutely wrong.”
http://www.paulronge.se/sa-radde-jag-assange-och-han-gjorde-precis-tvartom
Before you bombard me with comments, just do the following. Ask yourself this question. If Julian, when he in the morning of 21 August was asked about the rape suspicions, had said something like this “I don’t know what the accusations are about. I think there is some misunderstanding. I will find out what this is all about and come back to you. What is your phone number?” What do you think would have happened?
The golden rule about crisis-management is do not make statements of things that you don’t know anything. When Julian in the morning of 21 August started to talk about dark forces, dirty tricks etc he lost complete control of the case. He invited the media to run with the case. After that he has spent time making even sillier comments. The person to blame for all this is Julian Assange himself.
P.S. Please read this article about Naomi Wolf’s fictitious claims.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/checking-naomi-wolfs-8-big-problems-in-the-assange-case-and-coming-up-empty/
VivaEcuador
I note that you do not comment on my example with the President’s right to parole people. Do you with some kind of Greenwald logic think that the pardon instrument means that a President can issue “get out of jail cards”? Cards that make some people untouchable for the law similar to diplomatic status? Your answer to this question is important in the understanding of guarantees.
I’ll put it to you like this. If Julian was extradited to Sweden, if the US asked for him to be extradited (I cannot see one extraditable offense by the way), if the Swedish courts okayed extradition (I cannot see how) and the Swedish government extradited him it would be the end of the government. Political suicide. I just won’t happen. You can regard me as an idiot for saying so, it still is true.
@AAMVN:
“Swedish may be a very different language than English – I’ve read that elsewhere – but if you have no travel restrictions then you can surely travel? She could have said something like – ‘You have no restrictions but I advise you not to leave Sweden or to be ready to return at short notice.’”
Agreed. Mr. Rudling’s use of the word “flee” is emotive and prejudicial to the argument.
AAWVN
From the Magistrates’ Court ruling:
“I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source, that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21st – 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. I have heard no evidence that he was readily contactable.”
Julian has refused to come to Sweden to be interviewed, contrary to the advice of his Swedish lawyer. He has avoided interviews three times.
“We are really splitting hairs here if you think I meant he was cleared of all suspicion. But NO WAY did he ‘flee’. If he’d had it in mind to flee he could have gone to country with no extradition treaty.”
You assume that Julian behaves logically. I don’t think that is the case.
There is no doubt that Julian has done everything to avoid being questioned by the Swedish police. That is the real reason he is spending his days in the Ecuadorian Embassy. He may say something else.
Goran:
“Such a guarantee is against the constitution. The reason is that such a guarantee would short circuit the court system. Such a guarantee is also against the context of the extradition treaties.”
Thats why we have constitutional lawyers so that they can craft something, it could be a contingent guarantee, that works. There is nothing illegal about protecting the human rights of both the ‘rape’ victims to a quick trial and the alleged perpetrator who is the victim of an undeniable witch-hunt.
Btw, do you have a link to support your first sentence above re the constitution?
“Could the Swedish government offer Assange political asylum from the United States? Would this be a way around the constitutional deadlock? Perhaps a silly question.”
I don’t think so. But I think that he would be given a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. Just like all the deserters for the US military were handled in the 60’s and the 70’s. They could have been granted political asylum but the government choose to give the residency on humanitarian grounds. It had the same effect but it was done not to irritate the US.
I am impressed by the fantastic research work done by interested parties in the UK in particular. Sweden is a tricky society, fill of contradictations. Sweden has a substantial foreign population, yet the views expressed here are always by very diplomatic commenting native Swedes. Ninety percent of non – europeans living in Sweden do not trust the justice system, it is flawed, racist and corrupt. Look into the case of Chilean born world famous opera singer Tito Beltran. He was charged with rape nine years after the incident happened and without any techical evidence was sentenced to a lenghty prison term. Word against word, foreigner against Swede, the foreigner has no chance!! Ask Tito Beltran, ask anyone in Sweden, this is the truth. Rudling can confirm this!! Can you imagine if Julian Assange was not of Anglo Saxon European extraction but an Arab, African or Latin American origin person involved in this case…
The Olof Palme era brought some dignity to Sweden’s international
relations. The current right wing government has thrown this into the
Baltic Sea. In fact, the Swedish society has a well appreciated social
and moral decadence which diminishes Assange’s fabricated rape case to
sheer insignificance.
Sweden, a country of 9 million, has double cases of rapes compared to
Italy wich has a population of 50 million. Sweden also has the highest
rate (per capita) in suicides and cases of incest globally. These are
disturbing realities which point to a dysfunctional and immoral society
whose gradual decay is only rivalled by the disintegrating welfare state
which will not guarantee Assange justice. A peep into Swedish history
reveals even macabre skeletons in the cupboard.
Sweden is the biggest exporter of arms in the world. During the illegal
Iraq war instigated by US and British Imperialism for purposes of stealing
Iraqi oil, Sweden was a major supplier of arms to the USA.
During the Second World War when Sweden professed neutrality, the
country’s arms manufacturers were conspicously instrumental in keeping the
German war machine alive by supplying it with iron ore. German
troops were also allowed to enter Sweden and occupy neighbouring Norway.
Further, Swedish banks received payments from Germany using assets
expropriated from Jewish victims of the holocaust. Even from a historical
standpoint, Sweden has consistently demonstrated unmatched hypocrisy in
its international relations and this inclination is what is being
exhibited in the Assange case whom, for political expediency, will be
traded to the United States.
There should be international pressure to get the dubious Swedish
prosecutor to interview Mr. Assange at the Equador Embassy in London. It
is unfortunate tha the equally dubious law firm of former Swedish Justice
minister, Thomas Bodström and the rape complainant’s lawyer Claes
Borgström, are involved in this case without their dirty histories being
exposed by the media and with equal zeal with which the media has been
attacking Assange. It must be pointed out that it was under Mr. Bodströms
tenure that CIA rendition flights took place from Sweden to Egypt with
devastating consequences to the innocent victims. Borgström, a disgraced
lawyer whose credibility is in tatters, played a key role in getting a
former client, Thomas Quick, to plead guilty to eight serial murders of
which at present three were subsequently proven to have been made under
extreme duress and which were untrue.
Is this a country that Julius Assange given his predicament can trust???
Mr. Rudling:
Does it not bother you that Green lied about a government’s inability to override an extradition request?
Re guarantees, I understand exactly what you are saying but perhaps this is a question of semantics – why can’t the Swedish government at least make a statement of legal and moral principle as I have described above? Surely it is not beyond the wisdom and imagination of the Swedish government to provide this? For decades, Sweden lectured other nations on human rights.
Maybe you are right. Maybe there will be no extradition. But look at the circumstances of this case. You have revealed classified information which has severely damaged the reputation of the US, there is a grand jury sitting to decide what to do with you, the fellow who gave you the info is sitting in jail for 800 days + without trial, the US govt is putting pressure on the UK govt to deliver you to the Swedes etc. It is useless to pretend that there is nothing for Julian Assange to be worried about when he steps out of the Ecuadorian Embassy.