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,
“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.”
They should have seized Assange early in September and interviewed him. I agree. I am not impressed with how the authorities have behaved. Incompetence is an explanation. And I think they have been too nice to Mr Assange believing him when he gave the impression that he would attend police interviews.
There are no leaks. No leaks. The only confirmed leak is the Detentions Memorandum and that is leaked from Mark Stephens’ office.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/checking-naomi-wolfs-8-big-problems-in-the-assange-case-and-coming-up-empty/
Mutual Legal Assistance is not designed for situations like this. Julian and his lawyers have set up conditions for interviews in England that were impossible for the prosecutors to accept. They have asked for the complete police files prior to interviews. They have asked that Julian should be treated as if he was charged and then at the same time screaming that he is not even charged.
The lawyers have not been honest in reporting this as Jennifer Robinson’s brief to Canberra MP’s shows. Paragraph 13 and 18.
http://wlcentral.org/node/1418
“The first document Julian received from the prosecutor in English was the translation of the EAW provided by the English police at Kentish Town Police station in London when Julian voluntarily met with police to answer the warrant on 7 December 2010. This was the first time he had been informed in writing of the specific allegations and potential charges against him in English. I was with Julian at the police station and witnessed his shock and surprise at reading the allegations as described in the warrant.”
This is utter nonsense. Julian was informed in a language he understood on 1 September of all the allegations against him according to his lawyer Leif Silbersky. Still it does not prevent Jennifer Robinson to write nonsense. “The first document Julian received from the prosecutor in English” She writes this in order to imply that he has not been given full information about the allegations.
@Göran Rudling
8 Sep, 2012 – 2:00 pm
“So far. No facts support Mr Murray’s claim that Sofia Wilén REFUSED to sign the statement. Zero. It seems like Mr Murray made up his claim from thin air in a similar fashion that Naomi Wolf makes up claims.”
Hello Mr Troll! What’s the weather like in downtown Alexandria?
Regarding your nonsensical claims that Craig Murray is inventing a story about Wilen refusing to sign her statement, may I ask you what sort of evidence would suffice? Or maybe I can ask you what evidence exists that Wilen DID sign her statement. Did she? Prove it! Where’s your evidence?
The fact is, all we know is what we read in newspapers, on the internet and see on tv. And what I know, is that there are no reports from the various news media contradicting the widely reported detail that Wilen refused to sign her statement. If you can find any, kindly post the link or pipe down.
Matter closed!
An added viewpoint of a non european foreigner in Sweden:
Former United States UN Ambassador the very honourable Dr. Andrew Young called the Swedes racists and hypocrites way back in 1977. Sadly nothing has changed in the past 36 years. Dr. Youngs friend, the late honourable Dr Jerome Holland, was the first black US Ambassador to Sweden in 1974. He expressly called Sweden racist and hypocritical. Quite rightly, Sweden today has an openly racist party called the Sweden Democrats in parliament with 10% of the vote which translates to 20 Parliamentary seats. Although the Party openly calls for the repatriation of Immigrants from Sweden, it made massive electoral gains in the last elections.
Because of Sweden’s pro-American position on key political issues; a legal
system with multiple loop-holes which could be exploited to Assange’s
disadvantage; a racist legal framework that does not favour foreigners
especially when they are pitted against non Swedes and Swedish history of
hypocricy, lop-sidedness and double-speak in its dealings with other
states, there is a big risk that the safety of Julian Assange will be in
danger if he is repatriated to Sweden from the UK. Under the
circumstances, any repatriation of Assange to Sweden must be backed by
unequivocal diplomatic guarantees that he will not be repatriated to the
United States once he steps in Sweden.
The Swedish participation in rendition flights makes an utter mockery of
Prime Minister Fredrick Reinefeld’s statement of lack of political
interference in the Swedish legal system. Reinefeldt must come clean on
all rendition flights. There have been many more than the two exposed!!
Any trial of Assange in Sweden and given the evidence at hand will make this country the laughing stock of the civilized world…
@Jemand
GR reserves to right to call all of us liars which is how he introduced himself to us a while back. The interesting part is that he quotes from proven liars like David Allen Green. I am still waiting for him to square that circle….
Does it not bother you that Green lied about a government’s inability to override an extradition request?
No it does not. The reason is the argument was not about who has the final say in an extradition case. It’s been in an argument about guarantees. And in this argument the person that has been blasting his feet off is Mr Greenwald. Are you not concerned about Mr Greenwald’s feet? He is just as good at blasting as Dick Cheney. But Greenwald is more the self inflicting type.
I am sure that Mr Green, on question, will say that he got it wrong. He is not an idiot.
How about the question I put to you about the President’s pardon. I have asked you three times now. Do I have to ask you again?
Another question to you? What do you think of Julian’s crisis management? Do you think he responded in an intelligent way in the morning of 21 August 2010? And if he did not behave in an intelligent way, who’s fault is it?
“What do you think of Julian’s crisis management? Do you think he responded in an intelligent way in the morning of 21 August 2010? And if he did not behave in an intelligent way, who’s fault is it?”
Don’t know about the 21st, but he was stupid to not drop what he was doing on the 20th and gone with SW for an HIV test. Ego got in the way, just as i see happening here.
What could he have done on the 21st, ie after they had already been to the police? Other than start making arrangements for a competent lawyer.
Mr. Rudling:
I love it. Craig Murray makes a statement that may be wrong, he is a liar. Mr. Green makes a statement that is PROVED to be wrong and all you can say is “he is not an idiot”.
How come? And if Mr. Green can’t get his fundmental facts right, then why is he on your “MUST READ” list?
Why didn’t you reply to my questions about Craig Murray? I think given his background and connexions, I would take his views a little more seriously, Mr. Rudling, instead of resorting to “liar, liar, pants on fire”. They are a little more valuable than yours when it comes to assessing the motives and machinations of the US and British governments.
No president can issue a “get out of jail free card”. Agreed. Did you read the rest of what I had to say about a some sort of statement of legal and moral principle?
Go on now, show off your expertise on the events of 21 August 2010. I am not the least bit interested in JA’s “crisis management” which is a highly subjective topic anyway. As I have said, he should return to Sweden once the Swedish government finds a “constitutional” way to make it clear that he will not be forwarded to the United States. If your stupid, slavish pro-American govt. cannot or does not want to figure out a way to do this, then don’t bleat when JA refuses to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Remember kids, say no to rape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0P0-9fr3kI&feature=BFa&list=SPD4E1217AFA35B00A
@VivaEcuador,
First of all. I agree that my tone isn’t sweet.
Mr Murray makes a claim that Sofia Wilén has REFUSED to sign her statement. It is a very serious claim. Mr Murray is trying to make us believe that the police and the prosecutors are using her statement against her will in an effort to catch Mr Information Jesus and send him across the Atlantic for some kind of crusifiction.
Mr Murray is also making a claim that the prosecutor has claimed that Anna Ardin was present as a witness along with Irmeli Krans during Sofia’s interview. Not only a false claim. Mr Murray should explain how come Irmeli Krans can act as an interrogator and a witness at the same time. From what Mr Murray posted he should have understood that his claim is false. It seems like Mr Murray is not good at reading certain interviews. What Mr Murray is doing is trying to make us believe is that the police has acted in some kind of “illegal” way in order to get Julian Assange. That there is some “interference”.
So far, Mr Murray has not made any efforts to back up his claims. His claims are unsubstantiated. Can we agree that there is nothing to support his claims until Mr Murray says something himself?
Now to Mr Green. He incorrectly stated that the courts in Sweden had the last say in an extradition. That is wrong. I can, if you want me to call him a lier just to take him out of the discussion. I am sure that he will correct himself given the opportunity. As a matter of fact i think Mr Green has already corrected himself. Mr Green’s statement was in connection to a guarantee. Mr Green was correct in his analysis that the Swedish government cannot offer a guarantee. That is why Mr Green’s “lie” is not important.
I do not know Mr Murray. I do not know his expertise in other areas. I will now bring up another matter to show that Mr Murray’s knowledge about the case and the geography of Stockholm is, to say the least, limited.
“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.”
Anybody familiar with the geography of Stockholm and its public transportation system knows that the nearest police station for both of the women was Klara Närpolisstation. It is in fact nearer in time than any other police station. Mr Murray’s claim “She took her right across Stockholm” is not correct without saying to much. I think you can see that for yourself if you look at a map of Stockholm. Anna Ardin’s office was at Sveavägen 68. Or simply, take my word for it.
I don’t know if Irmeli Krans is a “lesbian feminist campaigner”. I think Mr Murray is way off here too. And I don’t understand why he even mentions it. Does Mr Murray have problems with lesbians? Or feminists? Or is it the combination? I am sorry to say, whatever expertise Mr Murray has, he has not shown any of it in his recent post.
Instead of writing comments to me, ask Mr Murray what facts support his claims. I am most interested in hearing what he has to say. Until then I will rest a little.
Did you see my list on the 4 Corners program? From my end it seems like it is not published yet.
“AAMVN
This comment is old but was caught in some kind of moderation filter because of two links
On the issue on why Julian is not interviewed in England.
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.
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.
Rudling, stop bullshitting. You are a TAXI DRIVER driver in Stockholm, you should know, the closet police station would be the one on Kungsholmen on Kungsholmgatan. Even closer would be the one at the corner of Birger Jarlsgatan and Radmansgatan, not sure if they are open 24 hours though.
Rudling, whats your agenda in all this?? Are you a police informant or just a normal “Herrenvol” believing Swede???
Mr. Rudling:
Thank you. I have read your postings with great interest and would like to reserve further comment until Craig Murray replies.
I just want to get something clear – is it your contention that there is no truth to anything that CM has posted in his introduction to this thread (which, taken as a whole, casts a poor light on the anti-Assange protagonists)?
(Sorry about the anti-spam filter – newcomers should know we don’t fully know the strategy the filter users to hold items for moderation. I’ve released a bunch just now. Mainly, if you have several links, wrap them in {} (so they’re not recognised as a hyperlink) or post them one at a time.
If an item is held, don’t resubmit it – we delete duplicates here, so it only creates work. Thanks!)
Mr. Rudling:
Sorry, I wanted to make a further point before I sign off this evening:
One criticism of the 4 Corners documentary is that it suggest that Assange could be extradited from Sweden when Sweden expressly forbids extradition for political crimes, espionage falling under this category.
My view is that this not the approach the US govt. will take to apprehend Assange. Clues lie in the statements of various politicians, commentators and US govt. officials who are blaming Assange for causing the deaths of Americans and their allies through his untimely revelations. In other words, Assange will be pursued in relation to a criminal conspiracy to endanger American lives that would place it outside the category of a “political” offense.
I would be interested to know what you think.
@Goran
‘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.’
You want to talk about the facts. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the US Dept of Human Rights have noted that lenghty pretrial detention is a problem. A prison is by definition not an appropriate place to hold persons who are neither suspected nor convicted of a crime. So let’s take the Swedish pretrial detention system as it is. In neglecting and ridiculing the Swedish detention system you explain the flaws away. No need of mentioning sumo wrestlers nor fed wolfs.
It is early morning here now, so a lot has happened on this page overnight. This will take some digesting.
I appreciate Goran Rudlings efforts to set the facts straight even though it makes things much more complicated! I think it has been oversimplified by observers and journalists on both sides.
I dont see what FACTS Goran Rudling is putting straight. He accuses Craig of lying well I can confirm in this case that Göran Rudling is LYING and presenting disinformation.
From Anna Ardins flat in Södermalm, the address of which is on the police protocol to the closest police station at Torkel Knutssongatan is a max 7-8 minutes walk. I live in Södermalm myself. The Klara Police Station is on the other side of town quite correctly presented by Craig Murray. The reason is obvious, its where Ardins political party mate and possible lesbian lover Irmeli Krans is based.
From Ardins work place the Kungsholms police station is closet and not the Klara.
The Australian ABC documentary is excellent investigative work and 100 % correct in terms of facts. How come Swedish TV are not interested in doing a similar indepth work. Is it because of political pressure or it will become too damn embarassing when the set up is exposed????
There does seem to be more to Mr Rudling than meets the eye. I notice Mr Murray has not let himself get drawn in.
A starting point, getting the geography right.
It is boring and time consuming to have to spend time arguing simple truths. There seems to be an almost end-less supply of people that want to believe in conspiracy theories that “proves” that something is really fishy in the Assange case. The more stupid the theory, the bigger the support.
I have stated that Mr Murray’s claim that Anna Ardin “took Sofia across town” is false. Please note that I am not accusing Mr Murray to lie about this one. I think he just likes to be misinformed on this occasion. Mr Murray has some kind of love affair with conspiracy theories. In this case he has chosen to believe in someone that has claimed that Anna “took Sofia across town.” There are no facts supporting his claim as usual.
When I say something that is obviously true, some nutter has to step in and scream. In this matter the scream comes from Rico Santin. He yells “Rudling, stop bullshitting. You are a TAXI DRIVER driver in Stockholm, you should know, the closet police station would be the one on Kungsholmen on Kungsholmgatan. Even closer would be the one at the corner of Birger Jarlsgatan and Radmansgatan, not sure if they are open 24 hours though.”
Since he is a believer in conspiracies he just have to throw in for good measure “Rudling, whats your agenda in all this?? Are you a police informant or just a normal “Herrenvolk” believing Swede???”.
I don’t know who Rico Santin is. I don’t know what he does except for screaming. I don’t know if he is familiar with a map. Or knows anything about Stockholm’s public transportation. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
In order to for you to make an educated judgment I have put all the details in on a map of Stockholm. Hopefully this will settle the score once and for all. Before I’ll explain the map lets get some more of Rico Santin’s intelligent comments:
“I dont see what FACTS Goran Rudling is putting straight. He accuses Craig of lying well I can confirm in this case that Göran Rudling is LYING and presenting disinformation.
From Anna Ardins flat in Södermalm, the address of which is on the police protocol to the closest police station at Torkel Knutssongatan is a max 7-8 minutes walk. I live in Södermalm myself. The Klara Police Station is on the other side of town quite correctly presented by Craig Murray. The reason is obvious, its where Ardins political party mate and possible lesbian lover Irmeli Krans is based.
From Ardins work place the Kungsholms police station is closet and not the Klara.”
For you that are not familiar with the geography of Stockholm here is the map:
http://samtycke.nu/doc/map-invest-dots.png
On 20 August, Anna Ardin was at Sveavägen 68, marked Anna Ardin in red. Sofia Wilén was at Södersjukhuset, marked Sofia Wilén in red.
The two women had to meet at a police station that was near to them both. In time and distance. The best choice is a station that is roughly half-way in between them. As you can see on the map, Klara Närpolisstation is roughly half-way between them. The obvious choice.
Now we add the Stockholm public transportation system. From Anna Ardin’s office it is very easy to get to Klara Närpolisstation. Hop on the subway and ride two stations and you are there.
How is it for Sofia? Walk or take a bus to Skanstull’s Subway station, marked Sofia Wilén subway. Hop on the subway and ride four stations and you are there. Since Klara Närpolisstation is at the Central Station, Sofia will be right where her trains leave for Enköping, her home-town. To me, Klara Närpolisstation is the obvious logical choice. It is the nearest. It is the easiest to get to.
Now let’s look at Rico Santin’s choices. His first choice is Kungsholmens polisstation. It is marked with a blue dot and a description. To get there for Anna, she has to take the subway and ride two stations. Then change tube-line and ride one more station.
How is it for Sofia? She still has to go to Skanstull and hop on the subway and ride four stations. Then she has to change tube-line and ride one more station.
Sofia and Anna both have to go to the station T-Centralen and change tube-line in order to go to Rico Santin’s first choice. If Anna and Sofia would stop at T-Centralen they would be at Klara Närpolisstation. Why would they ride an extra station to Kungsholmen? Maybe Rico Santin can explain that?
How about Rico Santin’s second choice? How easy is it for Anna to get there? She has to ride four stations and then change tube-line and ride one station.
It is correct that Torkel Knutssongatan’s police station is within walking distance from where Sofia was, 1 200 meters. Or if she would use the subway. First getting to Skanstull. Then ride two stations. Change tube-line and ride one station. After the visit was over and done with, Sofia had to ride one station, change tube-line and ride two more stations before she would be at T-Centralen where the trains leave for Enköping, her home town.
My conclusion is that Rico Santin is not well informed about how to get around in Stockholm. And he lacks map-reading ability. It seems like he has a Mr Murray streak as well. That is voice his opinion before he has checked facts.
One of the easiest places to get to in Stockholm is the Central Railway station. Where Klara Närpolisstation is located. Sofia is very well acquainted with the station. Even Julian Assange is. It was from Centralen that Julian left on that fateful train ride. And it was to Centralen Julian returned after that morning of unprotected sex.
Klara Närpolisstation is the most central and easiest to find police station in Stockholm. It is a fact. Rico Santin does not have a clue. Another fact.
I have not commented on Rico Santin’s claim that there was one police station that was closer from Anna Ardin’s office, the one on the corner of Birger Jarlsgatan and Rådmansgatan. The reason is because the police station has ceased to exist some years ago. It is relocated to Brahegatan 49.
I don’t know that Rico Santin is going to scream about next time. Frankly, I don’t give a damn.
Next I will deal with Irmeli Krans and why she is not important in the case. I will also show how one lawyer can misunderstand Irmeli Krans importance and screw up the whole investigation. His name is Per E.
Goran,
It’ll be interesting to hear your response to Rico’s re situations of the police stations.
Also, I asked you earlier if you have a link to your assertion that for the Swedish Govt to issue a guarantee against extradition would be against the constitution. I would imagine some kind of contingent guarantee is possible to break the impasse.
I am left with the horrible feeling that certain things inherently Swedish are grossly unsettling:
– Politicians doubling up as police workers
– Politicians doubling up as lay judges
– Politicians doubling up as accuser’s counsel
– Society’s acceptance of bungled investigations
– An ultra-feminist society
– Secret trials
– Significant arms exports (and the inevitable corruption that goes with it).
Another reflection on an aspect of the Swedish society that is perhaps not so well known, is that Sweden does not have a constitutional court.
We have a Committee on the Constitution which is part of the Parliament of Sweden, made up of members of parlimant.
With the responsibilities, (just copied from Wikipedia),
“The Committee on the Constitution (Swedish: Konstitutionsutskottet, KU) is a committee in the Parliament of Sweden. The committee prepares matters concerning the constitution and the Parliament Act and other matters concerning legislation of a constitutional and general administrative nature, as well as matters relating to radio and television. Other matters concern freedom of expression, formation of public opinion, freedom of worship and financial support for the press and the political parties.”
And, note especially,
“The Committee on the Constitution also has the task of scrutinising the work of the government and its ministers and informing the parliament of the result of its scrutiny. The Committee on the Constitution can also decide whether or not a member of parliament or a government minister is to be prosecuted.”
This is not directly related to the issue at hand, but it can maybe contribute to the picture of how the foundations of the Swedish political and judicial framework is constructed, and how intermingled our institutions are.
But maybe also how reliant our system is on the integrity of our politicians, both individually and as a collective, and also how potentially vulnerable it is to political interference and corruption.
PS. but I hope Craig feels free to remove my comments if he feels they are way out of line, and just messes up the thread.
@Villager,
“It’ll be interesting to hear your response to Rico’s re situations of the police stations.”
What is it that you don’t understand from my previous post?
To respond in a simple fashion. I think Rico is geographically disadvantaged.
What is it that you don’t understand from my previous post?
@Villager,
In a comment to “Anna Ardin’s Police Statement” I noticed you wrote:
“I still think that the best analysis of Ardin’s statement is by Goran Rudling, apparently also a defence witness at an extradition hearing.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/
He also highlights in another blog that Assange’s legal team stipulated that he was open to questioning in London provided all information re the charges made by the accusers was relayed to them in advance. If that is true, i believe that to have been a strategic blunder, given how weak the case against him appears to be.”
To get the full picture you also need to read http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/weird-accusation-or-proof-of-lies-more-about-the-assange-case/
It is a fact that Julian Assange’s legal team have made a number of “strategic blunders”. One of them is stipulating conditions on interviews as you correctly note. To make it extra stupid they have tried to hide the double play they are involved in from the media, “We will just tell the media that the prosecutor does not want to interview Julian but we will not tell them why”, hoping nobody will find out.
It is obvious that Jennifer Robinson made a great error in her brief to Canberra MP’s. In paragraph 13 and 18 she reveals the truth for the first time:
“During this period, we offered that Julian be interviewed via telephone or video-link from London on the condition that the Prosecutor provide him further information about the allegations and potential charges. We offered his voluntary cooperation, through his Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig, and suggested the use of the Mutual Legal Assistance scheme between Sweden and the United Kingdom. These offers were rejected.
Despite Mr Hurtig’s requests, Ms Ny had consistently refused to inform Julian regarding the specific charges to be brought against him before he was interviewed: interview by ambush is the preferred Swedish method. We had requested a specific description of the charges and the evidence in English as a condition precedent to Julian returning to Sweden to be interviewed. This, again, was refused.
http://wlcentral.org/node/1418
I have in a number of posts stated that the case against Julian Assange is very weak. I am of the opinion that Anna Ardin is making a false accusation. There is no evidence that suggests that Sofia Wilén is making a false statement. It is important to understand that my views are only important when the case is in Sweden. My views are not important in the extradition case.
I cannot understand why Julian Assange’s lawyers have spent time fighting the EAW instead spending time fighting the allegations in Sweden. Firstly it is very difficult to stop an EAW. Proof of that is that Julian has lost in three courts. Secondly, if the case is weak, as I think it is, there is absolutely no reason why Julian should not show up for an interview.
A rape accusation is always serious. For some reason Julian does not think so. He has tried to down-play it. Stupid. False sex crime accusation are just as serious as a real ones, if not more so. For some reason Julian does not think so. Really stupid.
What is the best way for Julian to proceed? Just fire all of his present lawyers, advisors and yes men and start anew. Look at the facts of the case. Bite the bullet and show up for an interview. I can understand it is difficult for Julian to go to Sweden. There are at least 340 000 reasons not to go. He has waisted 340 000 pounds of his friends/supporters money. Secondly, he has tried to tell the world that he knows what is going on in the case. If he goes to Sweden and nothing happens he will look like the biggest Cry Wolf in the 21st century. But what is the problem really? Many of us know he is the biggest Cry Wolf in the 21st century. Very soon everybody will know anyway.
@Villager, “I am left with the horrible feeling that certain things inherently Swedish are grossly unsettling: – Politicians doubling up as police workers, – Politicians doubling up as lay judges, – Politicians doubling up as accuser’s counsel…”
This is perhaps precisely what you are considering, but just to express it explicit,
What could or would be the potential consequences and ramifications in such a society, when the dominant political discourse and agenda is taken over by, and infused with a new, much more utopian and radical sets of ideas? Attitudes that are much more assertive and aggressive then reflective and pragmatic, and where the ends, to a much higher degree justify the means?
@lastbluebell – I can’t speak for Craig, but I think your comments on background and context are very useful. Please do carry on 🙂
Lastbluebell,
Frankly, i’m not “considering” anything in the context of alternatives etc. I have never been to Sweden and the questions you raise are not my area.
I was merely summarising some perceptions that make one feel uneasy in the context of the Assange case as factors that complicate the process of justice.
@Villager
Why do you write utter nonsense like this? Have you run out of arguments? Do you want me to respond in a similar fashion?
“I am left with the horrible feeling that certain things inherently Swedish are grossly unsettling:
– Politicians doubling up as police workers
– Politicians doubling up as lay judges
– Politicians doubling up as accuser’s counsel
– Society’s acceptance of bungled investigations
– An ultra-feminist society
– Secret trials
– Significant arms exports (and the inevitable corruption that goes with it).”
Goran, here at least, you have yet to address the core issue of whether SW was read back, signed and approved the statement.
According to the transcript she left the station and it was neither read back to her, signed or approved.
As that is the only record in the public domain of the interrogation it is absolutely reasonable, given that all other statements were read back and approved, to ask questions about the legitimacy and accuracy of the statement, especially given that it was revised five days later.
If SW approved, signed the statement at a later date, or she was subject to further questioning that she did approve, please make that clear as your focus on the wording “refused to sign/approve”, rather than “did not sign/approve” is obfuscating the core issue of whether she indeed did.
So the choice for Julian is to stay incarcerated in a one room embassy, for ….years..or
As Goran seem to advocate, go to Sweden, be imprisoned and repeatedly interviewed, no doubt his interview will be taped. Having had such conflicting advice from a learned Ms Ny, he is well advised to refuse her person in all, proceedings, she surely must be on a rapport already for her incompetences in this case.
Then come the secret trial at which a secret extradition to the US will be introduced, if and when the interviewee is available. The substantial case will be discussed, deleted text messages and email can’t be verified, so the connections between Ardin Krans and Borgstrom in this case, will most likely be ruled inadmissible.
The handwritten transcript of Krans, without a taped verifiable copy, could have been written by anybody at any time..according to Gorans logic, so the case should be dismissed for lack of evidence, whatever the case and charges are.
Now we come to the extradition request. William Hague will say that he trusts and has confidence in the Swedish justice system to deal with it, which will be taken as a ‘yes, you can extradite him yourself from Sweden,’ at which state the lawyers would try their last ticks in the books and Julian will be readied for his passage into a life sentence.
hey presto the balance between stupid and daft will be re established, and all the papers who sigh that the man who spoke the truth they dare not reported, this irritating weasel, was secured in a US penitentiary and buggered senseless. The Swedish justice at its best would you not say Goeran?