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.
@Göran Rudling
Have you not noticed your aggressive and very long-winded writings run contrary to most comments here? Really, I marvel at the patience of VivaEcuador when talking to you. Do try to learn the beauty of a point succinctly made.
You are here calling Craig Murray a liar. As a somewhat regular reader of Mr Murray I have found him to be consistently honest and certain in what he says. And his manners put you and I to shame.
I suspect you are one of the below:
1) An idiot who has emotional problems that causes excessive belligerence in the face of reasonable questions that contradict what the establishment spoon feeds you.
2) A minor PR employee paid to troll blogs repeating lies for a lousy wage.
3) Both of the above.
Goran,
That wasn’t directed at you personally. Did i hurt your sense of patriotism or nationalistic sentiments? If i did, let me declare that i am not a nationalist of any kind. I’m a human being first and last and a global villager, that is all. Dividing the world up into nations is a root cause of insecurity and conflict around the world, when the ‘system’ is actually there under the pretence of creating security. Btw, i have a couple of Swedish friends–they are all fun, warm and generous people.
I respect your focus on the Assange case in Sweden. You also think that Assange is stupid for having painted himself into the corner of a very restricted asylum. But, we are where we are. Maybe he thought he saw a snake and ran away from it. Maybe it was just a rope (excuse the pun) and not a snake at all. Maybe there is a rope and a snake in the Super-nation awaiting him in the US of A. I know you are not concerned with/about that, but he, Assange, wants to cover all bases (excuse another). Still, Ecuador has reminded us that America is bigger than just the US. Julian is trying to save his skin which is a responsibility he has to himself. I see nothing wrong with his taking every advantage that he can in the ensuing negotiations to ensure that he returns to Sweden under the best circumstances that he can. In his mind, he also needs to pay attention to the bigger scheme of ‘things’. Shit happens.
Meanwhile Sweden is not doing itself any favours from resisting as a first step to get up to London and complete their interviews, I agree without pre-conditions and/or consider some sort of contingent guarantee/assurance against extradition. Sweden has lied about its illegality to go to London. Sweden paid scant regard to the process of Mutual Legal Assistance. Sweden used one-sided information for its Prosecutor to declare that she was ready to bring charges. Sweden appointed the devious bulldog Borgstrom introducing a sledgehammer in a case that you yourself declare does not fly. I am not trying to malign Sweden. Every society has its flaws. And every problem brings with it the opportunity of true understanding. Maybe Sweden needs a PR consultant, just like you suggested Assange needed one back then. But to string this thing out is stupid. If the complainants are genuine, then its doubly stupid. If they are not genuine, personally they wouldn’t give a toss, but still reflects poorly on Sweden. There are levers in any negotiation, we will see how it turns out.
@Villager, “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.”
That is very much exactly the point, maybe I was a bit to brief or to unclear so let me try and elaborate a bit. (I apologise if it sounds like a lecture, not intended as such, more a consequence of my own thought process and inadequacy as a writer I fear).
I think that in this case, the context in which these events has played out is of absolutly critical.
Depending upon which “lens” you view the different sequence of events, different aspects will appear relevant, important or decisive.
And what different lenses you have to your disposal is of course dependent upon your personal assumptions, preconceived ideas, personal experiences, professional expertise and knowledge and so on.
To exemplify, take the issue of the choice of police station.
You can on the lowest level argue from a strictly mathematical/logical lens, the position of the apartment, location of individuals, and what would be the most economical rational choice or decision, and base your conclusions on distance, time, available transportation, public transport lines and schedules, and value an opinion on this.
You can then add another lens, that contains other considerations. That humans many times is far from rational, and our knowledge often are less the perfect, and that we are often driven by very irrational emotions, on a conscious and subconscious level. We can drive 15km extra to visit “that” shop, instead of that other on just around the corner, just because it feels better, and so on ad infinitum.
Then you can add even more lenses, containing for example elements of a more abstract context, for example present social norms and values, and aspects of cultural dimensions that can drastically influence the decision of an individual.
You can also apply lenses containing hypothesis of conscious actions and models of behaviour, in essence, second guess and match the logic of the actions against a conscious reason, purpose and intent, and estimate probabilities on this.
Which lens, and what aspect is most relevant in that lens will of course differ enormously, from case to case, event to event.
The issue here is that I believe, as I think Craig in many parts also does, that to make any sense out of all this, you need to apply those higher level lenses, and that simply view what has happened in strict economical/physical aspects is totally inadequate, and that arguing about it only in those terms is irrelevant and pointless at best, and very destructive at the worst.
I am not sure I share all of Craigs apparent opinions in all aspects, but I sincerely do believe you will never make any sense out of this without sometimes lifting the analysis to those other levels.
So my intention was very much an encouragement to start “considering” alternative new lenses, and in particular about the context of Sweden, for example by visualising what could happen in a society and political system that contains elements such as you stated.
What could happen to the objectivity and impartiality of the courts, the prosecutor, the will or restraint of individual politicians to interfere. What would the political risks/cost be? How would you advance and get promoted in such en environment and so on…
@Jon, many thanks on the feedback. Then I will continue sharing my thoughts, until further notice 🙂
There has been much, sometimes heated, discussion about the fairness and political independence of the Swedish judicial system. But the core of the matter is whether or not the US government wants Assange in Sweden because they believe they can comparatively easily either extradite or extraordinarily render him from Sweden into their custody.
Some random thoughts on the matter.
1. If this is only a case of one or possibly two Swedish women claiming to be victims of a sexual crime, why can the Swedish police not interview Assange in the Equadorean embassy in London? GR has put up some arguments, but I find them unconvincing.
2. The US gov.t claims to have no interest in whether Assange is in the UK or Sweden. If that is true, why did they pressure little william Hague to brazenly flout to 1961 Vienna Convention by sending British police into the embassy to arrest Assange?
3. Why was Hague willing to buckle under that pressure when several FO lawyers warned him of the consequences for the UK and our embassies abroad?
As an aside, we are fortunate that the embassy invasion (and it would have been technically just that) was called off at the very last minute. I believe it was only stopped because there were too many observers gathering. This was supposed to be a dark act carried out in the dark of night when there were no witnesses.
@Phil, 9 Sep, 2012 – 1:36 pm
Well said, Phil. You have the stuff of a real troll-slayer.
Goran,
Thanks a lot, some fascinating information and arguments in there, you’re obviously more clued up than most of the posters on here(myself included). Like you I’m not convinced that JA has committed, or will be convicted of, a crime, but you’ve really laid bare his terrible decision making and crisis management. I await with interest to see if Mr Murray replies to your main points about this post.
Take the troll accusations as a badge of honour, it generally means the accusers are unable to refute your arguments and have resorted to puerile labels to attempt to undermine you.
Villager,
“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.”
The defence has made many strategic blunders. They have misrepresented facts and they have lied about circumstances. That is ok with me. The result is Julian is at an embassy crying Wolf. So is Naomi and a lot of other people. Cry on.
“I see nothing wrong with his taking every advantage that he can in the ensuing negotiations to ensure that he returns to Sweden under the best circumstances that he can.”
He can sit as long as he likes at the embassy. I don’t care. Sweden doesn’t care either. I don’t know how the people that put up the bail money and sureties feel. It is not my problem.
“Sweden paid scant regard to the process of Mutual Legal Assistance.”
From your writings I can see you don’t know what Mutual Legal Assistance is. It is not the only you don’t understand
This case if interesting. It does not reflect poorly on Sweden. It just shows that there are more ignorant people in the world than one can imagine. The more information that comes out the more ignorant Assange, his lawyers and his supporters look.
Jemand/Phil
To be fair and honest, Goran is not a troll.
You may not like his terse tone, he may be too cut-and-dry for some, but he is not a troll.
He has done solid research on the Assange case and was real-time witness to AA’s destruction of evidence by way of her tweets, resulting in his standing as witness on behalf of JA at the February court hearing in London.
As for long-winded writings take into account the time and effort that an author puts into it. We are all as free to dismiss it as to read it. Pay your money and take your choice.
CE, LOL the way you just awarded yourself a badge of honour!
Goran, you’re mixing up not just my posts but also the threads. Further, the top comment in your last post, you have already cut-n-paste earlier this pm. Are you getting confused or to create confusion? Also you go on and on ranting about Naomi Wolf and not one commenter here including myself cares about it or is interested, but you haven’t the sensitivity (read intelligence) to recognise it.
As for my ignorance of Mutual Legal Assistance i admit, but i know what Mutual Respect is, something that is amply missing in your tone.
As for:
” It does not reflect poorly on Sweden.”
I have given you the evidence–rebut it. Whether you do or you don’t, i care less. One is giving you (friendly) feedback from the outside looking in, which by definition is more objective. I will remind you that you warned this would happen when Bulldog Borgstrom was appointed as counsel.
” It just shows that there are more ignorant people in the world than one can imagine. ”
Rest assured that statistically Sweden has its fair share, but that is off-topic. What we are saying here, loudly and clearly, the aggregate incompetence demonstrated by the Swedish prosecutors is astounding beyond belief. Begging belief, many have looked beyond to see if there is more than meets the eye. It is on the fair assumption that Sweden is no more ignorant or incompetent than others. You can say what you will but people, including Assange, will go on speculating until as you say ” One day we will know why the case hasn’t been dropped a long time ago. And hopefully heads will roll.”
@CC
“Goran, here at least, you have yet to address the core issue of whether SW was read back, signed and approved the statement.”
Sofia Wilén was re-interviewed on 2 September 2010. I cannot guarantee that she read the first interview then and signed it at that date. But I would be very surprised if she didn’t.
A police interview is not that important in a Swedish trial. What is important is what is stated in the courtroom. The only people that make a lot of noise of a police document that wasn’t signed at the time the interview was conducted are the people equipped with tin-foil hats.
My original comment was Mr Murray’s comment that Sofia REFUSED to sign. In my world there is a an enormous difference between “did not sign” and “refused to sign”. That is why I am very critical of Mr Murray.
In my first contact with Mark Stephens I was asked if I would if I would give a witness statement. I said yes. So I started to write one. When I asked for instructions how it should look I was told to wait. I was extremely surprised, and irritated, when I was sent “my witness statement” written by Mark or someone at his office. I got even more upset when I was asked to sign it. I REFUSED. It was not until a month after my first contact with Mark that I started to write my own witness statement, in my own words.
One fact that nobody seems to know and care about is that Björn Hurtig’s witness statement wasn’t signed.
http://www.fsilaw.com/cms/documents/WitnessStatementofBjornHurtig.pdf
I think Björn signed it in court, but I am not sure. Judge Riddle did not think Björn told the truth and that he tried to mislead the court. He did mislead two witnesses, Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Sven-Erik Alhem.
Littlebluebell, delighted to turn to the more reflective. Thank you for elaborating and sharing your insights. If we could all live with the sense of awareness you convey, problem solved! But we don’t and hence conflict has become a way of life.
Our conditioning determines what lens we are wearing. So we never really observe and live without the mischief thought and the past coming in the way. Why wear any lenses at all? Why not step back and look at it all holistically? Quoting Einstein:
“”A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest… a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
The fact is we (yes you and I) have created society. We are society. We are not products of society or that society is something distinct from us. I have no idea why human beings live the way we live, in constant conflict. What i see is that we have a messy consciousness that cuts across all borders. It is not as if there is a Swedish consciousness and an Ecuadorian consciousness or a Chinese consciousness. If we can see this mess holistically (including with our higher senses), true intelligence kicks in, what Einstein is referring to as compassion. This recognition can only take place within each one of us. Then we can go create a better society. Any other change is at the margin and therefore no change at all.
The internet is changing the world–i will presume you are in Sweden and i am in India–we are sharing a conversation. But on the whole, technology is becoming more and more destructive. We are preparing for War, again!
I don’t know Assange, i have a vague image of him. I have never visited wikileaks website but intuitively i feel its a step in the right direction. But of course its not going to solve the problem that we are still 7 billion idiots dancing on a nuclear pinhead.
Sorry if i come across as sermonizing. It is Sunday evening after all.
http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-video/the-real-revolution–1.php
And by Aldous Huxley, a little essay
http://www.krishnamurti-denmark.dk/48022819
Villager
“As for my ignorance of Mutual Legal Assistance i admit, but i know what Mutual Respect is, something that is amply missing in your tone.”
I respect you as a human being. I don’t respect most of your so called opinions because you don’t base your opinions on facts. You go on to make claims, just like Mr Murray, Glen Greenwald, Jennifer Robinson, Michael Ratner, Mark Stephens, Geoffrey Robertson, Julian Assange …. that do not have any support in verifiable facts. And you ask of me to respect you for it and keep a civil tone. That is a lot to ask for.
Mark Stephens and Jennifer Robinson are very charming people and I do like them as human beings. Wonderful people to have a drink with. But some of the things they have said are just pathetic lies.
You seem to believe that Mutual Legal Assistance is something that a prosecutor must use in some cases and that the prosecutor in this case has erred. MLA is one method in an investigation, like fingerprints. You can use it if you think it serves a purpose. To use MLA in this case seems silly. Keep in mind that Julian Assange has set up conditions for interviews effectively blocks using MLA. You have commented and said it seems like a strategic blunder by the defence.
I will put it to you again so you will understand. If the prosecutor has erred by not using MLA the defence can ask for an “överprövning av åklagarbeslut”, appeal a prosecutor decision. The fact that the defence has not done so should tell you something about their real beliefs. Capice
I mentioned that there were many left out facts in the 4 Corners documentary. I posted a link with a long list of some of them.
http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/4corners/
I have not seen your comment. Are you simply doing a Mr Murray?
@VivaEcuador
“We are all very interested in your critique of the 4 Corners documentary. I truly hope it lives up to its billing.”
You’ve had it for a while. Any comments?
The critique is here:
http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/4corners/
@Villager
Hands up. I obviously haven’t read Goran’s comments in any detail. Maybe I am wide of the mark. I also acknowledge that I was possibly judging him as a result of my annoyance at other trolls here. And I can argue robustly myself so Goran’s tone does not personally offend me.
However, I was bothered that Goran calls Craig Murray a liar. That is not tone nor cultural misunderstanding. That is an accusation that I have not seen proven. Perhaps the proof is buried in all that verbosity. Please point me to it if this is the case because I would be genuinely interested in learning that Craig is misrepresenting. I hold much store in judging sources by their consistent accuracy. If Goran is correct then Craig looses much credibility.
For example, wouldn’t two simple Google Maps URLs settle any dispute about which Police station is closest?
And Villager, as you say at 9 Sep, 2012 – 5:26 pm:”Goran…Are you getting confused or to create confusion?”
Maybe that’s the point. Even if Goran is full of it then Craig still looses credibility with passers by. Are you not suspicious that our friend Goran dedicates so much time and energy into his campaign. I presume you have looked at his web site. A mixture of half truths, conjecture and offended national pride.
Propaganda is the tool by which the corrupt establishment maintains it’s grip in democracies. As you say, create confusion. Fill those spaces of dissent with doubts.
Phil
“Keep in mind that Julian Assange has set up conditions for interviews effectively blocks using MLA.”
What nonsense. Julian was imprisoned in the UK for 10 days, then under virtual house arrest for another 500 days or so. Ever since the EAW was issued, he has been in no position to set any conditions at all, and the prosecutor has had ample opportunity to interrogate him on her own terms. She has chosen not to, while deliberately misleading the public about her reasons for that decision.
If mr Assange was deliberately blocking any attempts at using MLA, I am sure we would have been told by Ny and the Prosecution Authority, who after all have been under some pressure to go to London to finish the investigation. Instead, they have repeatedly made false claims (i.e. LIED to use your own language) about the legal avenues open to them. Why?
29 pages of recent e-mails between the CPS and the Swedish Prosecution Authority.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105251315/KR-CPS
Goran,
Si capito.
” I don’t respect most of your so called opinions because you don’t base your opinions on facts. You go on to make claims, just like Mr Murray, Glen Greenwald, Jennifer Robinson, Michael Ratner, Mark Stephens, Geoffrey Robertson, Julian Assange …. that do not have any support in verifiable facts. And you ask of me to respect you for it and keep a civil tone. That is a lot to ask for.”
You go on and on and on to make comparisons. Each of your comparisons are false. You are playing fast-and-loose with the Truth.
On respect, I note that you have a big red heart as a symbol on your website. Its very revealing that you equate the heart with sex. You know little about compassion, the ultimate truth and the ultimate intelligence. You would do well to read my post to Littlebluebell above, earlier awaiting moderation, so you may have missed it. But it comes with a warning: you might become more polite, and then you may not like yourself. At any rate you may find yourself out of your depth.
” Keep in mind that Julian Assange has set up conditions for interviews effectively blocks using MLA. You have commented and said it seems like a strategic blunder by the defence.”
Yes i maintain that is a strategic blunder. But i also believe it is a strategic blunder for Ny to not have made a counter-offer: “We will interview you in London, no conditions attached.”
Its presumably too advanced now to do a “överprövning av åklagarbeslut”. Assanges team miscalculated the outcome of the English court proceedings. I am well aware that very often lawyers’ advise can mislead. We live in a commercial world, flawed.
“I mentioned that there were many left out facts in the 4 Corners documentary. I posted a link with a long list of some of them.
….
I have not seen your comment. Are you simply doing a Mr Murray?”
I am flattered that you should seek out my comment. I noted that you posted the link well after you said you would come up with it if….etc. You then came out with it when you thought it was of some tactical advantage to you, rather than being upfront. I won’t play your game.
I note Mr Murray declined your offer to play games quite early in the thread and wisely chose to not dignify your rude remarks. Thank you for confessing that its too much to ask of you to be polite. It makes me wonder how you have managed to survive with your grade of social skills, especially in a prickly society like Sweden. Pun intended, and strictly directed towards your fellow folk who have made a mockery of this bizarre case, and those who are not supporting a thorough investigation of the investigators. Assange could not be interviewed on a timely basis because the policeman/woman was sick!!
Villager,
Fourth time around. Here is the linkg
http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/4corners/
Phil, thanks. Late now, will revert tomorrow. Pleasant evening!
@Villager, I saw your answer, I have no time to read it in earnest at the moment, but will come back to it later, your last comment made me connect back to this short note by Galileo taken from his “Dialogues”, in regard to your dialogue and last comment with GR 🙂
“One would be forced to admit it as true if Aristotle’s text were not apposed in saying plainly that the merves originate in the heart”
This was in accordance to an account of a demonstration of an anatomical dissection during which a philosopher, in order not to have his faith in Aristotle undermined, refuses to believe what the surgeon in the showing room is showing him, namely, that the nerves originate in the brain and not the heart.
Villager
Can you please explain the paragraph below because I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
“Yes i maintain that is a strategic blunder. But i also believe it is a strategic blunder for Ny to not have made a counter-offer: “We will interview you in London, no conditions attached.” “
I have shown that Julian has fled, ducked, avoided, actively stayed away from (take your pick) interviews on three separate occasions. I have not seen you or anybody else challenge that.
I have also shown to you that Julian has had conditions for taking part in interviews. A fact that you did not know of before I pointed it out to you. I respect you for acknowledging it. You maintain that is a strategic blunder by the defence. I do agree with you. A gigantic one.
You go on, “Assanges team miscalculated the outcome of the English court proceedings”. We know all know that. Some of us are not surprised. Who is to blame for the miscalculation? And who can correct it? I read your comment as you think it is the prosecutions duty to correct for stupid miscalculations the defence has made. Am I reading you correctly? Just for your information. When I first met the defence I pointed out to them that they were never going to the case on extradition. Did they pay attention?
You state further: “Its presumably too advanced now to do a “överprövning av åklagarbeslut”.”. For your information it is not. The reason it is not done is because everybody, maybe except for you and some of your pals, understand that there is nothing wrong in the prosecutors behaviour. Not one thing wrong. A prosecutor is not forced to use Mutual Legal Assistence. A prosecutor is not forced to use police dogs either. Get it. End of story. Your argument has been wrong long before I pointed it out to you. When are you going to say, “Oh gee, I didn’t know that. Now I know better.” And I would say RESPECT. And I could help you understand the case better instead of telling you over and over again. Is that too much to ask for? Is it something wrong with my tone again? Please make a note of the fact that I have never complained on your tone, just your lack of facts.
Sofia Wilen was at the Södersjukhus hospital in Södermalm and we take for granted in a traumatic state. Would it not be natural in the circumstances for her to visit the nearest major police station “Södermalms Polis” just 1200 meters away to make a report or seek advice? Rudling agrees that this was the nearest option.
Anna Ardins apartment is also a brisk 7-8 minute walk to the “Södermals Polis”. It is a general norm in Sweden to report at the closet station to one´s residence. A taxi ride from Sveavgen 68 where Ardin apparently was at that time to Södersjukus Hospital or to the Södermalms Police Station would cost would cost approx 150 SEK – (12 Pounds). Goran Rudling is a taxi cabbie and would know this as a fact. In serious circumstances one would normally take a cab given the paltry sum involved.
Ardin went out of her way to report at Klara Station, waited 2 hours for her friend and possibly lesbian lover Irmeli Krans to go on shift. There would be no such wait at the Södermalms Polis station.
I travel on public transport, use taxis and own a car. I know central Stockholm very well indeed. Rudling can twist this as much as he wants, the bottom line is that he is “LYING” The visit to Klara was done on purpose because of Irmeli Krans being based there and not for any other purpose.
Rudling himself believes that Ardin Ardin is lying and yet he denies a crucial and influential linkage between Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.
My previous posts were set to give international readers some background material on the devious nature of the Swedish state. I am not doing this out of spite, this is just the unfortunate reality. The Swedish state has been badly exposed in this drama and Assange has paid a high price for trusting Swedish institutions and politicians, they after all invited him to Sweden and not the other way round. A substantial number of Swedes are embarassed and disgusted by the “dirty tricks” played by the Swedish state in this affair. This is however nothing unusual as double standards and hypocrisy are a trademark of this country see my previous postings. Julian Assange made the right decision and with Equadors brave assistance their will be a diplomatic solution to this affair.
The bottow line is that tens of millions pf people in the world DO NOT TRUST the Swedish state. It is time Goran Rudling and the representatives of the Swedish governbment get the message. Its as simple as that.
@Phil the frog,
I have a tendency to calls things for what they are. A shovel is a shovel. It is not something between a tea spoon and an excavator. Is it a cultural thing?
Calling Craig Murray a liar has started lots of comments. You seem to be one person that is interested in finding out what it is exactly Craig Murray is doing.
“However, I was bothered that Goran calls Craig Murray a liar. That is not tone nor cultural misunderstanding. That is an accusation that I have not seen proven.”
English is a wonderful language. So many words. So many types of lies. Must say it is difficult to say what type of lie is Mr Murray’s type. Is it Bad faith, Barefaced lie, Bold-faced lie, Big Lie, Bluff, Bullshit, Butler lie, Contextual lie, Economy with the truth, Emergency lie, Exaggeration, Fabrication, Fib, Half-truth, Haystack answer, Jocose lie, Lie-to-children, Lying by omission, Lying in trade, Lying through your teeth, Minimisation, Misleading and dissembling, Noble lie, Perjury, Polite lie, Puffery, View from Nowhere or White lie. What is your opinion Phil?
It is difficult for me with a tendency to call things for what they are to pick what kind of lie Mr Murray’s is using. But I will make a try. I think we can rule out Fib. A fib is a lie told with no malicious intent and little consequence. Unlike a White lie, fibs rarely include those lies or omissions that are meant to do good. Do you agree Phil?
The best description for Mr Murray’s type of lies is FABRICATION.
“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.”
It is proven that Mr Murray has submitted the statement that Sofia REFUSED to sign her interview. Right Phil? And it is proven that he did not know for certain if that it was true or not. So it is a fabrication.
“A fabrication is a lie“ “A fabrication is a lie”
It is a lie Phil. What about your words “If Goran is correct then Craig looses much credibility.”
Mr Murray is a fabricator,
hence a lier
Re – HANS STRANDBERG
A leading Swedish commercial lawyer Hans Strandberg in an article in the daily Svenska Dagbladet calls for the prosecutor to interview Julian Assange at the Equador Embassy ASAP.
Mr. Strandberg has himself interviewed suspects in serious fraud cases at the Swedish Embassy in London. A few years ago you a serious fraud case “TRUSTOR CASE” involving embezzlement of million of pounds. One of the persons involved was Lord Moynihan. Proceedings were conducted in London and NO BIG DEAL. This is the logical rational solution to the issue.
The Assange case as all can see is political and with a clear agenda to get Assange into the clutches of the USA. Nobody in Sweden accounted for the CIA rendition flights. The blame was put on the deceased foreign minister Anna Lindh. What a nation of spineless chickens…. The same would have happened to Assange had not Equador intervened. In typical Swedish style a loop – hole solution to extradition would be found with nobody having to account for it.
Ask the Norwegians during the second World War….
http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/det-finns-klokare-vagar-an-bara-maktsprak_7447138.svd
Wow, I can see it has been quite a Sunday! Anyway I am now pleased to reproduce Mr. Rudling’s killer “evidence” for branding Craig Murray a liar which, everyone will recall, is how his contribution to this thread began.
But first, the extract from the 4 corners documentary that elicited the Wikiwatch criticism:
4 Corners
Three days later on August 20th, Wilen, accompanied by Ardin went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm to seek advice about whether Assange could be forced to take an STD test. Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen. Sometime during Wilen’s questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. Wilen became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.
Now for Mr. Rudling’s “evidence” that Sofia Wilen did not refuse to sign the document:
Wikiwatch:
27:05 Unsigned statement?
Fowler claims that one woman refused to sign her statement. The statement was indeed not signed immediately – but this could be because they did not wish to keep the woman waiting around while the paperwork was completed. There is nothing in the police record (or anywhere else that we are aware) to suggest that she refused to sign… it’s another of those persistent rumours that one hears but cannot find an origin for. Again, we assume that Mr Fowler has accounted for the dangers in taking witness statements at face value, so we presume that he has something official on this. We would very much like to see it.
It is worth noting that in Sweden a signature is not required until trial. Statements can remain unsigned for a while after they are first taken.
Hmm…..am I the only one who can hear a barrel being scraped? Let’s consider the possibility that the police didn’t want to keep Ms. Wilen “waiting around”. Who in their right mind takes the trouble to give a statement concerning an alleged rape and then shoots off without reviewing and signing the transcript? I have given witness statements at police stations. You make a statement, you wait to see it and check it carefully while the events you are recounting are fresh in your mind.
Mr. Rudling – please tell us that your allegation against Mr. Murray, myself and others is based on something more substantial than this flimsy speculation.
Furthermore, as Jemand noted, most of us have to rely on what we hear and read in the media, “alternative” and “mainstream” because we weren’t actually there at the time (as neither was Mr. Rudling). In that context, it is beyond idiotic to call someone a liar for relying on the reporting contained in the 4 Corners investigation.
The Wikiwatch point about no extradition for espionage is interesting but as I said earlier I remain convinced the US will eventually frame the charges in terms of conspiracy to commit murder (ie. deliberately exposing US agents to deadly retaliation and therefore aiding and abetting terrorism). My view, as I have said before, is reinforced by Craig Murray’s information from the FCO confirming the US desire to see Assange face trial in Sweden. The US govt. lawyers won’t be so stupid to restrict the charges to pure espionage.
As for the other objections, some of them appear valid although others are downright silly, eg. complaints about the use of “menacing music”. The bad news for Mr. Rudling, however, is that none of them constitute anything remotely close to a knock-out blow in his ongoing yet futile attempt at character assassination.
Remember how Wikiwatch assured us that Interpol Red Notices are not for political figures or terrorists?
http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News-media-releases/2011/PR080
Earlier this month INTERPOL issued Red Notices for Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, his son Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and former director of military intelligence Abdullah Al-Senussi after the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, requested the world police body to issue internationally-wanted persons notices against the Libyan nationals for alleged crimes against humanity, including murder and persecution.
I am so sorry, Mr. Rudland.
Re – Sofia Wilen – Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans
Rudling, Sofia Wilen lives in Enköping which is approx. 80 km from Stockholm. Why does she not visit the local hospital / clinic for advice on STD and medical assistance. Why not report the incident to the local police in Enköping??? It is so blatant that under Ardins / Krans tutelage the appointment was set up.
Mr. Rudling I have an academic degree and just as Swedes are experts on the rest of the world so are we experts on Sweden after residing and having a granstand view for the past 3 decades.
Viva I am so sorry, but it seems you are mistaken.
Viva’s straw man – “Remember how Wikiwatch assured us that Interpol Red Notices are not for political figures or terrorists”
What wikiwatch actually said – A Red Notice, far from being reserved for “Terrorists and Dictators” as Jen Robinson states, is merely a notice sent by Interpol that an individual is wanted for arrest. Some countries treat them as automatic arrest warrants: others do not.
So they didn’t actually say Red notices were not for political figures or terrorists. More deception.
Wikiwatch was right, 4 corners was wrong(on many things it seems).
@CE:
I stand corrected. Bravo. For once you have added value to the discussion.