I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.
The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.
There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:
Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?
On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:
“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”
Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.
If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?
Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.
Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .
11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.
13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.
14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”
15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.
16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.
20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.
21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.
Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.
No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.
It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:
Either
Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.
Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.
Or
Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.
She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.
At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”
At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.
The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.
Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.
Conclusion
I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.
Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.
Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.
By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?
Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.
This is all very interesting but you are not judge and jury. The case needs to go to court.
excellent analysis Craig Murray
Andy
I see you did not read as far as the final three paras. And there is no jury. In fact, it is so obvious from your comment you did not actually read the article – and your comment appeared within 120 seconds of my posting it – that I am genuinely concerned at your motivation in getting in incredibly quickly to post a derogatory comment under something you did not read.
I don’t believe anybody can really read through that article and write and post a comment under 120 seconds.
Cross posting this from Medialens.
Is this true about the Assange case, and sex and politics in Sweden
Posted by walter on September 11, 2012, 10:50 am
From Christine Assange:
“Interestingly, there is a domestic political agenda involved in Sweden. When the rape allegations were made on August the 20th, in one month’s time there was to be local and general elections in Sweden. And, “coincidentally”, woman AA, the police officer that interrogated woman SW, and both the lawyers in the law firm that picked up the case against Julian after it was dropped by the chief prosecutor, were all running for the same party, in the same elections, on the same platform of widening the definition of rape within consensual sex”.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50089
If this is true it seems odd. Imagine someone being prosecuted in the UK by four Tory party members (candidates?) – specifically for something that falls within the new boundaries of the changing definition of a crime they were politicizing just before an election.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1347357023.html
@Andy, I’m certainly of the view that any serious legal allegations, if they lead to prosecution, should be tested in court. Of course it is not clear that the allegations relating to AA will get to court, since Assange has to travel to Sweden first (and everyone knows why he will not do that at present, even if they don’t agree with the reasons).
As I keep saying, there are good public interest reasons why Swedish prosecutors should have a formal interview with Assange over a telephone or video link. It has been suggested that they could not come to see him, since that starts a timeframe in which they have to prosecute or desist, and that the travelling to and fro could make that difficult. I seem to remember that period being two weeks. If this is so, it still does not explain why it could not be done remotely.
I’ve heard it said that Assange should not be able to demand concessions or special treatment. In fact, I agree totally – the reasons why I think this case should be treated on its facts is the precedent it sets for everyone in the UK. Extradition to various places is still rife with injustice – the Natwest Three, still languishing in the US, come to mind.
Oh yes – I should qualify my first paragraph with concerns, as Craig says above, about there being no jury. I hear that this is something that has been the subject of criticism in Sweden for some time, rather than just in relation to this case.
No surprise here.
Full details of WikiLeaks & Assange Ofcom complaint over documentary “WikiLeaks: Secrets & Lies” / Monday 10th September, 15:30
http://www.wikileaks.org/The-public-relations-state-full.html?nocache
For reference – the OFCOM Board. I see Craig’s old friend Dame Lynne Brindley from the British Library is on it.
Chairman
Ed Richards
Chief Executive
Lord Blackwell
Board member
Dame Lynne Brindley DBE
Board member
Tim Gardam
Board member
Dame Patricia Hodgson DBE
Deputy Chairman
Stuart McIntosh
Board member
Mike McTighe
Board member
Jill Ainscough
Board Member
Click on their names. An incestuous circle. Banks, global accountants, Blair, Brown. Those connections are all there. They nearly all have seats in other organisations.
I somehow deleted Colette Bowe’s name. She is the Chairman of Ofcom.
Her Register of Interests as a case in point.
Colette Bowe (Chairman, Appointed 11 March 2009)
Board Member, Morgan Stanley International (2010 – 2011)
Chairman of Electra Private Equity plc (Board member from 2007, appointed Chairman 25.5.2010).
Board Member, London and Continental Railways Ltd, (2008 – 2011)
Board Member, Camden Peoples’ Theatre (2002 – 2010)
Trustee, the Wincott Foundation (2003 – May 2011)
Board Member, UK Statistics Authority (2010 – )
Member of the Supervisory Board, Axa Deutschland GmBH (2008 – )
Governor of Bancrofts School (2009 – )
Trustee, Tablet Trust (2010 – )
Trustee of the Nuffield Foundation (2011 – )
Chairman, Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (24 July 2012 – )
Board Member and Chairman of the Audit Committee, Axa Investment Managers (July 2012 – )
read through that article and write and post a comment under 120 seconds.
Darn fast reader, I should say!!!!!!!!!
Craig,
At last you have understood:
….. we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six
Now all you need to do is recount that Karimov never tortured his people, he never boiled them alive, and you mistook his “spoiling” of his people, because you are not all that fluent in Uzbek!
Presto you may even get invited to be a director of one of Gulnara’s many companies, and get your post back in FCO and even made into a TV celebrity judging Britain has big boobs competition!
I despair at the extent of the illiteracy of a bunch of zombiefied and uniformed mob who help to assail my human rights and reduce the quality of my life to that of a hermit crab.
Keep up the good work guy.
Agreed 100% Mr. Murray.
But just to play devils advocate on your question “Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?”, never underestimate the motives and perversions of evil:
I think you’ve pretty well nailed it there. Like you say the evidence of any serious intentional wrongdoing on Assange’s part is so flimsy it is a wonder so much has been made of it. Or not, since the motive is ulterior, to get Assange to the US via Sweden. I’ve blogged on why they do not want to extradite him directly from the UK.
http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/why-uk-has-not-extradited-julian.html
Yes fit-ups never happen. Did anybody watch Hillsborough – the search for the truth on Channel 5 last night. What a cover up!
Apropos “incestuous circles”, there’s a mealy-mouthed admission to an FoI application that some Ofcom personnel have attended Common Purpose training courses. (Incidentally, I’d be cautious about dismissing concerns about this secretive organisation merely as symptoms of a “right-wing conspiracy theory”, although I’d also like to know a lot more about some of CP’s foes and THEIR motivations.)
The idealist in me would like to see Assange stand trial in Sweden, have the evidence properly litigated, and see the court reach the correct verdict.
.
But in what universe does a court – especially in a highly politicised case – turn round to the prosecution presenting the flimsiest of evidence and tell them to piss off? Never happens, of course.
.
The Lockerbie trial was when I had my eyes opened.
@Mary Chairman of Ofcom and Leaks
How ironic?
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/profile-personal-and-most-decidedly-private-colette-bowe-the-westland-affair-behind-her-the-head-of-the-personal-investment-authority-plays-it-strictly-by-the-book-william-kay-met-her-1367620.html)
Another good article on the subject. The main point still being that Anna Ardins accusations are completely and totally belied by her subsequent actions.
AA would certainly have a lot to answer under a proper cross-examination. I doubt it would get to court since it would be too embarassing and would weaken the case regarding SW. I could see her being called as a hostile witness for the defence – if such were allowed.
I’m now hoping some kind of diplomatic solution can be cooked up to allow a trial in Sweden, since the case is weak.
I do fear Assange could still be convicted on very weak evidence and the trial and even the verdict could end up being kept secret.
It’s ultimately Assange who’d have to run the risks of jail time (or worse) so it it’s up to him how he handles it. Many fools are quick to caste aspersions but few if any of us are willing to go to jail (even if guitly) if we can possibly avoid it.
Where allegations of rape or child molestation occur there is a percentage amongst society that react emotionally to the words alone, their personal disgust of the connotations of the words alone has them hating the recipient of the allegation to such an extent that guilt by association with those connotations takes place. I have personal experience of the level of illogical insanity that can take place in such occasions as follows……..
.
I was a Trades Union representative at a company where a young lady who worked there had the grave misfortune of having a father that was convicted of child molestation. The man on the face of things was a respectable middle class family man, wife, daughter, good job and nice suburban family home, both his family and social acquaintances were completely oblivious to his dark and deviant double life. He was arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison for his hidden deviant life, his name being published in the local papers along with his crimes. Now at this point any right thinking human being cannot fail to see that his family, who were absolutely unaware of what he was doing are every bit victims in this case, their lives devastated, the revelation that husband and father a secret depraved sexual monster I cannot begin to understand how you deal with, it must tear your reality wide open and life would never be the same again. But here is the bit I for the life of me do not even begin to understand……… This family that had just been torn apart by the revelations of what this man had secretly been doing was, whilst he was now locked away in prison, subjected to hate mail, dog shit posted through the letterbox and various other forms of harassment, I became involved in it through a series of events that occurred in the workplace, his daughter who worked there was increasingly subjected to harassment, was having a great deal of problems from this and her manager had completely failed to address it in any way at all. One woman who worked in the same department as her had actually said to her, “I don`t know how your boyfriend can touch you knowing what your fucking father is”, the illogical emotional response and insane hatred that develops in a sector of society in these events I found hard to understand, but I witnessed it and it was horrendous. As if this young lady had not already suffered enough in her life at the emergence of the knowledge of what her father had secretly been doing, this pious, self righteous and deviant sector of society reacting to those connotations created from words such as rape and child molestation enacted gross cruelty upon the mans family, completely indifferent to their suffering in this they set about getting their pound of flesh for his crimes by destroying them? In the end things had gone too far with that element at the company and I forced a frustration of the employment contract on the company through their neglect in protecting her within the workplace, secured her a substantial compensatory payment and luckily managed to arrange alternative employment through the help of the Union Branch office for her, but I felt no victory or satisfaction in doing so because the emotional scars that remain on her can never be compensated for or made right.
.
This allegation that has been made against Assange is far removed from the severity of the realities of that case I was involved in, but from my experience of the above case I know full well there is a sector of society that will, even if he is proved to be innocent, have already deemed him guilty through association of the allegation because of the dark connotations the allegation creates in their own mind, there really are people that exist that are that crass, illogical and emotionally unbalanced that they judge in such terms and because of that you only need in this world to sling mud and you are absolutely sure that some of it will indeed stick. Such crimes as rape and child molestation are heinous, but because of the reaction of society to them false allegations of such crimes are equally heinous too.
.
I have read through some of the statements made by the ladies making the allegations and have to agree with Craig that there are sequences of events that are rather hard to fathom and comprehend in this, they are certainly questionable to a high degree and Assanges alleged guilt in this is vague and not clearly defined at all. Hand on heart I could with no level of certainty proclaim him guilty or innocent with any level of certainty, but the series of events does leave me with grave doubts that he is a rapist.
.
The one comment I will make because I am absolutely certain of it, when I look at this case although in the words Tweeted by Anna this group of people were “The world’s coolest smartest people”, what I see is a group of people who may be academically smart, in some areas have excelled, but in their social life are little better than moronic celebrities and celebrity groupies, Assange trotting around like a bed hopping rock star and a myriad of groupies quite blatantly inviting the star into their beds and it saddens me, it saddens me because because the world we live in is a world of shit, homelessness, poverty, fiscal attacks on the disabled and needy, unemployment, global neocon warmongering for power and corporate profit and mass suffering that ensues from all of it and at the top, either on the side of creating injustice for profit or purportedly standing against it, what we see is that in one way or another they are all the same, egotistical power junkies, self seeking deviants lost in a world of celebrity illusion and insanity, all wrapped up in ego and bullshit and it does not bode well for the poor, oppressed and unfortunate at all.
.
The time is long overdue that we bring the whole damned lot crashing down, but I fear that even if that day comes they would be replaced by little more than more of the same who would take their place. What we need to do is not remove those that are at the top, what we need to do is take a good hard look at the power/celebrity ass kissing and ego obsessed society we live in, see just what a degenerate, counter productive and illusionary world it is and once and for all call a halt to it and develop something real which would be to the benefit of all and not just the ego tripping few.
Craig,
Your post sums up what seems to be a “fit up”. I remain astonished that the mainstream media do not seem to be examining this case at all.
On the 19th Aug 2012, The Guardian published a piece on Julian Assange.I don’t really want to repeat myself but the Guardian were “moderating” and then disappearing anything which suggested that Ardin’s story needed examining.
I find it deeply worrying that this is happening – it really smacks of press control.
I do start to wonder if the tinfoil hat chaps have a point.
Splendid comment Dale.
Dale, thanks for your comment – I agree entirely. And how odd that people would behave in that way to the man’s family, it beggars belief.
As for “bringing it crashing down”, yes – if we could inject some democratic accountability into the media, enshrined in law, it would change societal perceptions over the long term, and people would generally become less consumerist, and more altruist – both of which I consider healthy developments.
The way to test these matters is in court.
It’s truly horrifying to see Craig suggesting otherwise.
Why worry about HIV when mundane gonorrhoea is more likely?
~~~~~The way to test these matters is in court.
It’s truly horrifying to see Craig suggesting otherwise.~~~~~
Find me one that’s not bent and I’ll agree with you.
“As for “bringing it crashing down”, yes – if we could inject some democratic accountability into the media, enshrined in law, it would change societal perceptions over the long term, and people would generally become less consumerist, and more altruist – both of which I consider healthy developments.”
The road to hell is paved with Guardian Readers.
Dale at 3:04pm on 11th Sept 2012, that’s a deeply evocative narrative at every level, thank you so much for posting it.
JimmyGiro – I dread to ask – you think reducing consumerism and increasing altruism in people, through a media that is more reflective of social justice, are bad things to aim for?
“Why worry about HIV when mundane gonorrhoea is more likely?”
The problem in a world of political correctness, with its moral-relativism and equivocations, is that Guardian Readers don’t know ‘arse from quim’.
Jon dreaded:
“JimmyGiro – I dread to ask – you think reducing consumerism and increasing altruism in people, through a media that is more reflective of social justice, are bad things to aim for?”
You can aim for what you like dear, but your previous comment suggested making it law for the rest of us.
Read up on Hayek’s “Road to serfdom”, then ponder on why it’s stupid to push string.
it is 3.59pm. Where is Andy?
JimmyGiro – in other words, you won’t say. Much like your answers to my many questions to you over these years, you struggle to provide straight answers. I should have known, but hope springs eternal 🙂