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.
Göran Rudling, I believe you to be deceptive, a liar and a time-waster.
I will waste no more time trawling through details. Again and again you claimed that inspection of those two paragraphs would prove that Ardin and Wilen were interviewed separately. But after wasting hours of my time, you said this:
So the evidence was not in those two paragraphs. You knew that and you repeatedly lied.
So I turn my attention to the bigger picture…
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-2/#comment-359740
Myself:
Göran Rudling:
But Göran Rudling lies. He is contemptuous of Assange and enjoys seeing him effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy, as indicated by what he wrote at his own web site here:
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/07/julian-assange-journalist-or-spy-youre-the-judge/
I’ve not read the primary evidence as much as various folks here have, but on the question as to whether AA and SW were present in the same interview, perhaps no definitive public written evidence exists? That would be why, as each person here reads the various items of evidence, they interpret various events according to their pre-existing biases!
Still, it is an important question, since if it happened then it would open up the possibility of coaching or persuasion. If it did happen, then I can see why the Swedish police would hide it, as it would presumably be against due process, and would contribute to the collapse of the case. Personally I think the prosecution has been handled badly in a way that suggests political pressure, but for the avoidance of doubt, allegations of failing to follow due process in themselves don’t always prove a wider political conspiracy.
Clark/Göran, if you have time, perhaps you need to find more sources of primary evidence. At the moment it seems like a lack of clear information is hampering your recreation of events, and that is what is causing frustration on both sides.
Göran Rudling, that article on your site samtycke.nu is an atrocious piece of emotive deception. Wikileaks is not engaged in exposing individuals private sexual encounters, yet that is how you depicted Assange, personally.
Wikileaks has exposed governmental and corporate corruption. It has exposed that human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay were not mistakes or breaches of orders, as claimed by the US authorities, but were matters of policy.
Had your story been about two child abusers exposed by some third party, people inflicting their will upon powerless victims, it would have had some merit. But that would have depicted the whistle-blower as a person persecuted for their morality, whereas you wished to depict Assange as a slime-ball.
Jon, good to see you on the thread. Maybe Villager will find Marianne Ny’s statement to the court on the bailii.org site. But as far as I’m concerned, I’m finished with Göran Rudling. I’m quite prepared to block him and delete his comments on sight, should Craig so request. He has wasted hours of my time in futile argument over details that matter little. And his hostility towards Assange is plainly evident.
Orb,
Göran, how do you interpret line Målsägande var ej på plats då anmälan skrevs in (Claimant was not present when the complaint was registered) on page 15 in this set of documents
Correct translation.
You have to read the document in great detail. Now, look at the time when Linda Wassgren makes that note. You will see the time 17:46.
The complaint was started 16:31 and finally entered into the system 17:46 when Linda Wassgren tried to ask the claimant some questions and noted the she wasn’t at the station anymore.
So Anna Ardin left between 16:31 and 17:46. She had to give Linda Wassgren some information in order to make a complaint. So my estimate is that Anna Ardin left somewhere between 16:45 and 17:46.
Is it clear now?
Je Man D,
Sensitive today are we? And what about that spiked cap you are wearing?
“Charges are already laid if you didn’t know.”
Really? That is news to me. Perhaps someone could post a link that confirms that charges have been laid and that Assange is now wanted for prosecution. Though it does leave us to ponder why the Swedes still want to question Assange if they have sufficient evidence for a prosecution. After all, Assange has a right to silence and would be well advised to save his testimony for the trial.
I know it is news to you. I am working on an article that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that charges are already laid. There is an error in translation that makes Julian Assange, and thousands of other, believe he is not charged. I will publish it tomorrow. You can comment tomorrow.
When you read the article you will note that not even the Swedish prosecutions office can make proper translations. As most legal experts. And they are not even German.
Man Je D,
Missed this:
After all, Assange has a right to silence and would be well advised to save his testimony for the trial.
I have in a couple comments mentioned the fact that Julian Assange has from the first minute of the case done everything wrong. And he continues and continues in a way I just can figure.
Your comment explains it to me. Mr Assange has a set of advisors can’t tell up from down.
If you are falsely accused. Do you think it is the best thing to do is to remain silent?
Sorry, that is not even good German defence
@Clark, et al, “Göran Rudling, I believe you to be deceptive, a liar and a time-waster.”
I think it is prudent to step back off for a second, and contemplate Göran’s interest in all this. Just reflect on the amount of time an energy he spends on this issue? How obstinately he defends his opinion and assumptions, and how abusive and patronizing he is in the face of the opinions of others?
I think that he has placed a huge personal bet in all this. He uncovered data that AA had tried to erase from her blog, and he was a witness for Assange in the first extradition hearing. He also runs a blog related to sexual policies in Sweden, and writes opinion pieces in various news channels and are invited to talk at panels and seminars.
He is basically building his growing career and reputation in Sweden on this, which practically means that he is now committed and can not change his opinion, whatever evidence or deficiencies in internal logic coherence that are laid clear and presented to him.
I believe that he is not an impartial observer, but has a very strong personal agenda in this.
And by keeping everyone focused on the minutiae of the details, he also moves the perspective away from potentially serious and alarming wider considerations.
I believe that this is a case that has less in common with the cases handled at 221B Baker Street, but are more aptly handled in the perspective of “the circus”.
“So I turn my attention to the bigger picture…”
Very wise indeed I believe…
Lastbluebell, thanks. Your comment supplies a rational explanation for Göran Rudling’s behaviour, which would otherwise seem self-contradictory.
Göran Rudling, I see that you have returned to attempting to goad contributors who disagree with you. You’ve proven that you can do good investigative work, but you choose to try to start petty arguments instead. This is consistent with LastBluebell’s analysis of you.
Jemand, you probably don’t need this warning, but I suggest you that avoid rising to Göran Rudling’s bait.
Warning about the following comment:
Göran Rudling enjoys seeing Julian Assange victimised, he is not an impartial researcher. The following link is to Göran Rudling’s own blog:
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/07/julian-assange-journalist-or-spy-youre-the-judge/
Craig Murray is currently researching full-time on an unrelated project, and does not intend to post again this week:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/leave-of-absence/
I edited the submission time of this comment so it appears before that of Göran Rudling.
A summary of most of false claims in two articles by Craig Murray
This is a list of 15 false claims. Or to be exact. 14 false claims and one insinuation.
In my first comment on 7 Sep, 2012 – 12:28 pm I wrote:
@Clark
Do I get a delete button too? Please?
I am very thankful for the above article which should be read by everyone concerned to know the truth of what happened. I think what you have written explains the time line of events very well. Maybe in future, Julian will have to consider staying with known friends. Neither women seem to care about the future of WikiLeaks because they only care about themselves. But, globally we’re all benefiting. I feel a cloud of oppression got lifted off my head, when listening to all the interviews with Julian Assange explaining WikiLeaks work. It’s a shame that neither of the girls could think of the wider outcome, of their actions. If Anna was trying to widen her audience or increase her fame, then Julian became a first class mug for staying with her…she was poor company.
Jemand, sorry; only Craig can appoint moderation privileges.
@Göran – I know things have alternated here between hostile and friendly, and like Clark I have appreciated your change towards a conciliatory tone. Most of us here are convinced of Craig’s good faith and honesty, and have no reason to support something we find to be untrue. Most of us here have little views of Assange as a person, but are supportive of WikiLeaks’ work exposing the machinations of US foreign policy.
I think Lastbluebell makes some interesting points about where (if any) your subconscious biases may come from. I am less sure of the assertion that your motivation is career building – rather, I think your committed work on changing sexual assault legislation, and the terrible experiences inside your family – has encouraged you to regard alleged, unconvicted rapists as real rapists. From this I wonder if it is possible that you are dismissive of Wikileaks because it is, in your view, lead by a sexual assaulter.
Various folks here cannot of course state with any certainty what your biases are, but maybe I can encourage you to examine them yourself, privately? I know with some certainty what my biases are, and how they came from my harsh religious upbringing – they are difficult to escape. In one way or another, we all have them.
@Göran – I won’t go through your points above in detail, but this stands out:
You say this is “a silly insinuation that an accused like Julian did not know who his accusers are”, which shows you have misunderstood what was meant by it. I think it is quite plain that Craig was referring to details about the accusers in the public domain, with the implication that a conspiracy to punish Assange for his work would be less likely to succeed if the accuser’s connections to the CIA were well known.
Göran, is it possible Anna left early that Friday evening to delete the emails you discovered she had deleted before coming back to make a statement?
I was also under the impression that Anna Ardin was present when Sofia Wilen was interviewed. I am happy to retract that view if there is no evidence that she was. Perhaps the misunderstanding has come about because both women went to the police station together (about 2 p.m. when Irmeli Krans’ shift began) and Anna was not interviewed in the 2.5 hours or so she was at the police station. What then was she doing there all that time? There was obviously some discussion about the case before the Sofia Wilen statement was taken. Who was she talking with? What was she doing? Was she just sat in a waiting-room waiting for her friend to be interviewed by her other friend?
It seems irregular to me, but perhaps not in Sweden. What is really concerning me now is how UK judges are hand-picked to deliver distasteful verdicts and then retired with a fat wad, including Phillips in the Assange extradition appeal. I’ve blogged on this very subject.
Jon, you wrote:
I did not know of this. Can you supply a source, please?
@Göran, phew – just read “Assange, Journalist or spy?” on your blog.
In a lengthy piece, intended to show that Asssage cannot be classified as a legitimate journalist, you’ve managed to shoehorn in Whoopi Goldberg, Swedish confectionery, Crocodile Dundee, a picture of someone who may be Lady Gaga, a fictional character called “Plot Assman”, people locking themselves in the loo, proctology and something about lawyers eating bananas.
Sad to say, I cringed all the way through reading it – as an analogy it just falls apart, with each proposition not remotely leading logically to the next, and demonstrating not much more than a bouncy, cartoonish imagination. It is very odd, since it suggests to me that the author could not possibly be capable of rational, even-handed analysis, but some of your detailed contributions here have been very good.
I really don’t know what to make of it.
Göran Rudling, who or what is “samtyke”? Is it a contraction of “Sam Tyke”? It has confused me, and others, that your blog’s URL has a name different from your own.
Also, if you’d be willing to provide a link to the “the terrible experiences inside your family” that Jon mentions above, please do so.
Clark, sure. I didn’t want to be too specific because it is very personal in nature, and I didn’t want Göran to think I am undermining him with sensitive information about his family member. But this is in the public domain, and could well speak to motivation. See point 1 on the first page here:
http://www.fsilaw.com/cms/documents/WitnessStatementofGoranRudling.pdf
(Link retrieved from justice4assange.com/February-Hearing.html just now)
Jon, Göran Rudling’s Assange, Journalist or spy? is an obvious smear article directed against Julian Assange.
It opens with the false dichotomy that Assange is either a journalist, or he is a spy. It then smears the work of Wikileaks as if Wikileaks routinely publishes private sexual encounters between individuals, rather than governmental and corporate corruption and human rights abuses. It is full of misrepresentations, distortions, and amplifications of anti-Assange allegations that have already appeared widely in the corporate media, such as the smear that Wikileaks is opposed to redactions to protect innocents. It implies that Ecuador is a “banana republic”.
It’s a dishonest hate-piece, pure and simple.
Jon, thanks for posting the link to Göran Rudling’s statement. For other readers’ benefit, it is highly relevant to the Assange case and makes only a passing mention of sexual abuse in Göran Rudling’s family.
Clark, yes; certainly the article is biased against Assange on very little argument and evidence.
My instinctive response to the piece was not that it was dishonest, although that may be true in itself. Rather, it was that the mode of illustration throughout was oddly child-like: overly simplistic, heartfelt, giggly and cartoonish. I am quite mystified by the dichotomy between someone who wants to be taken seriously as a well-informed commenter on the Assange affair, and the author of such a piece, being the same person.
I am becoming of the view that Göran’s underlying motivations are so powerful – whatever they are – that he could be making all the effort he does without intending to misrepresent. The human mind is quite a peculiar and frustrating device.
Göran Rudling, I am mystified. It is as if you, posting here and on samtyke.nu, and the person submitting that statement, are two different people.
Thank you for having the integrity to make such a statement despite your obvious hatred for Assange and the work of Wikileaks.
Clark,
Göran Rudling, who or what is “samtyke”? Is it a contraction of “Sam Tyke”? It has confused me, and others, that your blog’s URL has a name different from your own.
I have tried to hint earlier that you may not be the best reader. The blog is called samtycke.nu
I find your investigative techniques amusing. Have your tried to use google translate on samtycke nu? You seem more inclined to take the Sam Tyke road. Guess it more interesting. I know you want to take out Linda Wassgren’s memo. But why do wanna take the c out? Why not the K? Or the S? Am Ty Ke? Who is that? Is that something from “the terrible experiences inside your family”? And what has Am Ty Ke to do with jelly raspberries? Or am I an obsessive user of KY Jelly. The raspberries is just another a decoy like Irmeli Krans?
I just cannot believe what you guys are up to.
Samtycke means consent in Swedish if you cannot find google translating service. Nu is now in Swedish. Put the two words together. Get it?
Are you less confused now? Or do you me to hand the keyboard to Goliath the Strongman and Professor Little Atom?
To all of you thin men out in la-la-land
I write a list of 14 false claims that Mr Murray have made in order to try to depict what has happened in the Assange case as some kind of bizarre conspiracy and freak show. I’ve asked him for facts backing up his claims. SILENCE, DEAD SILENCE
And what do you guys do? You bring in some Muppet Show Shrinks trying to figure out “…the terrible experiences inside your [Göran Rudling’s] family…” without knowing shit. And not even quoting right. Why do you make false things up in front of my eyes? Think I am blind?
And you claim that you are for openness and transparency? And you try to tell me that you really wanna know what happened in the case? If you are serious, ask Mr Murray to back up his claims for a start.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/04/the-assange-case-thin-men-in-la-la-land-part-1/
I have criticized Mr Murray for making stuff up. I don’t know, don’t really care to be honest, who the peanut brain is that cannot even quote properly. From my witness statement.
@Göran, calm down. I also assumed that “samtyke” was a name – since you blog in English, it would follow that you might also have an English domain name. Most people here don’t speak Swedish, of course.
I didn’t understand your point about “taking the C out … jelly raspberries … KY jelly” at all, sorry. Nor “Goliath the Strongman and Professor Little Atom” – are some subtleties getting lost in translation, or are you just being surreal?
Göran Rudling, thanks for explaining the meaning of the name of your blog.
Jon, Göran’s comment about “taking the C out” refers to my misspelling; “tyke” instead of “tyCke”. “Jelly raspberries” is a self-quote from Göran’s hate-piece. I cannot explain the other example (KY jelly) that you cite.
Göran Rudling, I need to resort to psychology to gain insight into the extreme differences between your statement to the police, and {what you post here and on your blog}. As I said, they seem like the work of two different people.