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
Regarding your list of claims:
So you missed my reply to point 15, then? Ahem.
Clark hasn’t done this at all that I can see, and I’d call him out on it if he did. He was quoting me, correctly.
In all honesty I am saddened that I am regarded as a “Muppet Show Shrink”. Self-examination of ones own ideas and motivations can be difficult, and I should know – I’ve done more of it than most. I tried as hard as I could in my earlier post to show that I was not being personal or malicious towards you, by explaining that the process of subconscious bias affects us all in varying degrees. I underscored this again by making the point explicitly to Clark above.
I warmly commended you on your shifting to a conciliatory tone, and I hope you can go back to that – although I have not been much involved in this thread, I did see parts where there was a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. I’d like to see that again if possible.
Jon,
I am cool and having fun.
I have learned a lot in my life by asking questions. I go to people that are smarter than me and pick there brains. Been very helpful. Recommend it.
“I also assumed” Yeah. I know. You assume stuff instead of finding out what it is really like. Can you see?
“are you just being surreal?” I am being as nice as I can. Trying to be like you guys.
Four more days…
@Clark – ah yes, thanks – we made the same spelling mistake.
@Sunflower 🙂 – the auto-close on comments extends automatically when a new comment is received.
Jon,
” I’ve asked him [Mr Murray that is] for facts backing up his claims. SILENCE, DEAD SILENCE”
Don’t assume stuff. Read carefully.
Clark: “Maybe Villager will find Marianne Ny’s statement to the court on the bailii.org site.”
Clark, thank you for that. While i fully know that it was well-intentioned, i also know that the following statement made by Craig is, like it or not, simply NOT TRUE. And it makes no sense. Krans was not a witness to the interview; she was the interviewer. Therefore, I will not go off on a wild-goose chase.
Craig Murray: “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.”
This remark was included in Craig’s blog of 6 September, i.e. I suspect even before Goran joined the ‘conversation’, so don’t be surprised if he hasn’t ridiculed it. I think this needs to be cleared up one way or another, for the sake of Craig’s own credibility.
Clark, sorry i just started to read Goran’s comment of 18 Sep, 2012 – 1:14 pm, so i retract that part of my 5.20pm comment where i refer to him.
Clark:
“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.”
With all respect, Clark, and others, it is not so difficult to reconcile. Goran is disdainful of people who are
(a) too lazy too research things for themselves before opening their trap, and/or
(b) not smart enough to ask the right questions.
Without sounding judgmental, there is ample evidence of that throughout these relevant threads. Conversely, Goran is not contemptuous of the Courts.
Jon is right, the quality of tone on this thread was markedly improving, but then Clark sorry you jumped a few guns without having done your research or having been up-to-speed, e.g. Goran’s witness statement. You called Goran a liar when he stands as a crucial witness in the defence of Assange. In effect, as declared Assange supporters, shooting yourself (if not Assange) in the foot.
Hundreds of comments on these Assange case threads (some very helpful and interesting, some utterly stupid and naive), but as far as i have seen, after questioning everything, Goran is the only ‘expert’ here.
Make peace, resist personal attacks, allow him to make his analogies, however satirical or hyperbolic it may sound (not unusual in the legal world), but please get down to brass-tack facts if not for JC’s sake for JA’s and for the sake of sanity.
Finally, Goran is also highly critical, to the point of contempt, for most of Assange’s legal eagles. I’m hardly surprised about that. Lawyers are not angels sent as guides in difficult times. They are self-serving, fallible human beings. Its not unusual for them to advise on the basis of what yields them top fees.
Goran has complimented Hurtig for having given Julian the right advice very early on: complete the interrogation promptly. If you read his first, and only, witness statement, it was a cake walk. He could’ve nipped it in the bud. But he was, and is living in fear. That is also normal. When you avoid something, fear magnifies. He may have won some reprieve through Ecuador but i’m still trying to figure out what kind of hand of cards do they really hold. What leverage do they really have? We’ll wait and see.
Jon: “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!”
Not true, Jon….its all there in the thread above. DB’s witness statement + Linda Wassgren’s memo. Its crystal-clear, unless one is thick or deliberately obstinate, neither of which is you.
I admire your moderation. I think Goran would’ve made a brilliant lawyer (he may have missed his true vocation), equally i think you would’ve made a brilliant judge. Now its for you to arbitrate and find an honourable solution to these significant discrepancies. (btw, can we turn the darned spellcheck here to proper English rather than American?).
—
Lastbluebell, reflect on the above–i was surprised by your rather suspect extrapolations on Gorans motives. Come on folks, is it the first time in your life that you’re coming up against a highly competent intellect, but who is also a difficult person? I admit to my bias towards Goran: i’m a huge fan of Bob Dylan as he is.
—
As for Assange, if i were you Julian, based on all one has read and seen, i would invite Goran to every key meeting with your legal team to play the Advocate’s Devil. Good luck!
I must be looking at a different site than Clark, I can’t see anything ‘hate-filled’ on Goran’s blog link. Yes it may be a bit rough around the edges and strong in it’s use of language, but he poses some pertinent questions for JA and his cheerleaders on the publishing of unredacted information.
If you want to see something ‘hate filled’, you must have noticed the reaction those critical of JA get from some of his more partisan supporters.
Goran, belated thanks for that Linda Wassgren translation–very helpful.
Göran, about “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.”
It’s not what it says. That document is only about information given to the claimant, and it is written at a later time than the registration of the complaint itself. If you look at Linda’s choice of words, and compare to the exact words on page 8 (especially line 10) of http://info.publicintelligence.net/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf then I don’t see how you can say that Linda says that Anna was at the police station at 16.31.
My interpretation is that as soon Sofia was handed over to Irmeli, Anna Ardin thought she had nothing more to do at the station and left, perhaps telling Sofia to call her later. When Anna said “now Sofia is with the police” it’s likely that she knew exactly which police inspector she was with, don’t you think? It must have been either Linda or Irmeli.
About the choice of police station: I do agree that if someone from out of town wants to report something to the police in Stockholm, then Klara isn’t a strange choice. Still, there are many police stations to choose from, and I doubt it was a pure coincidence that she ended up with a friend of Ardin interviewing her. It’s just too much of a coincidence. Because they came in together and their stories support each other, Irmeli should have asked someone else to handle it, and she was taken off the case after the weekend.
Now that we have read the publicly available interviews it seems strange that the police was so utterly convinced early on that it was rape. That makes me wonder what the first, informal interviews looked like. How could they be so sure when today it look as if no crime took place? Nor do I see how Anna filling in a sentence could change anything for Sofia. All it meant was that the police had to do a separate interview with Anna and file a complaint on her behalf as well. How could it possibly change anything for Sofia except that Anna might be a witness on Sofia’s behalf, as well a complainant on her own?
Villager,
“Goran, belated thanks for that Linda Wassgren translation–very helpful.”
Oh Dear, I blush, I can’t be rude. I have to talk to the Muppet Show Shrinks. It seems like I have lost my nasty streak.
Sure I help you if you want to know. Anything more?
Villager, there is no spell-check associated with this site. It is on your own browser. If you’re using Firefox, proceed as follows. In, say, the comment box on this page, right click. A context menu will open. Point at Languages, and you will see a list of dictionaries. If “English/British” is in the list, click to tick it. If not, click on the bottom entry, “Add Dictionaries…”. A new tab will open to this page:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/language-tools/
Find the appropriate dictionary and click on “Install Dictionary”. Once the dictionary is installed, you’ll need to right-click in a text box again and ensure its entry is ticked.
CE, you can’t see the hatred? Laughing because Assange is imprisoned? Denigration of Wikileaks work as spilling private photographs rather than exposing abuse?
Wikileaks previously released unredacted information. They were criticised for that, and henceforth collaborated with the corporate media. A corporate media journalist released the password to the unredacted Cablegate files, and the corporate media blamed Wikileaks and Assange.
Orb, there is a large collection of information at the Flashback.org site. You’ll find a couple of links on this page:
http://rixstep.com/1/20111028,00.shtml
Flashback is a Swedish language site, so I cannot assess it myself. Göran Rudling is, I think, contemptuous of Flashback, as he is of nearly all sources of support for Julian Assange.
Hi Clark,
I’m sorry I didn’t see any hate there, maybe a touch of schadenfreude and misplaced humour, but not hate.
And I think you oversimplify the release of the unredacted information being purely down to a journalist releasing a password in which JA played no part. This was a very serious matter, sex crime victims had their identities published and many informants and dissidents may have been tortured or worse. The latter dispute and subsequent release of the unredacted cables was also reported to have been the decision of JA alone in something resembling a fit of pique.
This old Der Spiegel article is pretty balanced, and much like the Swedish case, indicates JA is pretty far from blameless despite he would have us believe.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-wikileaks-a-dispatch-disaster-in-six-acts-a-783778.html
CE, there is only one important piece in the article you link to:
David Leigh of The Guardian published the password. Assange did not further publicise the password “in something resembling a fit of pique”. The password was further publicised to make the unredacted information more widely available than parties with a vested interest in the case. Vested interests would primarily be intelligence agencies and governments. The password was further publicised by Assange or Wikileaks so that the people affected would know that they were in danger, and could take whatever meagre steps possible to protect themselves.
Assange/Wikileaks were left with no other ethical choice but to further publicise that password, but the blame was pinned on Wikileaks/Assange.
Who’s the villian? The corporate media, as usual.
@ Villager 5.20pm
Can I put in a plea that you don’t consider Craig’s assertion about what Ny did or did not submit to the UK court a wild goose chase, on the basis that Krans couldn’t be considered a witness to Wilen’s interview as she was herself the interviewer, and DO check this out for us?:
“Craig Murray: “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.”
Marianne Ny has flatout lied in at least three other ways in the course of this extradition case, both to the press and to the UK courts directly. She goes through long bouts of “no comment” when events take an awkward turn for her, to very, very carefully worded statements. If you don’t find this information in any High Court submissions (or statements made by Clare Montgomery on her behalf during hearings) or that judgment, you could try the District Court. She faxed a statement across on the first day of that hearing – in which she basically misrepresented both Swedish law and the stage which investigation proceedings had reached – but refused to fly over to be cross-examined on it, thereby preventing the legal basis on which extradition was being requested from being properly examined by the court. In my view, that faxed statement swung the District Court judgment and Judge Riddle’s decision to over-ride the objections made on the basis of proportionality.
The idea that Wikileaks scorns redaction and thus recklessly endangers innocent lives is, to use the language of Assange’s enemies, a “Zombie” lie that just won’t die. Yes, the Iraq material was released unredacted. Wikileaks learned their lesson and tried to do better, but were thwarted by the establishment at every turn:
http://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5/
What could have been the Pentagon’s motives in refusing to cooperate?
# Maybe they considered it more important to smear Wikileaks and Assange than to protect third parties.
# Maybe if they’d cooperated as requested by Wikileaks, they would have weakened the legal case they were preparing against Assange/Wikileaks.
Villager, as I said above, there isn’t any spell-check software associated with this site, but there is an entry in the source of every page that is set to “en-US”, which your browser could be using automatically. My advice above, or something similar on other browsers, could sort it out, but I’ll e-mail Jon and see if he can change that entry.
Villager 7.26pm
Can I suggest that the Wassgren memo is not good evidence to use in defence of Goran’s arguments? You have to remember that it is dated 22 August, ie. AFTER the international scandal of having a too-hasty arrest warrant (requested by herself, albeit in consultation with her colleagues) rescinded VERY firmly by a senior prosecutor less than 24 hours after issue with comments to the effect of “I don’t disbelieve the complainant but I can see no evidence that a crime has been committed in the statement”. So Wassgren is writing some time after the huge hoohah – remember the incredulity of the interviewer to Karin Rosinder stuttered responses in that Al-Jazerra interview? – so I think this memo may be an exercise in post-facto justification. Also, bear in mind it is heavily redacted.
There is also what Orb posted:
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 http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09/UC-ARKIV-120903171025.pdf ?
It’s a document containing notes about information given to the claimant (målsägande). The code 0201-K246336-10 in the third line shows that it is Ardin’s case.
Which Goran answered with:
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.
I may be being VERY dense here but doesn’t this contradict Goran’s assertion that Ardin definitely WASN’T sitting in on Wilen’s interview because she had already left the police station. Wilen’s interview starts at 16.21 and is hastily terminated at 18.40. So, she could have been sitting in for 10 minutes, or up to an hour and 10 minutes.
Clark,
On one hand you claim it to be a lie that Wikileaks has endangered lives, then on the other, freely admit that the Iraq cables were released unredacted and ‘lessons were learned’. In the learning of these lessons is there not the chance that some lives may have been endangered?
With regards to the MSM and the Pentagon, I don’t think any sensible person is prescribing to the notion that they are whiter-than-white or without ulterior motive in this matter, but I do find the notion that JA is some form of innocent victim just as fanciful. There is surely a hint of truth in Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s charges of slack security at wikileaks. Did wikileaks also deny the Guardian’s claim that they were led to believe this was a temporary file and the server would be taken offline after a period of hours? Again, much like the Swedish Case, I don’t think things are as black-and-white as JA would like us to believe.
Clark @ 10.06pm
You may be interested that further information about the error of the unredacted names in the Afghan War Diaries has now come out (the Iraq War Logs were later and a different, techie approach was tried, resulting in over-redaction if anything).
It’s buried in the documents that Wikileaks released after the failed Ofcom complaint:
http://wikileaks.org/The-public-relations-state-full.html
About halfway down the page: “agreement that it was the job of the newspaper journalists to identify document types and patterns that likely needed to be redacted. The programme deliberately excludes this fact and instead allows Guardian interviewees to blame WikiLeaks for the failure to redact these names and the subsequent agrressive stance of the Pentagon.” There’s more detail in the transcript of Assange’s interview for the programme that’s attached at the foot of the page.
and
signed witness statement from a Der Spiegel journalist who says Assange never said “they’re informants, they deserve to die”
wlstorage.net/file/cms/Folder%204/1.%20Signed%20statement%20by%20John%20Goetz.pdf
and book extract also from Der Spiegel indicating Assange was working on redacting the Afghan reports anyway:
wlstorage.net/file/cms/Folder%204/3.%20Translation%20of%20pgs%20165-167%20Staatsfeind-wikileaks.pdf
So I think that old article by Der Spiegel from around the time the unredacted cables spilled out which CE links to above must be the one that David Leigh strong-armed all the other media partners into putting out jointly (apparently told them all they were all in the firing line for extradition, owtte)
Arbed,
Craig claims specifically that, ‘ Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s police interview.’
This seems to be impossible and should be corrected. The evidence in fact leads us to believe she was not present at all.
Arbed 18 Sep, 2012 – 10:04 pm
Still trying to get Anna Ardin into that interview with Sofia. Never give up on dream!
But let’s say for arguments sake she was in for 10 minutes. Or an hour if you feel better.
What does that make Craig Murray that claims Anna Ardin was in for the full interview plus the time Irmeli Krans typed up the interview and that the two women waited for two hours not talking to any other police officer? Four letter word is ok. It is not love.
Can I suggest that the Wassgren memo is not good evidence to use in defence of Goran’s arguments? Of course Arbed, it is much better with NO EVIDENCE.
You mention that Marianne Ny has “flatout lied in at least three other ways in the course of this extradition case I’m not going to contradict you now. That is in 21 months roughly.
I am doing a piece on ONE brief by Jennifer Robinson, Brief to Canberra MPs re Assange. From early March 2011. In her piece I counted to 57 varieties of errors, misrepresented facts, Craig Murray’s, Naomi Wolf’s etc. Just one article. Jen’s para 3:
Now compare Jennifer Robinson’s statement with Ms Ny’s para 12-14 in doc below and just tell me your opinion.
http://samtycke.nu/doc/new/M-Ny-feb11.pdf
Is Julian Assange charged?
On numerous occasions we have heard Julian Assange say that he is not charged with any crime. But is it really true? Is Carl Bildt lying? Is Julian Assange lying? Or do they just don’t know? Or is it just lost in translation?
Tomorrow at 08:00 London time you may find out a new twist in the never ending story?
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/julian-assange-is-charged-there-is-no-doubt-about-it
My view is evident, isn’t?
Chapeau Goran,
Despite, or maybe because of, your idiosyncrasies and your distaste for some of JA’s tactics, you have managed to gather a great deal of information about this case and make it more accessible for a wider audience. Even if people wish to dispute your analysis, for that you should be applauded.
CE
Touché
I am most interested in what you will think about the coming article. Now I am up against a lot more people. Legal scholars. Swedish Prosecutor’s office, JA’s lawyers. Almost everybody. In 8 hours I will know if I am a certified legal-midget or if there are a lot more midgets in this wonderful world.
Thanks a lot dear. People like you sure makes it easier to take on almost anybody
Here’s an interview of Göran Rudling on YouTube. Göran, I think some of your opinions may have changed since then, but I’d need to watch it again to make sure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1WSyhlOhSc
Göran, I still think you wasted my time and were dishonest with me, but I do respect your investigative work and I wish you well.
Arbed, thanks. Yes, it was the job of the corporate media staff to apply redactions to the documents. Leigh should never have published that password. Assange would have told him that, because you can never be sure that a file hasn’t been copied, in fact, you have to assume that any given file will proliferate. Leigh was given access to the file. Leigh used Microsoft Windows, and there is no facility in Windows for truly deleting anything. Assange knew all this; it’s a basic Hacker understanding; “Information wants to be free”. Assange didn’t even write down the complete password. Leigh was responsible, not Assange.
Assange has been smeared time and time again. Always remember that the corporate media serve the rich, the powerful and the establishment; all of them enemies of Wikileaks.
It Says Here by Billy Bragg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWXA8O28fso
I’m off to bed now. Goodnight.