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.
CE, the allegations were in the Swedish Expressen before Assange had even been informed of them himself. That’s a leak.
It doesn’t matter whether you drill outwards or inwards on a bucket. You still end up with a leak.
Kempe, correction.
Clark,
I would hardly call the alleged offences(including sex without consent) against SW ‘minor sexual transgressions’?
Nor does quoting Naomi Wolf lend your argument any credibility, she has been proven to be wrong on nearly all maters she has commented on in this case. In fact to see her sacrifice her lifelong work advocating feminism at the altar of JA has been one of the sadder aspects of this sorry story.
Clark,
I appreciate I may be coming across somewhat as a medialens style shrill nitpicker, but I believe 100% accurate reporting in this case is vital if we are trying to understand it correctly. If this means slight corrections in Craig’s work, I’m sure he’ll agree the Truth is more important than anyone’s reputation in this matter. Especially when we have seen so many mistaken ‘facts’ on this case grow legs and be repeated often enough that people believe them to be true. Again I ponder if JA has turned a blind ear to some his supporters repeating things he knows to be false?
I’m heading out to watch the football now, so I’m not ignoring you if you reply.
Please feel free to rubbish my thoughts as usual and I’ll catch up later. 🙂
Can I ask one very naive, and possibly stupid question, of Goran? Can you please explain why, Goran, you (I think, voluntarily? Correct me if that’s wrong) appeared for the defence (I assume the defence was Assange’s party?) at the extradition hearing in London, if you believe so firmly that the most appropriate thing to happen would be for Assange to go to Sweden and face the charges? Thank you for your time.
CE, I’ve nothing against establishing the facts, but it seems pointless as regards any potential trial against Assange, which was prejudiced as soon as Expressen published the allegations. But maybe Sweden doesn’t have those laws about disclosure and prejudice.
The Wilen/Krans statement doesn’t indicate sex without consent. There is no report of Wilen retracting consent before they went to sleep, nor of her objecting to sex when she was more awake. It does indicate condom-less sex against expressed wishes, but from the statement that seemed to be a fairly minor matter between the couple, too.
So far as I know, Wilen never wanted Assange charged at all. So I do call this allegation minor. It seems that the first prosecutor agreed with this viewpoint.
CE, I don’t expect Naomi Wolf to be expert in the Swedish legal situation.
In Naomi Wolf’s position, I think I’d be really angry. If I’d been advocating on behalf of victims of serious sexual assault, sometimes over the course of years and/or involving coercion, intimidation and/or violence, and I’d seen foot-dragging by the authorities, refusal to take complainants seriously, refusal to commit resources to investigations. And then along comes this case, and suddenly the whole huge resources of two states are thrown behind it, including hundreds of police to surround and intimidate an embassy, yes, I think I’d be furious at the hypocrisy. I’d be asking what was so special about this particular case that it deserves so much more effort from the authorities than they usually expend.
CE, there’s no need for you to “sacrifice [Wolf’s] lifelong work advocating feminism”; you could instead consider that she’s making a very valid point for valid reasons.
From CE’s quote attributed to Göran Rudling:
But who would have known “all the details of the case” apart from someone within the police? Surely even Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen should only have known what they themselves had said. Would that have included “all the details of the case”?
Göran and Orb, is there an English translation of that original article? Have you looked through it, assessing who could have been the source based upon what information it contains?
“Assange’s reputation is now beyond salvage in any case.”
True, but mainly as a result of his own actions. He’s dumped on everyone that has tried to help him including the people who stood bail for him. He and the courts in Sweden and Britain have now been painted into a corner, nobody is going to risk losing face by backing down and Assange is trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy and going nowhere. I don’t know how this is going to end and frankly it’s getting to the point where I don’t care.
Clark, there is an English translation of Expressens article on 21 August 2010 at http://rixstep.com/1/20100821,00.shtml. I didn’t follow the case from the start, so there are lots of things I don’t know much about. The original article can be found at
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/wikileaks-grundare-anhallen-for-valdtakt/
There’s a strange piece of desinformation/misunderstanding (Göran would of cause call it “a lie”) in Expressens article:
It was set straigth the next day when one of the women (probably Anna Ardin) called the paper saying they were not afraid of him and that he wasn’t violent. I’ll look for a translation of that article as well.
So perhaps the person leaking to Expressen wasn’t one of the two women, or even a close friend, but someone who had a hand in the arrest warrant. Not necessarily the prosecutor herself, but someone among those who consulted with it each other about it, like Linda and her colleagues. The decision to issue the arrest warrant wasn’t made by Linda Wassberg, but it was based solely on her presentation of the case to colleagues and prosecutor, that’s the impression I get. Even if Linda didn’t leak the story, the impression that the women were afraid must have come from her, unless it was a groundless embellishment made by someone else along the line. Who thought the women were afraid and why? Did they give that impression during the initial interviews?
Another piece of misinformation is
which makes me think that it might have been someone present at the crayfish party on Saturday night, or someone who knew about it. It was in fact the previous night, between Friday and Saturday, that the alleged broken condom incident is said to have taken place.
They didn’t have any friends in common, or did they? How many sources did Expressen have?
Clarification: In my previous comment (which may not be visible yet because it’s awaiting moderation, because it contains links I suppose) I put the words “The police believe” in bold. That’s not the “lie” I was talking of before the quote. I highlighted it to make it clear that the “information” that follows seems to have the police as its source.
To all my friends. That means all of you.
I am very busy with another issue that is more important than answering questions. Excuse me.
But since I found a very good document that in detail explains the Swedish Criminal Procedure I think you would like to have it. It is written by Professor Christoffer Wong, a lecturer in criminal law at Lund University in southern Sweden and expert on the European arrest warrant. Him being an expert knows a hell more than I do. If you find anything I have said that is not correct I would very much like if you can correct. I don’t like to be in the wrong.
I will also source some videos for you that explains the case much better that Mr Murray and Arbed does.
Reading thru it proves to me that the legal team of Assange have missed something. I will not say how much because it leads to arguments. Read and be better informed.
http://samtycke.nu/doc/new/crim-pro-swe.pdf
Best wishes,
Göran
Clark@806 – CE, I don’t expect Naomi Wolf to be expert in the Swedish legal situation.
In Naomi Wolf’s position, I think I’d be really angry. If I’d been advocating on behalf of victims of serious sexual assault, sometimes over the course of years and/or involving coercion, intimidation and/or violence, and I’d seen foot-dragging by the authorities, refusal to take complainants seriously, refusal to commit resources to investigations. And then along comes this case, and suddenly the whole huge resources of two states are thrown behind it, including hundreds of police to surround and intimidate an embassy, yes, I think I’d be furious at the hypocrisy. I’d be asking what was so special about this particular case that it deserves so much more effort from the authorities than they usually expend.
CE, there’s no need for you to “sacrifice [Wolf’s] lifelong work advocating feminism”; you could instead consider that she’s making a very valid point for valid reasons.
———————————————————————————–
Hi Clark,
If only Naomi Wolf had put forward such a considered a position as you credit her with.
You don’t need to be a Swedish Legal expert to see that some of her arguments have been utterly invalid and sometimes offensive. Including these infamous nuggets of vitriol;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html
Naomi published this letter in the Huffington Post without bothering to research the case properly. She based her opinion on an entirely discredited article in the Daily Mail and a retraction was printed since Wolf got the facts wrong. In this letter, she writes numerous rape myths. The actual title is Julian Assange: Captured by the World’s Dating Police. This is only one instance where Wolf’s words make a complete mockery of the We Believe You campaign
When you describe a rape charge being investigated by the “dating police,” then you are undoubtedly operating with skewed morals.
And her much cited and fanciful – http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
Thoroughly proved to be nonsense by Goran – http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/checking-naomi-wolfs-8-big-problems-in-the-assange-case-and-coming-up-empty/
The only thing Naomi Wolf has been on the Assange Case is consistent, consistently wrong and misguided at every turn.
Arbed 2:59 pm
I think it’s a pretty good compromise. But note that the “rape” part of the Krans interview is extremely short. In the Swedish original it’s about four lines out of four pages of text. If Anna serves as a witness, all it takes is, I suppose, that she witnessed that part, whether it was when Sofia told Linda or Irmeli.
What was the significance of the morning sex really? Had she wanted to report it even if a condom had been used? Perhaps not. It wasn’t even the unprotected morning sex that made her worried about HIV. This is from one of the witness statements, found at http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,03.shtml . The witness is labeled by the letter I which shouldn’t be confused with the personal pronoun.
Sofia complains about many things. Most of them can’t possiby be described as crimes, but one of them, the morning “surprise” sex, was made into a rape allegation by a litigious prosecutor, possibly without Sofia’s consent. More from the same interview, which was held on 27th of October, long after Marianne had taken over the case:
If only they could realise the case has come to a standstill because of the current prosecutor and let someone better suited take over. But who could make such a decision?
Clark @ 734 – CE, I’ve nothing against establishing the facts, but it seems pointless as regards any potential trial against Assange, which was prejudiced as soon as Expressen published the allegations. But maybe Sweden doesn’t have those laws about disclosure and prejudice.
The Wilen/Krans statement doesn’t indicate sex without consent. There is no report of Wilen retracting consent before they went to sleep, nor of her objecting to sex when she was more awake. It does indicate condom-less sex against expressed wishes, but from the statement that seemed to be a fairly minor matter between the couple, too.
So far as I know, Wilen never wanted Assange charged at all. So I do call this allegation minor. It seems that the first prosecutor agreed with this viewpoint.
————————————————————————————
Clark I’m afraid you’re skating on pretty thin ice here with your interpretation of the SW/IK statement and your definition of a minor matter. Try to dissociate the statement from your support of JA and your desire to believe he is innocent. I fail to see how forcing unprotected sex on someone who had a deep fear of it, without their consent, is not an extremely serious allegation.
I’m not saying this is definitivley what happened, how can any of us say that, that should be for the court to decide, but it is a credible version of events according to SW’s statement that you seem to agree on as the condem-less sex incident. So a woman gives her consent to a man she has just met for sexual intercourse, only under the explicit rule of a condom being used, they then have protected sex, they then fall asleep, the man makes up, and despite knowing full well he does not have the women’s consent for unprotected sex and they she would not let him, he decides to enter her without a condom anyway.
No matter how you that dress that up it is patently not a minor matter of bad sexual etiquette.
CE, yet again, you’re failing to factor in the maliciousness of the corporate media. You say yourself that Naomi Wolf based her “Interpol Dating Police” article on an article in the Daily Mail. It was that misleading article that led Wolf to get her article so wrong as to have to publish a retraction later. So the corporate media misled Wolf (among many others) into making a fool of herself.
So why do you place all the blame on Naomi Wolf, yet have little criticism for the Mail article which misled her? No, you needn’t answer that. It’s pretty obvious what your motives are. You wrote:
No, Wolf’s morals are not skewed, she had been misled. Earlier you’d written:
Do you give a damn about Wolf’s work and feminism? It looks like your overriding concern is to see Assange taken into custody, and you’ll help to trash Wolf’s reputation if it helps towards that goal.
You are hypocritical, CE.
CE, at 2:11 am you wrote: “that should be for the court to decide”.
CE, do you know whether Sofia Wilen wants a court to decide about that? Do you even care? Or do you just want the authorities to get custody of Assange?
When it comes to using women, you seem to score full marks. Twice.
Göran Rudling, I am sorry that I called you a liar. I still think you deceived me, going on about the two paragraphs, implying I was stupid, and then introducing additional material. I’ll amend my comment if you so request.
Orb, thanks for finding that translation, and the interesting anomalies it contains. I’ll read it tomorrow. Goodnight.
John Goss,
“So, Göran, as you did not answer my last question, just everybody else’s, can I ask you what is wrong with Ms Ny coming to the UK to put her questions to Assange?”
It’s nothing personal. I get quite a few questions. And I have to repeat my self. Makes the workload.
My English blog is only 21 posts. Please read all of them. Why not interviewed in England. Julian is charged. Julian’s lawyers set conditions impossible to meet.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/04/the-assange-case-the-reason-julian-wasnt-interviewed-in-england/
Clark
“But I sincerely believe that Assange will end up “disappeared”, tortured and/or dead if he submits to custody.”
Hallelujah!!!
Do you believe in walking on water? Virgin birth? Stoning? Moon landing was a fake?
“Anyone who was brought up to hold dogmatic religious beliefs which they later overcame (as I was and have) will be familiar with the power of group belief systems in defeating rational evaluation and enabling the belief of utter nonsense in the face of all available facts.”
Looks you found a new religion. But have no fear.
Talk to the Muppet Show Shrinks
“familiar with the power of group belief systems in defeating rational evaluation”
I see it on this blog. Sorry. Just had to say it.
Suhayl Saady,
“Can I ask one very naive, and possibly stupid question, of Goran? Can you please explain why, Goran, you (I think, voluntarily? Correct me if that’s wrong) appeared for the defence (I assume the defence was Assange’s party?) at the extradition hearing in London, if you believe so firmly that the most appropriate thing to happen would be for Assange to go to Sweden and face the charges? Thank you for your time.”
I was asked. Since the deleted tweets are only of importance when the case comes to Sweden I incorrectly assumed the defense was thinking of an alternative strategy to defence based on ignorance of Swedish law and procedures. I was wrong. For some reason my prediction of the outcome was right.
With 24 I’ll post an article that is more factual and shows some grave weaknesses in the defence.
Clark,
“So far as I know, Wilen never wanted Assange charged at all. So I do call this allegation minor. It seems that the first prosecutor agreed with this viewpoint.”
Show me the prosecutors decision that shows that she agrees with the viewpoint that Sofia Wilén never wanted Assange charged at all.
Sorry, it is something you made up. Publish her decision and we can all have a look.
Get your facts straight before you post anything please.
Clark,
“Göran Rudling, I am sorry that I called you a liar. I still think you deceived me, going on about the two paragraphs, implying I was stupid, and then introducing additional material. I’ll amend my comment if you so request.
As I said. You can call me anything. Does not change the facts of the case.
I am just in a friendly way beating you over the head in the hope that you will come out of your very strong beliefs.
About the two paragraphs, Linda’s memo and my explanation. What is your opinion.
Sometimes I am stupid too. Do you think I care if you WERE stupid. Why do you think I reply to you comments? I think like most people on this earth have potential. I like to see people grow when they can figure out things on their own. I like that smile on people’s faces when finally understand. And I know they grow and will go an understand more things.
Truly. You appear thick sometimes. But I think your potential is far far greater than your present “thickness”.
Love,
Göran
P.S. Are the Muppet Show Shrinks now gonna accuse of being a hidden homo?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh,
Free at last. Free at last. If anybody feels like I haven’t answered a comment please tell me.
Later today, likely afternoon, there is a follow up on Julian being charged. And you may see how his English legal team made mistake after mistake after ……
I’ll post the link for you.
Thank you Göran for responding. I have read the blog link you included. My comment which I tried to post on your blog (though your Captcha codes are crap) eventually vanished so I presume it is awaiting moderation. Anyway, I repeat it here, just in case.
‘I can fully understand Julian Assange’s lawyers attaching conditions. Several things militate against him being interviewed in Sweden. For one there is the language barrier. You yourself have spent tedious hours trying to explain the difficulty in your blog on the word ‘charge’ alone and its Swedish interpretations. Another is the threat of being picked up by the CIA and jetted to a penal institution where his liberty would be removed until Wikileaks no longer had any teeth. Thirdly, and most important, there is precedent for Swedish police and prosecutors interviewing people abroad on much more serious questions, for example, murder. Julian Assange is right: there is an ulterior motive for trying to get him on Swedish soil. My suspicion is it would not involve the Swedish Law Courts and before any protest could be made it would be too late.
Surely it would be simple to outline questions to be put to Mr Assange so the interpreter can be precise. What is wrong with that? I am sorry there is no reason why he should not be interviewed in the UK! After all, he has already been interviewed in Sweden when complaints against him were dropped.’
from Goran’s post 11.35pm
“I will also source some videos for you that explains the case much better that Mr Murray and Arbed does”
Whoo, I’ve been put on a par with Craig! I’m very flattered by that. I hope anyone who’s been following this thread closely will have noticed that Goran has never actually disproved any point I’ve made. Not even tried, really. I’ve been following the whole case closely from the beginning and I probably know as much about it as he does.
As a few people here have noticed, Goran has shifted his position considerably over time from the point he was at when he did that long article on Wikileaks Central with the solicitor Peter Kemp, and perhaps his objectivity has become clouded somewhat. One must remember, as his blog name Consent Now makes clear, that Goran’s primary objective – and it is a GOOD one – is to get the Swedish laws on rape amended to include the concept of consent. That is really all he cares about. And getting a case like Assange’s – which has a ‘grey areas’ consent issue at its heart – to be heard IN SWEDEN he probably feels is the ticket to achieving his lifelong aim. Unfortunately, as more and more of the details of this investigation and prosecution are revealed, and consequently the case looks weaker and weaker, I would suggest the urgency of Goran’s underlying motivation has led him to veer towards increasingly desperate measures to PROVE that the case is strong enough to warrant Assange extradition to Sweden (and to DISPROVE every valid objection to that or worry about onward extradition to the US) so that Goran can get his precious trial.
Sorry, but that’s my take on the matter. I, of course, have my own biases too. I got raped myself (long ago enough to be over it by now) and I took it to the police, but rape is a crime which is very difficult to prosecute successfully and the CPS decided not to go ahead with bringing my case to trial, perhaps thinking that would spare me a hard time at the hands of defence lawyers. Though I was furious about their decision at the time, and wanted my day in court, I later came to understand it better. It’s left me with a very strong interest in how this crime is prosecuted and I’ve actually studied the issue formally. I hope, despite my own personal experience, I still have sufficient objectivity to understand that justice – if it is to mean anything at all – MUST apply equally to both accusers and accused.
What I know about this case has confirmed sufficiently for me that it has been – to date, and will likely continue to be – clearly a miscarriage of justice and wholly unfair to Julian Assange.
Beyond that, I am a supporter of the Wikileaks project for revealing the secret and abusive machinations of powerful institutions to the general public, so I’ve taken an equally close look at the situation behind the threat of US extradition and prosecution of Assange/Wikileaks. If anyone wishes to ask any questions about the Wikileaks Grand Jury process in America or about the details of Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearings, fire away. I’ll do my best to fill you in.
So, now I’ve been elevated by Goran to the same giddy heights as Craig Murray, I like to ask any readers here who are interested in getting to the bottom of this complex and perplexing case to re-read the posts I’ve made so far in this thread. Sorry some of them are so long. There’s a hell of a lot of factual info in them. Again, any questions about points you’d like me to expand on further are welcome.
Note to CE: Always remember there’s more to be revealed yet. Prepare yourself for when the women’s texts will finally come out. Because they will. It’s obvious to anyone watching closely that at least some of them are now loose in the wild, though not yet in the public domain. When they finally do become public domain, you are going to have to do a lot of back-tracking.
@Arbed, thanks for that post, especially on the self-analysis of your own potential biases – very open and honest. I think your suggestions about Göran’s motivation rang more true for me that the other suggestion recently put forward – though worthy of consideration – which was one of career-building.
I should love for him to put forward an equally honest appraisal of his psychological motivations, and indeed I encouraged him to do so in this very thread. But, having done that myself elsewhere in other contexts, I appreciate acutely that it is hard to do, especially in the public domain. Most of us here have the shield of at least some anonymity, so perhaps it is different for people who are in the public eye. Though, to be fair, Craig does it regularly!
Arbed,
Do you want me to?
Here is a new post proving Julian Assange is charged
From a legal point of view. It also a short analysis of Assange’s first legal teams efforts. Were they good? Did they miss things? Were they familiar with the Swedish criminal procedures? Did they mislead Julian?
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/was-assanges-legal-team-incompetent/