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.
@John Goss:
I’m primarily in agreement with you, but I think it is more that Assange is being made an example of. I think he is an asset to Wikileaks, and a well-known and able spokesperson, but I believe WL could (and should) carry on without him if necessary. WL is bigger, and more important, than Assange, and I think he’d agree with that.
@Arbed
While Craig is busy frying bigger fish, I and I’m sure many others posting here see you as the most effective response to what seems to have become The Goran Rudling Show.
Just wanted to share, that new documents and information that appears to be relevant to the general discussion, are surfacing in Sweden right now, in what appears as an significant effort to request information under the laws of official transparancy.
Among other things, emails and sms correspondence and mail logs for Marianne Ny, and correspondence between Ny and Assange’s lawyer, Hurtig, which if the source and authenticity can be verified, are highly significant in regard to the minutiae of this case.
They will in all probability be checked and translated in due course, IF they are deemed to be the genuine thing.
But just to pass on the awareness.
John Goss,
I’ll look at the captcha codes. I don’t disagree on that comment.
Conditions for an interview. Just starting.
When you are indicted you have the right to see the full case file. I think it is the same in England. It is about a fair trial. A formally charged person should have the right to prepare a defence.
Julian claims, incorrectly as I shown, that he is not charged. If he is of the opinion that he is not even charged, how come he all of a sudden asks to be treated just like a person that is indicted? Please explain that.
Please leave CIA out of it, and one legged sumo wrestlers
Göran, I said:
And you asked me:
No I don’t. Well, stoning exists and I oppose it, and I believe that walking on water and virgin birth can only be achieved technologically.
However, I do believe in the Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib prisons were/are places of torture, and I believe in “Special/Secret Rendition” to places for torture. I believe that the USA used waterboarding. I believe that the USA is breaking its own and international law in its utterly inhuman treatment of Bradley Manning, and that the US administration pressured the UK to invade the Ecuadorian embassy in London. It is for these, and many other similar reasons that I oppose Assange submitting to custody.
Then you wrote to me:
No, Göran. I qualified my assertion – “so far as I know”. It is something I have read, in English, not something I made up. You read Swedish, I cannot. If you know of evidence, one way or the other, link to it so we can all see.
Göran, I am worried for Sofia Wilen, for the same reasons that I am worried for Julian Assange. You repeatedly point out the distortions by Assange’s support and legal teams. You do not show equal concern for distortion in the other direction. It should be clear to you from your study that this case is being used by powerful groups. Please apply more balance.
I have read (but I have not verified) that not only has Sofia Wilen “disappeared”, but many online traces of her have also been deleted. Sofia Wilen may be in danger, or undergoing psychological manipulation by vested interests. I think that this possibility should concern you. Even if you do not care about Sofia Wilen (though I think that you do), someone may be interfering with her in order to change the testimony she would give.
Göran, do you understand the origins of the perspective on this site? Do you know Craig Murray’s story, and understand why he believes that the Assange case is being politically manipulated? Maybe, one day, you will have time to read his book Murder in Samarkand. I recommend it.
Göran, please stop ridiculing people’s fears of powerful authorities and the secret services. Such fears are well grounded in eminently verifiable facts. They are not irrational beliefs or fairy tales.
As far as I am aware, all that Julian Assange has done to date is to point out to people that BECAUSE he has not been charged he does not have the legal rights of an accused – ie, access to the allegations and evidence against him (the case file which must be handed over by the prosecutor on charge) – so he is unable to defend himself against the allegations effectively AT THE PRESENT TIME.
He has NOT asked to be given that file at this stage, as Goran is suggesting. Assange HAS asked – repeatedly, both while staying in Sweden until 27 September 2010 (the Freedom of Information documentation referred to by LastBlueBell will be very illuminating in this regard) and ever since – to be questioned by the Swedish prosecutor in order that, should she still feel it appropriate to prosecute him once that’s done, he can then go to Sweden, be charged and be given the full case file so that he can then properly defend himself.
I’ve posted this before but here’s the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s most recent statement (24 August 2012) in English, so people can see for themselves that the Swedish Prosecution Authority themselves are saying that Assange has not been charged (and in fact, if you read between the lines, is nowhere near being charged: “and any subsequent interviews, as required…”[paraphrase, from memory]):
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/
The UK Supreme Court too accepted this basic fact, and formally corrected a slip about it made by Lord Phillips (aside to John Goss: revealing little Freudian slip that one was, wasn’t it?) when reading out the judgment. Perhaps Goran now feels he has a better grasp of law than the Supreme Court…?
Best to ignore Goran’s articles ‘proving’ that Assange has been charged. They’re pure misinformation, I’m afraid.
Arbed,
I’ve posted this before but here’s the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s most recent statement (24 August 2012) in English, so people can see for themselves that the Swedish Prosecution Authority themselves are saying that Assange has not been charged (and in fact, if you read between the lines, is nowhere near being charged: “and any subsequent interviews, as required…”[paraphrase, from memory]):
I’ve read the info from the prosecutors in the link. I am sorry, cannot find any information that is saying that Julian has not been charged. Can you please point it out to me?
I’ll check the Swedish version and see what it says.
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/
Arbed,
Just for your info. There is nothing in the Swedish version that says that Julian has not been charged.
Are we looking at the same texts?
http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Varfor-kan-inte-aklagaren-forhora-Assange-i-Storbritannien–/
Arbed,
As far as I am aware, all that Julian Assange has done to date is to point out to people that BECAUSE he has not been charged he does not have the legal rights of an accused – ie, access to the allegations and evidence against him (the case file which must be handed over by the prosecutor on charge) – so he is unable to defend himself against the allegations effectively AT THE PRESENT TIME.
For your information, a person charged does not according to Swedish law have the right to see the full case file. I post a link to Mark Stephens first witnesstatement Exibit 4. Read paragraph 5 in Björn Hurtig’s statement and tell me if there is anything you don’t understand.
Jon, I still think it is unsafe for him to go to Sweden. People have been picked up there by CIA agents in the past and removed to oppressive regimes. Yes, I agree they are trying to denigrate Assange’s character, and Wikileaks is much bigger than one person, and is already carrying on without him, though I expect he is in touch.
http://thing2thing.com/?p=2693
Göran, I would like to see Julian Assange answer the allegations lodged against him, providing it is in a safe environment with appropriate representation. I think the prosecution case would soon crumble (unless there is something that has not made it into the blogosphere). The case I am sure would soon be dropped. Assange has in the past talked about the events on HardTalk. He does not seem to be afraid to talk and the interviewer was pretty tough.
@Arbed, very eloquently and clearly said, and I would just like to add my appreciation and encouragment!
@Jon, “…other suggestion recently put forward – though worthy of consideration – which was one of career-building.”
I very much agree with Arbeds statements in the matter above, and I think she also formulated it much better and gave it a better context then I could have done, so for the record, I believe we both mean the the same thing, even if we use different words to try and convey that idea.
And I think that could be an important reminder in a wider perspective in this case. That we are discussing issues laden with opinions and imaginary baggage, and that we are always susceptible to our preconceived notions, our “local knowledge framework”, when judging meaning of words.
What is normal/abnormal in a situation, what can for example be the expected level of displayed competence/incompetence and professionalism, in radically different contexts and countries.
Going back to Goran, I very much believe he is consciously/subconsciously trying to following a well established path in the Swedish cultural context, a path that we have seen traversed several times in the last decades alone, where individuals have built or coupled their already established platforms to specific events very much like I believe Goran is trying to do now.
And I would not be surprised (in relation to the above), if we soon also hear about a forthcoming book into the matter, but in this, time will tell.
Nothing of this of course disqualifies Goran or should make people dismiss his opinions out of hand, but I think it is wise to bear in mind, that he might have strong ulterior motives, that guides and maybe influences his actions.
Arbed,
The UK Supreme Court too accepted this basic fact[Julian not charged], and formally corrected a slip about it made by Lord Phillips (aside to John Goss: revealing little Freudian slip that one was, wasn’t it?) when reading out the judgment. Perhaps Goran now feels he has a better grasp of law than the Supreme Court…?
I don’t think the Supreme Court ruled on an whether Julian was charged (at a stage that is to be regarded as charged). Since you are so sure they did, point it out?
It would be very strange that the Supreme Court in trying to decide if the Swedish process of issuing EAW was to be regarded as judicial authority. Since it was ruled in the High Court that Julian was charged I don’t think it was possible for the Supreme Court to change that ruling.
I don’t think I am better than the Supreme Court. I think I agree with them. You are the odd man out.
John Goss,
Tell me if you know of anybody that has been extradited from Sweden to the US on charges of espionage or military crimes?
Then, tell me of anybody being extradited from Sweden to an oppressive country, charged with espionge or military crimes?
What history are you referring to?
Lastbluebell,
Are you trying to become another Muppet Show Shrink?
Instead of just going off into space. Can you do this since Arbed disappeared. Can you check these two links and find where it says that Julian has not been charged?
http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Varfor-kan-inte-aklagaren-forhora-Assange-i-Storbritannien–/
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/
[Mod/Clark: Edited to repair the first link.]
Göran, regarding our exchange:
I see the source of my confusion now. I should have written that the first prosecutor also seemed to indicate that most of the allegations were a minor matter by dropping them.
You wrote: “Truly. You appear thick sometimes. But I think your potential is far far greater than your present “thickness”.”
Yes, I’m aware of this. Depression and emotional distress are making it difficult for me to think as well as I am accustomed to. This depletion of my mental skills is itself distressing, which adds to the problem. I’m sorry. I will do my best.
Göran, you wrote:
This case is unique, and specific historical examples are probably inapplicable. But in any case, the US has increasingly perpetrated these types of abuses in recent years, and I think you should take such dangers seriously. As I wrote above, such threats may be relevant to Sofia Wilen as well as Julian Assange.
Danger could also come from sources other than the public activities of the US government. There are many powerful groups whom Assange and Wikileaks have angered. Such groups are entirely likely to use or abuse Sofia Wilen or any other individual in their campaign against Wikileaks and Assange.
Clark,
I am pleased you are brave enough to say. Excuse me for being excessively rough. I’ll try be respectful.
I have read what people have said about this case. It is not close to what actually happened. I always verify sources.
I read Swedish. I can guarantee you that what you said was not true. I have heard that so many times it is silly, zombie fact. Keeps popping up.
What you now say is closer. From memory Eva Finné the message was this. She believed Sofia’s story. She could anything in the interview that amounted to rape. She then checked if actions described could amount to sexual coercion, unlawful coercion, sexual molestation and molestation. She could not find support for any one of those accusations. Julian was cleared on all suspicions regarding Sofia. As you can see it isn’t even close to what you said.
Now. What does this mean. To me it means that Irmeli Krans interview, that all tin-foil-hats, believe is a lesbian feminist setup is actually very good for Assange. If the interview should be done all over, it will be worse for Assange. To me that indicates Irmeli is *not trying to set up Julian.
[* Mod/Clark: Edited to add “not”: See Göran’s correction below, 20 Sep, 2:15 pm.]
I can say that Irmeli has tweeted and written comments on Facebook making me question her judgment. But that is another story. Since I can read this in the police report that is another piece that indicates that Anna was not in on Sofia’s interview.
Thanks for reading
This is one example Göran.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
The CIA does not operate in pleasant friendly ways. It is capable of destabilising governments and one individual is child’s play to them. Take the case of Kurt Sonnenfeld, a US citizen now living in Argentina. He took the original footage for the US government which shows the official version of Ground Zero to be a lie. Here he is being interviewed by Voltaire Network.
“Voltaire Network: They want you pretty badly for a “crime that did not happen”! How do you account for such doggedness? As a FEMA official, you must have been trusted by your government. At what point did the situation capsize?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: In hindsight, I realize now that the situation had capsized some time before I actually became aware that it had capsized. Initially, the false accusation against me was completely irrational, and I was totally destroyed by it. It is incredibly difficult to have suffered the loss of someone you love to suicide, but to then be accused of it is too much to bear. The case was dismissed based on a mountain of evidence that overwhelmingly absolved me (Nancy, my wife, had left behind a suicide note and a journal of suicidal writings ; she had a family history of suicide ; etc.). The prosecution was 100% sure of my innocence before requesting the dismissal of charge.
But the sustained incarceration even AFTER it was indicated that I was to be freed was what proved to me that something was happening under the surface. I was held in jail for FOUR MONTHS after my lawyers were informed that the case was to be dismissed and was finally released in June 2002. During that time, an amazing series of strange events began to occur. While still being held, I had a telephone conversation with FEMA officials in an effort to resolve the issue, but I realized that I was considered “compromised”. I was told it had been agreed that “the agency had to be protected”, especially in light of the upheaval that was threatening with the implementation of the “Patriot Act” and the expected usurpation that would come with the new Department of Homeland Security. After all the dangers I had risked, all hardship and difficulties I had endured for them for almost 10 years, I felt betrayed. It left a void in my soul.
Because of their abandonment, I told them I didn’t have the tapes, that I gave them to “some bureaucrat” in New York, and that they would have to wait until I was released to retrieve any other documents in my possession. Soon after that conversation, my house was “seized”, the locks were changed, and men were observed by neighbors entering my house, though there is no record in the court of their entry, as would be required. When I was finally released, I discovered that my office had been ransacked, my computer was missing, and that my tape library in my basement had been dug through and several were missing. Men were constantly parked on the street near my house, my security system was “hacked” more than once, outdoor security lights were unscrewed, etc., to the point that I went to stay with some friends at their condo in the mountains, which was then ALSO broken into.
Anyone who looks for the truth recognizes that there has been an amazing series of irregularities in this case and that an appalling injustice is being carried out on me and my loved ones. This intense campaign to return me to American soil is a false pretext for other darker motives.”
Clark,
To me that indicates Irmeli is NOT trying to set up Julian.
To fast. I hope you got it
John Goss,
Sorry. Your example is not relevant
Please read my two questions again
Tell me if you know of anybody that has been extradited from Sweden to the US on charges of espionage or military crimes?
Then, tell me of anybody being extradited from Sweden to an oppressive country, charged with espionge or military crimes?
Look at the link again and spot the error?
Arbed and Lastbluebell, where did you go?
Hello. Helllloooooooo, Any body in there?
I just asked you to back up Arbed’s claims. Are you doing a Craig Murray on me?
I am off for a while
Göran, or others,
what about Sofia Wilen? Is there evidence to indicate her safety, or evidence that she could be being coerced or manipulated? The (unverified?) reports of her physical and on-line disappearance are worrying me.
Göran, I have edited your 20 Sep, 2:13 pm comment as indicated in your correction at 2:15 pm. Please check that I got it right.
Göran, John Goss’ comment is relevant. You are only considering possibilities that are lawful. John Goss is pointing out that unlawful possibilities also need to be considered.
Also, you wrote: “I am off for a while”. Are you “doing a Craig Murray” on yourself? You are not the only one who has a life to lead beyond consideration of this case. As I’ve asked before, please be patient! 🙂
Lastbluebell, thanks for the tip-off. that would be a really positive development because of all the suspicion surrounding the way the investigation was conducted from very early on. it may also tie-in to JA’s recent remark that the case could be dropped after an internal investigation into the investigations. this is a very hazy area indeed to me whether any such internal investigation has already taken place/begun. If not, the investigators need to be investigated. The world is entitled to know if there were any mistakes. This has a direct bearing on the trial, so its a requisite “preliminary” step.
Clark,
Thanks a lot. I am off for some 10 hours. I am not ignoring you. OK?
Regarding Sofia. She has taken a hell of a lot of flak. As far as I know, she’s as allright that one can be under the circumstances. Haven’t heard anything bad.
Göran, Thanks for informing us of your coming absence.
Clark,
The case with the Egyptians is not relevant. The process is not even remotely similar to an extradition. The courts were not involved.
If you add first extradition from UK to Sweden and then seeking extradition from the US it is a whole other ballgame.
The amount of shit the then government took from the Egyptians makes it extremely unlikely that another asylum seeker will ever be treated that way again.
Goran’s attempt to translate Swedish legal concepts to UK (and therefore Commonwealth) concepts has failed miserably. He clearly has no understanding of the stages of taking a complaint, investigating it, laying charges and mounting a prosecution in the UK jurisdiction. He can speak all he likes about the Swedish system, but he knows zilch about the UK and, more importantly, why those stages exist in the forms that they do.
For example, he has written of the Swedish practice of charging and then further questioning of the accused. Anyone who is familiar with even basic jurisprudence knows that charging, or indicting, is a transition from investigation to a commitment to prosecute. There is no vague middle ground in which the police investigate further to ascertain whether an offence has been committed. Any further investigation is purely to improve the prospects of a successful prosecution. Therefore, questioning the accused AFTER charging makes no sense unless the accused wishes to either confess or do a deal. Is this the purpose of wanting to question Assange after charging? For him to offer a confession or deal?
Goran has certainly advanced some knowledge of the case, but he has done nothing to advance the cause of justice.