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.
Johan:
“…and a public defence lawyer has been designated.”
Does that imply he can’t appoint his own? Unclear.
” it would be simple to ‘bump up’ the ante, as it were (as indeed we saw Bradley Manning’s ‘sheet’ get upped from 8 charges to 22 in the space of a few months last year)”
Arbed, I’m struggling to regard your views as credible, when you continue to write such nonsense as above even after it has been pointed out to you that it is false.
Where exactly was Bradley Manning extradited from that makes his charge sheet a valid comparison with JA?
British and Irish Legal Information Institute
I don’t know if they’re useful on this, but here’s a link for those who want to look. It’s one of those sites where you need the www. prefix; the link includes it:
http://www.bailii.org/
CE, once Assange is in-country is there any reason why they can’t file additional charges?
CE 11.50am
Ahh, I see you haven’t quite been able to grasp the point I was trying to make. I am, of course, aware that Bradley Manning is a US citizen and hasn’t therefore been extradited from anywhere.
You are aware, of course, that once in custody at Quantico the charges which Bradley Manning was accused of were increased from 8 in number to 22 in number, yes? This is a matter of historical fact, correct?
And you are no doubt aware that this is in fact a common occurrence in the US federal and military justice systems.
With me so far?
I’m guessing that you have also heard many people claim that Assange is in no danger at all regarding any potential request for extradition on serious charges of espionage or conspiracy to espionage, either from Sweden or alternatively from the UK, because both countries have laws preventing them from agreeing to extradition on such charges, especially those which might carry a potential death penalty.
I have presented evidence – in this link: t.co/knzcVbPW – of the RANGE of US legislation available in the US that could be used in a prosecution of Assange/Wikileaks should the US feel it wishes to do so.
If it does, the logical next step would be to get him extradited (from somewhere, ok? For the purposes of my argument here doesn’t matter where from) on one of the charges outlined in this handy little Congress-commissioned survey on precisely this topic, yes?
Still with me?
Have you looked at the document I’ve supplied? I think that’s important if you’re to follow this next bit.
As you will see, the relevant US legislation RANGES from what is patently political – espionage, conspiracy to espionage, etc – to what is merely criminal – unauthorised computer access, theft of documentation, and so on.
Given the bar in most European countries to extradition for political/death penalty crimes, which of these alleged offences do you think the US is most likely to select if it wishes to achieve its objective of getting Assange extradited to face prosecution?
Go on, have a guess…
Oh, hurrah! Success! The Swedish Supreme Court has agreed that it is perfectly lawful for Assange to be extradited to the US to face prosecution for Unauthorised Access to Government Computer Systems [Note to trolls: this is a hypothetical example]. The UK Home Secretary agrees. It is indeed perfectly lawful and proper that he should go to answer these charges of serious computer theft/misuse (a criminal offence in virtually all countries, after all). The UK will therefore waive the Section 58 specialty clause in the UK Extradition Act 2003 and thereby add its consent to this perfectly proper and lawful extradition. Hurrah!
A quick plane trip later and NOW there is an exact parallel between Assange and Manning: they are both in custody on US soil.
Now, what was that common practice in the US federal and military judicial systems again? And what was the FULL RANGE of all those indictable offences to use against Assange/Wikileaks that Congress got its legal researchers to dig up for us again?
Have I made the logic of my argument clear enough for you to follow now, CE?
Good answer Arbed.
CE please reflect and try not to be dismiss or rubbish things out of hand. It doesn’t matter which ‘side’ of things one stands on. The point is to examine everything holistically so that one can be objective, even if one then has a personal opinion of how things are likely to turn out. Life is a field of all possibilities. So when projecting not everyone is going to be right, nor everyone wrong. Lets simply respect each other and learn from each other, as we do.
Arbed, it seems you are displaying a wilful ignorance of basic legal issues. I can only presume this is bend certain issues to fit your somewhat fanciful narrative of JA as innocent victim.
Arbed- A quick plane trip later and NOW there is an exact parallel between Assange and Manning: they are both in custody on US soil.
I’ll try to make this simple for you, IF they both ended up on US soil, there would plainly not be ‘an exact parallel’, as one of them would be there under the terms of an extradition treaty, one would not. It’s not that difficult to process, is it?
How do you respond to Professor Pal Wrange’s assertion that it is incomprehensible that JA has been the victim of a ‘honey trap’ and that it would be easier for the US to extradite JA from the UK?
PS, still waiting for evidence for one of your other false claims that the UK courts were told that another complainant was present during SW’s interview?
You have undoubtedly done a lot of research on this matter, unfortunately this has not helped you reach a logical or balanced conclusion. Try to stick to the facts, exaggerating or embellishing when you are unsure does not help anyone, least of all JA or his alleged victims.
CE 3.41pm
“IF they both ended up on US soil, there would plainly not be ‘an exact parallel’, as one of them would be there under the terms of an extradition treaty, one would not.”
Ahh, I see now where you are coming from, and I can see that you are in a position to ally all of my fears.
Yes please, can I have that link to where in the US judicial code it explains that persons who are in US custody following an extradition cannot have additional charges placed on their case? I was unaware that principle existed.
Thank you very much for bringing this crucial information to my attention. I look forward to receiving your link.
CE 3.41pm
“PS, still waiting for evidence for one of your other false claims that the UK courts were told that another complainant was present during SW’s interview?”
Can I refer M’Lud to my Sept 21 6.32pm post to Villager?
You’ll see:
– Not my claim in the first place – Craig’s.
– I’m as curious as Villager is in finding out whether Craig’s assertion has any validity. My only contribution is my personal belief that the alleged statement MIGHT be true – from the Wouldn’t-Put-It-Past-Them Dept.
– I’m happy to wait, along with Villager, for Craig’s return to resolve the issue.
Given that Craig’s previous assertion that AA was present throughout SW’s interview was proven to be fictitious, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.
Information for you.
I have not checked the comments lately. There is a seminar on the 26 September,>The Assange case – Implications for Sweden. The issue if Julian Assange is to be considered charged is important for future extradition cases. So it will be brought up and discussed. I am irritated that the Prosecution Authority has not confirmed this before. I will find out why they haven’t.
Since I know I am right on this issue I have asked the Prime Minister, The Minister of Justice and the Foreign Minister to clarify the issue. So far I have not received a reply. I will continue to ask questions until the matter is resolved. I will get a confirmation before the seminar. If I don’t get a confirmation that Julian Assange is to be considered charged I will make a formal complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. You will get a reply from somebody that is more important than me.
I have taken you criticism of the poor captcha on my blog. I have replaced it. Hopefully it works. Comments are invited.
On my blog one interested reader noted a strange passage in Judge Riddle’s ruling. Since I haven’t seen this argued here I will bring it up and so you can get a better understanding I hope.
First my reply to Brita Sundberg-Weitman that started it
Brita,
I know you are a lawyer and a retired judge and you were a witness for the defence at the February hearing 2011. But that doesn’t make you infallible. In this you are simple wrong.
What Judge Riddle had to establish was only if Julian Assange was to be considered charged. If he was, then extradition was ok. He reached the conclusion that Julian Assange was considered charged even if Judge Riddles couldn’t pinpoint at exactly what stage it occurred. It was not important for Judge Riddle to determine exactly at what point Julian Assange was considered charged.
I agree it may look like an odd argument in your eyes. Have you ever thought it is your eyes that is the problem here?
What you say is that a person can only be extradited if he’s indicted, formally charged, “åtalad”. That is not correct. It is enough that a person is charged. The problem is that you cannot differentiate between charged and formally charged, indicted.
Professor Wong who is an expert on EAWs disagrees with you just as I do.
“Clearly, being ‘charged with a criminal offence’ cannot mean the act of prosecution according to Swedish domestic law. The concept has an autonomous meaning, and the Swedish Supreme Court has had an opportunity to examine at which stage of the criminal proceeding in Sweden, a person would be considered as being ‘charged’ according to the autonomous meaning of the ECHR. There is no doubt that – at the latest – a person will be considered ‘charged’ when he or she is suspected of crime on reasonable grounds
In order for your argument to be true you have to prove that “charged” is just the same as “indicted”. I am sorry. That isn’t possible.
Then the comment from Parallax:
*”What Judge Riddle had to establish was only if Julian Assange was to be considered charged. If he was, then extradition was ok. He reached the conclusion that Julian Assange was considered charged even if Judge Riddle couldn’t pinpoint at exactly what stage it occurred. It was not important for Judge Riddle to determine exactly at what point Julian Assange was considered charged?
Really? Let’s see what judge Riddle ruled:
Summary of facts found
I make the following findings of fact from the evidence I have heard:
1. The proceedings in Sweden are at the preliminary investigation stage. The preliminary investigation does not come to an end until evidence is served on Mr Assange or his lawyer and there is an interrogation of Mr Assange with the opportunity for further enquiries. There aftert here is a decision as to charge. If charged the trial is likely to take place shortly thereafter.
Then my reply to Parallax
Thank you Parallax. Excellent you pointed this out. I have missed it. This just proves what I am saying is correct. I have checked the skeleton argument for Julian Assange in the appeal to High Court. They did nor argue this. If Julian Assange was not considered being charged, as you interpret the ruling, it would have been a faulty ruling. If it was a faulty ruling the defence would have argued it in the appeal. So the fact that the defence did not argue it in the appeal means the defence agrees with me. Let’s try to sort it out.
Firstly there is no “decision to charge” in the Swedish criminal procedure. There is only a decision to formally charge, to indict. In England a person is charged with a crime at an early stage. In Sweden this corresponds to suspected of crime on reasonable grounds.
“Clearly, being ‘charged with a criminal offence’ cannot mean the act of prosecution according to Swedish domestic law. The concept has an autonomous meaning, and the Swedish Supreme Court has had an opportunity to examine at which stage of the criminal proceeding in Sweden, a person would be considered as being ‘charged’ according to the autonomous meaning of the ECHR. There is no doubt that – at the latest – a person will be considered ‘charged’ when he or she is suspected of crime on reasonable grounds.”
I note that there is a problem even in the English language as is evident in this case. What Judge Riddle meant when he wrote “a decision to charge” was “a decision to formally charge, indict”. I will contact Judge Riddle and ask him to explain this section so you will understand it properly. I will also ask him for a document that properly describes the English criminal procedure so most of you will understand your level of ignorance.
Judge Riddle in his description of the criminal procedure is spot on. “The preliminary investigation does not come to an end until evidence is served on Mr Assange or his lawyer and there is an interrogation of Mr Assange with the opportunity for further enquiries. This stage corresponds to the “charges brought and entering a plea” in the English system. Entering a plea is in England in a court of law I think. Marianne Ny puts it like this: “According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at.” I think it is obvious from Ms Ny’s quote that Judge Riddle used the word charge as to mean indict.
Parallax. You have very good eyes. It looks like most people have missed this or regarded it irrelevant in the context. I think it would be better in the English legal system Judges would write indict when they mean indict and charged when they mean charged. Bear with me until I have a comment from Judge Riddle.
Johan
If Göran’s analysis is correct, and JA has in fact been charged, that means the prosecutor is blatantly in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6, which states:
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
I do not understand why you cannot read what Article 6 is about, Right to a fair trial. The word charged in article 6 refers to a person “formally charged”, indicted. You have to understand words from the context.
What is relevant where the case is at now is Article 5. Please find out what Julian is entitled to in the correct article.
CE, good we cleared that one up–ball’s in Craig’s court for as long as he wishes.
I’ll assume from your silence that you accept Arbed’s 3.55pm explanation. Unless someone wants to contradict that, i’m persuaded by her explanation.
Lets not underrate the US’s might and imperatives and if there’s a will they’ll find a way. What a time we’re living in post-9/11 and the Bush-Blair axis. Do you recall all the celebrations around the millennium, we all thought we were heading into a rainbow. The biggest fear and scare was software and computers getting bamboozled at the turn of midnight. Bring back those heady days of bj’s in the Oval Office for me anytime.
By contrast, I do not disagree with you, Villager (10:05am). I didn’t say the legal (or indeed, legalistic) details were not “important”. And thank you again for correcting my English; last time around on this thread, you implied that I do not know what I should know “as a writer”. But hey – people either dig one’s work, or they don’t; that’s fine, it’s part of the job.
My point was simple. If there is political leverage from the USA on the UK and/or Sweden wrt the Assange case, this whole matter must be regarded in a totally different light. It all is important, but if there has been/is political leverage, the interpretation/appreciation of it all must change in a fundamental way.
Goran, good to see you back I was beginning to get worried.
I still very much want to understand at what point Assange became charged. My view is that it was at the point Ny made her declaration to the effect that subject to further enquiries, etc etc she had reasonable grounds of probable cause to arrest him. Why did she make it at that time? Because she had to fill up the EAW forms. She may have also just made it out of convenience. She couldn’t bring charges until Julian was in Sweden. And she couldn’t bring him back unless he was charged. Catch 22. So you make a declaration. And the UK court is bound to accept it prima facie?!…
All roads lead to NY (ambiguous? yes)
And meanwhile, Bradley Manning…
And meanwhile Talha Ahsan…
And meanwhile Babar Ahmed…
“For three years, a group of men were detained in high security prisons and mental health institutions under this power without ever knowing the suspicions that kept them there, let alone having been convicted of any offence.” (from Liberty).
When political power is the driver, our states do not adhere to their own legal (or their own legalistic) precepts.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrorism/detention-without-charge/index.php
Suhayl, i understand your point. I am making a similar point above. NY could be simply Marianne or it could be New York! My overriding point was to differ from your ‘ifs’ above (and ” Has there been covert political leverage from the USA in this case?) -we won’t know about these leverages until history is written. So, look at the whole today, never mind whether its same light or a different light.
Re digging your work, i’m sure you do–its the most important thing in the world.
The deeply compromised European Court of Human Rights thinks it’s fine and dandy to keep someone with Asperger’s Syndrome in solitary confinement in a tiny cell in a Federal Supermax prison for up to three years while they await trial. Talha Ahsan has been in gaol in the UK for six years without charge, and without his defence lawyers being able to see the evidence against him. The USA, which is demanding extradition, does not need to present any evidence at all to the British courts.
http://freetalha.org/about/
And so, we can see that in such cases where political leverage from the USA has been instrumental, of which now, over the past decade there have been many, the law has become an ass and largely an instrument of those in power.
Villager, at 6:53pm, thanks very much – and very sorry if I seemed a bit tetchy. Best wishes.
Just a little light aside, i said earlier:
“The biggest fear and scare was software and computers getting bamboozled at the turn of midnight. Bring back those heady days of bj’s in the Oval Office for me anytime.”
Yes was grappling for that brilliant abbreviation of that time: Y2K. Remember? What utter hyperbole that was! Suhayl i’m sure you can find a more eloquent way of describing it.
Suhayl, no not at all, no reason to apologise.
Your story about Talha makes me want to cry. For humanity. Whats gone wrong with us? Those 2B’s have corrupted human consciousness unimaginably. The world is in need of reconciliation. Bring them to court–but yes, Suahyl the law is an ass if it thinks it could ever get to to that true layer of corruption.
Thanks, Villager.
Göran: your reasoning is not convincing. Are you really suggesting that there are two conflicting definitions of the legal term “charged”? And, at the same time accusing Assange’s team of misrepresentation when they claim that there are no charges against him? As far as I can tell, they are using the same definition of the word as Marianne Ny, the Supreme Court and many many others (including the ECHR in my example above).
In fact, just about everyone seems to be in agreement on the meaning of the word “charged”. Everyone except you, that is. So what exactly is your point?
Goran Rudling(GR) focus on some factual errors that in the whole are irrelevant. These errors are to a large extent spread in Swedish mass media as well, and it’s not that strange if some facts sometimes can be wrong. GR’s purpose is not to correct these errors but uses them to remove the focus from the more important discussion. If GR had an intent to correct things he would do so (he has most of the facts).
As an example, Anna did not accompany Sofia on the formal interview. However, in the beginning at the police station they were together and from Donald Bostroms witness statement it’s clear that Anna was present when Sofia gave her first (informal) interview and that she also added that she had a similar experience. This informal interview is the base for the arrest warrant issued 20th of August 2010. The arrest warrant was to no extent based on the formal interview that was ongoing at the time the warrant was issued. Thus, the truth is that Anna was not present when her friend (Irmeli krantz) interviewed Sofia but she was present earlier when the informal report was made and this informal report was the base for the arrest warrant.
Guapo 9.03am
Thank you, Guapo – that is exactly my understanding of what happened when the two women visited the police station on 20 August 2010. It fits all the supplementary evidence – Wassgren’s memo, Bostrum’s witness statement, Anna Ardin’s various statements to other witnesses (ie those subsequent to 20 August) and to the press. It also ties in with Rixstep’s research of Mats Gehlin’s role:
– his presence at the station that day and his ongoing relationship as a source to Espressen;
– his role in passing Wilen’s statement to Claus Borgstrom for revision, then his instructions to Krans to substitute the revised statement on the police computer statement on the 25th/26th August;
– his refusal to accept Eva Finne’s closing of the case and continued investigation of the ‘torn condom’ incident in his interrogation of Assange on 30 August 2010, despite Finne leaving open only the non-sexual allegation to look into;
– his very odd notes on the lab reports following phone calls to technicians regarding ridiculous ‘reasons’ why only a minute amount of mDNA would be found on a ‘used’ condom; his (very suspect) non-request for a DNA test in the first place, and his request for a further test when the first came back “no DNA”;
– most of all, his notes re the “popping balloon sounds/found under the bed” relating to the piece of condom from Wilen (which seemingly does have Assange DNA on it, matching her swab from her hospital visit morning of Friday 20th August before promptly going to Klara station with Ardin. According to Bostrum’s statement, Assange phoned her on that Friday morning while she was at the hospital and he thought everything was sorted, they’d meet the next day to get his HIV test done. I’m sorry to say it, but it sounds like Wilen lied to Assange during that call.)
I think there’s strong evidence that Gehlin was determined to follow through on the FIRST story he heard – a report of DOUBLE rape from two women, as given to Wassgren – not the “‘half asleep’ when he started without a condom” watered-down story dictated to Irmeli Krans. I wonder if Wilen was really too “distressed” to continue when she heard there was an arrest warrant out for rape on Assange, or whether that was a convenient get-out to avoid signing her statement and committing herself to allegations which, if proved false, could net her a two-year jail sentence?
No wonder Marianne Ny didn’t want to use anyone other than Gehlin to interrogate Assange when Gehlin was off sick with a cold…
The only thing all the above doesn’t quite fit is Craig’s contention that Marianne Ny told the UK High Court that Wilen’s unsigned witness statement was ok to use, per Swedish law, because it had been witnessed by two others: Krans – the police interrogator(!) – and Ardin, a complainant who shouldn’t have been sitting in on the Wilen/Krans interview. And probably wasn’t. That’s why I’m so curious for Craig to supply a source for his claim. If it’s true it means Marianne Ny has lied to the UK courts (again!) by amalgamating the two interviews: Wassgren and Krans.
Some people over at Flashback forum are trying to piece together Wassgren’s memo from August 22, using the publicly available, redacted version of the document. Their method is somewhat speculative, but interesting nevertheless. The hypothesis which is being explored is that the original story as told by Wassgren to the on-call prosecutor did not reveal that SW and JA had consensual intercourse on several occasions during their night together. Instead, the impression from the story is that JA lost interest when SW demanded a condom be used, and that their long foreplay was terminated when they both fell asleep. SW then woke up in the morning finding JA having unprotected sex with her.
Wassgren notes in the memo that everyone she spoke to during those hours at the police station agreed that the story amounted to a rape allegation. And this version of the story does indeed look like rape.
This all seems consistent with the arrest warrant, which was issued before Sofia’s interview had been finished, and was based entirely on these initial, informal discussions.
It’s also consistent with AA:s “filling in” of a sentence — she has had a “similar” experience in that JA tried to trick her into unprotected sex. A statement which leads to a formal complaint being filed — possibly an unintended consequence for AA, who had only come along for “support”.
FInally, it is consistent with Eva Finnés dropping of the case a few hours later, when she had the full record from the formal police interview with SW on hand. An interview which paints an entirely different picture of events, and which leaves AA as the only complainant.
For those interested, the discussion (in Swedish) starts here (with Flashback user glugg’s post): https://www.flashback.org/t1275257p4010 and a version of the memo (with speculative text in green) can be found here: http://imageshack.us/f/812/policepmp293small.jpg/
I wonder if Wilen was really too “distressed” to continue when she heard there was an arrest warrant out for rape on Assange, or whether that was a convenient get-out to avoid signing her statement and committing herself to allegations which, if proved false, could net her a two-year jail sentence?
Outrageous smear on SW that is without evidence or foundation. There’s obviously no depths some of the apologists in the Cult of Assange will stoop to in helping him evade justice.
CE 1.34pm
“Outrageous smear on SW that is without evidence or foundation”
I will, of course, apologise whole-heartedly if that proves to be the case. But “without evidence or foundation”? So, the forensic evidence pointing to the fact that the other woman, with whom Ms Wilen consulted extensively prior to visiting the police station together, seems to have submitted false evidence doesn’t count?
And the text messages between the two women which are “out there” (George Galloway has confirmed he’s seen them) but not yet in the public domain don’t either? Or all the anomalies in the first interview/second interview we’ve all discussed throughout this thread?
Oh. Ok. Have it your way – “without foundation or evidence”.
As I’ve said, I’ll be happy to apologise if my suspicions prove groundless. (And, remember, I’m a woman’s who’s reported rape herself in the past.)
Tell me, are YOU going to apologise for all of the descriptions of Assange as ‘rapist’, ‘perpetrator’, ‘douche bag’ we’ve seen – in the press, in blogs like this one – over the last two years if it turns out I’m right and you’re wrong?
@Goran – “From your comments I can see that you are as ignorant as Arbed.”
Is that supposed to be an insult?
CE, so you suddenly care about Sofia Wilen. She seemed merely useful to you before:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-3/#comment-361071
You really don’t care how many women you deride, and women linked to rape cases seems to be your speciality. You seem absolutely obsessed with pursuing Assange, whatever it takes.
Arbed seems to have a much clearer set of interpretations and understandings than either CE or Göran. So I second Jemand’s observation above.