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.
As best as I can tell, Göran Rudling describes the “charges” against Julian Assange as being in some sort of quantum-superposed state; sort of Schrödinger’s cat type charges, depending upon whether Marianne Ny is looking or not…
… or whether she’s using her Swedish or English tongue. In Sweden he’s wanted for questioning as part of an investigation, but in order to justify the EAW that’s not enough.
Perhaps that should have been “in order to justify the extradition …”. The whole thing is a bit confusing.
“George Galloway has confirmed……… ” 🙄
Well why didn’t you just say so and we could have this whole horrible mess cleared up.
@Clark
Re Schrodinger’s cat – yes, I like that analogy. Spot on. Goran obviously wants to keep it so obscure and arcane, that only a master of analysis (he) has the skills/knowledge to interpret this pivotal point of fact for our benefit.
A little more on charges – How and where a charge for an offence proceeds depends on the offence and the jurisdiction. For example, a constable who issues you with a speeding ticket has charged you with an offence when he hands over the ticket to you in the street. If you get done for assault, you are charged at a police station when the paper work has been drawn up and you are informed. If you are a company director, you might be indicted by a judge in court for tax fraud.
In each example, there is a different place and a different person who issues the formal charge. The formal part is simply the legal threshold when paperwork is properly filled, signed, dated and stamped. That represents a transition that formally activates various rights and responsibilities. There can be no wishy-washy notions of exactly what offences are alleged and when these processes transition from one state to another. They have to be legally exact. There is no such thing as an informal charge – you either are, or you are not. What a prosecutor thinks, feels, intends or wants does not confer a different status on proceedings.
How Sweden processes charges is up to them, but reading Goran’s account, it doesn’t make much sense and leaves us with little hope that Assange will know where he stands in the process.
Villager, good to see you too even if the going sometimes get rough. I think you can take,
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.
First please note that there is no formal charge in Sweden as in England. In England it is a formal decision and it is documented.
20 august at 17:00 is when I would say Julian was considered charged. You could argue it was a few minutes earlier if you really want to be exact. He was then suspected on of sex crimes on probable cause. The suspicion of molestation has never ever been removed. On 1 September he was charged with more crimes.
I will leave this blog for a while but will have time for a comment or two. I am busy preparing for a seminar on Assange on 26 September. A seminar that I know will present some new information in the case. I am also preparing an article on Jennifer Robinson’s role in this and why I don’t think she is reliable.
Since I raised the issue of Julian Assange being charged I know that there are discussions going on at the Prosecution Authority. There will be a statement from them in the near future. I will either be proclaimed a legal dwarf with offensive language or that I may be right. I am not worried since it is evident that Julian is to be considered charged.
Wow!
Goran 24 Sept 11.40am: “20 august at 17:00 is when I would say Julian was considered charged.”
BEFORE they’d finished taking Sophie Wilen’s formal statement or even started taking Anna Ardin’s one.
Words. Fail. Me.
Johan,
There are not two conflicting definitions of the legal term “charged”. There is one in England and there is another one in Sweden. The reason for that is the legal systems are different.
I accuse the Assange’s legal team to be ignorant of Swedish law and procedures. I do not think their defence was particularly good. The legal team does not use the same definition as Marianne Ny, the Supreme Court in England, the Supreme Court in Sweden or ECHR.
I know it looks like I am all alone in saying that Julian Assange is to be considered charged. Why it looks that way is because you are again looking in the wrong direction. Turn around 180 degrees and take another look.
Truth is not a numbers game. No matter how many you are at this blog that think I am wrong in this does not change the fact of the matter. I does not even matter if there are 4 billion people thinking I am wrong. Within a week I think you will know. I would appreciate if you then could say, “I am sorry, I was wrong”. But maybe that is too much to ask for.
I’ve raised this issue with the Prime Minister, The Minister of Justice, the Foreign Minister (some other term in English I know), The Prosecutor General, the Prosecution Authority and some more influential legal people. I wouldn’t have done so if I did not know that I am right.
What I see here is that many of you can say the most ridiculous things and you never admit that you are wrong. I pointed out that Craig Murray’s two articles contain 14 serious errors and one silly insinuation. I have pointed out that Arbed is ignorant beyond belief regarding the English criminal procedure And what do I hear. Nothing. Not a rebuttal. Not an admittance in being wrong. Just silence. To me that is not being serious about the truth.
Guapo, you are slowly getting it,
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.
Of course the two women were together at the police station in the beginning. They came there together. Anna’s statement that Donald is relating is from the first part. It is Anna’s words that make Linda Wassgren decide to separate the women and talk to them one on one. It is what Linda found out talking to the women one on one that is the basis for her decision to make phone calls and later call the prosecutor in charge.
I do not agree with you saying that the first minutes at the police station was an informal interview and that the first conversation was the reason for Linda’s decision to label the crime rape. I say it again, Anna’s words made Linda Wassgren decide to separate the women and start to find out what had happened.
I agree with you that Anna was not present during Sofia’s interview.
Arbed,
I noted that you in a conversation with CE said this
I will, of course, apologise whole-heartedly if that proves to be the case.
Now to the issue of charge and indict. Will you whole-heartedly apologize that you are wrong? If you don’t think so, please argue your case. I am not asking you to commit seppuko, just say you were wrong.
I don’t think you ever will apologize for being a “legal turkey”. If you do I would respect you.
Jemand, you with the spiked cap and lederhosen,
@Goran – ”From your comments I can see that you are as ignorant as Arbed.”
Is that supposed to be an insult?
No. A statement of fact.
Orb, oh please
… or whether she’s using her Swedish or English tongue. In Sweden he’s wanted for questioning as part of an investigation, but in order to jus
Perhaps that should have been “in order to justify the extradition …”. The whole thing is a bit confusing.tify the EAW that’s not enough.
I know that you don’t understand the case. And that it is confusing to you. Please talk about yourself. You are confused.
The Judges don’t have a problem with the case. The rulings are clear and logical.
When you don’t understand something it is much wiser to ask questions than just make silly arguments. Especially when you yourself say that you are confused.
Arbed,
“Wow!
Goran 24 Sept 11.40am: “20 august at 17:00 is when I would say Julian was considered charged.”
BEFORE they’d finished taking Sophie Wilen’s formal statement or even started taking Anna Ardin’s one.
Words. Fail. Me.”
When Julian was arrested in absentia on Friday 20 August 17:00 is when I would say Julian is considered to be charged. I will check with the prosecutors and see if they are of the same opinion.
Finally something very positive
Words. Fail. Me.
I hope it lasts forever.
Just read this:
http://samtycke.nu/doc/new/crim-pro-swe.pdf
Göran – your quoting someone else at 12:39 seems to have gone a bit wrong (copy and paste error?). Repost if you like, and I’ll delete the old one.
Please try to avoid insults, even though this topic does get heated. In particular, referring to Jemand in terms of comical German stereotypes is very close to the mark – please stick to the arguments.
@Goran,
In the document you yourself link to on your webpage about agreed facts it’s very clear that the main problem is on the prosecutor side and mainly Marianne Ny. That your interpretation of that document is that Assange is trying to hide is just ridiculous.
It’s also very significant of your behaviour that you try to find every little error there is in any text that favor Assange but you are completely ignorant for the errors made by the other parts.
The most natural thing todo when Anna and Sofia arrived at the police station would be to separate them and then perform a formal interview and record it on video or at least on tape. Instead, what we have is three mainly undocumented interviews (Anna + Sofia together) and then separately. This is followed by a formal interview of Sofia (but not recorded) and the day after, a formal interview with Anna over the phone (not recorded). Neither of these obvious flaws (for anyone believing in well performed investigations and fairness) in the investigation are the faults of the women. However, it’s clear that in a case without any hard technical evidence at all, the case should be closed at this stage. After this timepoint there is no way to perform a fair trial. This is caused by very poor policework and is not the fault of any of the others involved. It’s hard to see that the prosecutor comply with swedish law when she is not dropping the case. If she does not believe she can make a conviction in court she is not allowed to proceed. (and if she believes in a conviction that proves that we live in a donald duck state of justice). Unfortunately we will probably never see Mrs. Ny go to jail, but she sure deserves it.
What is following is a bunch of (maybe formally correct) very odd actions from the prosecutor, as an example, let us look at the EAW. As far as I know (and GR has not been able to prove different) Sweden has never before issued an EAW for a crime of similar or less dignity than the one for Assange. However, there is a similar case, the evidence seems to be alot clearer, the crime is more severe and the risk of a continuation of the same crime seems to be high. This specific case was closed a few months after the EAW for Assange was issued. It was Marianne Ny whom closed the case. What was it about? A man that deliberately had infected a woman with HIV and thereafter fled to London. Thus, in practice, Swedish prosecutors in general don’t issues EAW’s easily and often not even for severe crimes with good evidence. (Another example, http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article12621641.ab, GR have earlier argued that this was not a severe assault, not the less, they kicked the victims head while unconscious and the victim have long(life?) lasting injuries from the assault )
Below, links in sweden regarding the HIV case Marianne Ny dropped.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/slzlwwjgpjat10a/Beg%C3%A4ran%20om%20%C3%B6verpr%C3%B6vning%20av%20beslut%20att%20l%C3%A4gga%20ned%20f%C3%B6runders%C3%B6kningen%20-%20anonymiserad.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3az1tcu8yx5bobg/Beslut%20efter%20beg%C3%A4ran%20om%20%C3%B6verpr%C3%B6vning.pdf
Göran:
Craig may get back to you, but – as you know – he is extremely busy, hence the long posting hiatuses. Whether you think he was/is being reasonable or not, I think it is fair to say he was unimpressed with your filling the board with all manner of extraordinary detail that might serve to distract from the essence of the case.
I’m not saying that you (or anyone) should not look into this situation in detail – I think it is fine to do so, and you have evidently put a lot of time into it. But I think it is fair to explain to possible new readers why it might be that Craig isn’t stopping his other projects to discuss this (at considerable length) with you.
Anyone: regard the text messages that have not yet come out into the public domain, which Galloway has reportedly seen. Is it general understanding that these will be released? I’d expect not due to privacy legislation, but presumably these would have to be submitted to Assange’s defence team).
(Sorry if this has already been answered; just trying to get some discussion on new facts – the old ones appear to be in stalemate).
@Goran – “When Julian was arrested in absentia on Friday 20 August 17:00 …”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest
Can you please explain what “arrested in absentia” means? Or is that more of the same linguistic flimflam that you peddle here?
Jon, 24 Sep, 2012 – 1:47 pm
Point taken. I am sorry for the remark.
I will stick to the arguments. It is very frustrating so see that some people here do not know of basic concepts in the English criminal procedure and cannot admit it. I understand that even if their ignorance is monumental that does not give me the right to call them legal turkeys.
Jemand, this might be a partial answer to that, though it seems to pertain more to a trial or conviction rather than arrest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia
@Jon – “Anyone: regard the text messages that have not yet come out into the public domain, which Galloway has reportedly seen. Is it general understanding that these will be released? I’d expect not due to privacy legislation, but presumably these would have to be submitted to Assange’s defence team).”
What privacy legislation?
There is so much about this case that has been leaked to the press, including twitter posts by AA, and no word about privacy, except perhaps AA’s name. If any new, favourable, evidence comes to light, I think Assange will ensure its publication one way or another. This is a public relations war being played out and any information that serves one side or the other is ammunition.
@Jon – 24 Sep, 2012 – 2:27 pm
No, “arrested in absentia” makes as much sense as “cremated in absentia” or “hamburger was eaten in absentia”. It is meaningless nonsense that forgets the purpose of actually performing the physical act on the physical object.
You can issue a warrant for someone’s arrest abroad, so why not say it just like it is?
Guapo,
The most natural thing todo when Anna and Sofia arrived at the police station would be to separate them and then perform a formal interview and record it on video or at least on tape. Instead, what we have is three mainly undocumented interviews (Anna + Sofia together) and then separately.
As far as I know (and GR has not been able to prove different) Sweden has never before issued an EAW for a crime of similar or less dignity than the one for Assange.
I disagree totally. Before you start an investigation (förundersökning) you have to have a registered complaint. To start an investigation is a serious decision, a decision preferably taken by a prosecutor. Linda Wassgren’s actions are connected to get a complaint and then report her findings to a prosecutor. It is the prosecutor that most of the time makes the decision. In some cases when it is obvious that an investigation should be started a police officer can start it.
I agree with you that all interviews regarding sex crimes should be documented on video. I was the first that said this after I noted that the interviews were not even audio recorded. They were written in summary form. In Sweden unfortunately most interviews in sex crimes are not recorded. I hope that one of the outcomes of this case is that the police will be forced to video record interviews. Today it is only an option.
I do not think that the first part, the conversation leading up to a complaint is important to record. But the first interviews with the victim and the suspect are crucial since it is these interviews that determine the future actions in a case. If you get it wrong in the beginning it is very difficult to correct it.
I have never looked into the use of EAWs by Sweden. I don’t think you are correct. I know that Interpol Red Notices are used for less serious crimes.
Jemand,
Can you please explain what “arrested in absentia” means? Or is that more of the same linguistic flimflam that you peddle here?
“Anhållen i sin frånvaro”. You work it out. I am sorry that I couldn’t translate it to suit you lips. I will use the Swedish terms from now and can translate it any way you like.
Hi Goran
Where is the seminar taking place? I will like to attend. This seminar needs an international presence, to maintain a balance.
@Jemand – not sure exactly what piece of privacy legislation, but Sweden is sure to have such a thing. Just looking for reasons as to why we don’t have these yet – and of course we may never do.
(Aside: The text of tweets aren’t covered by privacy legislations generally, since they are/were published in the public domain.)
@Jon – yes, that’s right, twitter is public by it’s nature. I should have referred to private communications to the police as an example. Anyway, I imagine that if the police have extracted text messages either from mobile phones or from telco servers, and introduce them into the collection of case evidence, then they might lose their status as private for the purposes of legislation. For example, evidence presented in court has no quality of being “private” once it is presented, without a court order protecting it. And what about publication outside of Sweden? Do EU laws confer an extension of jurisdiction to local laws?
Jon & Jemand,
You are referring to George Galloway, MP, right? I don’t know what Mr Galloway has seen. I don’t think Mr Galloway knows either.
Let’s look at what another “credible source” says about text messages. Jennifer Robinson in her brief to Canberra MPs, 2 March 2011:
Jennifer is referring to texts sent between sexual encounters. As all of you who read the police interview with Sofia know it is the last encounter that is reported. I don’t think it is possible that Sofia, between sexual encounters, could have texted what state she would be in the future. It does not make sense. I can tell you another thing. Jennifer’s brief to Canberra MPs does not make sense in a lot of other aspects too.
I don’t know what is in the texts. I do not think there is anything that is important. If so Björn Hurtig would have mentioned it at the February 2011 hearing. He did not. I heard him. I was there. And he spoke in Swedish. In my conversations with him he has not indicated that the texts are that important. I understand the texts are only important to most of you since you can speculate about it forever. Facts are annoying bits that torpedo your conspiracy theories.
Again, there are no leaks except for the leak that originates from Assange’s lawyers. When will you ever learn.
Twitter posts have not been leaked. Not even posts on blggy.se. The posts were on the Internet for everybody to read. That is the idea of twitter and bloggy.se.
Rico Santin,
Here is the link.
http://www.icj-sweden.org/?p=2409
Please note that you have to apply for a seat today. Don’t miss it.
Do come. And introduce yourself and you can ask me anything about the case. You will hear things that you don’t know about yet.
Göran,
Yes, I was referring to texts allegedly seen by George Galloway. You read too much into my question – I did not imply a conspiracy regarding the texts – it was just a question!
However you seem to regard yourself as in solid possession of “facts” regarding the texts, even though you admit you don’t know what’s in them? Jemand is right that, +if+ they are to be presented in court, they would become public knowledge (I make no claim here as to whether the case is to be held in camera, but if it is then of course the texts may not be made public).
Forgive me for not being up to speed on that claim. Is that widely considered to be proven? Would you kindly point me to a link about that? I should be interested to learn more.