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.
Jon 3.05pm
The famous texts between the women and between them and Assange. The reason they are not in the public domain is because Marianne Ny withheld them from the evidence file she gave to the UK courts and to the defence team to back the EAW warrant when she issued it. Why? Ask her that.
Seems that at least some of the texts have got loose though, if we are to believe George Galloway’s emphatic statement at 25 minutes in to his podcast about the Assange case. He made a lot of very emphatic statements in that podcast, which got him into rather a lot of trouble. Still, I’d guess it was those texts which promptly him to go on the record so noisily…
As an aside, Ny has also held back the second statement allegedly made by Sophie Wilen on 2 September 2010 – one she was happy to sign presumably. I say allegedly because, I think I’m right in saying this, we only have the word of Claus Borgstrom, ‘counsel’ to the women, and Marianne Ny, ‘blatant liar’, to prove it. No one else has seen it. It wasn’t in the Guardian’s leak of the police file just prior to 17 December 2010, it wasn’t in the February 2011 internet file of the police file. Ny would only tell the UK courts it was “substantially the same”. Begs the question, then why not use it? A signed version of the same complaint would make the claim Craig’s made that Ny told the UK court an unsigned version was ok to use because it had been witnessed by Krans and Ardin very, very bizarre. Wouldn’t it?
Jon / Arbed / Göran
In the High Court ruling paragraph 125 SW “in one (text message) she described herself as “half asleep” and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep. These are matters of evidence which would be highly relevant at trial. ”
Shows there are text messages and they might be important even if Göran doesn’t know about them.
Shisei,
Read my comment 24 Sep, 2012 – 3:24 pm
Jennifer explains as she understood the texts. She claims the text from Sofia is between sexual encounters. This means Sofia claims she was half asleep at a totally different time than what you guys think.
Hi Shisei!
Good to see you. Yes, I know the High Court referred to them. They came out in the defence’s oral submissions at the hearing, which the judges acknowledge here. The judges haven’t seen them but have apparently accepted both the texts and Wilen’s second statement exist. As your quotation shows, the judges don’t exactly let these matters trouble them at all. Their very next sentence is indicate of the attitude of all three UK courts:
“It was not therefore necessary to set the details of these out. There is, therefore, nothing in the particulars which is neither fair nor accurate.”
Move along. Nothing to see here.
This went on SO much in the UK hearings…
@Jon, @Clark, This has no direct connection to the issue at hand, except in perhaps the widest possible meaning, but I wonder, if you are aware of the the case of Sally Clark?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
Jon,
“there are no leaks except for the leak that originates from Assange’s lawyers
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.
You are forgiven a million times, ok? I do like your question and I will try to answer it to best of may ability and with a pleasant tone.
I’ve dealt with the issue of leaks in full in this article. Read the full article and you will be updated on more issues.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/checking-naomi-wolfs-8-big-problems-in-the-assange-case-and-coming-up-empty/
The excerpt below is from http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/4corners/#leaks
The only known leak is from Mark Stephens office. I know who received the Detention Memo from who and when. I also know when and where it was first published. But I will not reveal details.
I hope you see from the material that there are no leaks. And please believe me when I say something. I don’t mind that you ask me questions or even argue some issues. But I want arguments to based on facts not just made up stories from “sources” never revealed.
Göran said:
Are you suggesting that no leak was involved in the worldwide publicizing of the suspect’s name a few hours after the allegations were made?
@Goran, “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.”
Well, I think I’m correct regarding EAW’s. Regarding the Interpol Red Notices, do you have any Swedish examples?
You have made comments about the Irish assault case in the past on your blog, and you claimed that it probably was not severe enough for an EAW.
Regarding the first interviews, not only are they unrecorded, but, they lack essential information such as good time estimates and details of what happened. It’s remarkable that an arrest warrant was issued before the interviews and that Anna’s interview wasn’t even performed the same day and still … they did not manage to record the phone interview. It’s obvious that if you don’t make an effort to document the first interviews as well as possible it’s impossible to judge witness statements in a fair way. It’s not fair for the complainants but you can’t put people in jail because the police is not doing it’s job (in a fair legal system, in banana monarchies it works differently).
Further, in a fair legal system, is it possible that a prosecutor think it’s a good idea to make up her own punishments for accused men she don’t think she can convict in court? That is what Marianne Ny think, read her own words on page 9, http://www.domstol.se/publikationer/rapporter/kvinnofridslagen.pdf (this is in swedish)
@Göran, “Jennifer explains as she understood the texts. She claims the text from Sofia is between sexual encounters. This means Sofia claims she was half asleep at a totally different time than what you guys think.”
If so, can you please reveal at what timepoint she was half asleep? Enlight us!
Guapo, Can’t help from smiling from ear to ear, I like your question, maybe I like you too!
If so, can you please reveal at what timepoint she was half asleep? Enlight us!
What don’t I do for you guys. I have to try to explain when Ms S might have been half asleep. This blog is crazy. I must be too since I here.
I really don’t know when Ms S was half-asleep. It is not an issue for me.
I just know that what Jennifer claims in her brief to Canberra MPs is not true and it does not even make sense.
Jennifer claims Ms S texted between sexual encounters. That is what she writes. Let’s look first at Jennifer’s claim and then at the interview with MS S.
Jennifer’s claim
The last time Ms S can have been texting is between the last and the second last encounter. That means to me she texted before the last encounter. If her text should in any way be an indication that she was half asleep when Julian initiated the unprotected sex she must have been texting while he entered her. There is nothing in the police report suggesting this to be the case.
If she texted before the last encounter she can not have been able to tell in what state she would be in some time in the future (when Julian entered her) unless she can tell the future. Nothing indicates she is a future teller.
Jennifer’s statement does not make sense. It is definitely not proof that Ms S was half-asleep when Julian initiated the sex. It is just proof that Jennifer is mixed up in confusion.
Ms S interview
According to the interview Ms S claims she texted after the first non successful attempt of having sex. If she was half asleep at that time I don’t know. Even if she was it is not important because it was hours before the reported sex.
She also texted when she went shopping around 8 am. After that she went home and she had protected sex with Julian. Then she claims she fell asleep and was woken up by Julian entering her. According to Ms S she does not say she texted between the last and second last sexual encounter. So I assume she didn’t.
So what I figured out it is not likely that she texted she was half-asleep going shopping. Even if she was it does not say anything about the last sex, the sex reported.
It seems to me the text Jennifer is referring to is a text from the first (non)sexual encounter and the first real one. My conclusion is the there is nothing that supports Jennifer’s claim that the texts shows “a very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case.”
Or simply put, Jennifer does not know what she is talking about.
My conclusion
The issue if Ms S was asleep, half-asleep, texting, wide awake, almost dead, unconscious, dancing around the bed or what ever is a matter for the court.
There are no facts about the texts. And the person that claims that there are facts, Jennifer Robinson, can’t even interpret the so called facts properly.
Let’s bury the texts until we know some more.
Please, no more of this
Guapo,
“Regarding the first interviews, not only are they unrecorded, but, they lack essential information such as good time estimates and details of what happened. It’s remarkable that an arrest warrant was issued before the interviews and that Anna’s interview wasn’t even performed the same day and still … they did not manage to record the phone interview. It’s obvious that if you don’t make an effort to document the first interviews as well as possible it’s impossible to judge witness statements in a fair way. It’s not fair for the complainants but you can’t put people in jail because the police is not doing it’s job (in a fair legal system, in banana monarchies it works differently).
I don’t agree with your comments.
Read what a seasoned prosecutor says about it. He is more informed than you are. The article is in Swedish. Google translate works fine. If you have problems just ask and I help you.
The title is “The prosecuter that arrested Julian Assange only did his duty”
http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/08/25/klagaren-som-anh-ll-julian-assange-gjorde-bara-sin-plikt
Göran
“Jennifer explains as she understood the texts. She claims the text from Sofia is between sexual encounters. This means Sofia claims she was half asleep at a totally different time than what you guys think.”
Would you care to explain? First what time do you think us “guys” think? What time do you think, know?
Göran
I see you have already addressed that. I should have refreshed the screen. I’ve just been trying to catch up after working away from home.
I think burying that legal argument regarding when the text was sent is a good idea. According to the original statement of Ms S after Julian entered her, from behind, apparently after the text had been sent, she was smiling. This, as I mentioned in my blog last month, I find hard to believe of a woman being raped.
http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-rape-of-julian-assange.htm
Here is an article in the Guardian about the text messages:
“Julian Assange’s accusers sent texts discussing revenge, court hears”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/08/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-texts
Johan and John Goss,
“Here is an article in the Guardian about the text messages:
“Julian Assange’s accusers sent texts discussing revenge, court hears””
I think you are going totally in the wrong. Direction. No matter what you find in the texts it is only relevant in Sweden. You like spending time speculating
If the texts in any way proved that a crime has not been committed the case would have been dropped a long time ago.
The texts are discussed with witness Marie Thorn. Her story is to me credible. Read the interview and you’ll find this a nothing story blown out of proportion by lawyers. Guess who’s?
Swedish
http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police_marie.pdf
English
http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police-marie-en.pdf
John Goss,
“Would you care to explain? First what time do you think us “guys” think? What time do you think, know?”
In my 8:24 pm comment I showed that Jennifer’s comments about the texts cannot be true. Her claims about the texts have no bearing on what happened during the reported sex.
From the interviews the text about half-asleep seems most likely be sent between 1:00am and 2:00am or there abouts. It is not likely sent around 8:40a or there abouts.
Again. It is a non issue. Just for the Swedish process. Please don’t go into another hole. I’m not comment any more on this because is totally unimportant for the understanding of the case.
John Goss,
“I think burying that legal argument regarding when the text was sent is a good idea. According to the original statement of Ms S after Julian entered her, from behind, apparently after the text had been sent, she was smiling. This, as I mentioned in my blog last month, I find hard to believe of a woman being raped.”
Sorry. I don’t understand you reasoning. The rape occurred after the event you describe.
Btw, anyone in Sweden know anything about Mrs Al-Hilli’s mother, who was murdered in France, along with her daughter and son-in-law, two weeks ago? Please see the very long ‘Al Hilli’ thread on this blog, just next to this one. I’m posting this here in case anyone has seen anything in the Swedish press – please forgive the intrusion from another thread’s topic – but it seems too obvious an opportunity (if that’s the right word) to miss. Goran, Orb, Arbed…?
Göran
I think the research you have done is commendable. I wish I had access to the documents you have and a knowledge of Swedish. But as you question your own translation sometimes, as with the “charge”, “formally charge” and “indict” I am happy to trust that your translation is good.
However, you keep saying “the rape” as in “The rape occurred after the event you describe.” Whether this is factually correct or not I do not know. But really at this stage, since we do not even know whether he has been “charged” or not, and he certainly has not been tried, and, or, convicted, it ought to be “alleged rape”. I’ve noticed the same pre-judgment on your blog pages. So please, Göran, can you write “alleged rape”, for your own good.
My understanding is that the text was sent after he lay snoring and before he had sex from behind in which she was smiling. See To Enköping and the SMS messages to her friends part in the following link.
http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml
I think you sometimes play Devil’s advocate. I think too that you believe there was no rape, certainly not in the sense of violent rape. Everybody should question. You too my friend.
@Göran, “I don’t agree with your comments.
Read what a seasoned prosecutor says about it. He is more informed than you are. The article is in Swedish. Google translate works fine. If you have problems just ask and I help you.
The title is “The prosecuter that arrested Julian Assange only did his duty”
http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2010/08/25/klagaren-som-anh-ll-julian-assange-gjorde-bara-sin-plikt”
You don’t have to worry about my knowledge in Swedish (for sure alot better than my English). I read the Hillegren article when it was published. It does not address my criticism. It says nothing about the fact that the warrant for Assange was issued before the interviews with Anna and Sofia. Regarding my other points, that you should interview and tape all involved ASAP have a deep foundation in how the brain works. If the legal system disagrees that is because it is not based on science. This is elementary knowledge. In statistics, it’s common that people think things works in a certain way and don’t investigate enough. However, when it comes to how useful (not in the legal sense but in the sense of being the truth) a witness statement is, I feel confident to say it’s BLOODY OBVIOUS that the value (and the truth) of any such statement derogate quickly and the more time you have to think about a situation and the more you talk about the situation with others the farther away from the truth you will be. This happens even if you try your very best to be objective. It’s a fact of how the brain functions. Did you disagree with the quality of the interviews as well? I don’t see how it’s possible to get a just perception about what happened in the interviews. As an example, after emptying the house on food so she could not provide breakfast to her guest, Sofia went to buy more breakfast food. She returned home and they had breakfast. They undressed and had volontarily sex and just before they dressed and she gave Assange a ride on her bike to the railwaystation she mangaged to fall asleep (or as I interpret the material, she is in this moment half asleep, but let’s wait until we see what comes out in the end) and she now has intercourse for the forth time with Assange the same night. OK, so to estimate the likelyhood that she was asleep, it would be good to know how much time was there between the previous intercourse and the ride to the railwaystation. The impression is for sure, that we are not talking about lot of time, but how short was it (5 min, 15 min, 30 min?) if the store opens early, it could be longer time (how far was it to the store). However, the interviews lacks a lot of relevant information. A problem is that it’s no problem to fill in those gaps in a trial in Sweden even though years have gone by since the actual situation. A funny thing is that she managed to somehow meet her brother in the food store (this is before breakfast and the last two intercourse’s), it should also be noted that at the timepoint for the last intercourse she was already late for work so a person with good working ethics would not have been asleep at that timepoint.
@ John Goss 10.24pm
FYI, there are more than 100 text messages. Some are from Ms Wilen to her friends both during her night with Assange on 17 August 2010 and some from the following days.
Then there are texts between the two women. These are presumably dated between 18 and 20 August 2010.
Then there are texts between the two women and Assange. Presumably these date between 19 and 20 August 2010.
These were shown to Bjorn Hurtig by Marianne Ny on either 17 or 18 November 2010, but she wouldn’t let him take notes or copies of them. The only reason she showed them to him at all was because she had to under Swedish law immediately prior to the Svea court hearing.
Given that no notes were taken I am at a loss to understand how Goran could possibly know which text was the one in which the “half asleep” comment by Wilen comes, or on which day that text was sent, or at which time, let alone between which “insertion” to borrow Galloway charming turn of phrase…
So, let’s review what is known about these texts: There are hundred of them, Marianne Ny has withheld them from UK courts and defence team. Bjorn Hurtig has seen them on 17/18 November 2010. They speak of revenge and going to the press/making money (according to Hurtig) and in one of them Wilen says she was “half asleep” (this seems a credible claim because one of the other witness statements by a friend of Wilen’s says she said that to her too).
That is the totality of the known facts. Jennifer Robinson’s statement quoted above is general enough to fit the known facts and therefore seems credible.
Goran’s claims include all sorts of “details” that NOBODY else knows.
John Goss,
“However, you keep saying “the rape” as in “The rape occurred after the event you describe.” Whether this is factually correct or not I do not know. But really at this stage, since we do not even know whether he has been “charged” or not, and he certainly has not been tried, and, or, convicted, it ought to be “alleged rape”. I’ve noticed the same pre-judgment on your blog pages. So please, Göran, can you write “alleged rape”, for your own good.
My understanding is that the text was sent after he lay snoring and before he had sex from behind in which she was smiling. See To Enköping and the SMS messages to her friends part in the following link.”
I sometimes make mistakes too. I always mean alleged rape. I know. I regard Julian as innocent until he is proved guilty in a court of law. I have in a number of places stated that I think Anna is making a false accusation. But she too is innocent until convicted.
I do think it is going to be difficult to convict Julian if the case goes that far. But I don’t have all the information that the police and prosecutors do. Believe me they are not employed by CIA so there is nothing strange in this case. I can admit that it sometimes look really weird though. I think Julian made a big fat mistake of not showing up for an interview.
I do think you are correct in placing the texts where you did.
Charged, formally charged and indicted. I’ve noted that some times in English court documents a Judge can write charge when he means formally charged. Normally you can figure out what he means from the context.
I’ve spent an unbelievable time with this case. I am in nobody’s corner. I follow the facts and then I form my opinion. If I am wrong I admit it.
One thing is clear though. We need laws that are similar to the ones in England. They are far more advance than ours. And we do need much better police investigations. All interviews in sex cases have to be video documented.
Guapo,
I read the Hillegren article when it was published. It does not address my criticism. It says nothing about the fact that the warrant for Assange was issued before the interviews with Anna and Sofia.
I think you are missing prosecutor Hillegren’s point. If the police hears about a serious crime and the suspect is a foreigner with no real connection to Sweden and it is likely he will leave the country they have to immediately arrest him. That is the duty of the police in order to protect the victims. Then you make an investigation including interviews. I see nothing wrong in the first prosecutors decision to arrest Julian immediately.
I had a similar opinion like you before I understood what Hillegren is saying. And I think you agree with me that Julian should have been arrested on 1 September. Then the case would have been finished. The prosecutors trusted Julian when he said he would come in for an interview. Similar to the bail. The court thought Julian would behave. He jumped bail and fled to Ecuador’s embassy.
I am pleased to see that you agree we have to have better police interviews in sex cases. That is the only way we will find real perpetrators and make sure we do not arrest innocent people.
Hope you agree we need laws based on consent too, just like the laws in England.
Arbed,
You wrote earlier
“Words. Fail. Me.”
I know it wasn’t true. Now you are trying to say something that isn’t very clever.
“Given that no notes were taken I am at a loss to understand how Goran could possibly know which text was the one in which the “half asleep” comment by Wilen comes, or on which day that text was sent, or at which time, let alone between which “insertion” to borrow Galloway charming turn of phrase… “
I said it before. I say it again. I do not know what is your problem. I don’t know it it is the reading or the understanding of what you have read.
The text I was referring to was the one Jennifer was referring to in her brief to Canberra MPs. If you read my comment again slowly, with your glasses on and your brain switched on you would immediately understand Jennifer does not talk about 100 texts.
John Goss, with a Sherlock Holmes brain, has no problem of understanding which text it is and roughly when it was sent. He put it like this:
“My understanding is that the text was sent after he lay snoring and before he had sex from behind in which she was smiling. See To Enköping and the SMS messages to her friends part in the following link.” Pick a fight with him.
Arbed, I know that you are “at a loss to understand”. Why don’t try to understand before you tell everybody that you simply cannot understand. Leave the keyboard and think.
Jennifer Robinson on the text I commented, para 16
http://wlcentral.org/node/1418#8
John “Sherlock” Goss,
I forgot something in my last reply. You are probably aware that I don’t regard Rick Downes at Rixstep a credible source. I show with an example why am of this opinion.
The document you linked to http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml is about Ms S interview.
Rick made a reasonable translation. There is a section in the end. The interrogator’s comment. It says in the real interview.
If you read the second and third paragraph in Rick Downe’s article you will find:
Rick sticks in “the police were hunting for him in the Stureplan nightclub area” even though there are no facts supporting it. Then he changes “Sofia had difficulty concentrating after that news” and makes up this “Krans, an acquaintance of Anna Ardin, notes that Wilén seemed to go to pieces on hearing the news”. “Difficulty concentrating” is changed into “seemed to go to pieces.”.
Rick is willfully changing the meaning. And then later on some other page he takes these twisted bits and makes up another story. I can’t say with 100% certainty that Rick is responsible for the story that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview but it wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve seen Rick do things like this over and over and over again. Sometimes he makes up stories out of thin air to.
Not only that Rick changes meanings. He is trying to convince us that Irmeli Krans changed the interview from 20 August to something else on 26 August. The crook is not Irmeli Krans, it is Rick Downes.
The worst part is that WikiLeaks regards Rick Downes is credible (they must know he makes stuff up) and link to stories he makes up. If you check Justice4Assange there are many links to Rixstep. That is the reason that I regard Justice4Assange as unreliable.
According to my sources Rick Downes serves in some editorial function within the WikiLeaks group. It is disastrous for the credibility of WikiLeaks. Unfortunately it seems like Julian Assange does not care. As long as a story supports him it does not matter if it is made up.
That is why ask for sources. If I know it is Rixstep it is most likely that story is twisted if it is not totally made up.
Just wanted you to know.
@ Göran Rudling, 24 Sep, 2012 – 3:24 pm
You write; “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.”
According to the police questioning of S it is there stated that JA had foreplay with S that went on for a very long time, so they had sex but not intercourse, and JA went to sleep. S was shocked and upset, went to get a blanket, and while JA was asleep she texted a friend (a friend who has been questioned by the police and whose testimony is also in the leaked police report on the net, for ex at Rixstep). In S:s messages she mentions about the long sex-forplay, and she states already there in her textmessage that as he was not using a condom S wrote to her friend that she now had to go and test herself for STD (note: obviously S let JA have sex with her as foreplay is sex, even though it is not intercourse, and she let him have that sex without a condom, so how would JA then know she “only” wanted to have sex with a condom?!). Then in textmessages some time AFTER the final intercourse, S mentions to her friend that she was half-asleep, and therefore not fast asleep as S has stated in her police interrogation. This is mentioned by this friend when she gives her statement to the police, that S had in a textmessage said that she was half-asleep or half-awake or the correct swedish word she used was “slummrade”, dosing/dosing off (JA and S had just a short period before this already had intercourse, which was the time S saw that the condom was only on at the top of JAs penis, but, again, she did not say anything to him about that, though it could easily have slipped off, just as she did not say anything the evening before during the long sex-forplay without a condom, or that she did not say that she did not want to continue the very last intercourse without a condom, though she did talk directly to JA during that very last intercourse and asked immediatly as she “vaknade till” (woke to – indicating not being fully asleep because then you say “woke up”) if he had a condom on, and when he answered he didn’t she did not tell him to stop instead she said “You’d better not have HIV” and he answered “Of course not” and the sex without a condom continued till he came inside of her). Back to the friend and the textmassages. Because this friend had in her police interview mentioned these textmessages, S had to come into the police station again and was questioned about this statement, and S then had to admit that she had not been asleep, but half-asleep/half awake/dosing. These textmessages were shown to Hurtig, he mentions them in court (strange you missed that), and in the live broadcasting from the last days in court it was also mentioned. I recall it also to be mentioned in the written statement to the court from Hurtig, but there I might remember wrongly, but that is so very easy to check! Judge Riddle for example did mention this in his written statement, but said that the english court was not to go through the statements but he did urge the swedish court to do so, he did find it strange, he did emphasize it. You only look at what J Robinson has written when she met politicians in Australia, but you overlook what she and Hurtig and others such as Judge Riddle actually did say in court, both verbally and in writing. THAT does not make sense! The police interviews and so on is translated from swedish to english at for instance Rixstep, and very easy to check!
Besides; how could JA be “åtalad”, when M Ny has said both verbally and in writing that time and time again that she will decide after the interrogation with JA concerning S (JA has already been questioned concerning A)whether or not she will “åtala” (charge him). Judge Riddle said, sardonicly, that he assumed/took for granted that she would “åtala” (bring charges), meaning, why otherwise persue this in an english court, using the EAW, which is only to be used when “åtal” (charges) are brought. In swedish you say that you may or may not “väcka åtal” (bring charges), and on numerous occations on the swedish prosecutions homepage it has been stated that when JA comes to Sweden, he will be put in “häkte” (detention) and within a few days in front of a judge it will be decided if he is to be held or not, and if held the “förundersökning” (preliminary investigation) will continue until prosecutor M Ny has decided whether or not she has enough evidence to bring the case to “åtal” (charges) in court, for a “rättegång” (trial). The seminar you are to attend – they misrepresents facts when they say that JA are to stand trial (rättegång). This has by prosecuter M Ny still not been decided! And as the spokesperson from the prosecuters office has stated in for example an interview in english recently, it is up to the individual prosecuter to decide whether or not for example conduct interviews, police interrogation in another country, and in other much more serious cases Sweden has done this (the children murderess from Germany for example) but again Rosander stated that it is up to the prosecuter who handles the specific case. JA has said that he welcomes “åtal” (charges), because then, as M Ny also has written to Hurtig, he is entitled to get the accusations specified and see the material. Evidently not easy to built a defence if not. By the way, this organisation arrangeing the seminar originally wrote that JA was suspected (or maybe even accused) of TWO cases of rape and in year 2010! They now have changed these two big errors, not very trustworthy!
You have done some tremendious work, like detecting the deleted twitters, and the PM from the first police that questioned S and A informally for 2 hours, before Krans got in, first she questione the two together but later separately, in the PM you got from the police she states that both women came in together to the police station and she mentions in the PM that rape was almost immediately mentioned, it is also this police woman, Wassberg junior officer, who calls the first prosecutor while S is still being questioned by Krans senior officer. Krans states in unofficial mails that she was upset that she was not asked, as she had a different take on it. I don’t quite get your “angle” nowadays, what you really want to accomplish, what your purpose is. Personally I want JA “åtalad” (charged) and stand trial, because then everything will or at least should be exposed, as the “secret” sms between the two women that Hurtig was told not to mention, but did anyway! But as everything would be exposed, a trial will never ever take place! Yet how embarrising for M Ny and Sweden if the case does not lead to “åtal” (charges) and not brought to trial! Judge Riddle for one will be surprised, he did write in his statement that he anticipated a trial in Sweden! Rape is one of the most horrific crimes, and should therefore never be lied about, or handing in not sufficient “evidence”. No sane woman would go to the police only to ask questions about if somebody could be forced by the police to take a STD-test, most people know that is not the case, and if not, you use the telephone or ask the nurses and doctors at the hospital which they had been to earlier that day! Real rape victims do not get this kind of “attention” and help, but these two do. No, rape is far to serious to let anybody make a mockery out of it as these two and officials have done! And so is a suspect’s rights, in this case JA!
@ Göran Rudling, 25 Sep, 2012 – 12:41 am
You write: “Not only that Rick changes meanings. He is trying to convince us that Irmeli Krans changed the interview from 20 August to something else on 26 August.”
But that is true, and you know it, or you should know it if you have been following this case the whole time. Krans was told by the police in charge of the case, Gehlin (same police who went to one Estonia och Lethuania and questioned a suspect!), to make necassary changes, there are email-correspondance between the two and these can be found on the net. Krans when she was going to enter her handwritten notes from the interview with S a few days later was not able to enter the system, her file had been locked. She then contacted the police who was then in charge, and contact person, Gehlin, and he told her to re-write it and make necassary changes. At Flashback more than a year ago someone made tremendous work and through some program managed to compare and see what had been changed, for instance small things but things, statements, which gives a total different implication. For instance that JA pushed S down on the bed – and added – “as a real man”. That is Krans interpretation, not S:s. There are a quite a few changes like that, where certain things have been stressed, to lead the reader to a certain interpretation and by that a certian impression of JA.
As a swede who has read the swedish material (interviews and so on), you do know that Rixstep made an outstanding job on the translations of all this material from swedish to english! What you are mentioning now is an article, and people who write articles or other kind om non-legal or research material, they, like Krans, twists the facts just a little, but enough to make it a bit more dramatic, but still the essence is there in his article. No matter what, the translated material is just about perfect!
This sums it all up!!!. Do a google translation.
Sweden is a sick fucking country!!!
Det intressanta är, att det föreligger tydligen en massa missuppfattningar om det mesta kring Assange.
Har är alltså inte åtalad.
Han skall höras om sin version av en händelse, som inte ens enligt flickorna var våldtäkt, utan rädsla för eventuell HIV-smitta. (Som nu är konstaterat rent medicinskt att de inte har)
Hur det sedan blir fråga om våldtäkt, kan Ni fråga åklagaren.
Eller den Svenska Lagstiftningen.
Eller eventuellt genus”vetenskapen”.
Gå på kurs om på Södertörns Högskola.
Han kunde först inte förhöras i Sverige medan han var här.(Oklart varför)
Först när han rest ifrån Sverige blev det intressant. (Också oklart varför)
Han kan inte höras i England heller (oklart varför), fast han gärna ställer upp.
Han måste utlämnas till Sverige (oklart varför), som upprepade ggr meddelar att man inte ger några garantier om vidare stopp för utlämning till USA…???
Vad är det som framstår som oklart för ett helt gäng dumskallar på tråden….???
Fråga gärna mig…Jag svarar garanterat.
Göran:
I know that you are obsessed with irrelevant details, but don’t you think it’s getting a bit ridiculous? You are now accusing Jennifer Robinson of lying because of a missing comma in her statement. Let me add it for you:
Better like that?
Jennifer Robinson speaks of “more than 100” text messages. What makes you think that they were all sent between sexual encounters? Did the missing comma really confuse you that bad? The context makes it perfectly clear that you are wrong (she was “half-asleep” at the relevant time at which the arrest warrant asserts she was “asleep”).