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.
Rico, I found some comments I think you’ll enjoy on Goran’s post “Swedish Prosecutor General confirms Julian Assange is charged” about his insistence that Assange’s “charging” happened at 16:11 on 20 August 2010:
“So Marianne Ny managed to charge Julian Assange before she even took up the case? Or the on-duty prosecutor managed to charge Julian Assange before either of the women had made their statements?
Oh. Wait… at what point of the process does Julian Assange get to tell his side of the story? Would that be after he’s been charged then? Or is it that he doesn’t actually need to be asked about what happened with Sophie Wilen at all (or maybe he can tell the police that at the trial, yes?)
Oh. No, I get it now. We’ve worked out the exact time he’s been charged – that’s 4.11pm on 20th August 2010, right? – So, that’s when the preliminary investigation ended, yes? Professor Wong explains that:
“a person is formally charged – through an indictment – at a
relatively late stage of the process. As pointed out above, this takes
place when the preliminary investigation is to terminate.”
So the preliminary investigation ended at 4.11pm 20th August 2010, correct? That would be before they started talking to Linda Wassgren, yes? Or how many minutes after (they started talking to Linda Wassgren was Assange charged, I mean)? No, wait – Presumably the women had to spend some time in the waiting room, right? So, that counts as the preliminary investigation… and the charging at 4.11pm 20th August 2010 would be at the point they stepped up to the front desk, yes? (I’m guessing here, so help me out…)
Gosh, this is confusing.
****
Sorry, but it was this bit by Karin Rosinder that got me confused:
“Some of the misunderstandings in this case due to the differences
between our legal systems, which – oversimplified – in British law
“charges” in a relatively early stage of the process and where the
Pre-action then begins. In Sweden we do the opposite…”
August 20th 2010 at 4.11pm seems pretty early in the whole process to me, but in Sweden you call that ‘relatively late’?
In fact, in the UK they bring charges at an even later stage than in Sweden’s process – they actually wait until after questioning the suspect. However, they are trying out a few innovations in this particular case to bring their judicial process more in line with the cosmopolitan, European approach. Goes like this:
Women’s stories > trial by media > extradite suspect > questioning > charges
Maybe Sweden could adopt that model too?
Oh.
Silly me, I forgot progressive, enlightened Sweden’s always ahead of the game. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how it works in Sweden:
Women’s stories > trial by media > arrest in absentsia > jail > question suspect > charges > ‘private’ hearing
or with truly, ahem, ‘international’ cases:
Women’s stories > trial by media > arrest in absentsia > jail > question suspect/charges (country optional)
***
No, that’s not quite right. I’ve got Sweden’s model all wrong, haven’t I? Sorry, easily confused, me. In Sweden, it goes like this:
Charge (4.11pm, 20/8/10) > women’s stories (18.40pm, 20/8, 11.30am, 21/8) > trial by media > arrest in absentsia > jail > question > ‘private’ hearing
Alternatively, for ‘international’ cases:
Charge > women’s stories > trial by media > arrest in absentsia > jail (Sweden) > formal indictment (country optional) > ‘private’ hearing / NDAA / show trial (options at prosecutor discretion)
Arbed,
“Gosh, this is confusing.”
You’ve been telling us for a while you don’t understand. We know. It was obvious a long time ago.
Goran doesn’t understand sarcasm. That’s rather odd for someone who claims to understand the subtle complexities of language, indeed languages – all of them, Swedish and English too – better than Supreme Courts can.
Personally, I hope Goran continues his campaign to convince the world that Julian Assange has in fact been “charged”. With it, Goran is single-handedly doing more to show how badly the Swedish judicial process works in practice (or, at least, how badly it’s working in this particular case) than anyone else.
The more Goran pushes this ridiculous line, the more everyone else is questioning what the hell is really going on. Well done, Goran! – You have no idea how much you are helping build public support for Assange’s asylum from political and/or prosecutorial persecution.
Hello Arbed,
indeed. My subtle ironic remarks fly completely under the radar,
such as when I remarked on “those who wish to infer the meaning of words simply from their usage”, which was an oblique reference to the “divination” of the definitions of words from the analysis of some sentences used by Judge Riddle to square a circle 🙂
Looks like your post is simply quoting 3 different comments, not your own words, right? Some of the earlier comments there had me cracking up, so your hopes may have some good prospects. When is the next Fringe Comedy Festival?
Hello Snap,
Yes, that’s right, I’m quoting some comments from under Goran’s article on this “charged” issue on his blog.
Hi Arbed,
It is just rather hard to parse. So then the line “Gosh, this is confusing.” is not even your words. ok.
Perhaps if this were to develop a whole lot further, bringing the Swedish judicial process into widespread disrepute or ridicule, might not a certain prosecutor become subject to some sort of contempt or treason charges? 🙂
Anyway, in a way this leads me back to the point where I was making rhetorical questions to demonstrate how the system one is up against operates, which those in the system know how to play, having powers, resources and time stacked in their favour. So that suggests thinking outside the normal formal procedures and exploring other ways that influence may be applied on such situations.
The value of such a list of potential charges of prosecutorial misconduct lies more in the court of public opinion. On the English language side, the start of that is to have a well written translation together with commentary by reputable experts. So I had hoped to encourage a higher standard of citation and translation of such items spotted on flashback, so that readers are well informed, especially any such as Craig so his next piece isn’t shot down in wrong details.
Then, once informed, be creative! Use humour, poetry, satire. Write a play, film a video, program a game, hold a mock trial in public, and so on.
Further, take a look at the many instances in politics and government and business etc. where office holders have had their position made untenable in the public eye (and that is not even considering the dirty-tricks department, which I am by no means advocating). Often it is something small which can trip them up. However, even there owning a tabloid press or two full of hungry journos and having PIs on retainer brings a big advantage, as does having organised groups aligned to certain causes which can be co-opted to an agenda and say a social media campaign (such as prataomdet).
There seem to be considerable asymmetries in organisation tendencies and willingness to speak out. What’s behind that? Touchy subjects and so on, perhaps. Talking about correct judicial procedure and the lack of protections on EAWs for anyone may be a whole lot easier than 4 letter words.
So that is a general outline recalling some observations the other week, which then lead into some particulars which could be of interest to you.
Satire. If you have two minutes to spare the latest in a series of cartoons about how Julian Assange was set up. Please distribute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8wrmtDkoLU
Not forgetting other creative endeavours such as songwriting, cartoons, comics and various forms of animation. Lego figures, anyone? 🙂
Some of the recent Nobel awards have themselves raised claims of disrepute and ridicule, in line with this interesting analysis reported in The Local.
“On the eve of the announcement of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, The Local catches up with Norwegian lawyer and Nobel historian Fredrik S. Heffermehl, who claims the Norwegian Nobel Committee isn’t following Alfred Nobel’s wishes.”
2012-10-11 http://www.thelocal.se/43756/20121011/
“Nobel’s will states that the prize should be given to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”
… “in awarding the prize to politicians such as Barack Obama, Henry Kissinger or even Al Gore, whose work is with the environment and not peace and disarmament, the committee has failed to adhere to the will of the deceased benefactor”.
He concludes:
“The politicians are using Nobel’s name to promote their own ideas, they do not understand that Nobel saw the costly and dangerous threat to human survival that would develop if the world failed to curb militarism. His desire for a global peace order is a much more urgent, mandatory need today than when he wrote his will.”
Seems the humourously called “treasure hunt” didn’t get any responses. Shall I post the references?
The clue that helps searching is that överåklagaren Marianne Ny works at Utvecklingscentrum Göteborg, so it works to search at http://www.jo.se with only 2 terms as “överåklagaren Marianne” or as “Marianne Utvecklingscentrum”.
On the matter of “bringing the Swedish judicial process into widespread disrepute or ridicule”, this has taken a step forward in the international arena this weekend with the publication by award winning journalist Elizabeth Day in The Observer on the Thomas Quick scandal slowly unravelling in Sweden.
Essentially it concerns the prosecution with no evidence for the murder of eight victims based on the false attention-seeking confessions of a man held in care under high doses of psychiatric drugs, and even a review by the chancellor for justice Göran Lambertz giving his approval.
However, what the Observer/Guardian article glaringly omits mention of, is the name of the defence attorney who failed to act at all in the interest of his client, nor justice itself, picking up the case and a hefty state-paid fee after the original attorney resigned over foul play.
He is none other than Claes Borgström.
Namely, the same lawyer who took on the role of representing the two women in the Assange case, and then 3 days later, on 27 August 2010, wrote to the Göteborg development center, i.e. prosecutor Marianne Ny, to have Eva Finné’s decision of 25 August re-examined and upgraded, even while the one remaining potential charge was still under investigation.
Now, as Borgström himself stated to media, the women did not know one could reopen a case, and as they previously stated they had only wanted to force Assange to be tested for HIV, so it would have been highly inconsistent for them to have initiated this action themselves to seek justice for a wrongdoing, and raises suspicions that it was simply made in their name under the power of attorney. He has also made meida statements about the pressure the women were under and that if he was them he wouldn’t have gone to the police at all.
Now once again, in whose interests is Claes Borgström really acting?
2012-10-20 “Thomas Quick: the Swedish serial killer who never was”
Elizabeth Day in The Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder
For further analysis and earlier articles, see
http://rixstep.com/1/20121021,00.shtml
There is news emerging from Sweden in recent days on further developments on the Thomas Quick scandal, but so far little in English. Here is one brief summary from “This Day in WikiLeaks”:
http://www.thisdayinwikileaks.org/2012/10/102312.html
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/claes-borgstrom-granskas-av-advokatsamfundets-disciplinnamnd_7608050.svd
There is a (rough) translation here from an article in Expressen where Claes Borgström is feeling harrassed at the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee deciding to take up the case of his emails with Supreme Court Justice Göran Lambertz discussing strategies for debate in the Quick case.
This statement most reveals the sense of expectation that it is a self-serving club:
http://proassange.blogspot.se/2012/10/swedish-borgstrom-is-feeling-harrassed.html
Original:
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/borgstrom-granskas-for-mejlen-om-quick/
On a previous such occasion, it was merely an exercise in absurd theatre.
The Local reported (2010-04-14):
“Claes Borgström, the lawyer who represented convicted serial killer Thomas Quick, has been told there will be no investigation into his conduct after reporting himself to the Swedish Bar Association ”
http://www.thelocal.se/26062/20100414/
It was essentially deferred pending the investigations into the many Thomas Quick cases.
Borgström was member of the Swedish Bar Association’s disciplinary board 1992 – 2000, acording to his CV. The association’s chaiman at the time, Tomas’s Nilsson, is a partner in the legal practice where Borgstrom was until he became the Obmudsman for Equality in 2000 and accordingly dropped his share in the practice and left the bar association.
Since the Disciplinary Committee is actually considering the latest matter, it remains to be seen what sort of theatre ensues.
Hi Snap,
Yes, it’s definitely worth keeping an eye on where the Swedish Bar Association’s inquiry into Borgstrom’s behaviour goes. The current head of the Association made a public statement that the inquiry was focused solely on Borgstrom’s involvement in the leaked emails between Göran Lambertz and the rest of the cabal who fitted Quick up, and not the original investigation or any other matters. But one can hope, I suppose, that it will bleed into those “other matters”, ie. the Assange case.
Borgstrom was also separately reported to the Swedish Bar Association recently – for blatantly prejudicial remarks he made to the Swedish (and international) press following Ecuador’s asylum decision. Apparently, it’s against protocol in Sweden for a defence lawyer to imply a suspect’s guilt before trial. Do you happen to know whether that referral has been dealt with by the SBA yet, or what the outcome was? If it hasn’t yet been resolved, then things are piling up for Borgstrom at the Association, which gives hope that the penalty for his latest transgression might be more than simply a statement of censure and head towards the tougher penalties, such as being disbarred.
Regarding reporting himself to the Bar Association, I’ve read in Flashback that this was a completely cynical move because he did it knowing that the remit of the Association forbids them from looking at something reported by the lawyer himself. Complaints have to come from victims of lawyers’ bad practice, etc.
“Now, as Borgström himself stated to media, the women did not know one could reopen a case, and as they previously stated they had only wanted to force Assange to be tested for HIV, so it would have been highly inconsistent for them to have initiated this action themselves to seek justice for a wrongdoing, and raises suspicions that it was simply made in their name under the power of attorney.”
On this, I read a while back one theory which suggested Ardin might have been prompted to contact Borgstrom as a possible DEFENCE lawyer for herself when the women’s schemes had first started to unravel and move in ways she had not anticipated and she was therefore worried that she was at risk of prosecution herself for making false allegations. That’s what Borgstrom is mostly famous for in Sweden, being a defence lawyer.
Hello Arbed,
Indeed. Well, from the 2010 article I linked to above, when he self-reported, they said they did not want to consider it while there were still other investigations into the Thomas Quick cases, so that could defer it a long, long time yet.
(Incidentally, this stance of waiting reminds me of the Justice Ombudsman, or of a recent scandal at the BBC.)
Are these emails from the 1990’s that Expressen has obtained now? How did they get them? What did they print?
Perhaps there are some grounds for them to consider the emails presently in isolation. It sounded like they were taking it up this time. If it continues to get a growing media attention, and if the Swedish legal community themselves feel more under scrutiny and ridicule, then the Bar Association will perhaps eventually reach the point where they feel under pressure to do something serious about Borgström. Perhaps the makeup of the Disciplinary Board has changed so they have less allegiances to him now.
However, to be cynical, his protestations may simply be more theatre. He has (had?) former legal partners at the Bar Association and had himeslf been on the Disciplinary Board, so he would know it inside out or even have helped shape it. What sort of statutes govern their investigations anyway?
Sorry, I have not followed that other referral you mention. It would likely be covered at thelocal.se and sverigesradio.se (not always in English though), so if you want, try the on-site search there and sort chronologically (sometimes one needs to pick up a term or two in Swedish to enter for the search).
It has always been a very intriguing matter as to exactly when the two women and CB came together, and who initiated the contact. So from your last paragraph, it appears to remain an open question. Facts on that would be most revealing. Recent FOI documents helped narrow it down; I was meaning to set this out sometime. Have you seen any more on this?
Who knows what they were told by whom at which times to possibly manipulate them to take or go along with certain actions. It would be nice to know where AA’s boss Peter Weiderud fits into all this, as he is right up there in the SD party board. He may be a shadow player here.
However, I do not give too much importance to that “DEFENCE lawyer” theory, since if that was the case why would the women ask for the investigation to be re-opened so urgently, even while the one remaining possible charge was still being investigated? Surely they would wait and see and let it most likely drop, since the initial prosecutor gave no indication of going after the women for false accusations. What do you think?
Finally, there are some tricky legal questions that arise regarding what difference does it make even if CB was removed or statements withdrawn etc., since the prosecutor shows determination to ignore her obligations to only pursue a case that is likely to lead to a convction, and so forth. (More reasons she prefers to hide behind not laying charges). It gets into all the rules about correct procedure, and what decisions or actions can be challenged at what time, or if it has to wait for an appeal after it has been concluded etc. This also gets back to whatever charges you mentioned that were being raised on flashback about the prosecutor’s conduct. So a summary on those charges against M. Ny would be nice, as would any more learned legal opinion.
A further tricky legal issue is the way in which ECHR law is in effect in Sweden in a overall way, but has not been written into the statutes and procedures, and further complicated by the EAW, and then again how and when this may be challenged. Again, any more learned legal opinion is welcome.
Have you followed the theory from flashback of “malicious anonymous SMSs”? Very interesting….
Hint.
Rixstep twitter and Rixstep news writes of the details found at Flashback in English, and of course Rudling hates this guy as Rixstep thretened to sue Alan Burke of Swedish NNN site (that is a close friend of Rudling) when he used material from Rixstep. Recently another blogger has started to collect all swedish documentation is this case an published it on under this site in swedish language:
http://undermattan.com/2012/08/27/assange-handlingar-fran-domstolar-och-annat/
And of course Rudling has been taking these docs for his own purposes and has been writing a lot of crap.
When it comes to Ardin, she:s known back for a long time to sleep with guys that already has a girlfriend, she was in school called the cocobird (as the cocbird kicks out the other birds from the nest). It seems that she got big plans for Julian, and it was also o.k for her that Julian slept with sofia, (she sms:ed that julian is not here-he´s trying to make it with the kashmir-girl), she could take that if she was to be the official mrs Assange. All this went to an abrupt end suddenly, and due to the type of woman were Ardin didn´t mind whilst Wilen was hypernervous of std, it´s quit possible that some outsider just sms:ed the girls and claimed that Julian had an std-sickness, quite simple and effective, and it explains the whole race to hospital and police as carring an std without telling the other part is an criminal offence, then the cops twisted this around and made it look like an rapecase.
Snap wrote:
“On the Wassgren’s memo – what prompted her to be at work at ca. 6pm on Sunday 22 Aug in the middle of summer (weather? work roster?) so as to write it then and not say on Monday?
Did they already know about the complaint filed against the duty prosecutor on the Monday?”
I suppose you already know the following:
Linda Wassgren and the duty prosecutor agreed that Julian Assange should be arrested already at 1700 on the Friday. This decision was based entirely on Linda’s informal questioning of both women (plus a few phone calls). The women were interviewed together first, later one by one. The decision that this was to be called rape had nothing to do with Irmeli Krans’ formal interrogation of SW, which had barely started when Assange was arrested in absentio. And the formal questioning of AA took place one day later.
Most likely Eva Finne was disturbed by this. She ordered Linda to explain, without delay, what happened on that Friday afternoon.
Hello Salander,
yes, that is known to us here; see Daniel above (27 Sep, 4:41 pm) for a comprehensive timing. When I asked that I was intrigued by the timestamp of the memo, and was wondering if any other facts on this had emerged from the FOI documents that have been turning up. We had some further discussions; prosecutor on duty Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, head of the police station Johan Hallberg, policeman Mats Gehlin and others were mentioned. Did Kjellstrand maybe know by Sunday of the complaint to be filed against her and contact/help Wassgren?
The timing and nature of it are indicative that someone demanded a report be made by first thing on Monday. The way you put it sounds quite plausible. What leads you to think the most likely person was Eva Finne?
Hello Duqu,
is the undermattan.com blogger obtaining documents through FOI (Freedom Of Information) requests? He has done well, except some have lots of pages missing. Are there any plans to translate them to English?
What do you know about the blogger posting selected machine translations of flashback at proassange.blogspot.se ?
Dear Mr Murray,
In two articles on your blog, “Statement of Irmeli Krans” and “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar” you make fourteen claims that are not supported by facts. On 7 September at 12:28 pm I commented on your article “Statement of Irmeli Krans”. Part of the comment below:
Since I accused you of being an inventor of stories and a certified liar you have had 58 days to respond and show some evidence that your claim is true. So far nothing. Nada. Zilch.
On 18 September 1:14 pm I listed your fourteen false claims. After 47 days you still have not been able to show that one of your claims is true. Regarding the claim “Anna Ardin was present throughout Krans’ interview of Wilen” you write in a comment on 13 September 10:35 pm:
I have asked you on numerous occasions to reveal your so called sources. Since 18 September, 47 days ago, you have written approx 11 600 words on your blog. You have still not been able to name one of “your reliable sources” or show any facts in support of your claims.
You are trying to tell people that you are interested in finding out the truth in the Assange case. From your actions it is evident you are not. You are into misrepresentation of facts and making up fanciful stories hoping you are supporting Julian Assange. You are not alone. Julian Assange and his legal team are doing just the same. In an analysis of Jennifer Robinson’s brief to Canberra MPs from 2 March 2011 I found 57 varieties of “truth”.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/10/jennifer-robinson-57-varieties-of-truth
I understand that you don’t like to be called an inventor of stories and a certified liar. You don’t have to be. It may well be that you have been mislead by unreliable sources. If so, name the sources. Until you respond and come clean I will regard you as just another one of Julian Assange supporters that have very little regard for truth and openness.
Craig Murray’s 14 false claims:
Unfortunately Goran Rudling didn’t bother to read back a bit through the blog before posting above. If he had he would have seen that it has been resolved to everyone’s entire satisfaction that Ardin and Wilen were indeed interviewed together, but by Linda Wassgren, not by Krans. So, Craig’s essential point was correct – just not that detail.
It really doesn’t require any further input from Craig.
@snap > answer regarding FOI-docs + some more details.
The reason that some docs are missing is the fact that some parts are classified and therefore not under the FOI-act, this is an ongoing investigation and therefore some parts are classified during this investigation.
Here is another example of Rudlings quality, he wrote in his blog just recently:
“When I was preparing for my witness statement in the middle/end January 2011 I asked for copies of the Detention Memorandum. The lawyers refused to disclose it to me”
( link: http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/10/jennifer-robinson-57-varieties-of-truth/#comments )
In Sweden this is forbidden, a witness is not allowed to read ANYTHING from an ongoing investigation, as it can destroy a courtcase. Rudling wanted to access the secret Detention Memorandum before taking the stand in the English court. This action would have disqualified him as a witness if he was able to read it, and I suppose that Jennifier then would have been punished by the bar assosiation.
In the same blog he then links to the redacted version of AA’s police-interview, that the press got hold of 2 days later.
If you read this and compare with the complete and secret one thats on the internet, you will find out that Ardins name is reveiled in the first part while its fully censored in the rest of the redacted version. The court does not make these kinds of mistakes, they would get sued directly, so someone has tampered with this document outside.
link to the redacted version: http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass-anna-redac.pdf
And also, Rudling confesses in the same blog that he takes the document from the undermattan blog for his own purposes without crediting this site, while he just himself has asked for some parts from the court under the FOI-act.
Cut from his blog: “It is correct that the documents I have published are from undermattan’s website.”
Link: http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/10/the-assange-case-the-prosecutor-has-not-declined-offers-for-interviews/#comments
This shows how Rudling gets hold of documents, then twist the facts around, he only shows 2 pages out of a 37 paged document etc etc, and now we have a tampered doc from the court on his website. If we go back to august 2010 you will find out that Ardins name and the removed twitters was found by Flashback people on the 23-24/8 2010, while Rudling states that he found it in sept 2010, the difference is that he mailed Ardin and then contacted the police.
Rudlings background before Assange was charged is also disturbing and has been mentioned here before, as I see it he is more than just a “troll”, he has interest in piggybacking on a high profile case, he has interest in twisting it around, and he tried to ruin his own witness statement.
Therefore we can sum it up as follows:
Rudlings background and statement does not match up, its fake.
Rudling has not made any own investigation, all facts has been taken from Flashback and other sources.
Rudling tried to get inside the Wikileaks organisation – mail from Mary Eng discloses these facts
Rudling takes docs from other sources and twist them around, and he does this with specific timings.
All people involved in this case gets more or less accused of being a liar in some way, while he is mr right – always.
Therefore, I strongly recommend anyone going into a discussion with mr. Rudling to be aware of these facts, Rudling has a specific agenda in this case. As Rudling appeared on internet at the same time as Assange:S first trip to Sweden without any trouble in april 2010, all points shows more that he and his blog is just a smokescreen.
Duku (or Wtfuk), can I ask you to pass a couple of things on to Flashback for discussion please?
The first concerns the recent suggestion in Flashback about writing to Anders Perklev. I’ve suggested before that the Swedish translation of the open letter appearing on the Justice for Assange Action page would be ideal for this (with the first sentence, which is now out of date, taken out). I’ll reproduce the English version of the letter in a separate comment below so you can read for yourself why I think that. For example, it already contains direct reference to Marianne Ny’s Objectivity obligations as set out on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s English page. It also focuses on the DNA-free condom. It could be altered very easily to include reference to the hospital rape certificate that one Flashbacker wants it to cover.
Now that Flashback has started its campaign to get official comment on the Assange case from Swedish political parties would be a very good time for people to email Perklev with this letter, as everyone who sends the letter to him could make sure they also cc it to their local political representative or some of the politicians Flashback has invited to comment. This adds hugely to the embarrassment factor for Perklev and/or those politicians.
This technique worked incredibly well here in the UK with a different open letter about Assange’s case and that one succeeded in getting Assange’s name mentioned in a Parliamentary debate on revising the UK’s extradition laws. Some say it (this technique) also played a part in the very unexpected High Court decision to grant Assange leave to request permission to appeal his case to the Supreme Court (permission to appeal isn’t automatic, you see, it has to be granted). Theory is that the letter had been so widely cc’d to MPs that it had created enough of a political ‘hot potato’ for the case to be ‘kicked upstairs’ to get it off the agenda for a while.
Perhaps a mass Flashback emailing of an altered version of this open letter to Perklev copied to as many Swedish politicians as you can think of could facilitate a similar ‘miraculous’ outcome in Sweden?
Duku, Wtfuk,
Here’s the English version of that letter (with the first sentence taken out) from here: http://justice4assange.com/Action.html#SE
Mr Anders PERKLEV
Prosecutor General
Office of the Prosecutor General
Östermalmsgsatan 87c
Box 5553
S-114 85 Stockholm Sweden
By email: [email protected]
OPEN LETTER TO ANDERS PERKLEV, PROSECUTOR GENERAL, SWEDEN
Dear Anders Perklev,
Mr Assange’s case has drawn international attention and left many ordinary European citizens questioning what safeguards and protections there are in the EAW scheme for people facing police investigation in Europe. In view of this, could you please provide some clarity for non-Swedish citizens on some aspects of Swedish judicial procedure for which you as Prosecutor General have overall responsibility.
On 6 December 2011 the Swedish Prosecution Authority issued a statement pointing out that Sweden decided to make ALL public prosecutors “judicial authorities” for the purposes of issuing EAWs under the Framework Directive. This is not something that was anticipated by British Parliamentarians when drafting the UK Extradition Act 2003 (Hansard), who felt strongly that such warrants should only be issued by a court. May I ask why you felt it necessary to issue such a statement on that date?
Mr Assange’s name was leaked to the press, apparently by the Stockholm Prosecution Service, which is illegal under Sweden’s privacy laws. Can you outline – for an international audience – what steps were taken to investigate this and a summary of the findings. How were those responsible dealt with?
Can you publish some statistics on how often a Swedish public prosecutor nominates themselves as the chief investigator in a case? The Swedish Prosecution Authority English website says: “In the case of less serious crimes, the police continue to lead the preliminary investigation.” As the strongest allegation against Mr Assange is described on the Prosecution Authority’s own website as “less serious crime”, it is not clear why Marianne Ny is involved in the case as chief investigator at this stage.
Mutual Legal Assistance is ordinarily used to interrogate people in foreign jurisdictions. However, Marianne Ny stated that British and Swedish law prevented her from questioning Julian Assange in London, which was untrue. Her statement was later redacted. What disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General when a senior public prosecutor misleads the public in this way?
Can you please outline – if only in general terms – on what basis this case was re-opened on 1 September 2010 after Eva Finné, a senior prosecutor you appointed to review it, cancelled the original arrest warrant – “I consider that there are no grounds for suspecting that he has committed rape.” – leaving only one instance of alleged molestation still to be investigated? From reading the leaked police protocol on the internet – as millions of people across Europe have – there seems to be only one item of new evidence which might have appeared between Eva Finné’s decision on 25 August 2010 and the re-opening of the case, a torn used condom. However, the forensic analysis of 25 October 2010 included in the prosecution protocol does not support any offences related to this item being included on the face of the EAW issued by Marianne Ny on 18 November 2010. To put it plainly, no DNA could be found on this condom.
http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20111126,01.shtml
This would appear not to meet the Prosecution Authority’s Objectivity Demand (on your website): “Forensic evidence must, of course, be gathered and investigated in a correct and secure manner. The prosecutor must also be objective when he or she initiates a prosecution. During the course of the trial it is admittedly the prosecutor’s task to prove that a crime has been committed, but the prosecutor is obliged to give due consideration to anything that could change the situation with respect to evidence.”
Again, please outline – for an international audience – whether this is a disciplinary matter and, if so, what disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General.
I am particularly concerned that Mutual Legal Assistance has not been used in this case. Under Sweden’s Code of Judicial Procedure “the investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.” (Chapter 23, Section 4) and there is no doubt that a great deal of both Swedish and British taxpayers’ money has been wasted arguing this extradition in court when much simpler methods could have been used to question Julian Assange. Can you please explain the mechanisms by which Britain is reimbursed its costs in representing the Swedish Prosecution Authority in the UK courts? Likewise, what avenues are available to Mr Assange to seek recompense for his substantial personal legal costs in challenging this abuse of the European Arrest Warrant process?
Yours sincerely,
[name]
Duku, Wtfuk,
The second thing I’d be grateful if you could pass to Flashback for their consideration, if you wouldn’t mind, is about Sophie Wilen’s testimony.
I see there’s been some discussion recently of what the Guy Sim book says about both condoms being requisitioned from Ardin at around 6pm on 21 August 2010. Now I’m not going to dispute that fact – you Flashbackers will know better than me how to read a Swedish evidence requisition order – but I personally don’t think it’s necessarily correct. You see, the thing that doesn’t make sense is that Sim assumes Sophie Wilen had been carrying around a piece of condom with the thought that it could maybe help in assessing whether Assange had HIV when she went to the hospital, supposedly for that purpose.
Why carry around a piece of condom? Surely if you still had a used condom lying around from a recent lover whose sexual health you were worried about you’d take the whole condom, to give the hospital more chance of getting a decent-sized sample of semen to analyse? It makes no sense to cut a piece out of a used condom for that purpose.
Personally, I don’t buy the ‘not-very-bright, railroaded by everyone else’ version of Sophie Wilen. (Don’t forget we only hear that from Wilen’s witness friends who were interviewed long after the event, and each of them imply they first heard from her that she was raped while asleep/was ‘railroaded’ when she contacted them at some point AFTER 20 August 2010, ie all their testimony is hearsay received directly from her. Read those witness statements again.) Guy Sim’s book also adds quite a lot of new information about Wilen’s studies and travels (including that she had studied Drama at one point; some training as an actress then?), a US boyfriend with uncertain residency status and annual trips to the US (on a student’s income?). There’s a level of sophistication and worldliness there.
There’s something else too. This business of a piece of condom “found under the bed where the suspect lay” and “in the dark MA1 heard noises like pulling a balloon” [paraphrasing there, from memory], which Gehlin carefully notes on the forensic report. It seems both Guy Sim and Flashback are assuming that this is something made up by Ardin when she handed in Wilen’s condom piece along with her own DNA-free condom. But Gehlin’s notes (although he doesn’t say who exactly he heard these things from) are quite clear the information is from MA1 (Wilen). And I think that’s right. Here’s why:
The on-duty prosecutor has issued an arrest warrant for rape based on the urgency of what she hears in phone calls from Klara police station and the Family Violence Unit which are in turn based on what the two women have said – together – to Linda Wassgren. Not on Wilen’s formal interview with Krans and not on Ardin’s telephone interview the following day. Remember the key phrase Ardin told Donald Bostrum – the exact words, as he specifically recalled – which she’s chipped in and which turned the whole thing into a formal complaint, because there were two women saying the same thing? – “I believe Sophia is telling the truth because something similar happened to me”. This clearly indicates that whatever was said to convince Wassgren, Gehlin, other officers at Klara and the on-duty prosecutor that rape had been committed was said by Sophie FIRST and then backed up by Ardin’s “similar” story. To me, this says that Sophia deliberately told a story about Assange damaging a condom (“in the dark MA1 heard noises like pulling a balloon”) and produced a piece of condom with Assange’s DNA on it to prove it and was promptly backed up by Ardin with her story of a deliberately damaged condom. It doesn’t really matter whether Wilen produced her piece of condom on the spot there and then, or had left it with Ardin to be handed in later. She had already been carrying that piece of condom around for some time, presumably including the point at which she turned up at a hospital at a very great distance from her home or work with a big “Reception for Rape Victims” notice… I think Wilen is the real instigator of the ‘rape’ allegations (all Ardin’s post-20 August statements corroborate that too, btw) but then she watered down what she’d told Wassgren to something much more innocuous in her formal statement to Krans (reviewed by Eva Finne and thrown out, doctored by Borgstrom after contact from Ardin and Gehlin, and then revived by Ny) to avoid any potential prosecution for making false allegations. But she didn’t tell Ardin that’s what she’d done and so left Ardin to carry the can and to do all the desperate fire-fighting, pradoemat/smear campaigns, etc. The subsequent actions of some of the key figures make sense if they continued to act in the way that they did because they believed the first story they heard: Wilen’s account to Wassgren, eg Gehlin ignoring Finne’s instruction to do nothing more; sending both condoms to the lab when Wilen’s case had been closed; focusing on the ‘torn condom’ when interviewing Assange; the on-duty prosecutor having no regrets, etc, etc.
It’s the only scenario that fits “two women saying the SAME THING”. All cooked up between them beforehand. Hopefully, when the SMS texts between the women finally become public domain (come on, George Galloway – spit ’em out!) this will become all too clear.
[Mod/Jon: Fixed bold tags as requested]
Oops, messed up the formatting a bit in that last post! Never mind…
Don’t forget too that Bostrom’s statement indicates that Wilen LIED to Assange when he had a phone conversation with her on the Friday morning, 20 August, when she was already at the hospital. Assange was convinced by this conversation that everything was fine and Wilen and he had agreed they would meet the next day, Saturday afternoon, to sort everything out. Within an hour or so of that conversation Wilen was at Klara with Ardin…
There’s a bit about that phone conversation in Assange’s own statement. And then there’s that bit in Bostrum’s statement where he quotes Assange’s reaction to something which has been relayed (I think through Ardin):
“That is a pure, pure, pure, pure lie”
Strong words from a man who’s known for making cautious and measured statements as a rule. What exactly did he hear to elicit such a strong reaction?
Duku, Wtfuk,
Sorry, can’t stop now I’m on a roll…
The reason I mention about Wilen having studied Drama and therefore having some training as an actress is because I’ve long held the view that Wilen’s “distress” on hearing that there was an arrest warrant for rape already out on Assange was a bit too ‘convenient’.
Faked “distress” to terminate an interview and avoid putting her signature on any allegations that might get her in trouble if they were to be properly investigated? A nice handy ‘get out’ she had the method-acting skills to do? And then she just ‘disappears’ – all online traces professionally scrubbed and no one now knows where she is… Not a single peep from her since – a huge contrast with Ardin, in every way. Huge.
Arbed 5 Nov, 2012 – 8:44 am
Thank you for confirming that all of Craig Murray’s claims are false.
I have noted that you and your allies have come to the conclusion that the two women came to the police station together. Fantastic work. The rest of the world knew this since 21 August 2010.
You have also finally found out that when the two women came to the police station they talked to Linda Wassgren. Craig Murray’s statement: “Rather than see another officer, the two women waited two hours until Krans came on duty” is false.
According to Linda Wassgren’s memorandum she talked to the women briefly and when she found out they wanted to report sex crimes she separated the women and interviewed them one on one. You have now decided to call the first few minutes when Linda talked to the two women together an “interview”. Interesting. And you say it is to “everyone’s entire satisfaction”. I don’t believe you. Most people aren’t that stupid.
Now I know for certain that Craig Murray is an inventor of stories and a certified liar. Your defence of Craig Murray is even worse than the defence of Julian Assange.
Great work inspector Clouseau.
Wow! If Goran Rudling jumps in so quickly to try to pour scorn (Goran’s hallmark – it’s all he’s got left since we ripped his ridiculous assertion that Assange had been charged apart) on what I’ve written I must be on to something important…
If I was Goran I wouldn’t even bother trying to post anything in Craig’s blog because he’s been so thoroughly discredited here in the eyes of most of Craig’s readers that no one pays the slightest attention to him anymore. Goran’s game was up as soon as Craig posted Goran’s private correspondence with Mary Eng Lenore in the “A Real Treat in Store” thread…