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.
Hello Arbed,
I’m just taking that in as I am writing my own posts. Perhaps I can ask in short form:
– Do you have times for that morning for SW’s visits to the 2 hospitals and the phone calls?
– Might her intentions have changed while at one of the hospitals, perhaps influenced by some psychological examination etc.?
– Has something specific emerged on “the hospital rape certificate” beyond speculation?
– Have you considered that they may have carefully not stated claims about the condoms being from a specific act, but left it uncertain to avoid making a false claim?
– Have you considered which statements were made after being advised by a lawyer etc.? i.e. at which point stories changed?
– What solid evidence formed the basis of this meme “all online traces professionally scrubbed”? It assumes that she had a significant online presence, which is actually not true for many people, and saying “all” is an absolute totality which is not the case, so one would say “most”.
(If you ask the moderator he might fix the bold text.)
Hello Duqu,
I take it as understood I was not asking about Mr Rudling; however I’m sure others appreciate the background.
Rico Santin once talked above about finding out what funding support such bloggers receive and I pointed out (9 Oct, 2:49 pm) some ideas to dig up info so perhaps someone in Sweden can chase that.
So is the single matter on which Mr Rudling gains credibility his getting lucky in contacting AA on the deleted tweets/posts?
So you are at least confirming these are FOI requests, not leaks. I understood they are redacted; it is just a pity not to have the 4 of 6 pages from Borgstrom where he asks for the case to be re-opened 🙂
Is anyone good at locating the original source of notable quotes to media by Borgstrom I have been asking about?
Is anyone interested in hunting at jo.se as I suggested?
Did I see Rick Falkvinge on flashback recently explaining when and why Peter Weiderud(?) first asked Assange to come to Sweden from England? Had there been any earlier contact? I have always been curious about that and thought the idea of needing an invitation to ensure safe passage (or whatever it was) sounded strange. And when did Weiderud and co. first know about Wikileaks forming an alliance with the rival Pirate Party?
Duqu 6 Nov, 2012 – 9:01 am
It seems like you are the same duqu that is frequently posting at the Flashback forum. If that it not true, please say so.
Recently I posted an article that shows that Jennifer Robinson made 57 errors in her brief to Australian Members of Parliament from March 2011. The number of errors is so large it cannot be a simple mistake. Jennifer must have actively misrepresented facts.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/10/jennifer-robinson-57-varieties-of-truth/
Of course I am paid by CIA, SÄPO, MI5, Pentagon, FBI, NSI and a whole lot of other abbreviations. You are very intelligent to have found out. The fact that you are wearing a tin foil hat is just a coincidence.
There are many things that you do not understand. Let me help you with some.
The Detention Memorandum was sent to the English legal team on 23 November 2010. On the first page it says: “Please notice that the documents are legally privileged information for Mr Julian Asssange and nobody else”. Jennifer Robinson sent these documents to a number of people. Among them Brita Sundberg-Weitman. In her expert witness statement she states: ”I have also been provided the portions of the police file that have been disclosed to Mr Assange’s lawyer in Sweden, Mr Hurtig”
The Detention Memorandum was published on Flashback on 30 January 2011 at 22:11. I read the Detention Memorandum prior to appearing at the extradition hearing on 7-8 February 2011. Jennifer Robinson knew that I had read the Detention Memorandum. Clare Montgomery asked me about it in my cross-examination. There were no reactions. Your statements regarding the Detention Memorandum are false. Actually you have no clue but that does not prevent you from voicing your opinion.
The redacted version of the interview with Anna Ardin is from the police file that were disclosed to Aftonbladet on 23 August. It is in its original form. Anna Ardin’s name is on it.
What is of interest is that your comments about this particular document shows exactly what you are up to. You comment on things you have no clue. You write: . The court does not make these kinds of mistakes, they would get sued directly.
Firstly you have no knowledge whatsoever about any mistakes made in redacting. Zero.
Secondly it was not a court that disclosed the material. It was the Police Department, Polismyndigheten i Stockholms län.
Thirdly the police department does not get sued for making mistakes redacting documents.
Now to something that you claim you know something about. The deleted tweets. You claim they were on Flashback 23-24/8 2010:
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.
You are either doing a full Craig Murray, lie about facts, or you have some evidence. Please show me where on Flashback the tweets are.
Arbed, et al. Has anybody had a response from Anders Perklev, even an acknowledgment that the letter has been received. I know I haven’t.
Hi Snap,
Here is my response (as best as I am able) to your questions addressed to me:
– I don’t have exact times for the hospital visits or the Wilen/Assange phone call, I’m afraid, but I think I have seen them somewhere at some point. Flashback or Rixstep might have them. A certain amount about the order of events – and where the phone call fits into it – can be deduced from Donald Bostrom’s and Assange’s witness statements.
– Wilen’s intentions certainly DID change while she was at the hospital, or very shortly thereafter, if we believe that she WAS being truthful in the first place when talking to Assange. Assuming for the moment that she did honestly intend to meet with Assange the next day and had no plans to the police as she reassured him, then yes, something or someone got to her in the hour or so before she did in fact turn up at Klara police station at 2pm Friday 20 August 2010. Or… that was her intention all along, as part of the plan previously agreed with Ardin sometime between Wilen’s first contact with Ardin on 18th August and 2pm on the Friday afternoon.
– There is a big scandal about fake rape certificates being issued by that particular hospital. Rixstep has done an article on this issue. Should be easy enough to find if you check Rixstep’s “Assange” archive.
– “Have you considered that they may have carefully not stated claims about the condoms being from a specific act, but left it uncertain to avoid making a false claim?” No, I haven’t considered this question in any depth – my thesis is simply that both women planned to tell the police a story about Assange deliberately damaging condoms during sex: Wilen having “retrieved” a piece of a ‘deliberately damaged’ condom from under her bed; Ardin improvising with an unused one later on. Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensic report already imply a suitably vague story from the MA1 complainant: she “heard something that sounded like pulling a balloon” in the dark. There’s enough ‘uncertainty’ in that to cover her, I should think.
– Not sure. The “we only want to ask about forcing someone to take a HIV test” may have been a ruse, a ‘cover story’, for the real purpose of making false rape allegations from the start. (It doesn’t really hold up scientifically anyway, given the length of time it takes HIV antibodies to show up conclusively in tests. Getting a partner tested isn’t a shortcut for a woman to know whether she has been infected herself.) There is some mention of the women “seeking advice” in Wassgren’s memo but no specific mention that it was advice about HIV they wanted. Also, no mention of it in the very first interview with the press by Ardin, IIRC.
But… but… the Wassgren memo is so heavily censored – specifically about Wilen’s story – that it’s very hard to know exactly what that story was… So, although the Wassgren interview, the formal Krans interview (uncensored version, as seen by Finne) and Ardin’s telephone interview were all made before the women had spoken to a lawyer, I think Wilen’s story may have changed between the Wassgren and Krans interviews (without Ardin’s knowledge). Eva Finne rescinded the warrant around 5pm on 21st August (so, after Ardin’s telephone statement and her interview with Aftonbladet earlier on the 21st) with a short statement. Finne also made a fuller public statement, shutting down virtually the whole case, on 23rd August. I think it was at THIS point that Claes Borgstrom was consulted for advice, and he then got involved with rewriting Wilen’s statement (helped by Gehlin who emailed him both copies of Wilen’s 20 August statement – the uncensored version seen by Finne and the censored version already released to the press and publicly available, as detailed in Guy Sim’s new book), which was input to Durvta on 26 August. This is the version that we’re all familiar with but, according to Guy Sim, it’s a work of fiction anyway as the “necessary changes” that Borgstrom made are really, really extensive.
(Hi Arbed, I removed the unmatched [strong] tag in your 12:18 pm post – happy to put it back in if you tell me what part was meant to be emboldened).Edit: bold tags all fixed.
John Goss 3.08pm
I copied quite a few different open letters about the Assange case to UK MPs, including IIRC the English version of this one to Anders Perklev. About 10 MPs responded to me personally, people like Caroline Lucas, Jeremy Corbyn, Zac Goldsmith and a few less well-known names. There IS interest and support in political circles but the difficulty I think is twofold: 1) they have to keep within the Parliamentary rules concerning only taking up their own constituents’ cases and 2) sticking their heads above the parapet. That’s why I am suggesting that Flashback use a gattling gun approach and scatter cc’s of whatever letter they decide to use across the full spectrum of as many Swedish political names as they can think of.
PS. Your “Borgstrom and Ny discuss their retirement” video has shown up in Flashback and has been retweeted by Rixstep. Heh! Well done.
Thanks Arbed. We must keep pressing for answers. It is not just Assange’s freedom we need to ensure.
I am really concerned about the five UK-born Muslim citizens, including babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, who are in solitary confinement in the United States, extradited by the ‘UK’s vassal’ as Craig Murray put it. Theresa May, daughter of an Anglican clergyman, has a lot to answer for when she meets her maker.
From Linda Wassgrens memo.
”Inledelsevis så nämndes brottet våldtäkt och att båda kvinnorna skulle varit utsatta. My translation: In the beginning the crime of rape was mentioned and that both women were exposed.”
We don’t know how much time Wassgren spent with both women together. Rudling refers to this as “the first few minutes”. He is bluffing. We simply don’t know. It could have been ten, or twenty, or more. Perhaps they sat down and had coffee together? We know that they must have enough time for Sofia to tell her story and for Anna to “fill in a sentence”. That course of events was formative. Therefore important, however many minutes it lasted.
The duty prosecutor, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, may or may not have known that Anna and Sofia were not yet formally questioned when she took her decision to arrest Assange.
Quote: Göran Rudling
“Now to something that you claim you know something about. The deleted tweets. You claim they were on Flashback 23-24/8 2010:
‘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.’
You are either doing a full Craig Murray, lie about facts, or you have some evidence. Please show me where on Flashback the tweets are.
Here is one of the many forum posts on Flashback, posted between August 21 and August 24, about the deleted Tweets claimed to be “discovered” by Mr Rudling a month later:
2010-08-22, 15:30
https://www.flashback.org/sp25009693
(post states that AA is deleting all Tweats about Assange and contains a description of AA:s deleted Twitter about the cray fish party she threw for JA)
– Hon har twittrat om att Assange ville gå på kräftskiva.// She has tweated about Assange wanting to attend a crayfish party.
– Anna Ardin har lösenordsskyddat sin egen blogg, precis efter att hennes namn har börjat cirkulera. Hon har raderat twittringar som handlade om henne själv och Assange.// Anna Ardin has password protected her blog, just after her name started to circulate. She has erased tweats about herself and Assange.
2010-08-22, 15:21
https://www.flashback.org/sp25009492
(post contains a copy from Google cache of AA:s deleted blog entry about how a jilted woman best gets revenge)
Hello Arbed,
Thank you for responding most admirably with such consideration to my questions. We don’t all have the details of all the witness statements and so on engraved in our brain cells, nor have all tried to follow flashback through translation, nor seen any of the books, so at times we may wonder if you have seen some new hard facts which are rather secret to most. Speculation is excellent as long as it is flagged as such; in science we call this a hypothesis, and the crux of good science is then to ask how can that be tested, what would show it to be false, is it consistent with other knowns, or to look at probabilities and estimate how sure one is.
The whole situation would be easier to keep track of with some provisional timelines, say one for each day. Want to contribute?
Somehow my friendly greeting got lost, so thanks for picking my tone spot on, and patiently thinking about my questions. I hope other readers appreciate your explanations also.
I’ll add my thoughts on details in due course.
friendly regards
Hello Salander,
on Linda Wassgrens memo (8:27 pm):
indeed, and the shorter the time they spent with here initially, the more questionable is the outcome of the arrest order that resulted from it. Orb and I had earlier discussed that they were seated, so that tends to indicate they were at her desk, and not just standing at a front counter.
I have since found that already on the Sunday 22 Aug 2010 there were articles about Johann Binninge of the RO making a complaint, as well as Sven-Erik Alhelm criticising the prosecutor.
I’m still wondering as before (1 Nov, 7:25 pm),
what leads you to think the most likely person was Eva Finne?
thanks…
Hello Snap,
Your question. I have read somewhere that Linda gave this as an explanation to the memo. I cannot recall if this is in the Flashback thread, or if it is in one of its linked documents. Sorry not to be more precise. If I find out during the next few days I will come back and post it here.
Snap, hello again.
Why don’t you write directly to Eva Finné and ask her directly if she ordered Linda Wassgren to write that memo. (I cannot do it myself, for good reasons)
She is at [email protected].
She has nothing to loose from responding to you….
Hello Snap,
Friendly greetings too! Yes, you are quite right, what I have posted above about Sophie Wilen’s testimony is hypothesis, based on what evidence is available in the public domain and which I have personally reviewed. I know a heck of a lot about the case but I’m not privy to any ‘secret’ stuff. I have had personal correspondence with a few people who have been involved with the case, or have publicly commented on it, at one point or other but I don’t believe in breaking the confidentiality of my correspondants. As you state, there is still a sizeable amount of evidence which has been withheld or heavily redacted so it is very difficult to state anything about this case with absolute 100% certainty. I hope the way I word things makes it clear that this is how I personally interpret what we know, or think we know, so far. Perhaps I slip from time to time and state things too boldly, not hedging my statements enough. However, I do feel confident that my proposals are consistent internally within the available evidence and I have been diligent in cross-checking for that consistency amongst the various witness statements, timings, public statements, etc. I’m always open to having any gaps in my knowledge in this respect filled in – everything helps.
Your idea of a timeline for each day to which we could all add is an excellent one. It would be an enormous boon to be able to bring in exact timings, etc and would make the connections and motives of key protagonists much clearer, I feel. I wonder how we could organise that? I would like to contribute, certainly. Have you heard of Pirate Pads? They are online collaborative forums. I’ve never participated in one but I’ve read a few and they look reasonably easy to use.
Oh, btw, I’ve realised I forgot to answer your question about Sophie Wilen’s online presence being ‘professionally scrubbed’. I’m aware that there has been a very small amount of her photographic work and exhibitions found now (which is revealing of how widely she’s travelled, particularly to the States), but it’s still true that her info was so effectively removed (there is much more data on private citizens – annual income, for example – made publicly available in Sweden under normal circumstances) that professional help in the matter is very, very likely. Again, Rixstep has done some very good articles on this. His article called “T20” is a good starting point.
Snap, and interested others
Guy Sim’s book “Julian Assange in Sweden – what really happened” is an excellent resource and I can’t recommend it highly enough. It costs less than $3 to download (available in many different formats):
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/233304
I’ve spotted just two typos, I think, of the wrong day/date variety – insignificant for anyone who knows the case reasonably well – and these are corrected anyway later on in the book as Sim chooses to revisit certain pieces of evidence several times to look at them in different contexts. This is, I think, a helpful approach in such a complex case.
There is also much which is new (at least to a non-Swedish speaking audience), especially as regards Sophie Wilen and how extensively her witness statement has been altered. This is very carefully analysed in the book.
Sim takes a sympathetic view towards Wilen and tends to lay the blame for what happened largely at Anna Ardin’s door, but it is interesting to me how frequently in the book Sim describes anomalies in respect of the investigation of Wilen’s story as “extraordinary” (in terms of omissions in that investigation, mainly) and yet the same thing doesn’t seem to apply with Ardin. That’s one thing which leapt out at me as I read it. Perhaps others will notice the same thing? This isn’t a criticism of Guy Sim’s analysis at all, and I don’t think it’s simply a reflection of his bias towards Wilen. In fact, I think it shows the opposite: he is accurately detailing the investigation and these omissions and anomalies come as a genuine surprise to him. (Not to me, though – still, it’s very useful to have them all gathered in one place as they do bring up a lot of questions.)
@ John Goss 6 Nov 6.10pm
Yes, I’m utterly outraged about the treatment of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan too. It is an absolute disgrace and I signed the petitions for both of them, all to no avail unfortunately. I met Talha’s brother once. That poor, poor family. As far as I’m aware (and I don’t, unfortunately, know their cases as well as I know Assange’s) they have been extradited for “crimes” of material support for terrorism for running a website years before 9/11 ever happened (and which they closed down once the world had changed subsequent to that event). What on earth have they been extradited for? To be made an example of? To add to the FBI’s “tally” of thwarted terrorists plots that have never actually materialised (because they never existed in the first place) but which justify the continued efforts (and budget) of the counterterrorist federal agencies in the US?
The whole idea of free speech activities falling under the rubric of “terrorism” as far as the US National Security State is concerned repulses me. I believe Gareth Pierce is Babar’s and Talha’s lawyer too. She’s a wonder, that woman.
The other problem Arbed is that now they are in America their treatment will be much harsher. In my opinion it is torture. They are kept in solitary confinement for 23 hour every day and even then are not allowed to meet others (if my understanding is correct). 98% of people in American custody agree to a plea-bargain because of these severe torturous conditions. They plead guilty for a reduced sentence. It is one hell of a sick country, the United States of America.
I bought a copy and have read the first 50 pages of Guy Sims “Julian Assange in Sweden – what really happened” and defy anyone, except Göran Rudling, to read them and not be convinced that Anna Ardin is a liar, the title of this blog post. At first she said she did not have sex with Julian Assange, then she said she did have consensual sex, then she appears to have told police she was raped. On top of that she has deliberately perverted the course of justice by deleting incriminating tweets and her 7 steps of revenge against men who dump their women.
What I think it really needs to clear Julian Assange’s name is for a separate case to be taken out against the police and prosecution service for tampering with statements. I’d chip something in for that case to proceed. I’m sure thousands more would do as well.
As to Gareth Peirce, everybody should read her article in The London Review of Books, to learn what conditions are really like in US penal institutions, and how repressive their laws are. As you say she’s a wonder. But you can have justice and truth on your side and still lose the case when your Home Secretary is Theresa May.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n09/gareth-peirce/americas-non-compliance
Coo-eee Flashback!
Hi guys – thanks for re-posting part of my previous comment. I’ve read your discussion about it with interest. But you missed a very important piece, which I think adds weight to my thesis and which I’d like to hear your thoughts on. It’s this bit:
“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.”
Can anyone think of a good reason why someone would take only a piece of a used condom to a hospital for HIV testing and not the whole condom? I can’t. So maybe little Miss SW had entirely other things in mind for that piece of condom with Assange’s DNA on it…?
I repeat another couple of points I made, for good measure:
“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 that 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… Someone got to her in that hour or so? Or going to the police was Wilen’s plan all along?
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? Was it a reaction to something attributed to Sophie Wilen? “The other woman wanted to report rape”, Ardin said on several occasions.
And…
“The reason I mention about Wilen having studied Drama [as reported in Guy Sim’s book] 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’ [having just heard about Assange arrest warrant, so ‘mission accomplished’?] 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.”
Here’s the reference to Sophie Wilen having studied Drama from Guy Sim’s book. It’s on page 58:
Sofia Wilén at university in Wales.
On Thursday 9 December 2010, Australian artist Deej Fabyc wrote in her blog, under heading “Honey Trap2 ????”, “The names of the two women associated with the Julian Assange sex crime debacle emerged this week and to my surprise It seems that I know the younger one of these women personally. She was part of an exhibition called Nordic Stories that I presented in collaboration with curator Rachel O’Dowd at Elastic Residence
in 2007. I also taught her Video and Performance on her BA Hons Fine Art Course at the University of Wales Newport.
Arbed, to play Devil’s advocate, the same accusation, acting skills, could be leveled at Guy Sims. But I know what you’re saying. My cartoon ‘Revenge on Assange’ asks similar questions. I tried to play it just now and it stuck on 12 seconds. What is going on? Can anybody else play it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVGdiuzLLo&feature=g-upl
As regards the condom I guess we’re supposed to think that she just took the tip in to prove that it had been deliberately torn. Who the Hell would deliberately tear a condom? I have had one tear on me in the past, but it wasn’t deliberate. Somebody who could lie like Anna Ardin would have no problem in scraping Assange’s DNA from some item in her flat: bedsheets perhaps. I don’t know whether that’s possible but may be. These lying people should be on trial.
I meant to mention I’ve blogged about Guy Sims book.
Hello Salander, (7 Nov, 8:51 am)
Thanks, I’m sure you have a better overview of this; I was just curious and trying to unravel the impressions I had formed working back from the complaint and then seeing the date on the memo which turned up recently. In case you remember reading other points or are aware of likely standard procedures, feel free to comment more.
From the “if he shows up tell him…” line one sees Eva Finne as being annoyed but laid back, however behind the scenes and as the international scandal sank in one can see her taking a stand for due process and holding the police to account, and protecting the reputation of the prosecutor’s office.
From afar one doesn’t see them as being distinct and in different buildings and having rivalries between them. Also, at this stage the prosecutor is acting more like a magistrate in granting an arrest warrant, which is unfamiliar.
So it comes down to a phone call from the police to the duty prosecutor, with no written records at that stage? However, shouldn’t the duty prosecutor be clued up on police cutting corners and be asking to be sure there was sufficient probable grounds?
A few other related questions seem to arise:
– If Eva Finne was on vacation (was she?), then how did she come to be called in to sort it out?
– What is the usual practice for appointing the victim’s (and accused) attorney?
– Would it be usual (or even allowed) for the police to put a victim in contact with a specific attorney?
– Would the scrutiny have lead the police to be warning the victims they may be up for making false accusations, and they had better seek counsel?
– According to CB, both SW and AA visited him on the Monday, however at that stage only one was remaining as a possible victim, so that does not make sense with the narrative of “only wanting him to be tested”, so why did both contact CB?
One idea was that they arranged this on Friday or early Saturday before the charges were mostly withdrawn, and kept the appointment. Otherwise, there was some new motive.
Another observation that says something is that there was not criticism (that I’ve seen, but perhaps the tabloids did?) of Eva Finne from the press or bloggers or feminists that a serial rapist was being set free etc…
Your general recollections or intuitions are most welcome…
Hello Arbed,
I’m still back at catching up with details to (6 Nov, 5:36 pm) as I have a few points to fill in and I am aware of more than you assume, which is mildly annoying, or hinting from considerable expertise for you to think clearly about what impressions you have made based on catchy stories. I didn’t really expect such a long reply to those points, but was provoking you to think clearly or consider options, which for the most part you demonstrated you can do when you set your mind to it. How can I encourage more of that? 🙂
Sometimes I don’t know and am seeking info, other times I’m asking you to consider other posibilities, other times I am questioning your assumptions and statements you have made without qualification and asking you to justify them with clear reasoning and references, or else to take care to include suitable qualifiers in future. Is there a way I can phrase my questions to make that more obvious?
This is interesting and fun but leaves me overloaded in having to unwind misunderstood responses etc. and delays me to catch up on other posts I have been drafting. You also seemed to confuse John the other day with your unclear quoting/translating flashback’s reference to him.
So that explains my delay. Certainly keep posting highlights from this book.
@John Goss 8.21am
Ahh, I think you may be getting the two elements of condom evidence mixed up. According to the forensic lab report what was handed in was:
1) a piece of condom from MA1 (Sophie Wilen) with both male and female DNA on it. The male DNA on this piece of condom matched male DNA on a swab taken from MA1 herself. The female DNA on the condom piece matched MA1’s swab too. Also on the forensic report is policeman Mats Gehlin’s notes that this piece of condom was found under MA1’s bed and a cryptic reference to MA1 having heard noises “like pulling a balloon” in the dark (presumably when it was used during sex).
2) a complete condom from MA2 (Anna Ardin), looking used (there’s a photograph) and with a sizeable cut or tear at the tip. This condom has no DNA, male or female, on it at all.
According to Guy Sim, both of these were collected by junior policewoman Sara Wennergren from Anna Ardin’s apartment at 6.30pm-ish on Saturday, 21 August 2010. Sara had taken Anna Ardin’s witness statement by telephone earlier that same day, at around 11.30am.
Now we know from the EAW and Ardin’s statement that the main basis of her allegations is that Assange deliberately tore that condom during sex. We also know – from the lab report – that the condom she handed in as evidence of this “crime” cannot have been in contact with any part of any person’s body, let alone used for sex between two people – even someone touching it with their bare hands would leave some DNA so she has clearly gone to some trouble to fake this evidence.
What I am questioning is:
1) why is there only a piece of condom retrieved from MA1? There is nothing in Sophie Wilen’s witness statement about a condom being damaged (at least not in the formal statement to Irmeli Krans that has been used to request Assange’s extradition).
2) why is Sophie Wilen’s piece of condom collected from Anna Ardin? Guy Sim suggests this may be because Wilen was carrying it around to see if it would help with HIV testing but, to me, that only raises further questions:
– why would a woman cut a piece out of a used condom – rather than take the whole used condom – to get a hospital HIV test? Surely it’s more sensible to take the whole condom to get a decent-sized semen sample for antibodies testing?
– if getting this piece of condom tested during her hospital visit was Wilen’s intention, why wasn’t this evidence requisitioned from the hospital instead of from Ardin? How likely is it that a hospital could or would do a HIV test on it (very, very quickly considering the timescales we’re talking about here) and then give it back to Wilen? There is no documentation of the results of a HIV test in the police protocol which leaked five months later, in late January 2011. Why not, if a HIV test was done?
– at what point did Wilen take this piece of condom to Ardin’s apartment? Thursday 19th August? Friday 20th August? Before or after her visit to the hospital? Before or after the visit to Klara police station? If before, why did she leave it there while the two women went to the police without it? (Remember, it wasn’t collected from Ardin until the following day.)
4) Is Ardin responsible in some way for producing this MA1 condom piece, ie, did she deliberately tear a whole condom left in her care by Wilen, (using gloves as she must have done to produce her own false evidence) to somehow match her own allegations more closely? If so, why would she do this? The basis of Wilen’s allegation (well, the one we know of from her formal statement to Irmeli Krans) is of sleepy sex WITHOUT a condom.
5) When, and from whom, did policeman Mats Gehlin learn that MA1 (Sophie Wilen) heard noises in the dark which sounded like a condom being “pulled like a balloon”? Does this note reflect someone reporting that a condom was damaged somehow? Gehlin’s notes indicate that the piece of condom was found under the bed on the “suspect’s side”. Does that note reflect an allegation that the MA1 piece of condom is the result of deliberate damage by the suspect?
– Did he hear about this from Ardin when MA1’s piece of condom was handed in? If so, has Sara Wennergren made a record of this conversation on the evidence requisition order when she collected it on the evening of Saturday 21 August? (There’s certainly nothing resembling Gehlin’s notes in Ardin’s witness statement taken by phone earlier that morning.)
– Or did he hear it from Linda Wassgren, or one of her colleagues at Klara police station, as she phoned around for advice about what to do about what she’d just heard from the two women who sat together to talk to her at around 4.30pm on Friday, 20 August 2010? Ardin reports that she interjected one sentence into Sophia’s story – exact words – “I believe Sophia is telling the truth because something similar happened to me”. How exactly is Ardin’s experience anything like that of Sophia’s? Sophia’s allegation involves penetration without a condom while still half asleep and Ardin’s allegations are nothing like that – where in Ardin’s statement is there any occasion where a condom wasn’t worn, where does Ardin claim sex happened while she was half-asleep? What’s “similar” about it?
Whatever Wassgren had been told “everyone agreed it was rape” and it prompted an on-duty prosecutor to issue an arrest warrant for double rape before either of the women had been formally interviewed.
Do you see why I keep picking away at this issue of the physical evidence backing Wilen’s allegations being “a piece” of condom, and how that might relate to Gehlin’s strange notes on the forensic report?
Hi Snap,
Oh dear, I’m sorry if I’m leaving you with the feeling that I’ve misunderstood your responses, and even more so if that’s leaving you feeling annoyed (even mildly). It’s perfectly obvious to me that you do know a very great deal about the case (I hadn’t assumed anything else, honest) and I appreciate very much all your questions and prompting – I find it both thought-provoking and helpful. You were exactly who I had in mind in this bit of my last post:
“I’m always open to having any gaps in my knowledge in this respect filled in – everything helps”
Glad there is some fun in it for you too. 🙂
Hello Arbed,
yes there is a nice buzz when a few people engage with civility.
To reduce the misunderstanding, kindly consider and reply to the two questions I posed above taken in the context of the full paragraphs (and see also a Q in the other thread):
– “How can I encourage more of that?” (setting your mind to clear thinking)
– “Is there a way I can phrase my questions to make that more obvious?”
I’m here with some dismay that no serious investigative journalism or even collaborative groups or knowledgable persons like yourself have still to date not really made a proper go at setting down and analysing what they know and then reducing it to some form of readble document or briefing paper. Also dismayed that journalists etc are not doing the leg-work in making on the ground enquiries, FOI requests or translating material from Swedish.
Hence here I am reviewing from a current perspective my notes from 1-2 years ago. I’d really like and encourage others such as yourself to do likewise in writing what you know and further to demand the Press to perform their proper function in society.
I have no wish to take on any such role myself in their absence.
Here are references that the complaint to the JO against Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand was actually announced on the Sunday. For instance, see this article in the Svenska Dagbladet:
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/jouraklagaren-jo-anmald_5171631.svd
(22 augusti 2010 kl 18:01, uppdaterad: 25 augusti 2010 kl 15:23)
According to the following blog, it was also in the Aftonbladet, but that remains elusive:
“Skandinav i Florida :: Prosecutor that arrested Assange reported to the Ombudsman of Justice” (Posted by Editor On 08/22/2010)
http://www.skandinaviflorida.com/web/sif.nsf/d6plinks/JEIE-88KFY2
Also on that Sunday, retired prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem was voicing his concerns:
“Tidigare överåklagaren Sven-Erik Alhem kritiserar de inblandade åklagarna för …” (22 augusti 2010 kl 20:18 , uppdaterad: 25 augusti 2010 kl 15:22)
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/alhem-forklara-er_5172395.svd
And in the Dagens Juridik on Monday: (2010-08-23 18:29)
http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2010/08/aklagare-kan-ha-brutit-mot-forundersokningssekretessen
It also made its way to US news agency AP:
{http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100822/ap_on_hi_te/eu_sweden_wikileaks}
Similarly see this blog here:
http://zeroanthropology.net/2010/08/24/dont-hide-behind-the-women-what-is-relevant-in-the-story-about-julian-assange-and-the-rape-accusation/
By the Tuesday, the complaint was extended to include the issue of confidentiality of arrest warrants and privacy of the accuseds. e.g.:
“Assange prosecutor cited for secrecy breach – The Local” (24 Aug 2010)
http://www.thelocal.se/28556/20100824/
To Jon moderator:
I notice that comments on this thread are supposed to close on 13 November. I wonder if it is possible please to leave the thread open beyond that date? A lot of people from Flashback have started posting in here and also duplicating posts from us at CM back into Flashback for them to chew over. Most of the heavy-lifting detective work on JA’s case has been done in Flashback, but in Swedish language, so this could become a great way of getting more facts out into the English-speaking world, and a great collaborative resource.
Hi Arbed. The closing date is a rolling date, and is always three (full) days after the last comment. So if people keep commenting, the date will keep moving. If it does close, let me know on another thread and I’ll re-open it.
I’ll see if I can add a better explanation of the closing date to the comments block.