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.
Dear Arbed @ 8 Nov 7.49 pm.
“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?”
Thank you for your long explanation. I was largely aware of the facts from Guy Sims book but thank you for clarifying them. It is, as you say, unbelievable that a piece of condom, rather than the whole condom, was taken to the Police Station. And produced by Anna Ardin but containing Sofia Wilen’s DNA.
I have a theory on this that the condom was one that JA used on Anna Ardin. It was intact and contained sperm. The outside was cleaned and Sofia Wilen was coerced, or voluntarily, left a sample of DNA on it. To have produced the whole condom might have showed there was more than just one specimen of female DNA if the initial cleaning process had not removed it all. But it is much easier to clean the outside of small area than the whole condom. It is only a theory and there could be a legitimate reason for just taking a piece in, rather than the whole condom, but I cannot think of one. This would also fit with Sofia not mentioning a torn condom – because there never was a torn condom for either of the women.
Anna Ardin has already shown herself to be a liar and to have faked and removed evidence to fit her statement. This would make her unsuitable in court, if such a farce should ever come to court, because a good examiner would shred her various statements to pieces.
Is it possible to deliberately tear a condom? I’ve never tried, and suspect neither has Julian Assange. I suspect it is impossible and would need superhuman strength, or a tool to pierce it, or perished rubber. It does not add up.
I am reading Guy Sims’ book on Assange in Sweden. A very good read. I’m up to page 130 and have spotted three minor typos to date. I’ve made a note of these. Can anyone contact Mr Sims to pass these on please?
Hi.
Been away and also waiting to see what kind of moves mr Rudling was up to.
First, the question of Wilen and Ardin visit to the police:
They arrived 14:10 to Klara Näpo, the interrogation started approx 16:05, (but s´the office closes at 16:00hrs !)
This on a Friday during summer vacation with small staff and a lot of “customers”. No-one here in Sweden belives that these 2 girls had to sit for 2 hrs and wait, when they came to file a rape-accusation, but what happended under these 2 hrs we not sure about.
Ewa Finné: statement on Saturday, the prosecutor office rushed docs via curir to Finne´s summerhouse outside Stockholm, she read it and then faxed back here decition that it was no rape and the arrestwarrant was removed.
Papercopies at undermattan.com, se assangedocuments.
To Göran Rudling.
You still twist and now you also lie !
You were the only soly witness in this case coming to London, Sven and Birgitta was in London as expert witnesses with their background as retired judge and prosecutor, while you still are a witness in an ongoing investigation. Therefore, you had no legal right to take part of the secret papers, and this is ruled whatever you are on this planet.
The redacted paperwork that you referer to was faxed from the prosecutor office and not the police, you just match all the other paperwork at undermattan.com and you will se that several dics are from the same faxmachine with numbers that match the transmissions.
Now, try to answer these questions without twisting it around to other persons or dates:
You claim to be a witness, but there is no records if it in ANY paperwork from the police or from the leaked docs, explain this:
When you appeared in London, you statement included a specific address in Stockholm were you lived. At the same time you were unlisted by swedish IRS (Skatteverket) for 3 years in a row, they tried to reach you 3 times in a matter of your company that was up to be closed. On the given address as you stated there was a woman name Nema that was the contact press person for Swedish immigration office, that refused Assange permanent stay in Sweden, what was your status with this woman !
Then you can also explain Mary Engs latest leaks:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112662612/Samtycke-Leaks
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112662628/Not-Interested-in-Sex-Re-Goran-Rudling-on-Assange
As you have stated before that you didnt have anything to do with Alan Burke, how come that you was on your way to him in these mails then….?
Dear Snap 9/11/12 2.32am
To answer your two questions (and the one on the other thread), don’t worry – I’m beginning to get the hang of what it is you’re looking for from me and I promise to make more effort to present things with suitable qualifiers and references. Also, that I will try to apply a more ‘scientific’ method, including possible alternative scenarios which might disprove my argument. That’s mainly what I meant by “it’s a shame we have such different approaches” – the shame is all mine because I don’t come from a scientific background so that hampers me from presenting my thoughts and propositions in a way that meets the requirements of your questions and promptings. I fear some patience and forgiveness might still be needed for a while…
I think one of my chief sins is that I assume a certain level of foreknowledge about the case and the evidence – as I have with you – so I feel less need to provide links or cite references to bits of the available evidence, because I assume the regular posters here are probably already very familiar with the material themselves.
Perhaps you’ll see that I’ve tried to take your points on board with my long post above addressed to John Goss about “the piece” of condom and what I feel its significance might be? I’ve included questions about alternative scenarios within it and (I think) it’s obvious which pieces of documentary evidence it refers to: the forensic report; Linda Wassgren’s 22 August memo; the section of Donald Bostrum’s witness statement where he describes what Ardin told him of the police visit.
I am in complete agreement with your comments about the dereliction of journalists in digging into this case.
I also had a question for you, which you didn’t answer: Would you know anything about how to go about setting up a Pirate Pad? (to facilitate online collaboration in producing that detailed timeline you suggested would be a good start)
@John Goss 9/11/12 10.21am
Rather than all that messy business of cleaning the outside of a condom and coercing Wilen to substitute her DNA on it, isn’t it a much, much, simpler theory to suggest that Ardin and Wilen (in the course of their text messages between them 18th to 20th August, still under wraps) between them came up with the idea that they would both tell a story of Assange deliberately damaging a condom during sex?
In that scenario, it would be quite straightforward for Wilen to tear or cut a piece out of a used condom she found under the bed and take it to meet Ardin sometime before they went to Klara (or maybe Ardin travelled to her? Remember, Assange’s witness statement says Ardin disappeared on the Thursday night, the 19th, saying she was visiting a journalist friend and didn’t come back – overnight visit to Wilen in Enkoping? – that’s another way Wilen’s piece of condom could have ended up in Ardin’s possession); start the phone messages, relayed through Johannes Walstrom and Donald Bostrum (as set out in their witness statements), pressuring Assange to get a HIV test “or we go to the police”; visit the hospital for a “rape kit”, then off to Klara station with Ardin to get down to business…
And in that scenario the “advice about two earlier events” in which “rape was mentioned from the start” (both these are quotes from Wassgren’s 22 August memo recounting that first initial contact the women had with the police) wasn’t about HIV; it was about BOTH women (but initially Wilen) asking for advice about someone deliberately damaging condoms. What was the law about unusual ‘rapey’-type experiences such as that? Well, says Wassgren of the colleagues she consulted (including, by the way, Mats Gehlin of the Family Violence Unit), “everyone agreed it was rape”.
My proposition is that Gehlin’s notes on the forensic report accurately reflect this very first (false) story by BOTH women, who had colluded together beforehand to invent it and who BOTH tried to back this “similar story” with physical condom evidence (Ardin very much less successfully than Wilen).
I know none of this matches Wilen’s formal statement to Krans but:
a) the version of her statement dated 20 August that was released to the press is too heavily redacted to know exactly what she told Krans but we do know the uncensored version of it seen by Eva Finne got the rape arrest warrant cancelled – that’s VERY far from “everyone agreed it was rape”, so is it a fair point to wonder if it was also very far from the story that Sophia had originally told the police when she first arrived? A watered-down complaint detailing nothing criminal (as Guy Sims notes) – this would absolve her from getting into trouble (potentially, a 2-year prison sentence in Sweden) for making false allegations. And the interview is terminated anyway – unsigned – as soon as she hears the rape warrant has been issued.
b) the version dated 26 August that we think we all know as “Sophia’s story” has now been shown by Guy Sim to have been extensively revised by another hand. We can’t take this document as the “truth” about Sophia. Interestingly, though Sim shows how the revisions are purely cosmetic changes in a rambling story, signifying nothing and certainly no crime, about wandering in parks, spotting geese, etc until it reaches the section dealing with the actual “assault” (where the redactions begin in the press-released version). From this point, it’s an exercise in rewriting…
Nobody seems to like the idea of calling Wilen a liar too. I appreciate there’s more evidence available pointing to Ardin being correctly labelled as such (the deletion of the tweets, the ‘7 steps to revenge’ blog post, handing in a DNA-free condom as evidence, etc, etc) but please remember that it’s actually quite rare for two women to report the same man for rape AT THE SAME TIME. The dangers of cross-contamination (and I don’t mean simply of DNA samples on a condom) and collusion in their stories should be self-evident.
Duqu – welcome back!
Thanks for those links to Mary Eng leaks. Oh, hahaha – well, that’s kinda, ahem, personal, isn’t it? “Since then I think I have the most fantastic penis in the world.” That sounds like our boy! Hahahahaha.
I think you’re right to be delving into Goran Rudling’s background and motivations. Mary Eng, though, I think is less of a worry. From what I’ve heard in Occupy, she made quite a nuisance of herself among Wikileaks’ supporters – always blagging them into putting her up in their homes on the basis of her ‘poverty’ but seemingly still able to spend conspicious sums on frivolous items for herself… They all ended up feeling used. No wonder she became very unpopular very quickly and people started trying to ‘out’ her and warn others off. Personally, I don’t believe she was ever a Wikileaks insider (it sounds like that’s what she’s trying to portray herself as to Goran in these emails). The idea that Wikileaks would have anything at all to do with her is pretty ridiculous – they’d only have to take one look at her braingarbage blog to see that she’s barking mad. I really can’t see them welcoming anyone like that as an ‘insider’.
Arbed, I’m pretty sure Krans wrote Wilen’s statement for her, or at least the bulk of it, putting words into her mouth. Krans is much more of a politician than policewoman. It’s a gut feeling but I trust my gut feelings. She altered (spiced up might be a better way of putting it) the original statement. She has no morals.
I am with you too that Wilen could be a liar. And if she is she’s a better one than Ardin. I have suspected complicity between the two women from the start. It is a typical honey-trap scenario. Or it may just be a genuine case of revenge. Wilen seems to be a groupie. They used to say “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’ and Ardin’s ‘Seven steps to revenge on men who dump women’ seems to corroborate the saying.
As to the condom, you mention that ‘it would be quite straightforward for Wilen to tear or cut a piece out of a used condom she found under the bed and take it to meet Ardin . . .’ Cut, yes. Tear, I don’t think so. I’ve seen strong men tear telephone directories, but to tear a slippy condom would I think be pretty nigh impossible while making love, and not so easy while not making love even with both hands.
There’s another honey-trap story broken on this blog.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/11/hilarcia-plot-against-correa-funded-by-drug-money/
Hi John,
Not sure about Krans doing the rewriting. For one, she was locked out of the case file on the Durtva computer by Linda Wassgren between at least 23 August and 26 August, when she was ordered to “create a new case file and input it with ‘the necessary changes'” by Mats Gehlin. Krans took advantage of the fact that Gehlin was based in another building, and therefore not directly supervising her, to add notes of her objections to doing as she’d been ordered to the bottom of the new file. These notes are also translated at the bottom of Rixstep’s translation of Wilen’s statement. They appear on the original Swedish document too.
Also, what do you make of Guy Sim’s reproducing that email exchange between Gehlin and Claus Borgstrom on the morning of 26 August 2010, in which he sends Borgstrom two attached pdfs? Sim thinks those pdfs are the censored and the uncensored versions of the statement Wilen gave on 20 August, the idea being that as the censored version had already been released to the press Borgstrom would need both versions to know where exactly he was safe to make his alterations (ie within the heavily redacted latter part). Personally, I agree with Sim and think it’s Borgstrom who rewrote the statement. He’d already been engaged as Plaintiff’s (and possibly Plaintiffs’) Counsel by, I think, 22 or 23 August. If Wilen had watered down her original claims (once she’d said enough to get Assange arrested) to avoid potential criminal charges for false allegations made formally, she may not have been happy for Borgstrom to up the ante again on her statement, but Ardin most certainly would’ve been. Once Eva Finne cancelled the arrest warrant Assange (having seen the uncensored 20 August statement) and confirmed that she could see no crime in Wilen’s statement, this left Ardin in the position of being the only complainant legally liable for the allegations made against Assange.
Yes, a cut would be much easier for Wilen to do, no doubt. I had always assumed that for Ardin to produce the ‘evidence’ she did, she’d have to have worn gloves and stretched an unused condom straight from the packet over a dildo, but probably needed to take one glove off to piece the latex with a fingernail. If the second test of the “something” the lab found on the first results DID find a trace of mDNA (not conclusive as the second test was requested by Gehlin but the results of that test are NOT incuded in the leaked police protocol – date of leak late January 2011), I understand that the presence of mDNA when there is no chromosonal DNA present in a sample means that mDNA can only have come from hair or nails.
Hello Arbed, (9 Nov, 9:13 am)
Indeed, I had hoped for this international interchange of info all along, and am glad my artful plan has started to bear some fruit. One has to keep posting something every three days to keep these few threads on Assange open, so might you or others keep an eye on that too? (It would be nice if it could be 8 days rather than 3!)
Snap, I’ve reset this thread to close in 8 days. Anyway, if a thread closes earlier than you like, let me know – it can always be reopened.
Jon,
thanks kindly, I was going to ask you if the spam load might permit that more generally now with the filter?
Why 8 days not 7? Then someone who checks only once a week is not shut out if they visit say 8am Sat., and then 10pm the following Sat., since I suspect it may be taking the closing time from the hour:min of the last posting.
Dear Arbed,
sorry – please be patient – as I said (8 Nov, 5:51 pm), “I’m still back at catching up with details to …”, and I was asking for your suggestions how I can phrase my questions more clearly, indicating which of the three (or more?) ways I mean them, as I’d like to express myself more clearly. How would you phrase those 3 sorts of questions yourself?
As to using other sites, on the balance of issues with privacy, censorship, permanence, ad-free, and so on I am loath to use anything like scribd or google docs etc. More so if it is propietary webified software, not something open source which can be self hosted, or run on one’s own desktop. These are like fast food or coffee franchises; even if it is free, I don’t like the design nor the side effects of the ingredients and the CCTV at the door.
I am more the slow food type … ideally I would be setting up my own little brasserie like place to host wikis and timelines and forums or collaborative whatever, though behind the scenes it might resemble a tardis 🙂
So, given that this site has some aspects right, I’m for simplicity and agreeing on a format and seeing how well it works here to toss a few initial versions back and forth.
I’m also the cash type, so getting hold of this book is a bit of a challenge… 🙁
Snap, I used eight since that’s what you suggested 😉
But seven seems a good sensible default, sure. I’ve set that as the default, and reset it for all existing posts (hopefully, anyway). Let me know if any particular posts play up.
Jon,
actually, I suggested 8 for the reason I thought I had explained.
As I understand it (maybe you know better), in case it is exactly 7x24h from the last post time, then the problem I described occurs, so then 8 gives the required leeway. So that is why I suggested 8, not 7.
To be sure of other scenarious like weekend day to weekend day needs 9, or Friday – week off – Monday needs 10, but I leave it to you to decide what you want to cater to and to see how the spam problem works out.
Arbed,
might this suggestion help?
As to hypotheses, you are considering different ideas on the character or motives of SW, so you can give them labels, and then set out the differences in the stories and see how consistent they are with known facts and inferences. Even include straw-woman options. This may help readers to set aside their disklike to see her as a liar. e.g.
The you can say:
and people can decide which version makes sense.
Note, however, it gets more complicated to also consider different scenarios of manipulations of events, or other versions of hypothetical players also in the same story.
Arbed, you might be right about Claus Borgstrom doing the rewriting. Whoever did it there were changes that took place designed to portray Julian Assange in a bad light. But Krans’ attitude throughout had been one of trying to make a rape case against Assange when Wilen had only allegedly gone to try and persuade Julian to take a STD test. I cant’ argue with your logic concerning chromosonal DNA and mDNA because I don’t know enough about the subject.
As Snap writes SW is a complex person for a ‘shy’ type. I’ve never met her but she does seem, from Sims book, to bathe in the light of the stars, has American connections, especially the boyfriend. I still think the best thing that can be done is for a separate legal inquiry into the way the Swedish police and prosecution service have conspired to get Assange back into Sweden. They would have to show their hand. Borgstrom can’t keep saying there is evidence without showing what that evidence is. Their hand, in my opinion, needs forcing.
Then it will be shown that this is just a political plot. And not a very clever one. Could Guy Sims provide a few copies of his book in paperback form for people like Snap. Print on demand books can be ordered through bookstores, or directly from the author.
snap wrote: “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?”
Yes, that is exactly how bad it is. Linda Wassgren, I presume, must have explained that she had talked to both women, that she had spoken to Mats Gehlin on Famlly violence and to the station officer, Johan Hallberg. She also made one or more other phone calls, of which we know nothing. And “everybody was in agreemnet that it was rape”.
According to Irmeli Krans’ statement she was blocked from contact with the Duty Attorney by Wassgren. Wassgren, not Krans, plays the key role in getting the duty attorney to take her decision.
Expressen, and Niklas Svensson in particular, has made a great deal to blow up the role of Irmeli Krans on that evening. I think that might be a deliberate attempt to conceal what was actually happening. The Swedish public does not know that the decision to arrest Assange was taken before the formal interrogation of Sofia was finished and before the formal interrogation of Anna had even begun. The RO appeal to the Swedish Justitieombudsman did not mention this, they were not aware of that then.
correction of what i wrote above: “Duty attorney” should be “duty prosecutor”. Sorry for not knowing the correct terms in english
Snap, I think our wires crossed.
I assumed you were genuinely asking “why 8 days not 7”, when in fact you were asking it rhetorically in order to then supply an explanation. I understand now 🙂
So, I’ve set all posts to eight days, as you suggest.
Jon,
yes I’ve been asking Arbed how I can phrase the different sorts of questions to convey the tone. For example, how better to say that rhetorical “Why 8 days not 7? …” ?
Hi Snap, and others
Snap: Yes, I could try that SW1, SW2, etc classification system (can you suggest a similar simple breakdown for the various ‘personas/motives’ of Ardin?) but I’m a little worried that it will quickly become confusing for any occasional readers who don’t understand what the original classifications meant. You’ve also asked that I repost some of my comments on this thread onto a more recent one, to help keep it open. It’s constraints on my time (I’m a freelance worker so my hours are all over the place and not particularly predictable) I’m afraid that prevent me from doing as much as I’d like to help build a community of interested researchers working on the Assange case. Nothing to stop you lifting bits from my comments here which particularly interest you and requoting them in other threads, of course. If you’d like to do that, you’re welcome – I have no objection. 🙂
John Goss: Totally agree with you about there needing to be some sort of ‘push back’ legal enquiry to force the Swedish authorities to reveal how bankrupt their case is. See Salander’s comment about the RO appeal to the Swedish Justitieombudsman not even including the fact the women’s statements hadn’t even been taken before an arrest warrant was issued. I wonder if there’s any possibility of getting the RO appeal re-opened on this basis?
Regarding getting a copy of Sim’s book to Snap (who’s preference is for cash transactions and therefore he can’t download it online), I have the book in pdf format and can easily email it to Snap but that would mean Snap would need to leave an email address publicly on this thread. It’s possible to create a temporary one specifically for this purpose. Alternatively, perhaps Jon the Mod might be prepared to act as go-between?
Salander: Thanks, that’s a very good factual summary you’ve posted. Please keep posting here at Craig’s blog – it’s so useful for us that Swedish-speaking people familiar with the Assange case can help fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Thanks again.
Hello again Snap,
I see your comments at 10 Nov 6.48pm about some of the objections you have to proprietary software and I think Pirate Pad may be the answer. From the link below it appears it’s a free, open source and very basic text editor. It doesn’t require any subscription or even registration, so I think all that’s needed is to download it onto your PC and it’s good to go. It says all contributions appear chronologically so I haven’t really thought through how multiple contributors/editors would add new bits of information into a timeline at the appropriate spot as they become known, or correct/update any erroneous entries made by others. But here, have a look and tell me what you think:
http://piratepad-net.appappeal.com/
Hello Salander,
thanks for returning and picking up on one of my questions to highlight that conclusion. Perhaps someone else can contrast that with the typical process in UK for a comparable situation – presumably that involves a duty sessions magistrate.
May one also presume, in the normal case in Sweden, such an arrest decision by a duty prosecutor is not temporary but would have remained in force without any further review?
It is not just the Swedish public, I’d say most reasonably informed public everywhere do not know any such details; the general public at large mostly hear the TV headlines and just think it is a case of two aggrieved women crying rape and wanting justice for personal harm.
Yes, I recall wondering at the time, given their stance, why were Expressen atacking Krans, but put it down to tabloid media stirring tactics. Increasingly I speculate that CB is placed as an unnamed source for them and The Guardian too.
Chipping away at these details and times does seem to be gradually revealing a clearer understanding, so any further input from you or anyone else on the other questions I posed are most welcome.
[Jon, that looks like an edit request 2x in the 3rd para of Salander (9:43 pm)]
Hello John Goss and Arbed,
I don’t recall saying myself that SW is complex; I still see her as a shy type, but Arbed keeps asserting unqualified statements that SW lied to JA, or that her coursework in Performance and Video Art makes her an actress, so I was proposing some labels for hypothetical different SW characters she can use to test out such assertions, in a self-contained piece. At the moment, I’m not really looking into SW.
Arbed, I don’t see it as a classification or about multiple personas. A simpler way may be to just refer to them with prefixes such as “shy-SW”, “liar-SW”, or whatever you choose. What hypothetical versions of AA do you see?
Arbed, actually I was asking you to have the grace to place your response to one of my questions I asked in the other thread in place there as a conversation, since you had thread hopped it over here into this busy place. Now that Jon has kindly extended the closing times, that is less of a pressure now; it would be nice to have some appreciation for my efforts keeping this open so we are now here at all with some Swedes too, and unravelling your assumptions with a patience that you confuse for my having time to spare.
If that book is worth the trouble and is in a DRM-free pdf not locked to a machine ID, that is kind of you to offer. There may be some sort of one-time email to use; then it is a question of IP privacy.
On a similar note, have those CPS emails shown up as a straight pdf somewhere else than on scribd?
Where does the information that Wilen’s condom was picked up from Ardin’s home come from, originally? Is this new information, based on new sources, from Guy Sims? It seems less likely in my view, but on that point I am merely speculating.
I see that in Flashback there’s some discussion as to at what point Sophie Wilen’s “HIV phobia” comes into the picture.
All page references below are to the pdf version of Guy Sim’s book “Julian Assange in Sweden – what really happened”: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/233304 Cost $3.
In Chapter 37 of his book (pages 93-95 especially), Guy Sim makes a good case that even the words “you better don’t have HIV” are a later addition to Wilen’s statement by another person. He does a line-by-line comparison between the censored 20 August version and the 26 August version to reach this conclusion. Apart from this phrase, there is nothing else in SW’s witness statement with Krans about HIV or any specific reference to fear of STDs.
Hanna Rosquist’s statement (page 110 of Sim’s book): The date this statement was taken is 8th September 2010 – long after the events to which it relates. Hanna says she is a childhood friend of Sophia’s so it is likely that they will have had more than one conversation about the incident before Hanna gives her statement to the police. In fact, it is clear from Hanna’s statement itself that it is based on more than one conversation. Hanna confirms she first heard from Sophia that she was unhappy about having unprotected sex in a phone or text message on the morning of 17th August 2010 while Assange was still at Sophia’s flat. Later in the same statement, although it is not explicitly stated that it is based on more than one conversation, Hanna says:
“Hanna said that Sofia wanted Assange to be tested for venereal diseases. Sofia had been tested but it would take a very long time before she would get the result. It would go much faster if Assange went and got tested.
Hanna knows nothing about what happened when Sofia reported the event to the police.” – this implies a conversation between Wilen and Rosquist sometime between SW getting a HIV test at the hospital (exact time/date anyone??) and 2pm on 20 August (or, alternatively, that Hanna’s last sentence here is a fib). This conversation could, of course, have happened later than that – we don’t know.
and
“Hanna said that she had seen in the newspaper that Sofia apparently knew the other woman and she had asked Sofia about that. Sofia had answered, “yes, I do now, but not before the seminar,” – this implies a conversation between Wilen and Rosquist sometime after 21st August 2010 as that is the earliest date of newspaper reports.
So, Rosquist’s testimony seems to be based on at least three conversations between her and Wilen. Clearly there is potential here for Sophie Wilen to have introduced new elements into the story via her friend Hanna Rosquist’s testimony (or help “lay the groundwork” ahead of going to the police once she’d chatted with Ardin…).
Katarina Svensson’s testimony (page 111). The date of this interrogation is 13th September 2010 – again, long after the events to which it relates and, as one of Wilen’s work colleagues, there was plenty of opportunity for the two to talk prior to Svensson’s statement to police. Katarina makes two comments within the statement which give clues as to when Sophia told Katarina about her experiences: “Later, when they were at work, Sofia told her what had happened” and “Sofia was forced to take a sick-leave day from work because she did not want to leave Assange by himself in the apartment as she did not know him”. This implies Sophia returned to work on 18th August 2010 after a day’s sick leave and Katarina’s knowledge of events is basically what Sophia told her on that date. But it COULD be later than 18th August – we just don’t know because “later, at work” could mean anytime. If it did take place on 18th August, there was definitely also at least one later conversation between them before Katarina gave her statement to police – because “The witness said that Sofia had not felt well after the event and this was intensified by the attention in the mass media”. Obviously, this remark post-dates newspaper coverage of the case. So, again, there were at least one opportunity for Wilen to revise her testimony subsequent to her formal Krans interview via the “witness” statement of a close friend.
Although Katarina does state “already before this event Sofia had said that she did not have sex without a condom. This was to protect her from sickness and pregnancy”, Guy Sim makes the point that it is nowhere mentioned in the police protocol that Wilen’s ex-boyfriend, with whom she never had unprotected in more than two years, ie. was “phobic” about it, had lived in San Francisco (gay capital of the world) between 2002 and, I think, 2006 or 2007. This is a crucial point. Wilen had also visited San Francisco herself so she would also know what the place is like, and this puts a wholly different light on her insistence on using condoms with Seth Benson throughout her relationship with him. Sensible precaution rather than outright phobia?
Joakim Wilen’s statement (page 141). Statement given 6th October 2010. Long after events… Joakim’s earliest knowledge of events is when Sophia bumps into Joakim at the ICA shop at 8am on 17th August while Assange is still in her apartment. Although he says she seemed a little “shaken” (or “jolted”), he also mentions “Sofia was exhilarated” [can also be translated as ‘in high spirits’] and that she invited him back to her apartment to meet Assange: “She asked Joakim if he would like to meet Julian Assange, but he did not want to”. This is a very odd offer to make if you are unhappy about the behaviour of a visitor. It certainly doesn’t sound as if Wilen is asking for her brother’s support in dealing with an uncomfortable situation or potentially dangerous guest; more like showing off a notch on her bedpost. Granted, this was before she returned to her bed to doze and the alleged unprotected incident, but there’s certainly nothing to suggest any problems. She tells Joakim it feels “strange” having Assange there, but I suspect it does feel “strange” to have a world-famous man sharing your domestic space after all your efforts at star-fucking have paid off and been successful. Then:
“The next time that Joakim heard anything from Sofia was in a text message that she sent to him” – date and time of text message not given so all we know for sure is that Sophia contacted Joakim at an unspecified later time to complain that Assange was “not so pleasant” (or “agreeable” or “nice”). Nothing at that point about unprotected sex, or HIV phobia, or “while she slept” or “against her will”.
Then: “Joakim did not find out what had happened until Sofia had gone to
the police and it had been in the newspapers. He got to know what had happened FROM SOFIA (my emphasis) and his mother. His mother said that Julian had had sex with Sofia without a condom and AGAINST HER WILL (my emphasis) while she slept”. This implies a date sometime after 21st August because of the reference to the newspaper coverage.
Ditto Joakim must have heard from Sophia at some time AFTER the morning of 20th August that “Sofia had also said that she had talked to Julian, that he should get himself tested, and that Julian had replied that he did not have time to get tested” because Assange’s statement (and I think Bostrum’s and Walstrom’s too) says he spoke to Wilen about HIV tests while she was at the hospital, supposedly getting one done (anyone got any documentation from the hospital to verify they actually did do a HIV test? – otherwise all we’ve got to prove that she specifically went to the hospital to get one done is Wilen’s own statements to friends and family after the event). And “Sofia had later said that she did not want to report Julian but just wanted him to be tested for diseases” potentially comes from a third, even later, conversation between Joakim and Sophia.
All this again, I think, suggests that Sophia could be changing her story via “witness” friends and family subsequent to the statement she gave to Irmeli Krans, or alternatively setting up her story subsequent to her first contact with Ardin prior to going to the police.
Seth Benson (ex-boyfriend) statement (page 142). Date of interrogation is 22nd October. No mention of the fact that he had lived for many years in San Francisco as a plausible reason why Wilen might be so concerned about unprotected sex during the course of their relationship. Benson states how he was contacted by Wilen out of the blue several months after their relationship had ended: “Seth said that he became aware of what had happened when Sofia sent him a text message asking if she could phone him. He was somewhat bewildered because they had not contacted one another for some months. When Sofia phoned she IMMEDIATELY (my emphasis) asked Seth what he thought of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange… Then SOFIA SAID THAT SHE HAD BEEN RAPED (my emphasis) by Julian Assange through him having begun to have sex with her when she was asleep and that he did not use a condom” – no date for this text and/or phone call is given so all we can know is Sophia unexpectedly contacted an old boyfriend specifically to talk about her experience with Assange and say that she had been “raped”, “asleep” and “no condom” was used. This text/call could have happened at any point between the morning of 17th August and 22nd October.
Statement of Maria Thorn (page 143). Date of interrogation 27th October, so once again long after events… Maria is a close work colleague of Wilen and they clearly talk frequently so the potential is again clear for Wilen to retro-revise her formal witness statement with Krans via her friend’s testimony.
A lot of the conversations mentioned in Maria Thorn’s statement appear to be subsequent to the police visit on 20th August, and involve mention of revenge, getting money for the story, etc – albeit Thorn is saying those texts and phone calls were somehow “only joking” or “supportive” comments. What the statement does make clear is that “Marie did not hear about the actual assault until THE DAY AFTER, or perhaps it was TWO DAYS AFTER, and got the impression that Sofia was very worried about the possibility of being infected” – so at the earliest either on 18th August, or possibly the 19th August after Wilen had first contacted Anna Ardin. What’s the latest on exact time Wilen is supposed to have first contacted Ardin – 18th or 19th???
The one comment in Thorn’s statement which does indicate a worry on Wilen’s part about HIV prior to Wilen reporting the “assault” is where Wilen texted her in the middle of the night (16th August): “That she had to go to be tested on account of his long foreplay”. This, to me, sounds like the annoyance of someone accustomed to regular testing rather than a “HIV-phobic” or traumatised newbie.
Does anyone have any further information to help fine-tune this analysis of how it emerged that Sophie Wilen had “only ever wanted to get him tested for HIV” and how the overall picture of her “testimony” (across the Wassgren interview, the Krans 20 August statement, the Krans heavily amended 26 August statement and the hearsay “evidence” of what Wilen’s friends and family HEARD FROM HER (excuse my shouting that bit;) has been built up?
@ Salander 11 Nov 2.44pm
Yes, it is in Guy Sim’s book that both women’s condom evidence was collected from Anna Ardin’s apartment by Sara Wennerblom. See my posts above 7 Nov 10.01pm and 8 Nov 7.49pm for more details.
Here’s what Guy Sim says about the requisition of the condom evidence (on page 38 of the pdf version of his book):
Also on 21 August, the police compiled a requisition report on two condoms. This has the same diary number as the rest of the investigation. The available copy of the two-page report has been censored, having being released as a result of a request, probably from a newspaper, so much of the information has been blanked out. The requisition was ordered by Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné and executed by Police Assistant Sara Wennerblom. The piece of condom from Sofia Wilén is given the designation 2010-0201-BG20840-1, the only text not blanked out is “Produced.” The condom from Anna Ardin has the same designation except that the final digit is -2 instead of -1. The only text not blanked out is “… after enquiry by the police.” The piece of condom from Sofia Wilén was in fact produced by Anna Ardin, which means that Sofia Wilén must have given it to her. As detailed below, it is evident that Sofia Wilén must have been carrying this piece of condom around in case it helped establish whether Assange had HIV, because that was Sofia Wilén’s sole preoccupation;
therefore she evidently had no intention of giving it to the police.
The requisition assignment was ‘executed’ by Sara Wennerblom at 18.12 (6.12pm) on 21 August for both condoms. As noted above, Police Assistant Sara Wennerblom had interrogated Anna Ardin by phone that day, ending at 12.20pm, From completion of the interrogation to completion of the requisition report was an interval of five hours and 52 minutes, which suggests that Sara Wennerblom went to Anna Ardin‘s apartment and fetched the two condoms from her. Anna Ardin is unlikely to have taken them to the
police in that period because she was busy giving her interview to the tabloid newspaper Aftonbladet.
If there’s any information you have which either substantiates Sim’s claim, or contradicts it, I’d be very grateful if you could post it here in this blog. Thanks.
@ Arbed 3.14pm and response to Salander at 4.13pm
What should be borne in mind, of course, when reading my very long review of what Sophia has told her “witnesses” about matters of unprotected sex and HIV, and when she has said these things to them, there is absolutely nothing about her having told any of them that she’d cut a piece out of a used condom and that she intended to use it to get his semen tested for the presence of HIV, or of giving that condom piece to the other woman (or to the police), or of having heard noises like “pulling a balloon” in the dark when Assange had used a condom, as indicated by Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensic lab report. Why not?
She spoke to Hanna Rosquist and her brother Joakim specifically about having been tested for HIV herself and wanting Assange to be tested also – why doesn’t she mention anything about the piece of condom for that purpose? Why not mention it to Seth Benson – who’s had previous experience of getting HIV tests with her? Why doesn’t Sophie Wilen’s piece of condom evidence feature in ANY of these conversations? Why has she given it to Anna Ardin instead of the hospital or the police?
To Trenterx,
Here is the email correspondence between Mats Gehlin and Claus Borgstrom on the morning of 26 August 2010, printed in Guy Sim’s book (page 23). It’s not on this page but somewhere in the book Sim draws attention to the fact that four lines up from the bottom here it says “attached files” (ie plural)
Thursday 26 August
On 26 August Police Inspector Mats Gehlin contacted Claes Borgström by e-mail. The e-mails were reproduced in Flashback. Here they are, in translation.
[email][email protected][/email]
2010 08 26 09:17
To: [email][email protected][/email]
Subject: Test
Please reply to this so that I know I have got to the right place.
Kind regards
Mats Gehlin
Detective Inspector
Reply: [email][email protected][/email] 8/26/2010 09:31
This is the correct address.
Claes Borgström
From: Mats Gehlin
To: [email][email protected][/email]
Subject: Reply concerning test
Attached files: PM pdf
Here comes PM
Kind regards
Mats Gehlin
Detective Inspector
Arbed,
Briefly on your question at the end of (3:14 pm), my take is still as I posted on 4 Oct:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-4/#comment-368345
Also see where I wrote to Salander above here (8 Nov, 4:38 pm):
“According to CB, both SW and AA visited him on the Monday” (23rd Aug) … with further inferences. See undermattan docs.
What is the basis of this statement which refers to TWO hospitals? (Page 6, 2012 version)
“She went to Danderyd Hospital, and from there to Söder Hospital …”
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf