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.
Salander (2:44 pm),
from Arbed’s 4:13 pm extract, I see Guy Sim has lots of tenuous inferences, “suspects”, “unlikely”, “was busy…”, (is it established somewhere when exactly she gave the Aftonbladet interview, and that it was not say CB on her behalf?) and readings of dates on documents, so personally based on that I do not read it as an established fact, and it is Guy Sims who is doing the speculating 🙂
Hi Snap,
Please don’t be confused by the fact that I am reproducing only small excerpts from a 150-page book. Guy Sim establishes the exact times of Anna Ardin’s interview with Aftonbladet on 21 August 2010 beyond any doubt in another chapter. Likewise, he gives lots of evidence across the book to substantiate other matters which might, at first glance, appear to be speculative.
Would you like to give me an email address so I can send you my pdf copy of the book? Or let me know if you decide to ask Jon the Mod whether he’d be prepared to give me a ‘moderator’s email’ so he can then forward it to you (he’ll have both our email addresses, of course)?
Arbed (5:19 pm),
My take, looking at the Swedish version in the undermattan docs, is that MG sent CB one file PM.pdf in the email of Aug 26 9:41, which is the day before he sent his letter to demand the case be re-examined.
Dear Snap,
Ah, does the undermattan version also say “attached files” rather than “attached file”? Guy Sim does definitely think there were two pdfs – but could he be mistaken in this? I’m pasting in below his conclusions on the changes made to Wilen’s statement that Irmeli Krans input to Durtva on 26 August. This chunk is from page 96 of his book, so please bear in mind there’s much much more on individual changes made to the document (eg, around Wilen’s very first contact with Ardin, how she came to hear about Assange’s seminar, etc) in the preceding pages.
Conclusions on the changes made to the interrogation with Sofia Wilén
Eva Finné, an experienced Chief Prosecutor, received the 20/8 2010 version and dismissed all the suspicions against Assange. This suggests that the serious accusations, from the heading “The assault” and some text under it, were not present in the 20/8 version which she read, but were subsequently inserted into the 26/8 version. The interrogation part covers five pages in its original Swedish version. The 26/8 changes to the first three pages are minor and cosmetic, giving the impression of a clean-up operation. The reader who perseveres in comparing the two versions, a slow task, does not encounter substantial changes until page four, if he gets that far. They are on parts that were blanked out in the 20/8 version and thus very difficult to detect. In summary, three pages of minor, cosmetic alterations followed by substantial well-hidden changes on page four. For example, in her submission to the Svea Court of Appeal dated 24 November 2010, in connection with her request for the arrest of Julian Assange, Marianne Ny states:
“Rape 17 August 2010 (Item 5):
“The complainant Sofia Wilén slept when Julian Assange forced himself into her and only when his penis was in her vagina did she awake.” This is clearly based on the text that was inserted on 26/8 under the heading “The assault.” Under Swedish law a witness is not required to sign a statement, but has it read back to them. The statement was not read back to Sofia Wilén so she never approved it. The police DurTvå Word program had a built-in automatic date and time system that prevented the manipulated 26/8 version being given the date and time of the original 20/8 interrogation. Irmeli Krans did not expect this complication, so wrote a disclaimer claiming that it was not her idea to manipulate the text. Had the DurTvå Word system not had this function, the fact that the text had been doctored would have been much more difficult to detect. The insertion of male slang [Sim details this in preceding pages] in the text suggests that at least some of the manipulation of the text was directed by a man. The ungrammatical phrase in English suggests that his English was not very good. The fact that it is claimed that both women used the highly unusual term “the glans” in fingering Julian Assange for unprotected sex suggests a common denominator. So did the author of the “necessary changes” in Sofia Wilén’s interrogation also advise Anna Ardin what to tell the police in her interrogation? The wording of Police Inspector Irmeli Krans’ disclaimer in the 26/8 version indicates that the “necessary changes” were typed in using a reference document, not pasted from a data file. The changes are too substantial to have been written on a paper copy of the 20/8 version, therefore there should be (or should have been) a document of the “necessary changes” As this document was used for an official purpose it is (or was) an official document and any member of the public in Sweden should have the right to request a copy of it. Some spelling mistakes in the 20/8 version were corrected in the 26/8 version, some were not. All this suggests that the author of the necessary changes” was not very computer savvy, and thus likely to be of middle age or older (assuming that most younger professional people nowadays are computer-literate). If so, the clues so far indicate a man who uses slang, whose command of the English language is not very good, who is an expert at manipulating evidence, who is not computer literate and who is middle aged or older.
In her application to the Svea Court of Appeal, dated 24 November 2010, Marianne Ny states: “During the preliminary investigation that has been conducted, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén were interrogated several times.” For each woman there is only one interrogation document in the published sets, so there is unlikely to be more than one such document. When they went to the Klara sub-police station on 20 August they were interviewed by Inspector Linda Wassgren: “I then of course chose to talk with each of the women separately and asked them to tell me the details of what they had experienced.” She did not record what they said. So that makes two interrogations. But the word “several” means more than two (in Swedish as well as in English, “flertal”). Was Sofia Wilén interviewed by this (conjectured) man of middle age or older, and if so did he compose the “necessary changes” document, including his own embellishments? On 25 August 2010, Eva Finné finally closed the case against Julian Assange. The following day, 26 August, Police Inspector Mats Gehlin contacted lawyer Claes Borgström by e-mail at 9.17am. After receiving a confirmation reply from Claes Borgström, Mats Gehlin sent Claes Borgström an e-mail with PDF files attached. Were the PDF files the censored and uncensored versions of the 20/8 interrogation of Sofia Wilén? Irmeli Krans began making the “necessary changes” to Sofia Wilén’s interrogation at 2.43pm that day, approximately five hours after the PDF documents had been sent to Claes Borgström. The previous day, 25 August, after it became known that Eva Finné had discontinued the case, Police Inspector Irmeli Krans had written in her Facebook, “Scandal in every newspaper and news bulletin. But our dear, eminent and exceedingly competent [Social Democrat lawyer] Claes Borgström will hopefully bring a little order!”
All the “necessary changes” that incriminate Julian Assange are in the 19 percent of text that was blanked out in the censored 20/8. If some of them had been in the 81 percent of legible text, the manipulation would have been apparent to anyone comparing the censored 20/8 with 26/8. Only the censored 20/8 was available to the public. The success of this strategy is apparent in the fact that it has remained a well-kept secret for two years. The fact that the incriminating “necessary changes” are in the blanked out 21 percent cannot be accidental, they are too targeted. So the author of the “necessary changes” must have worked from two documents, the uncensored 20/8 and the censored 20/8. Apart from prosecutor Eva Finné, it seems that no-one outside the police had the
uncensored 20/8. So the author most probably received the uncensored 20/8, and presumably also the censored 26/8, from the police. The most probable way for the police to send these two documents to the author would be as PDFs attached to an e-mail.
On 1 September 2010, Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny resurrected the case and justified this on the basis of the transcripts, including the 26/8 (doctored) version of the interrogation of Sofia Wilén. Marianne Ny’s decision is set out in a document signed by her and headed (in Swedish) “Decision on Review of Case” (AM 2010/5245). “In my examination of the case I conclude that there is reason to assume that crimes under the heading of public prosecution have been committed. Against the background of that set out in the documents of the case at present a relevant act shall be considered to be rape.” “Documents of the case at present” on 1 September clearly meant the 26/8 version. Was Marianne Ny aware of the fact the 20/8 version and the 26/8 version were not identical? Julian Assange’s lawyer, Björn Hurtig, was clearly unaware of it, because in his appeal document to the Svea Court of Appeal dated 19 November 2010 opposing the arrest order of Julian Assange) he quotes the subheading “The assault” and the paragraph under it, including “he had pulled on the condom only over the glans,” “she came to, feeling him pushing into her” and “You better don’t have HIV.” Marianne Ny was slow in providing the Sofia Wilén interrogation (26/8 version) to Assange’s lawyers.
Hello Arbed,
Is it worth my time to explain this? I will need some help with a couple of lines of Swedish, and need to write clearly with reference to the material, as I have no wish to get drawn into tiresome arguments with the trolls. I was only referring to the apparent interpretation of the MG emails; these other allegations you put above are too much to read for now, but seem to show he has a theory and is then clutching at straws to support it.
– Has Guy Sim established exactly which program was used to print the MG emails?
In the meantime, if you want some datapoints, take a look at whatever email programs you can view and see how they present the header line (none/singlular/plural) for different sample emails with zero, one, two or more (.pdf) attachments and make a note together with the program name and version.
I have always hoped that someone would by now have produced an English translation of these FOI documents, as Rixstep did for the earlier ones. I’m getting the picture now that Guy Sim’s book is largely based on these recent documents at undermattan etc.
– Has he any other new sources he has obtained himself?
– Does he give his qualifications or affiliations? (even in reading Swedish)
I believe it leads to a better understanding to work from the sources than to fill one’s head with appealing embellished stories or “facts” that are mere speculations, and to then have to work hard to clear it out.
To be positive, I hope it prompts people to better document and first translate the new FOI documents.
Hello Duqu (9 Nov, 10:48 am),
were you responding to me when you wrote this?:
Perhaps you had seen my question:
I’m more or less aware of the courier and faxing on the Saturday. I was asking about the official procedural steps that lead to her being involved in the case at all.
– Did she intervene on her own authority? Or, did someone else call her back from holiday?
As I have since written:
– What is your take on this?
(To all:) If that is normally so, then if indeed there was a grand plan, then when analysing, people need to remember this unanticipated U-turn.
Hi Snap,
Sorry, but unless you’ve actually read Guy Sim’s book yourself, your criticism of it seems a bit unfair to me. It almost could come across as carping about things, or dismissing something out of hand, before even having the full picture. I’d like to think I’m not a stupid person, and also that I’m pretty well informed about the Swedish case overall. I have read the whole book and take it seriously. Much of what’s in the book I personally already knew from my own researching over the course of two years. Sim clearly has researched very well and his sources are diverse. He uses a lot of stuff uncovered by Flashback (which, of course, is closely associated with undermattan) and, though I don’t know for sure, I had assumed “Guy Sim” was a pseudonym for someone working directly FROM Sweden…
I hope this doesn’t come out sounding too harsh but I really think your research will suffer, lag behind, if you don’t acquaint yourself with all the NEW evidence revealed for the first time in Sim’s book. Even Flashback are finding some bits and pieces new to them in it. John Goss pointed out that you could order Sim’s book using cash in a local bookstore, if that’s the most suitable route for you.
Arbed,
you are indeed being too harsh and again quite condescending (you don’t sound sorry), given I helpfully contributed my take in brief form (11 Nov, 6:21 pm), based on my technical expertise, having looked at several documents. I then spent over an hour drafting my response to your disputing reply (over 1000 words quoted), and asked you sincerely some questions which would help me to have a better basis for me to then spend more time to compose a definitive reply so as to avoid arguments which I foresaw would come if I made another off-hand reply. Instead my scarce hours are further spent on your incautious response.
The reason I asked you to look for yourself at the behavior of email programs to see how they “present” i.e. display (in singular or plural), in a small scientific experiment of sorts, was to encourage you to think about the basis for the inferences being made and provide me with some data points to help answer you.
I had hoped I could by now make a very brief response and at most be asked politely to elaborate, and then to have others reciprocate making a comparable effort to answer my questions.
Kindly white-out for now whatever sentences may appear unfair and take me in good faith and try to respond constructively rather than argumentatively in answering my direct questions, and with more respect for me and my time, which is better spent on the little known “new” information I have in mind to contribute.
Hi Snap,
Oh dear, we really don’t see eye to eye, do we? You are asking me to do this:
“The reason I asked you to look for yourself at the behavior of email programs to see how they “present” i.e. display (in singular or plural), in a small scientific experiment of sorts, was to encourage you to think about the basis for the inferences being made and provide me with some data points to help answer you.”
but surely this is YOUR approach to research, not mine. I have already told you I do not have a scientific background. I am not making any inferences about email programs; I am simply reporting that Guy Sim believes there were two emails sent by Mats Gehlin to Claus Borgstrom.
Because I have reported that fact here, Flashback have picked it up and are, as we speak, busy researching this particular issue. I keep an eye on Flashback and will pick up the result of their endeavours (and I’ll report back here). This is more my style of collaborative research. It seems silly for me to attempt to ape a style of research for which I am not trained. I promise you the results would be amateur in the extreme if I did. So it seems to me to be a much better idea if I don’t go off on tangents trying to do stuff which is beyond me and I have no talent for. I am much better off sticking to what I know and following an approach which suits my skills and background: close reading and detailed textual analysis.
Dear Arbed,
that is also rather unwarranted that your two links placed in the most current thread on the site go directly to your over-reactionary and over-generalising criticism of me posted above. Kindly ask Jon to edit them to a more appropriate form ASAP.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/11/hilarcia-plot-against-correa-funded-by-drug-money/#comment-379490
To be frank, my research suffers greatly from the effort it takes to deal with your snowballing exchanges, which start when I tactfully hint (from my knowledge and expertise and what I assumed you should have known) you may need to look deeper or qualify you assertions, as you have acknowledged and indeed at times taken on board. I continue to extend to you much patience and forgiveness, as you ask, so kindly show a little more appreciation.
(9 Nov, 12:53 pm)
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-5/#comment-378598
Oh, apologies – I simply cut and paste the url for page 5 from my browser bar but I had refreshed the page before I did it. I thought that would simply link to “bottom of the page 5”, not to a specific comment as I wasn’t within or linked to a specific comment at the time.
I did say I wasn’t ‘tech’ or scientifically literate, didn’t I? 🙂 Can you tell me please how to get the correct “bottom of page” (or top of page, doesn’t matter which) link, and I’ll give it to the moderator to substitute into my post.
Hi Snap,
“…which start when I tactfully hint (from my knowledge and expertise and what I assumed you should have known) you may need to look deeper or qualify you assertions”
but why tactfully hint? If you have knowledge about the case or expertise that others don’t have, why not just share that knowledge? Get it out there, tell others what you know which they don’t – that way everyone benefits, surely?
PS.
“… my time, which is better spent on the little known “new” information I have in mind to contribute”
This is what I meant by above post. If you have info, please share, spit it out. The more new info that comes out in unravelling this Swedish case, the better.
Arbed,
the number tags (#123456) refer to particular posts.
no numbers or # (…/comment-page-5/) gets the top of the topic post.
ask Jon if there is a special tag for the bottom.
#comments gets the top of the comments on the page like this (try it):
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-5/#comments
Arbed (3:41 pm),
I think if you made even a small effort to look at your own inbox, you may well find that even your own email program uses the plural “Attachments:” even if there is one, and lists the different files if there is more than one. That alone counters the inferences Guy Sim is using to say the email contained two pdf files, unless he has forensics on the actual program used to print the emails of MG in the FOI documents to prove that.
Most books give a brief description of the Author near the front or on the cover. There are various Guy Sim persons on the web, so it would help to identify which one if any he is.
Provided that the FOI documents at undermattan are genuine, and given no other evidence not mentioned above by Guy Sims, I stand by my take, that MG sent CB one file PM.pdf in the email of Aug 26 9:41, which is the day before CB sent his letter to demand the case be re-examined. In adittion, the PM.pdf most likely refers to the terminolgy used for a Memo in Durtva, which is “PM”, whereas the witness statements etc. have different title words in Swedish. In addition, the documents show that MG sent the PM to CB in consultation with Eva Finne on Aug 26. As I indicated, I will need help with a few sentences of Swedish to state that more precisely, but I think it says Eva Finne phoned MG and asked him to send the PM to CB, which he did.
Let me know when flashback themselves figure this out, or find some solid contradictory evidence to what is in these documents, or someone wishes to help with precise Swedish translation, or engage in constructive discussion.
Hmmm…
Is his correct name Sims as in “Guy J Sims”? Most of the items here use “Sim”, so can we get this straight and fix the typos please.
Hello Arbed,
I tactfully hint, because that is what learned friends do to avoid hostile argument and to allow for the posibility of not being absolutely certain due to the existence of otherwise unknown facts or evidence.
For example, you made indirect references to the existence of what I elsewhere called “new hard facts which are rather secret to most” when you stated the need to amend a formal letter to Perklev to add “a sentence or two about the rape certificates”, and also “It could be altered very easily to include reference to the hospital rape certificate that one Flashbacker wants it to cover.”. I then hinted (note the key words “specific” and “beyond speculation”):
To which you condescendingly responded:
I am well aware of the general scandal and what is at rixstep and radsoft and also the more specific speculation at DaddysSverige’s blog, as indeed I told you earlier in this post:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-4/#comment-367552
When you make such references to documents, I cannot prove their non-existence, so the onus is on you to provide a specific reference etc. when reasonably questioned, as I did.
Similarly, see what I asked about “all online traces professionally scrubbed”…
There are other things I have hinted at, too.
Snap 4.49pm
Yes, I am aware of every single fact you give in this post. Flashback too have already figured out all this. What is new – which Guy Sim supplies – is the detailed textual analysis behind his assertion that there must be two documents from which whoever did the alterations of Wilen’s statement must have worked, as set out in my 11 Nov 7.22pm post:
“All the “necessary changes” that incriminate Julian Assange are in the 19 percent of text that was blanked out in the censored 20/8. If some of them had been in the 81 percent of legible text, the manipulation would have been apparent to anyone comparing the censored 20/8 with 26/8. Only the censored 20/8 was available to the public. The success of this strategy is apparent in the fact that it has remained a well-kept secret for two years. The fact that the incriminating “necessary changes” are in the blanked out 21 percent cannot be accidental, they are too targeted.”
I find that persuasive. But then, I’ve read the whole book, so I have seen exactly how he demonstrates line by line the percentage of text altered, one document superimposed (using textual formatting) on top of the other, and what those alterations were. I’m persuaded by his argument, having reviewed it thoroughly for myself. What more can I say?
May I make a suggestion please, Snap? I think there’s maybe a problem with your approach of tactful hinting and I think I can illustrate what I mean by that with the material you reproduce above. You say: “I then hinted (note the key words “specific” and “beyond speculation”): Has something specific emerged on “the hospital rape certificate” beyond speculation?”
Now I’m not a mind-reader so, without the later explanation that the original question was in fact a hint, or the pointers contained in the brackets, the original question is waaaayyyyy too subtle for me. I just read it as ‘Oh look, another commenter on the blog is asking a straightforward question’, which I answer by pointing them to a website source I know has written in depth on that particular issue. Not meant to be condescending at all. Meant to be helpful. But, unfortunately, read as condescending. I’m upset that this happens so I think I should desist from trying to be helpful to other posters on this site – I’m obviously not good at it.
“When you make such references to documents, I cannot prove their non-existence, so the onus is on you to provide a specific reference etc.”
This bit I don’t understand at all. My original post about the letter to Anders Perklev, as far as I can recall, was not addressed to you but was a message to Flashback. I did not know the specifics of whatever additions Flashback wished to make about the hospital rape certificates, I had just read (on Flashback) that they were thinking of writing an open letter to Anders Perklev and felt it should also talk about the certificates. All I was doing was suggesting there was an easily alterable existing letter. Suggesting that to Flashback. What questions was I asking you about it? I don’t remember any so I don’t understand why this has upset you somehow.
Are you saying that the secret information you have that you want to share is about the rape certificate? Is that it? I’ve read the Daddy’s Sweden link again. The only new information on it – new to me, that is – is what he says about it being legally possible to compel a reluctant complainant. Is what you’re hinting at – the work you are doing on the “new hard facts which are rather secret to most” – anything to do with that? Doubtless you will not be thankful for it, but my two-penneth-worth about Sophie Wilen being compelled against her will with regard to a rape certificate is that I think it would’ve come out that she had been compelled in some way in the statements of her witness friends, as she spoke to the majority of those subsequent to her hospital visits, and there’s nothing to indicate it in those. I’ve done a very long review of Sophie Wilen’s “witnesses” statements at 11 Nov 3.14pm – I don’t know if any of that is helpful to you.
Look Snap, I’m clearly NOT the right person for you to be asking any questions. I seem not to understand them in the first place, and I only upset you with my responses. Please do not ask me any further questions.
Hi all. I caught sight of some of the exchanges here, and seeing some conflict decided to take a further peek. I’m not following the Assange legal case in detail, but all credit to everyone here for getting involved in the nitty-gritty.
Snap, you earlier asked me for advice on how to convey tone when making statements. Since you seem to be having some problem with that, I’ll offer some brief thoughts. I’m not speaking as a moderator here – just as an observer in a coffee-shop, listening to your public conversation!
From what I can tell, Arbed is a genuine and thoughtful interlocutor, with an readable, discursive style, a readiness to apologise, and an excellent ability to make amends for the inaccuracies of human communication.
On the other hand, I am sad to see you have been: volunteering other people for various kinds of work, patronising, over-sensitive, over-cautious and occasionally plain rude. Your excellent standard of English leads me to think that you are not just accidentally reaching for the wrong word, but I appreciate that there are other possible reasons why you genuinely find other people’s responses frustrating. Unfortunately, I think you have taken an initial incorrect view of Arbed, and this has spiralled, despite her repeated diplomacy and attempts at conciliation.
Shall I furnish some examples?
Here you’ve taken offence where none was intended, blamed your conversational partner for your feelings of annoyance, and implied that whilst you have “considerable expertise” (arrogance), your exchange partner may need instruction in “thinking clearly” (patronising).
Volunteering other people for work. Why not do it yourself?
Accusing ones conversational partner of gracelessness won’t help the conversation along – it is, again I am sorry to say it, rude and unnecessary. What does such a statement of exasperation achieve, other than offence?
Another one, no further comment necessary!
More rudeness and substantial over-sensitivity.
Same again.
Snap, your interest in this case is commendable, as is your demand for detail. But something is getting in the way, and obviously since I don’t know you I can’t say what it is. For what it’s worth, I think you should take up your own excellent ideas – such as making an internet-based timeline of events, or a summary of evidence from here and Flashback etc. If you can take a moment to analyse your style of interlocution too, I think that would be time well spent.
Arbed (4:00 pm),
In line with your undertaking I (rather unnecessarily) explained to you the links at 4:45 pm, and there are signs of a moderator at work, so I am disappointed to see those links remain there unchanged at present in the most recent topic. Please see this gets corrected soon.
thanks.
Hello Jon,
Could you please replace the two links back to this page that I’ve included in this post:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/11/hilarcia-plot-against-correa-funded-by-drug-money/#comment-379490
with this (twice):
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-5/#comments
Thanks very much and for your kindness above.
Hi Arbed, no problem, and that’s done.
Hello Jon the moderator, Clark?,
I could do with some non-judgemental, non-side taking, respectful open minded, inquiring mediation here with this very awkward situation here that has been now created by the unsolicited intervention of Jon the “non-moderator”, making very unhelpful remarks that are a very unfair denigration of me and my intentions in a way I am most unhappy to have left here on this board, and unhappy to have to take further hours of time I do not have to spare to clear up even as far as to make this statement, while I was trying to find time to make any sense from Arbed’s last post which misunderstands me again.
How can we sort this out, as I am already the one here who feels under attack after merely having posted my considered opinion on a couple of very limited points, stating them clearly as my take or how I personally read it, contributing my analysis and information, and stating I did not wish to be drawn into arguments and trying to draw a line under it with a further clearly specified opinion, on one very specific point.
Your dual role does not leave me the freedom to reply to you on an equal footing, so because of that I will make no comments on any of your statements, and would kindly request that Jon the moderator removes Jon the non-moderator’s post for the time being, and request you both leave me alone so I can get some rest from this most exhausting exchange.
Ideally if Clark was willing to engaage in a helpful manner that would be very much appreciated, but I am sadly aware of his resignation as a moderator. Otherwise who do you propose is in a position to mediate this most unjustified situation I am being cornered into.
Snap wrote: “If Eva Finne was on vacation (was she?), then how did she come to be called in to sort it out?”
I’m more or less aware of the courier and faxing on the Saturday. I was asking about the official procedural steps that lead to her being involved in the case at all.
– Did she intervene on her own authority? Or, did someone else call her back from holiday?”
Answer:
Anders Perklev, Riksåklagare (chief prosecutor), intervened. He contacted Mats Åhlund (överåklagare, ”head prosecutor”) who took the decision.
This is the story according to Expressen on Sept 3 2010 (my translation):
“Överåklagare Mats Åhlund was contacted by his boss, Anders Perklev. The Chief Prosecutor had concluded that the case should be lifted off the duty prosecutor, since she suffered from heavy work load. I decided that Eva Finne should take over the case, Mats Åhlund said.” http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/darfor-drojer-julian-assange-utredningen/
Comment: Eva Finne must have been contacted on Saturday morning. The unanswered question is why Perklev took his initiative. Did he discuss this with the government or not?
Most of the Swedish government were gathered at a crayfish party (another one!)on Friday evening. The arrest in abstentio of Julian Assange must have been known there early Friday evening. It must have been a talking point. And, I assume, there must have been a discussion in the inner cabinet. The likelihood is that they were surprised and wanted to know what the hell was going on. Even if we assume that there was a secrete service operation involved (a speculation) it need not have been known even by the PM, especially if it was organised by a foreign secret service.
addition to previous comment: Anders Perklev contacted Mats Åhlund on Saturday morning, according to the same source as above. Thus Eva Finne was appointed on the Saturday and made a very quick and efficient job in the Wilen case, based on the original version of the interview with Sofia Wilen.
Am glad this thread is still open. Loved the email exchange between nutcase Mary Eng and capeless superhero Goran. “Bent penis” – that’s my pickup line!
@Jon – you got it right. Some people read things into exchanges that don’t exist. Arbed has been straight up and down on this subject.
But I have a question. Did Goran get to nail Mary?
@ Salander 13 Nov 12.23pm
Have there been any more names added to those we know were at the crayfish party at Harpsund on that Friday evening (20 August 2010) when the arrest warrant was issued? I had heard that Carl Bildt was a confirmed guest and also the husband of the on-duty prosecutor (the chap who worked in Beatrice Ask’s office, forget his name now).
Any more now known? All details you have gratefully received. 🙂
I am glad this page is still going. I’ve just finished reading Guy Sims’ book on ‘Julian Assange in Sweden’ and confess it is worth every penny, There is so much information, a lot of it new, and it very well demonstrates how Sweden has turned positive discrimination (in favour of feminists) into a fine art. One of the things that stuck out was the recent changes (2005) in Swedish rape law classification. I almost burst out laughing, but perhaps that is my insensitivity as a man, when I read that placing a finger inside a woman, without asking her, or without her asking him to do so (unasked is a bit ambiguous) first, amounts to rape.
“For example, a man inserting his finger into a woman’s vagina, unasked; this now qualified as rape with potentially a long prison sentence.”
It is not for me to question the peculiarities of law in a land in which I do not live but I do think this rather peculiar. What made me smile later was what Anna Ardin allegedly said in her police statement: “When asked Anna replied Assange must have known that it was for a condom . .” she was reaching. Despite the free discussion of sex that is apparent in Sweden Julian has got to be able to read Anna Ardin’s mind when she wants something. But if in the course of foreplay it reaches a stage where (hypothetically) Julian has a desire to insert a finger into her vagina he has to ask: “Excuse me, Anna, is it all right now for me to insert a finger into your vagina to comply with the 2005 changes in Swedish rape laws?” Or Anna, who cannot even tell him she is reaching for a condom, “Excuse me Julian the time has come for you to be able to insert a finger into my vagina”. Or am I misinterpreting? I notice these changes to the law were introduced on April 1 (April Fool’s Day here in England).
I have read a lot of books. Perhaps my own experience was originally based on the romance of novels. Anyway to my mind there seems to be a certain point, a mutual understanding if you like, between a man and a woman as to when their relationship has reached a certain stage. Otherwise the woman tells the man she does not want to go further. I have never come across any mention of this particular “excuse me” courtesy anywhere. Is this one of the reasons why Sweden’s ‘rape laws’ have become the laughing-stock of the world? Does a man have to ask his wife every time they make love if certain practices are permissible that they have been engaging in all their lives prior to 2005? My God! What have they done to human relationships?
Snap, please do not feel cornered. We are all adults here and opinionated–everybody makes their own judgment. Arbed is playing with a straight bat and, I believe you are too. Your style may at times be a little irksome but that is no big deal. In the spirit that 1+1=11 I think you could both still collaborate for the larger good, with a little more give and take, but it does take TIME and patience. Please be clear, i am not trying to be patronising and am saying what i am at the risk of butting in. Think of the price Assange is paying in pursuit of greater freedom and right action, and i don’t take my personal freedom for granted. Celebrate it and lighten up. Every relationship/dialogue is an opportunity to create harmony. I won’t live in conflict. If its not soluble, even with compassion, one walks away from it.
We all have different styles. There is something of a construct that people have that is considered ‘normal’, but the Universe presents immense variety. I live my life on 3 basic principles as Einstein elucidated: Truth, Goodness and Beauty. Please understand i am not sermonizing; merely, sharing.
Arbed wrote:
Have there been any more names added to those we know were at the crayfish party at Harpsund on that Friday evening (20 August 2010) when the arrest warrant was issued? I had heard that Carl Bildt was a confirmed guest and also the husband of the on-duty prosecutor (the chap who worked in Beatrice Ask’s office, forget his name now).
Answer:
The party is a highlight of the year, before work starts properly in the autumn. Most of the government would have been there. Fredrik Reinfeldt (PM), Carl Bildt (foreign minister), Beatrice Ask (“justice minister”), Sven Tolgfors (defense minister)were all there, as far as I understand it. And all the party leaders in the “Alliance government, Jan Björklund (liberal), Maud Olofsson (center party), Göran Hägglund (christian democrat). Most of the second in command in each ministry would have been there also. I have not heard that Per Kjellstrand, married to the on-duty prosecutor Maria, was there.
Two journalists, Niklas Svensson and his photographer received the tip about Assange’s arrest while at Harpsund. There has been some speculation that the tip might have come from someone at the party, perhaps even Carl Bildt. Bildt has always denied any american pressure on Sweden in this issue, perhaps because he does not need to be pressed at all.