2,008 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar”

• 

  Arbed February 14, 2013 at 22:43

  To truly appreciate how monumentally reckless towards Wikileaks’ staff and supporters Birgitta’s decision to travel to the US is – and particularly how hugely reckless it is towards Assange’s safety – read this Congressional Research Service report dated 31 January 2013:

  Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information
  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf

  It is a survey of all the Espionage and other statutes available to the US to prosecute Assange and Wikileaks, and yes, it is specifically about Wikileaks’ prosecution. This, for instance, is from page 15 of the document:

  “Analysis
  In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.[92] There is some authority, however, for interpreting 18 U.S.C. Section 793, which prohibits the communication, transmission, or delivery of protected information to anyone not entitled to possess it, to exclude the “publication” of material by the media.[93] Publication is not expressly
  proscribed in 18 U.S.C. Section 794(a), either, although it is possible that publishing covered information in the media could be construed as an “indirect” transmission of such information to a foreign party, as long as the intent that the information reach said party can be demonstrated.[94] The death penalty is available under that subsection if the offense results in the identification and subsequent death of “an individual acting as an agent of the United States,”[95] or the disclosure of
  information relating to certain other broadly defined defense matters. The word “publishes” does appear in 18 U.S.C. Section 794(b), which applies to wartime disclosures of information related to the “public defense” that “might be useful to the enemy”…

  And here’s footnote 95:

  “95 The data released by WikiLeaks contains some names of Afghans who assisted Coalition Forces, leading to some concern that the Taliban might use the information to seek out those individuals for retaliation. See Eric Schmitt and David E. Sanger, Gates Cites Peril in Leak of Afghan War Logs, N.Y. TIMES, August 2, 2010, at 4. The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel published excerpts of the database, but did not publish the names of individual Afghans. Id. No deaths have yet been tied to the leaks.

  Fred Burton, Vice-President of Stratfor and ex-Deputy Chief of the DSS Counter-terrorism Unit, shared this advice internally with his fellow spooks:

  He says he “would pursue conspiracy and political terrorism charges and declassify the death of a source someone which [he] could link to Wiki”

  http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1074383_re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html

  In fact, see just how many of Burton’s predictions have panned out so far, including his boast that he could access material taken from the Abbottabad compound after the killing of Osama bin Laden – the prosecutors in Bradley Manning’s hearing recently confirmed the US govt intends to use that material in its “aiding the enemy” charges against Bradley (and Julian Assange):

  http://wikileaks.org/Stratfor-Emails-US-Has-Issued.html

  So, you see now why I considered Birgitta tweet to show breezy insouciance about the very real dangers – not for her, necessarily (if she’s cut a deal) – but for Wikileaks’ staff and for Assange?

• 

  Arbed February 16, 2013 at 15:09

  Troops at the ready – Goran Rudling’s back!

  Is former Ambassador Craig Murray a media seeking liar or just a pathetic researcher?
  http://samtycke.nu/eng/2013/02/is-former-ambassador-craig-murray-a-media-seeking-liar-or-just-a-pathetic-researcher/#more-1661

  Most, if not all, of Goran Rudling’s 14 supposed ‘mistakes’ in Craig’s research can be knocked out of the skies. And they deserve to be, given the sheer nastiness of the personal smears against Craig which Rudling prints here. Goran’s comment moderation policy seems to be that he holds the first comment of each new poster for moderation but thereafter lets everything through. So, ammunition:

  Most of the correct facts can be found somewhere on here:

  Extraditing Assange: Why David Allen Green is Wrong:
  http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#CONTENTS

  And I believe these were a tempering influence on Goran Rudling’s libellous misbehaviour for quite a while…

  Brain Garbage’s leak of the infamous Penisemails:

  http://www.scribd.com/doc/112662612/Samtycke-Leaks

• 

  Göran Rudling February 17, 2013 at 17:47

  Dear Arbed and your “troops”,

  Craig Murray has on his website published many false claims regarding the Assange case. ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-THREE (163) days ago I asked Craig Murray to back up two of his false claims with facts. The request was met with silence. Still there is nothing that supports his claims. Still Craig Murray has not admitted he lied.

  ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-TWO (152) days ago I pointed out FOURTEEN (14) of Craig Murray’s false claims in two of his articles. I asked for facts backing up the claims or that somebody, with a spine, could admit that he made serious mistakes relying on dubious sources. Again, silence.

  Now you have woken up from your 152 days sleep and have called “troops at the ready” (a call to Pinocchios and legal midgets world-wide) to find anything wrong with what I wrote in September 2012.

  “Most, if not all, of Göran Rudling’s 14 supposed ‘mistakes’ in Craig’s research can be knocked out of the skies.
  Most of the correct facts can be found somewhere on here:
  Extraditing Assange: Why David Allen Green is Wrong:
  http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html#CONTENTS

  What is really amusing is that in 152 days you have not found one thing of what I wrote that is wrong. That is the reason you ask the “troops” to look at justice4assange’s website, hoping the troops can find something there. 152 days have passed Arbed. You are not only a pathetic researcher just like Craig Murray. You are very very slow too.

  I also note that you don’t call for assistance from the man behind “Craig’s research”, the “great textual analyst” Mr Murray himself. Why is that Arbed? Do you know that he is clueless too? Do you know that he is just making stuff up?

  You are most welcome to comment my article “Is former Ambassador Craig Murray a media seeking liar or just a pathetic researcher?” Hopefully you can come up with something better than your friend Jemand.

  My original comment from 7 September 2012 is below:

  Dear Mr Murray

  I don’t know the reason you were sacked as an ambassador but if you were as careless with facts as you are in this article I fully understand that you were sacked.

  You claim “Sofia Wilén refused to sign the statement and has not done so to this day”. I am asking you to show me where you got the information that Sofia Wilén refused to sign the statement. I cannot anywhere in the official documents find support for your claim. I am putting it to you straight. You are making that up. You lie.

  You go on to claim “The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law (it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.” I have not seen anywhere that the prosecutor, Marianna Ny, has stated that the interview with Sofia Wilén was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin. I am putting it to you straight. You are making that up. You lie. Until you can show me a statement where prosecutor Marianne Ny says that “the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin,” I will regard you as an inventor of stories and a certified lier.

  I have not checked your other statements regarding this case. But I assume you make a lot of other claims that are not supported by facts as if you were in some kind of competition with another certified misrepresenter of facts, Naomi Wolf.

• 

  Blixt February 18, 2013 at 13:19

  Don´t get into Rudlings trap, we loves to throw shit so you will generate traffic on his absurd blog, the only thing that works with this taxi-troll is to forget him. He kept his mouth shut on the swedish blogs since nov-12 and has just recently popped up with 2 new alias but spells the same way as before. If you really want to smoke this guy out, you should look cloose to his former x that he lived with together at the time as he took the witness-stand in Belmarch in the Assange-case, her name is Nedjma Chaouche, she was at that time the spokesperson for Swedish immigration services that turned down Assanges request for a working permit in Sweden, link: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedjma_Chaouche

  His story, that he started his blog as his mother was sexually harrazed does not match either, he has 2 brothers that has not confirmed this in any way, she also died a long time ago, so his agenda is a smokescreen for other purposes, and as he uses new alias on the net, he should be considered as a troll with criminal background, he even succeded to piss off the taxi-union erlier as he also quoted them as “liers”. Mary Engs mails shows that this guy is a complete disaster that only wanted to be in the limelight, together with another guy named Al Alan Burke of Swedish NNN, that come up with the “brilliant idea” to involve famous swedes in the fight for Assange, the problem was that these two morons made a list of these famous swedes, then mailed that list to a swedish newspapers, WITHOUT CONTACTING the persons in the list first, so the reaction when the newspapers called these people asking them if they wanted to stand up for rape-accused man was naturally that the said NO and got very upset.

  The only thing Rudling has succeded in, is a final position to Darwin awards 2013.

• 

  estrela February 19, 2013 at 05:50

  Hello clarice

• 

  axel February 19, 2013 at 09:48

  Dear Blixt,

  I share your suspicions against Göran Rudling. He is arrogant and does not move an argument forward though reasoning but instead starts to call people liars when they have misunderstood something. It happens to all his adversaries. Al Burke is a very different matter. He is serious and has a serious web site http://www.nnn.se/. Of course, he has been mistaken sometimes, like most of us.

  The idea to form a Swedish defense committee of celebrities, around “no to extradition to the US” was good, but it was implemented much too late and leaked to the press before people had been asked, obviously disastrous. I believe that this idea originally came from Paul Ronge, a PR- consultant with a background in student activism, not from Al Burke.

• 

  Arbed February 19, 2013 at 10:19

  Excellent interview with Feliz Narvaez, Ecuador’s Consul to the UK. He talks about Correa’s recent victory and of having to sleep at the embassy for two months, it not being safe to leave Assange alone there at nights due to the threat of the police and security services stationed outside:

  http://www.theprisma.co.uk/2013/02/18/fidel-narvaez-“julian-assange-and-ecuador-will-hold-out-for-as-long-as-they-need-to”/

  Takeaway quote: “He’s a pleasant person to deal with…”

  Not recognisable as the same man we hear of from our beloved mainstream press then.

• 

  nevermind February 19, 2013 at 10:56

  Thanks for your excellent sleuthing Arbed and others, its slowly sinking in with the global public, that the Goran Rudlings of this world have failed to paint Julian Assange as a criminal.

  The real man is coming out and I wish him all the best in his campaign to become senator. meanwhile, there is nothing to stop el Presidente to appoint him ‘honourable consul to London, i.e. making him a quasi ambassador.

  The costs of the round the clock policing now approaching 4.7 million, with a police service cash strapped as it is, make it only obvious as to how many ‘spare’ officers we have at anyone time. Spare meaning expendable, ready for the chop.

• 

  Göran Rudling February 19, 2013 at 11:20

  Axel,

  I don’t know if you are part of the “troops” that Arbed called for. If so you are not helping him.

  Not everybody knows what is up. I particularly like this comment of yours:

  He [Göran Rudling] is arrogant and does not move an argument forward though reasoning but instead starts to call people liars when they have misunderstood something.

  Should I read your comment as if you admit that Craig Murray has misunderstood something? Craig Murray has not yet admitted he has misunderstood anything. He has been silent for 165 days now. What you are doing is admitting Craig Murray has “misunderstood something. I don’t think that is what Arbed wanted his “troops” to admit. Maybe Arbed wants to court martial you since you now have told the truth to “the enemy”.

  Let’s just look at one of many ridiculous claims by Craig Murray:

  “The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law (it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.”

  Craig Murray claims that the prosecutor Marianne Ny has told the British High Court that the police interrogator Irmeli Krans doubled as a witness to Sofia Wilen’s interview. Are you serious in claiming that Craig Murray misunderstood that Irmeli Krans was the interrogator and as such she could not be a witness? Or what is it you are trying to say?

  Why cannot you guys admit that Craig Murray made a number of false claims? If he made a mistake trusting unreliable sources or he just flat out lied is not important. What is important is that his claims are false. You come very close to a full confession that Craig Murray lied (made mistakes, couldn’t tell up from down, relied on unreliable sources or whatever you like). But you are not Craig Murray. Let’s hear it from the long nosed man himself. The silent bigot that hates lesbians pretending he is a “Human rights activist”.

  Now let’s look at something else you write:

  The idea to form a Swedish defense committee of celebrities, around “no to extradition to the US” was good, but it was implemented much too late and leaked to the press before people had been asked, obviously disastrous. I believe that this idea originally came from Paul Ronge, a PR- consultant with a background in student activism, not from Al Burke.

  You write “I believe”. That means to me that you don’t know. You just would like people to think that Paul Ronge was behind the idea of a defence committee. Why don’t you check with Paul Ronge to find out? If you would have done so, you would have found out he is not the originator. If it is Al Burke or Harald Ullman I don’t know. But I think you will find out if you ask Harald Ullman. Hint, hint.

  Blixt, a new commentator of Pinocchio statue, believes I was behind the idea. I can tell you I was not. I had a totally different idea of how to defend Julian Assange. But neither Julian Assange or Harald Ullman was interested. Julian Assange thought it was a better idea to find a broom closet at 3 Hans Crescent. I am not in any way hinting that he thought he could find a Harold Potter broom in there. But I don’t think it was a wise decision.

• 

  axel February 19, 2013 at 13:08

  I see not much point in responding to something which is not moving discussions forward, only manages in insulting people, calling them names.

• 

  Göran Rudling February 19, 2013 at 13:53

  Axel,

  You don’t have to respond. I would like to a response from that man that is the originator of the false claims, Craig Murray.

• 

  Jemand February 19, 2013 at 14:06

  Let’s face it Goran. You had your chance to put your case and it fell flat. You’ve become the noisy clown in the rodeo and people are no longer interested in your antics. Your silly claims always rotate around a completely unimportant point of contention.

  Booooooorrrrrrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnnggggggggg!!!!!

• 

  Arbed February 19, 2013 at 15:45

  Oh my goodness, it sounds as if the case for Assange’s safe passage is already with the European Court (of Justice? of Human Rights? – the video doesn’t make it clear which).

  RT’s post-election interview with Rafael Correa (and English transcript):

  “If Assange’s lawyer, Baltasar Garzón, is lucky at the European Court and achieves a safe passage for Assange, who is staying at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the situation will be finally resolved. It is all now in Europe’s hands.”

  http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/343850

• 

  Blixt February 19, 2013 at 20:50

  Regarding Ullman-Rudling-Burke-Ronge.

  Ronge was NOT involved in the infamous “famous swedes standing up for Julian”. The origination of this idea was from Sandra Kastås at Ullman PR, that mailed a word.doc list to Al Burke of participance:s, Rudling got to know about this and rushed over to Burke:s house, Mary Leonore Eng has this in in here big file of leaked emails were Rudling for example starts to brag about his penis…. Then both Rudling and Burke ran off with this idea and started to talk to people, the media snapped this up, and Expressen later quoted this list as an attempt to mapping journalists, and Assange and Wikileaks was blamed instead. The not so known fact is also that Rudling/Burke was using an alias on Flashback and there wrote about finding lodging for Julians staff (when he was expected to come back to Sweden), and when writing about this they wrote “please contact Harald Ullman”.., the next day this was headline news in Sweden that Ullman PR was involved, so both Burke and Rudling shot the messanger by making Ullmans name public.

  As you may have seen above here, Rudling avoids to answer the facts of his mother and brothers, he also keeps silent about his former girlfriend Nejdma, and why he was unlisted within Swedish territory for almost 3 years since his former company went bankrupt, he avoided the Swedish IRS by not having a permanent address for 3 years just to avoid people with claims. But he screwed up when he stated Nejdmas address in his witness stand for Assange, and all those details how he “discovered” Ardins lies, is just that all these details was listed on Swedish blog Flashback, so he used these details for his own purposes. He did not make any investigations of his own, he just took all details from Flashback and then mailed Ardin about here lies, and that is the way that Rudling got involved in this matter.

  It should be clear for anyone here that Rudling is in this for a hidden agenda, the quotes of his mother is just a smokescreen, and as he bragged about his own penis to mrs Eng, it makes clearer why he got his dead mom involved in this scam, all facts are on paper, you can check with the Swedish IRS, Mary Leonore engs blog, flashback, emails from Rudling that now can be found on: http://nyheterundermattan.blog.com/2012/10/01/assange-–-handlingar-part-2-1-0/ and much more.

  The fact is that Rudling is and has been the big liar from day 1, but it took a while for people to realize what kind of stuff that Rudling really is made of.

• 

  JC February 20, 2013 at 13:48

  @Blixt
  I had a look at the site, but the links are either dead or redirect to “www.howardkennedyfsi.com”? didn’t check all, though…

• 

  axel February 20, 2013 at 16:37

  @Blixt
  Paul Ronge had his first discussion with Assange in June 2011. As far as I understand there was a discussion about how to organize resistance to extradition to US in those two phone calls. This does not mean that Ronge was involved in the disastrous committee business one year later.
  http://www.paulronge.se/sa-radde-jag-assange-och-han-gjorde-precis-tvartom

  I don’t know much about Al Burke. But I can read what he writes, honestly as far as I can see. I see very little resemblance with Rudling. This is what Burke writes about Rudling:

  “Among other things, it has become increasingly apparent that Mr. Rudling harbours an intense animosity towards Julian Assange, of whom he has very little personal knowledge. He also seems unable or unwilling to grasp the serious threat to Assange posed by the U.S. government and its eager collaborators in the current Swedish government (see Sweden, Assange & USA [PDF] and The Swedish Cult of America). Further, Mr. Rudling is quick to accuse others of lying, on the basis of little or no evidence of intent to deceive. Apparently, there are no honest mistakes in his universe, only lies — at least where Julian Assange and his supporters are concerned.
  http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/quescom.htm

  That quote: “Apparently, there are no honest mistakes in his universe, only lies” is spot on, isn’t it? Which makes me, and many others, wonder about his motives. Or his personality…

• 

  blixt February 21, 2013 at 08:06

  @ axel:
  Sources – below the word-doc that contained erased info of “Sandra Kastås”, that was working for Ullman PR = original doc from Ullman/Sandra that was mailed to Burke, that rewritten some parts and then made a pressrelease:

  http://news.cision.com/se/julian-assange-pir/r/pressmeddelande–nu-lanseras-webbplatsen–assange—sverige-,e289401

  The person Sandra has similar background as Anna Ardin:
  http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressroom/ullman_pr/contact_person/view/sandra-kastaas-20941

  Then look for mary leonere Engs big pile of mails:
  http://braingarbagedystopie.blogspot.se/search?q=burke+rudling

  So Burke and Rudling started their own adventures, behind Ullmans back, then outed Ullman on Flashback that made headlines the next day, and then got Wikileaks into trouble with the document that Expressen claimed to be a wiki doc that in fact was Rudling/Burke private adventure.

  There is a red line of “mistakes” from these 2 gentlemen, once is nothing, twice is to much , these guys made at least 3 screwups.

• 

  Arbed February 21, 2013 at 12:39

  In May Sweden will be hosting a convention on “Internet Freedom for Global Development”. Here’s the programme:

  http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/program/

  They’ve helpfully listed all the participants sorted by country:

  http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/archive/sif2012/participants/

  including this one:

  SHEA, Jamie P. NATO Sweden

  Who he? NATO = Sweden? I don’t think they’ve told the rest of the world yet that Sweden is a member…

• 

  Arbed February 21, 2013 at 12:39

  I did find this – a NATO report on the “civil dimension of National Security” drafted by Lord Jopling (United Kingdom), their General Rapporteur:

  http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=2443

  They do seem to be very, very exercised about Wikileaks. The first half of the report is almost exclusively about them.

• 

  axel February 22, 2013 at 12:43

  @blixt,

  I did not understand how these links prove anything about any Rudling- Burke collaboration. I read this mail from Rudling to Mary Eng,from July 9th 2012 (your link).

  “It seems like Rick Downes is very influential at WL Central. It means that it is even better today with the story of the Rick’s effort to sue Al Burke. Haven’t heard from him in ages since I disagreed on some of his writings.”

  I don’t know the context exactly, but it seems that any contact between Burke and Rudling had been broken well before the news about the failed Assange support committee was broken by Swedish media. And that Rudling was trying to exploit a conflict between Rick Downes and Al Burke.

  By the way. It seems that Rudling has fallen out with Mary Eng now: https://www.flashback.org/sp42137048

• 

  Blixt February 22, 2013 at 14:31

  @axel:
  one example – Page 7: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112662628/Not-Interested-in-Sex-Re-Goran-Rudling-on-Assange

  On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Göran Rudling wrote:Hi, I am off to Al Burke within a few minutes. You mentioned the strange visit to a shaman/spirit/healer/psychic or whatever its called.The meeting ended up in some strange document talking about jews and some jewishconspiracy. Do you have that document. Can I read it. Why I am asking is that I’ve started to check on Israel Shamir and I do not like what I see. Göran

  Another – page 3: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112662628/Not-Interested-in-Sex-Re-Goran-Rudling-on-Assange

  On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Göran Rudling wrote:………. I thought you had met Al Burke when you were in Sweden. Or at least had a mail conversationwith him. He does not remember. He knows of you now since I told him of your flight intoStockholm after our mail-contact. I showed him your tweets and he looked pleased when he said “So is this out on the net?”, meaning that Rixstep’s attempt to make trouble for Al Burke isin the common domain. It is perfectly ok for you to tweet and write about it. What I was tryingto say, maybe in a bad way, was please do not tell anybody that we are trying to retaliate.

  Why are you so keen of keeping Burke off Rudling…

• 

  axel February 22, 2013 at 17:47

  @blixt. Thanks for the quotes. They clarify two things for me. 1) Göran Rudling met Al Burke on Feb 19th 2012. 2) The second quote suggests that they might have plotted together against Rixstep. Unclear to me exactly what that is about, or if it is of importance now.

  I am not keen on keeping Burke off Rudling. But they strike me as strange bedfellows, if they ever were. I am keen on understanding how Aftonbladet (on May 27th 2012) managed to break the backbone of any efforts to launch an Assange defense committee in Sweden. Who had provided Aftonbladet with this misleading information, I wonder? I have read Burke’s comment to this which is here:
  http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/quescom.htm

  My view on Burke, for whatever it is worth, is that he has been brave in launching a web-site in Sweden that defends Assange. That does not mean I am uncritical – there are factual mistakes in the chronology of events, for instance.

• 

  Blixt February 22, 2013 at 19:51

  I think most of you here remember Rudlings quotes of “charge”, that Julian always has been “charged” by the swedish prosecutor, but now – he admits that his english was wrong, the text below is a comment from Rudlings own blog, this gguy is just going weirder and weirder…:

  Rudling swedish > Rudling english
  Kan misstänkas Can be suspected
  Skäligen misstänkt Charged on reasonable grounds
  På sannolika skäl misstänkt Charged with probable cause
  Tillräckliga skäl för åtal Sufficient grounds for prosecution.

  Swedish judical terms > English judicial terms
  Kan misstänkas Be suspected
  Skäligen misstänkt Reasonable suspicion
  På sannolika skäl misstänkt Probable Cause
  Tillräckliga skäl för åtal Sufficient grounds for prosecution.

  Link: http://samtycke.nu/eng/2013/02/swedish-legal-facts-why-mutual-legal-assistance-wasnt-used-in-the-assange-case/#comments

• 

  Göran Rudling February 23, 2013 at 03:09

  One hundred and seventy days at the Craig Murray asylum.

  When I asked Craig Murray to back up his numerous false claims regarding the Assange case I thought he would admit that he made many serious mistakes. I was wrong. He has not even admitted that he made “honest mistakes” in relying on dubious sources. What a coward.

  Since then Arbed, the self proclaimed commander of the imaginary pro-Assange troops, have called for help. “Goran Rudling’s 14 supposed ‘mistakes’ in Craig’s research can be knocked out of the skies.” Give it a try Arbed. The only “soldier” that seems to have heard the call is Blixt, a man with many aliases. Mostly known as the Flashback detective Rec Tum and captain Stolp Skott. He is also known as the malware duqu. Or DQ, D for Delusional. He is not much of a help since he is so wrapped up in his own delusions.

  Some facts. About a year ago, 11 February 2012, I contacted Al Burke, the editor of Nordic News Network. The reason, there were many serious errors on his website about the Assange case. Among things wrong was Al Burke’s claim that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview. Something he has corrected since.

  On 14 February 2012 Harald Ullman, Julian Assange’s Swedish PR-agent, informed media that a new web-site, “Assange and Sweden”, was started. On 16 February Al Burke contacted me since he experienced problems with a con artist who claimed he owned the copyrights to the English translations of the police files in the Assange case. The con artist wanted them removed from the site Harald Ullman referred to.

  
  It has come to our attention that the website Nordic News Network, with which you are associated according to Dagens Media, features unattributed copyrighted works, to which we own the copyright.

  The person behind these ridiculous claims was Rick Downes at Rixstep, who else? Why Rixstep wanted to interfere with Harald Ullman’s PR work for Julian Assange I don’t know. Maybe Rick Downes thinks he owns the copyright for PR-work for Assange too. Maybe he’s a bed-fellow with Blixt. What a combo. Blixtstep. Rixstep’s mails to Harald Ullman are here.

  What is interesting with Rick Downes’ copyright claims is that he is a supporter of the Pirate Bay and loves file sharing. As long as the files shared are not his imagined property. How Rick Downes came to the conclusion that he owned the copyrights to the translation of the police files is something detective Rec Tum should look at if he can stop investigating his own bottom.

  I understand from Blixt’s insightful comment I play a central role in everything disastrous that has happened to Julian Assange. Of course I do. Not only was I central in Harald Ullman’s failed PR-campaign involving celebrities. I was also responsible for Julian Assange losing the extradition hearings. I made his legal team use silly legal arguments while I conspired with the Truth Fairy and criticized the legal team on my blog. I also conspired with Al Burke, “using an alias on Flashback and there wrote about finding lodging for Julian’s staff”. But there is more. I had telepathic contact with Julian Assange around 20 August 2010 and made him adopt a defence strategy that has led to an endless series of disasters. I also influenced Rick Downes, wasn’t hard he’s delusional too, to start believing he owned the copyright to the translated police files so he could interfere with Harald Ullman’s PR-campaign. Then I advised Al Burke how to deal with Rixstep. How about that detective Rec Tum? I am everywhere. Have you looked under your bed lately? Boo!

  It is true Blixt. I am the anti-Assange God. By my side is Goliath the Strongman and Professor Atom. You are not delusional. It just looks that way. I know you worry about Wagram and Vizier. Don’t. They are not going to end up in lasagne. Keep your bicorne on. It will keep your miniscule brain warm. And don’t be afraid of the people down by the pond. The ones wearing white four fingered gloves. They are not dangerous. The one that looks like a dog is Goofy. Just like you. Take a rest, take your medicine and talk to your friends the Muppet Show shrinks. I hope you’ll feel better tomorrow. If you do, tell your furry friend Fia that she has to do better about the tweets you claim were originally found on Flashback.

  Hola,

  Captain Spaulding

• 

  Jemand - Keep Speech Free February 23, 2013 at 10:45

  Goran, have you ever received payment/s from anyone, person or organisation, in support or return for your online commentary or activism regarding Assange and/or wikileaks?

  In anticipation of you asking the same question of me, no I haven’t.

• 

  craig Post author February 23, 2013 at 11:46

  Goran,

  Why you believe I should be obliged to debate with any part-time taxi driver who fancies the idea is something of a mystery to me. Suffice it to say I found some of the nonsense in your post “refuting” my arguments hilarious.

  Your post claims to be a detailed analysis of my own, and contains naturally links to my own. Without following these links your reply would make little sense. And what is the total number of people who have visited my blog through your links – four! You could put your entire readership in your taxi and just drone on at them.

  My favourite was the line that rape trials in Sweden are not secret, as the verdict is public, only the evidence is secret. Silly me!

  Why you persist in the lie that there are no official taping facilities at a major Stockholm police station, or that it is the closest to Ardin’s flat, I have no idea. Plainly they don’t have “the knowledge” in Sweden. Anyway, that is the last you will hear from me. Please feel free to huff and puff as you wish.

• 

  axel February 23, 2013 at 14:00

  Rudling wrote: “Among things wrong was Al Burke’s claim that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview.”

  Many people have claimed that. And there is a very good reason for it. I wonder why you are not helpful in clarifying the situation, rather than calling people liars repeatedly.

  Linda Wassgren is the young police officer who met Anna and Sofia as they arrived to the police station in Klara. She interviewed both women at the same time. This happened more or less as they arrived. Anna Ardin was present when Sofia Wilen told her story to Linda Wassgren. And Anna “filled in with one sentence”. This is the crucial moment, when Linda was convinced that both women had been raped. It is documented in the leaked interviews.

  Linda Wassgren’s interview of the two women, first together, then one by one, is of extreme importance. Don’t gloss over that. It was Linda who communicated with all the necessary people over phone. Finally she talked to the Prosecutor in charge that evening. Linda and the prosecutor agreed, over the phone, that this is rape and that Julian should be arrested. Linda did not provide any written material at all to the prosecutor. Linda’s interviews, which de facto, got Assange arrested, are never written down. A scandal in itself, isn’t it?

  In contrast Irmeli Krans interview with Sofia Wilen had no importance whatsoever for the actual decision to arrest. Krans was in fact not allowed to talk to Linda Wassgren, which she complained about Neither before nor after Linda had spoken to the prosecutor. Krans also complained that the headline “rape” was already fixed when she begun her interview. The original interview by Krans (not the doctored one) was read by Eva Finne the next morning and she immediately closed the rape case.
  The many misunderstandings about Irmeli Krans role is mainly due to Niklas Svensson at Expressen, I believe. He “revealed” half the truth, but “forgot” the most important part of it: It was Linda Wassgren, as the front woman, and a small circle of people which she communicated with via telephone, who pushed through the decision to arrest Assange on August 20th 2010.

• 

  Göran Rudling February 23, 2013 at 15:30

  Axel,

  I have warned you once. And I will again. If you continue to ask questions you will expose Craig Murray as a serial liar. I don’t think Arbed will be happy if you do.

  Many people have claimed that Anna Ardin was present when Irmeli Krans interviewed Sofia Wilén. There is a reason for it. It suits people that believe in conspiracies. Al Burke has had this opinion but he did correct himself on 7 April 2012. The text below is Al Burke’s words from the link you provided:

  Police interview with Sofia Wilén

  The original version [Al Burke’s article] stated that Anna Ardin was present during the police [Irmeli Krans’] interview with Sofia Wilén on 20 August 2010. But information subsequently provided by Göran Rudling indicates that there were at least two separate discussions during the evening in question — one in which Anna Ardin participated and, after that, a formal interview with Sofia Wilén during which Ms. Ardin was not present.

  What’s been discussed here is the false claim by Craig Murray, that Anna Ardin was present during Irmeli Krans interview of Sofia Wilén. Al Burke has realized that is not true. And so has most people.

  You write: “Linda Wassgren’s interview of the two women, first together, then one by one, is of extreme importance.” Why do you think so? If you can answer this question fully maybe I can help you understand the case better.

• 

  Jemand - Keep Speech Free February 23, 2013 at 15:59

  Goran, there has been some discussion that you have received assistance from the Swedish government to run your online campaign against Assange. Can you clear up this question over your receipt payments for this purpose?

• 

  axel February 23, 2013 at 17:16

  The important point is that Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin were interviewed together when they arrived to the police. And that this joint interview became decisive for the arrest order. It surprises me that Mr Rudling has never understood that simple point.

  Sofia and Anna were interviewed together by Linda Wassgren, not Irmeli Krans. Why is this extremely important? It is extremely important because Linda Wassgren is the one that is allowed to talk to the Duty Prosecutor. Linda’s unrecorded interviews with Sofia and Anna become the basis for the arrest of Assange two hours later. Irmeli Krans’ formal interview with Sofia (original form before it was doctored), on the other hand was the basis for Eva Finnes decision to close that case.

Comments are closed.