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 Axel,
I have warned you twice. But you don’t listen. You just go on. So let’s deal with the points you have raised. It is true that Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén went to the police together and were met by the officer in charge, Linda Wassgren. They also initiated a conversation with her. You are correct. Please note Craig Murray’s claim:
You are now confirming that Craig Murray is a liar. I don’t know if this was your intention. Good job anyway.
Arbed called for help so my arguments could “be knocked out of the skies.” You are helping me to expose Arbed as another man that is making false claims. If you continue you will soon be labeled an enemy to Julian Assange who is financed by the Swedish government. I warned you. Remember?
Now to one of your claims: “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.”
First lets make it clear that Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin were NOT interviewed together by Linda Wassgren. Just read Linda Wassgren’s memo again.
The initial conversation at the police station is what Donald Boström refers to in his witness statement. It was a conversation between Linda Wassgren, Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin. It was during this conversation that Anna Ardin uttered the well known words that CONVINCED Linda Wassgren to make a decision to separate the women and talk to them one on one. It is the one on one conversations that made Linda Wassgren assume a crime had been committed. After she had checked with her superiors, who agreed with her assumption, she contacted the prosecutor and an arrest order was issued. The initial conversation between the three women was not the basis for the arrest order.
I am not surprised that you don’t understand this. You are a conspiracy theorist at heart and evidently have a problem with facts. (Please note that this is not to be interpreted as if I am calling you a liar.) Take a cold shower, breath in and out and examine the facts again. Don’t jump to conclusions. Just look at the facts. If there is anything you don’t understand ask me another question. I will help you. But take note. If you fully understand what really happened at the police station you will be regarded as another anti-Assange evil creature.
Now to another of you claims, made by other Assangeistas:. “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.”
Please show me evidence that Irmeli Krans’ interview was “doctored”. I do not want to hear Blixt’s, Rec Tum’s, Rick Downes’, Stolp Skott’s, Craig Murray’s, justice4Assange’s, Daddy’s, Marcello Ferrada de Noli’s, Israel Shamir’s, Jennifer Robinson’s, Per E. Samuelsson’s, Michael Ratner’s, Glenn Greenwald’s, Mark Stephens’, Geoffrey Robertson’s, Arbed’s, Helene Bergman’s, Julian Assange’s, Rafael Correa’s ……… opinion. I want the facts. What are the words that are changed in order for you to make a claim that it is “doctored”. You are again showing your “faith”. “There must be a conspiracy behind this since I don’t know the facts”.
Why don’t you just stop and think for a while. What is the new and “doctored” interview that prosecutor Marianne Ny has, that Eva Finné didn’t have, when she makes her decision? Most hard core Assangeistas think that Irmeli Krans’ interview was doctored? They have missed the elephant in the room.
Finally. Why are you going on about Eva Finne’s decision to close the case? A higher ranked prosecutor have made a different decision. The higher ranked prosecutor’s decision stands. If a court ruling is appealed and a higher court rules differently, do you go on about the decision in the lower court? And if so, why?
Jemand,
I’ve read three of your comments. I am not in anyway suggesting you are bi-polar. I just don’t get it. What is boring and what is not? To me it looks like you think facts are boring and imagined conspiracies are not. Please explain what it is you want me to do.
In order for me to respond properly please tell me who are these people talking about me receiving assistance from the Swedish government to run an online campaign against Assange? I understand you are in. Who else? Are Blixt, DQ, Rec Tum, Rick Downes, Arbed, Rico Santin, Craig Murray, Pinocchio, Stolp Skott, Goofy, Al Burke, Napoleon Bonaparte, Capricciosa, the Sugar Man, …. involved?
Of course I have received assistance from the Swedish and British governments. In order to be more specific please tell me who are the people discussing this and what are the facts they have found so far?
@ axel.
Friday the 20/8-2010, both woman walked into Klara cops around 14:10. Then – there was a lot of phonecalls and “chitchat” until 16:05 (or 10) before they started to interrogate Wilen, exactly where and when Ardin leaves Klara cops is unclear, but she is with Wilen and “fills in some blanks” when the police are taking memos – this is when they call Källstrand, that then a bit later after having a discussion with the staff decides to issue a arrest warrant on Assange, this is made around 17:00hrs, long before the interrogation of Wilen gets cutoff – as Wilen gets the news that there is an arrest warrant on Assange. This shows that when the interrogation starts, both Ardin and Wilen are on site, were Ardin seems to fluctuate between the cops in the office and the room were Wilen has been taken to, otherwise, Källstrand would not have made such a quick decition. Therefore-no one is right here, Ardin was joining in the beginning, the timing when she leaves is unclear, but both woman are on site when the prosecutor decides to arrest Assange. To make it even more interesting, Wilen sends sms to her friend Marie in this big mess from the police station and it is found on page 78 in the police protocol. The most interesting part is that the interrogation with Marie CONFIRMS the existence of secret sms.
Police Mats Gehlins asks the following:
FL frågade om SMS:et då Marie har skrivit att de ska komma på en bra hämnd
This query from Gehlin confirms that the cops have copied the SMS-traffic on Wilens cellphone that Hurtig later quotes in court but have not been admitted to have copies of in any way, and these sms are vital for this whole charade, so the police-protocol is in its way an evidence that THERE ARE INDEED EXISTING SMS talking about revenge.
Can Julian Assange supporters explain why they are out attacking Goran Rudling the man while ignoring the 14 points he makes about misinformation surrounding the Swedish interview situation and how Craig Murray refuses to explain his clear factual mistakes?
Personal attacks on individuals have become the norm for obscuring huge gaps in the truth surrounding Julian Assange. Why not answer to points raised and stop playing the man and not the ball?
When Goran Rudling was complaint and onside he was a credible witness FOR Assange but now as positions change he, like Jemima Khan, gets shunted out and morally disassembled. Shame.
Get over yourselves people and lift the level of this debate out of schoolyard bullying and towards examination of the actual facts.
Dear Craig Murray,
It took you ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTYNINE days to admit that you cannot and will not back up your false claims regarding the Assange case. Since you are not backing up your claims, or admit that you made mistakes, I think it is fair to call you what you are, an inventor of stories and a certified liar. Something I did in my original comment from 7 September 2012:
Craig Murray. I have not asked you to debate anything because I know you are not good at debates. I just asked you to back up your false claims. Something I just found out you are not very good at either. I cannot say that I am surprised.
In a post on your blog from 14 October 2012 called “A Real Treat in Store” you write:
Are you truthful in your comment? As soon as I posted my article on you, you withdraw into a shell saying you will not back up your false claims and you will not make any further comments. “Anyway, that is the last you will hear from me”. You are overreacting like an old lady in one of those plays that didn’t make it since the line, “Anyway, that is the last you will hear from me” doesn’t really sound like it is from an intelligent being.
You are the wannabe protagonist of the novel “The Adventures of Julian Assange”. The man that is supposedly chased by all the dark forces in the world. That is the reason he does not tell the truth. You are chased by a “part-time taxi driver” with a keyboard. That makes you jump into a hole for cover desperately typing “Anyway, that is the last you will hear from me.” Why don’t you take up occupancy at 3 Hans Crescent since you are both targeted by evil forces. Imagined dark forces and a real “part-time taxi driver” with a keyboard. Oooh, I am so scared.
In an effort to save your long nosed face you make some interesting claims in your last comment. If you lie or just make “honest mistakes” is for the reader to decide. You write “Why you persist in the lie that there are no official taping facilities at a major Stockholm police station.”
I know you have a bad memory, a tendency to make stuff up and claim that people lie. Not a good combination in a debate. If this is because of substance abuse or some genetic defect I don’t know. It is not important. I know you have a tendency to call people liars and that you have no foundation for your claims.
I have never ever claimed there are no taping facilities at Klara Närpolisstation. Your original false claim is: “a major Stockholm police station that does of course have video-taping facilities.” In my conversations with the officer in charge of the station in question, Anders Lindberg, he has confirmed there are no video-taping facilities at Klara Närpolisstation. You by chance dropped the word video in your last comment. Is that just one of your “honest mistakes”?
Why you are interested in which police-station is “is the closest to Ardin’s flat” is beyond me. It has nothing to do with your original claim “Ardin did not take Wilen to the nearest police station. She took her right across Stockholm to the police station where Ardin’s friend, lesbian feminist campaigner Irmeli Krans, was serving.” Bad memory or another honest mistake?
The fact is that Ardin took Wilén to the nearest and most accessible police station from where the women were prior going to the police. I know you are geographically disadvantaged. It is not a secret. Please remember that you claim that I am a “part-time taxi driver” and as such maybe I know better about the geography in Stockholm than you do. I can understand from your last comment, “Anyway, that is the last you will hear from me”, that you do not want to comment any more so people can detect your other disadvantages. I think it is one of your few wise decisions.
You go on to write about Swedish rape trials: “My favourite was the line that rape trials in Sweden are not secret”. No trials in Sweden are secret. Parts of a rape trial can be behind closed doors. I don’t understand how come you are not familiar with the concept closed doors. You should since you obviously are very familiar with the concept closed mind.
For those of you that are interested in the article that Craig Murray was really looking forward to here it is.
Spelling typo: “compliant”
Blixt a.k.a duqu a.k.a Flushed-back Detective Rec Tum a.k.a Captain Stolp Skott a.k.a ???
I’ve tried to figure out what your latest comment is all about. It seems like you are of the opinion that there is “evidence that THERE ARE INDEED EXISTING SMS talking about revenge”. Great discovery Detective Rec Tum.
We all know there are SMS messages talking about revenge. It is in the “Häktningspromemoria”. That is not the issue. How these messages are supposed to be interpreted is the issue.
Please do not post anything about the fact that Julian Assange was arrested on 20 August 2010. We all know that too.
@Sandra Eckersley, 5.51am
“Personal attacks on individuals have become the norm” and “lift the level of this debate out of schoolyard bullying”
So true, couldn’t agree more:
“@braingarbage
had a flashback to Goran Rudling threatening to tie me upside down from a tree if i spilled his #assange secrets. at Gondolen one year ago.”
https://twitter.com/braingarbage/status/302944771087933440
That sounds like absolutely disgraceful behaviour by somebody who claims to campaign against Violence Against Women and for the rights of rape victims. I think anybody who believes women should not have to live under the threat of violence should distance themselves from Goran Rudling, as he is now utterly discredited.
Rudling wrote: Dear Axel,
“I have warned you twice. But you don’t listen. You just go on.”
Response: I don’t give in to bullying. And I am not provoked by cheap insults. It’s pointless.
Rudling wrote:
“First let us make it clear that Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin were NOT interviewed together by Linda Wassgren”.
Response: I don’t agree. Donald Boström’s witness statement concludes “ because she reinforced Sofia’s story with this sentence the case became stronger, as she put it. This is exactly what she said.”
Let’s go further into Boström’s witness statement. He refers to a telephone conversation with Anna, the same day, after she came back from the police, Friday afternoon or evening.
Boströms account of what Anna said: “We have been to the police station now and SOFIA TOLD HER STORY AND SINCE I SAT THERE I FILLED IN WITH ONE SENTENCE”.
Boström continues. “This is very much word by word as I remember her telling the story. OK, I said what was that sentence? Well, that sentence was that I believe that Sofia tells the truth because I experienced something similar, Anna says. And then she told me that thing with the condom, that’s why I think it is true. I don’t know the police technicalities, but Anna explained that BECAUSE WE SUDDENLY WERE TWO WOMEN WHO HAD A STATEMENT ABOUT THE SAME MAN it fell under public prosecution, and thus it became a report of an offence.”
Suddenly, refers to the point in time when Anna was sitting next to Sofia and filled in with her sentence. Whatever else happened later this is a crucial moment. Sofia told her story and Anna, who was sitting next to her, filled in with her sentence. This is took place under Linda Wassgren’s guidance. Wassgren, not Krans, communicated this information to the Duty Prosecutor. The arrest warrant is built on this conversation, plus a number of Linda’s phone calls. Not on the formal interviews later the same day (of Sofia) and the next day (of Anna).
Blixt wrote: “Then – there was a lot of phonecalls and “chitchat” until 16:05 (or 10) before they started to interrogate Wilen, exactly where and when Ardin leaves Klara cops is unclear…”
Response: The last point is important. We don’t know when Ardin left. It could have been by five or it could have been earlier. We only know that she did not stay to support her “sister” who was soon to break down during the interrogation by Irmeli Krans. Instead Anna went out partying with Petra O in the evening.
Almost all the phone calls that Linda Wassgren made are listed in her memo. I would imagine that one of the unlisted ones is to the Swedish secret service (Säpo).
Axel,
Thank you for confirming that this statement by Craig Murray is a lie:
To sort out what happened at the police station we have Linda Wassgren’s memo and Donald Boström’s recollection of a telephone conversation with Anna Ardin.
The women arrived at the police station about 2 pm and were met by Linda Wassgren. After a brief conversation Linda Wassgren assumed some sex crime had been committed and she decided to separate the two women and talk to them one on one in order to find out more.
After the one on one conversations Linda Wassgren made some phone calls. A criminal investigation was initiated. Sofia Wilén was interrogated. Julian Assange was arrested.
Now you make the interesting claim that Linda Wassgren’s first conversation with the women, when they were all together, was the most important one. It was the information Linda Wassgren got from this conversation that she later relayed to the prosecutor. The information Linda Wassgren got from the one on one conversations was not at all important.
I am very sorry Axel. Your reasoning isn’t convincing. It is on par with Blixt’s, Arbed’s and Craig Murray’s.
We don’t know exactly when Anna Ardin left the police station. I agree. But we know that Anna Ardin was not present during Sofia Wilén’s interrogation. She went to a party with Kajsa B. Not Petra O as you claim. Thank you for confirming that Craig Murray lies when he claims Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview and that she was present when Irmeli Krans documented the interview.
You claim that Sofia Wilén “was soon to break down during the interrogation by Irmeli Krans”. Please back up this claim with facts. I have no information that Sofia Wilén broke down. If you have any information now is the time to show it.
I asked you to back up your claim that Irmeli Krans “doctored” the interview with Sofia Wilén. Shall I interpret your silence as if you are doing a Craig Murray? Making a false statement. If you think the interview was doctored please show your evidence.
I have noted that you think that Linda Wassgren made a phone call to the Swedish Secret police, SÄPO. How come you don’t think that Linda Wassgren called the US Embassy, the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House too?
GR wrote: “After the one on one conversations Linda Wassgren made some phone calls. A criminal investigation was initiated. Sofia Wilén was interrogated. Julian Assange was arrested.”
The temporal order is wrong here. Assange was arrested before Sofia Wilen was interrogated by Irmeli Krans. Therefore the Duty Prosecutor did not have access to the formal questioning when she took her decision to arrest Assange. In fact, she had no written material whatsoever. The arrest order, which is the privilege of the Duty Prosecutor, is entirely based on an unrecorded oral conversation between two people. It scares me.
It is misleading, as you do, to see the Irmeli Krans questioning of Sofia Wilen as a part of the causal chain leading to the arrest warrant. The arrest warrant did not need that interview. I doubt that the Duty Prosecutor, MHK, was even aware of the fact that the formal interviews with Anna and Sofia had not yet been taken when she spoke to Linda Wassgren. But Eva Finne saw it in its original (undoctored) variant. It was enough for her to call off the rape case: “No crime is committed”.
Yes, I believe that there was a contact between some branch of the Swedish secret service and the police at Klara. It would perhaps be more natural for the station officer, Johan Hallberg, to take that contact than for Linda. But Linda did speak to Johan Hallberg as we know.
I repeat:
“@braingarbage
had a flashback to Goran Rudling threatening to tie me upside down from a tree if i spilled his #assange secrets. at Gondolen one year ago.”
https://twitter.com/braingarbage/status/302944771087933440
That sounds like absolutely disgraceful behaviour by somebody who claims to campaign against Violence Against Women and for the rights of rape victims. I think anybody who believes women should not have to live under the threat of violence should distance themselves from Goran Rudling, as he is now utterly discredited.
Yes Rudling , you are finally right, Blixt writing here is not Blixt at all, and you are the only person to have that knowledge for a specific reason, so let me spell out for the others here whats going here on Craigs blog:
One month back Flashback got infested by 2 new trolls again, that as before, just made the thread go round in all kinds of attempts to destroy all writings, one of these trolls is a guy called blixxt. Many of the Flashbackers suspected quite early that Ruling could be involved, he has a way of always popping up in someones blog, usually at midnight and mostly with another new name backing his alter ego up just a couple of minutes later, the language,spelling and tone always match.
A grandios example is just to look above here at date 25 feb, 6 am in the morning, Rudlings friends always popps up just minutes later, standard timezone for the graveyard shift people that got trolling as a hobby.
So we wanted to see what happens when Rudling gets a taste of his own medicine, just by posting correct information here under the same trollname blixt as the person attacking Flashback with incorrect info, with the only exeption that the name blixxt was spelled blixt…. The only one here that reacted was Rudling, we can therefore be quite shure, that the troll blixxt on Flashback is indeed Rudling. Therefore I´m posting this with the company name that Rudling used before, just to piss him off more, and to show the others here on Craigs blog what kind of stuff Rudling is made off, the enclosed pictures will show a standard example of the term stalking, pay attention to the two laptops in the picture.
Rudling and Eng doing a copycat: http://bayimg.com/FaJPLaAeO
The original photo to compare: http://bayimg.com/FaJpMAaEo
By the way, for 2 months all swedish media has been writing a lot of a new sexual legislation in progress, the number one person to be involved in all this matter should have been Rudling, but he hasn´t written a word in this matter for around 6 months, so it can also be proven that what he states in his blog is just a big smokescreen.
Axel,
Sofia Wiléns interview was initiated before Julian Assange was arrested.The interview wasn’t finished before the decision to arrest him was made. Irmeli Krans did not have any influence over the decision to arrest Julian. Assangeistas spend too much time trying to depict Irmeli Krans as important in the case. She is not as you correctly point out.
The information on which Linda Wassgren based her opinion, that a sex crime had been committed, was obtained in the one on one conversations with the two women.
Please read a prosecutor’s view of the arrest of Julian Assange.
I am asking you for the third time to produce evidence that Irmeli Krans “doctored” the interview with Sofia Wilén. Are you doing a full Craig Murray?
Tessim, 7.38am
Thanks for that. Yes, I keep an eye on Flashback myself so I’ve seen blixxt’s obsessive attempts to derail discussion there and push the line that it’s all Assange’s own fault because he didn’t respond to the women’s request for a HIV test and their visit to the police was therefore entirely logical and reasonable. I am glad to see the Flashback regulars rip apart this ‘theory’ over and over again. It’s utter tripe, of course – any woman with half a brain knows the only way to be sure of your own HIV status is to get yourself tested.
However, I hadn’t fully appreciated that blixxt might be aligned with Rudling. Blixxt’s efforts, to me, read as if they were commissioned by Anna Ardin herself (or friends of hers) to try to build – as it becomes clearer and clearer that the case against Assange is going to collapse – some kind of ‘defence’ strategy against her own prosecution for making false allegations.
Good catch on the copycat pose – I’ve seen the photo before but hadn’t really taken in that the posing was deliberate. Reveals quite a bit of narcissism, doesn’t it, to do something like that with a straight face?
I’m not sure why Rudling doesn’t recognise that his efforts here in Craig’s blog are a lost cause. Anyone reading back over the previous pages can see that all of Craig’s readers have already seen through his nonsense. Goran doesn’t seem to understand that the reason he gets no response to his ‘challenges’ is because people have learned to simply skip his posts [it’s the down arrow key on the numberpad; takes you straight to the following post – we all use it here]. People here like cogent arguments that are worthy of debate – they’ll respond to those – not verbose and abusive trolling by paid shills. Automatic down arrow key for those, I’m afraid.
Please keep checking back here from time to time Tessim (and other Flashback visiters). I try to keep this particular thread ‘open’ as a means whereby Flashback can get word out about important news, leaks, discoveries, etc to the English-speaking bloggosphere when needed. All the best, xx Arbed
I’m reposting here something I dropped into the Why I’m Convinced AA is a Liar thread a couple of weeks ago because I’m not sure I made its significance quite clear enough. I’ll spell it out more clearly this time.
Yesterday Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt arrived in Australia for talks with Australian FM Bob Carr, who has publicly stated that he won’t be raising Assange’s case with Bildt (hmmm… yeah, right). In a televised panel discussion two nights ago, Bob Carr and the US Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich did their damnedest to mislead the Australian public that the Wikileaks Grand Jury didn’t exist, Assange’s asylum had nothing to do with America and the US has no involvement in the Swedish extradition case. This link from my previous post blows that last claim out of the water.
Briefly, in late July last year (25 July 2012) the Ecuadorian Ambassador to Sweden showed up unexpectedly at the Swedish FO carrying Ecuador’s formal offer to facilitate Assange’s questioning at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Recent FOI releases in Sweden show that this offer was immediately copied to the America section of the Swedish Foreign Ministry. On the exact same day Assange’s Swedish lawyers wrote to the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny formally making the same offer on behalf of their client. Ny took six days to respond to them and did so in a way which implied she had no knowledge of the Ecuadorians’ formal offer. This might suggest that it’s Carl Bildt’s ministry and its America section who are really running the Swedish investigation/extradition.
If Bob Carr and Jeffrey Bleich’s claims that the US has no involvement in Sweden’s case are true, can they explain why correspondence concerning Assange’s questioning at a safe venue in London is copied to the Swedish FO America section, when it purportedly has nothing to do with them?
Rudling wrote:
“ The information on which Linda Wassgren based her opinion, that a sex crime had been committed, was obtained in the one on one conversations with the two women.”
Response: There is no evidence that the “one on one conversations” were crucial. If you know about any such evidence please let us know. On the contrary there is evidence that the crucial point in Linda’s hearing of Sofia and Anna is when the two of them sit together. I quote again from Donald Boström’s witness statement:
Anna said: “We have been to the police station now and SOFIA TOLD HER STORY AND SINCE I SAT THERE I FILLED IN WITH ONE SENTENCE”…. Anna explained that BECAUSE WE SUDDENLY WERE TWO WOMEN WHO HAD A STATEMENT ABOUT THE SAME MAN it fell under public prosecution, and thus it became a report of an offence.”
Thus, the facts are clear: Anna and Sofia were, but should not have been, allowed to spell out their stories together. This happened under Linda Wassgren’s guidance. As far as we know, Linda Wassgren has never written down, or even taped this conversation. Neither has she written down, or taped, her individual hearings of Anna and Sofia. In retrospect it is very clear that the decision to arrest Assange was much too hastily taken by the Duty Prosecutor, pushed through by a small circle of people, represented by a very junior police woman, Linda Wassgren. To make things worse, the whole thing was immediately leaked to Expressen and Assange’s name confirmed to Expressen by the Duty Prosecutor.
I think it smells.
In the middle of a long typical Rudling diatribe (Feb 25th 5:54) against Craig Murray I found the following:
“The fact is that Ardin took Wilén to the nearest and most accessible police station from where the women were prior going to the police. I know you are geographically disadvantaged. It is not a secret. Please remember that you claim that I am a “part-time taxi driver” and as such maybe I know better about the geography in Stockholm than you do.”
As far as we know Sofia Wilen had been to Söder hospital (Södersjukhuset) before the two women went to the police. The nearest police station from Söder Hospital is this one on Torkel Knutssongatan 20: http://www.polisen.se/Stockholms_lan/Kontakta-oss/Polisstationer/Stockholms-lan/City1/Sodermalm/
It takes 10-12 minutes to walk there from the hospital(we have just tested) and 5 minutes by taxi.
Walking to Klara Närpolis, at Klarabergsviadukten 49, where they ended up, would take 45 minutes – it was August so a walk would have been feasible. A taxi journey would have taken about 15 minutes. http://www.polisen.se/Kontakta-oss/Polisstationer/Stockholms-lan/City1/Klara/
Is it possible that Rudling does not know this? I doubt it.
Regarding Klara Näpo police-station, you should be aware of the following back in august 2010.
Opening hrs in august was 08 -16:00CET (heavy vacation period-low staff manning)
Mats Gehlin is not on Klara, he is at Bergsgtan police station, 20 min walk away, a lot of people still belive that he together with the others cops were sitting in the same station, and thats incorrect.
Sofia Wilen came in on friday morning and went to Danderyds hospital first- then went direct to SöS Södersjukhuset, and finally to Klara Näpo, that was a bad choice as it was not the nearest if you would go for that detail, but as Anna knew Irmeli at Klara, that explains the choice of station.
The only mystery is: They came in 14:05-10 at Klara, but the cops didn´t start the process until 16:05 = 2hrs.
Klara had a low manning-high peak visitors friday afternoon, the cops did not have 2 hrs to chit-chat and usually a claim of rape has a higher priorety than other reports like pickpocket-fighting-narcotics etc, so why did it take over 2 hrs for the cops to start processing a possible claim of rape… and most vital ..friday afternoon just before closing time, who gave the permit for 3-4 cops to work overtime, dayshift usually ends 16:00 to 16:30 for gov-employees, there was no handing over to other police when reading the protocols, the staff in the protocol was on the dayshift….
But the timing gets more correct if the police at Klara was waiting for other staff to get over from other stations, and in this case there was a big chance that certain “special police” could have arrived in such a sensitive matter that it would explain the lack of recording, Klara has recording units for voice (tapeless digital units), but no-one has been able to give a good reason why there was no recordning, someone quoted that the equipment was “missing”, strange as they started to interrogate just after closing the station down 16:00hrs, did all recorders go missing…..no-way…
Tessim-r wrote:
“Mats Gehlin is not on Klara, he is at Bergsgtan police station, 20 min walk away, a lot of people still belive that he together with the others cops were sitting in the same station, and that’s incorrect.”
Response: Indeed. This is why Linda Wassgren contacted him via phone.
Tess-r wrote: “The only mystery is: They came in 14:05-10 at Klara, but the cops didn´t start the process until 16:05 = 2hrs.”
Response: Linda Wassgren started her work at once, around 14.00 as is clear from her memo. Her joint hearing of Anna and Sofia, her individual hearing of Sofia and her individual hearing of Anna all took place between 14 and 16, we must conclude. Linda would also had made one or several phone calls to Mats Gehlin on family violence and to the station head, John Hallberg during that time. She might have had to wait for clearance from Johan Hallberg, who may have talked to many people in various places. It could easily have taken two hours. In fact, the way I see it is that all the important events took place before the formal interview of Sofia started at 16.20 (I believe it was 16.20?).
But there is a mystery. How many, and which, policemen and women were actively involved at the police station before the formal interrogation of Sofia was allowed to start? Apart from Linda Wassgren there was Sara Wennerblom. I assume that the station head, Johan H, must have been present in person also at some point. And as you suggest, “special guests” may have been invited. But it is equally likely that any special guest made their points via telephone.
Whatever was cooked up, it was ready for the Duty Prosecutor well before 1700.
One question remains: At what point did Irmeli Krans get involved? I don’t think we know. The Flashback discussion some time ago concluded that it might have been when the station closed, at 1600.
Axel,
I understand that you want to believe in a conspiracy. But a different conspiracy than the one Craig Murray believes in. You think that Anna Ardin’s presence during Linda Wassgren’s “interview” with Sofia Wilén is important in the decision to arrest Julian Assange. Craig Murray believes that Anna Ardin was present during Irmeli Krans interview of Sofia Wilén and that she did not even talk to the two women. I agree with you that Craig Murray does not have a clue of what happened and that he lies about circumstances.
According to Donald Boström’s statement Anna Ardin’s words made Linda Wassgren to separate the two women and to talk to them one on one. Now you want me to believe that Linda Wassgren’s one on one conversations with the two women were not important at all. All the information that was important for a decision to arrest Julian Assange was collected before the one on one conversations. If so, why do you think Linda Wassgren decided to separate the two women?
I am sorry. I think you are a complete idiot. It was the one on one conversations that made Linda Wassgren realize a crime might have been committed. It was what Linda Wassgren had found during the one on one conversations that was the basis for the arrest warrant. And it was what Linda Wassgren had found during the one on one conversation that was the basis for the interview of Anna Ardin on 21 August.
The decision to arrest Julian Assange was not in any way taken too hastily by the prosecutor. If a foreigner who is likely to leave the country is suspected of a serious crime it is the duty of a prosecutor to make an immediate arrest.
Axel,
Obviously you know very little of the geography of Stockholm and how to get around town.
If you arrive in Stockholm at the Central Station and you have to leave from the Central Station the best place to meet anybody before you leave town is at the Central Station. You don’t have to be an expert in transportation to understand that.
Sofia Wilén was at Södersjukhuset. Anna Ardin was at Sveavägen 68. What is the best meeting place for the women given the fact that one had to leave from the Central Station? The nearest and best place is the Central Station. For Sofia it is a subway ride of four stations and for Anna it is a ride of two stations. Any other alternative is stupid.
You are trying to tell me that the police station at Torkel Knutssongatan is the nearest to Södersjukhuset. It is true, it is. I have admitted it in a previous comment. But that does not mean it is the nearest and best police station for Anna and Sofia given the fact that Sofia has to leave from the Central Station and Anna is at Sveavägen 68. The nearest and best police station for Anna and Sofia was Klara Närpolisstation at the Central Station.
The more you try to argue with geography the more you will look like Arbed, Blixt a.k.a duqu a.k.a Rec Tum a.k.a Tessim a.k.a Stolp Skott and Craig Murray.
Göran wrote:
Really? Could you please post the relevant quote from Boström’s statement, because I can’t find anything at all to support your claim.
The ONLY reference I can find to these supposed one-on-one talks is in a PM written by Linda Wassgren herself after the chief prosecutor’s dismissal of the allegations, i.e. at a time when both Eva Finné and the press were asking tough questions about the initial handling of the case.
Wassgren’s PM leaves out crucial details and appears to whitewash events at the police station, maybe in an attempt to cover her own backside. Her words should be treated with caution.
Rudling wrote:
The decision to arrest Julian Assange was not in any way taken too hastily by the prosecutor. If a foreigner who is likely to leave the country is suspected of a serious crime it is the duty of a prosecutor to make an immediate arrest:
Response:
The Duty Prosecutor’s decision was very much premature. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Julian was about to leave the country. On the contrary: he had only a couple of days earlier asked for a permanent permit of residence from the Migration Board (which was of course later denied). The escape risk is a construction to motivate the rushed decision to arrest Assange and to send out police around Stockholm to look out for him. And if she really believed that Assange may be in a rush to leave the country, why did the Duty Prosecutor confirm his name to Expressen?
Rudling wrote:
Sofia Wilén was at Södersjukhuset. Anna Ardin was at Sveavägen 68.
Response. Really? If true this is interesting. I have never seen that information before. Could you please give your sources. Sveavägen 68 is of course the head quarter of the Swedish Social Democratic Party.
By the way: You have now insulted me a number of times with a variety of names. You keep on insulting everyone else as being a lier, or an idiot, or whatever else you fancy. Is something pressing you?
Rudling is suddenly quiet.
He drops a bomb. Anna Ardin went to the police station straight from the Social Democratic Party Head Quarters at Sveavägen 68. When challenged for evidence he disappears. I choose not to believe it until I have seen the evidence.
Johan’s relevant question about Boströms witness statement is left unanswered also.
Goran Rudling, 24 Feb 6:43am :
“Of course I have received assistance from the Swedish and British governments. In order to be more specific please tell me who are the people discussing this and what are the facts they have found so far?”
. . .
Goran, thank you for your reply. You are right, facts are not boring – please pardon my rudeness before.
And thank you for confirming that you are receiving payments from both the Swedish and British governments to fund your investigations and campaign regarding Assange. I don’t recall the names (online pseudonyms or real names) of those making the claims, nor specific details, as I was following different lines of enquiry at the time. But you can provide the actual details here to remove any possibility of misunderstandings related to this matter.
Could you please tell us which agencies or departments of the Swedish and British governments have been making payments to you and what conditions they placed on those payments?
Thanks in advance
Hi everyone – here´s another….surprise…
I conducted a test on Rudlings blog, as a Flashbacker here recently reverse engineered a troll-nick with interesting results in this (Craigs) blog .
Rudlings blog has Swedish and English pages, in the Swedish issue, there´s been no writings since november 16,2012, were´s the last article only had 1 comment made on the 17th of november 2012. On february 26, 2013, there was a second comment made at 20:34CET, that in English spells:
Have you ceased all your activity…? They have been talking for consensual sex for the last 4 months and you are totally silence – today this emerged”….(link to a tv4-news reel).
On the 27th of February, around 4-5 hrs after the comment, Rudling issues 2 new articles in a flash which for the first time in 1 year covers consensual sex again, and does not attack Assange, Wikileaks or anything connecting to it, the situation is mind-baffling for any swedish reader, what made him turn 180 degrees in such a short notice, it looked almost as he was following orders, a regular reader expected an answer and not two new articles that also must have been pre-fabricated due to the short timing.
The answer to this is simple, on the comment made february 26 you can read “Simon”. What you cannot read but Rudling can read as he is admin on his blog is the senders email, and in this case I used Anna Ardins secret alias email-address that she only used for 2 days back in 2010…..
The comment -scroll to bottom:
http://samtycke.nu/2012/11/16/bevisen-att-julian-assange-kommer-utlamnas-till-usa/#comments
How it looks today: http://samtycke.nu/
I let you decide what to make of this !
Just to be sure, this has also been saved as screen-dumps, as some erlier comments have gone missing on his blog.
@Not Anna…
That was a somewhat cryptic message. I will try to spell out what I think it says. Correct me if I am wrong.
1)Rudlings’s blog has been quite for four months in all non- Assange issues, such as legislation on consensual sex in spite of a heated discussion about this in Swedish media.
2) You used one of Anna’s old email pseudonymes to post a question about this on Rudling’s blog (!) This resulted in two non-Assange related comments from Rudling the next day.
Obviously you hit a moot point. I think it means that Rudling is concerned that people may think that his blog is a cover. That Anna used the pseudonym Simon previously is known by a number of people, including Rudling. He could have answered her directly in the blog, but didn’t. Adding two comments to save his blog’s reputation was the important thing.
In a previous life (almost) Rudling used to state firmly that Anna is a liar, but that does not happen these days. Has their relation changed? Probably not, after all.
Thank you Flashbackers! I shall alert Craig’s readers who are interested in the Swedish case to these new developments.
@arbed
You could add in that communication that Linda Wassgren’s memo was not known by Björn Hurtig, when he was Assange’s lawyer. It is only after having red about in “Dagens Juridik” that Hurtig was alerted about its existens. Dagens juridik commented in December 2010.
http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2010/12/globalt-nalsoga-sverige-i-assange-fallet
Hurtig asked Marianne Ny, formally in writing with reference to the law, to get access to that memo, so far as I know without success.
The memo was produced only after Eva Finne asked Linda to explain. It is the only written documentation about the crucial phase of events at the police station. These events, under Linda’s guidance, were far more important than the following formal questioning of Sofia by Irmeli Krans. And it is during Linda’s guidance that the two women are questioned together, against all rules.
Many people, Niklas Svensson of Expressen, nowadays Göran Rudling and previously (but not any more) a number of people on Flashback, have tuned down the importance of Linda’s acivities. I think there are elements of active desinformation in that. The meomo is not known in full yet, only excerpts. The importance of Irmeli Krans interrogation is paramount in the efforts to put the rape case back on the agenda after Finne’s closing of it. They are then centered on the “necessary changes” that were added on the request of Mats Gehlin. Thus a doctored version of the interrogation was instrumental together with new “technical evidence” (including torn condomes) to manage that.
But the first set of events, under Linda’s guidance, are covered up. It is only this memo that has allowed us to get some insights.