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.
Thanks to @Not Anna for interesting info. I have noticed similar patterns relating to Rudling. Make of this what you will:
Rudlings site, samtycke.nu, was purportedly set up to campaign for reformed sex laws, specifically for the introduction of the legal concept of consent into Swedish rape legislation. In practice however, the site has been more or less dedicated to the Assange case, and has to date only published a tiny number of articles about rape legislation.
New proposals from the government recently rekindled the Swedish debate on consent, with several high profile contributions in the media and on the internet. But as usual Rudling has been totally absent from the discussion. Instead, he has devoted all his energy to various Assange flamewars and disinfo campaigns.
When nick HansLucas pointed this out on Flashback, his post was quickly flushed from the front page by no less than eight (8) consecutive posts by notorious troll “blixxt”, in a text-book example of a technique known as “forum sliding”.
See https://www.flashback.org/t1275257p4292. (See also http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm for more info on forum flushing and other techniques).
Fast forward a couple of weeks, and Rudling has suddenly published several new contributions to the – by now more or less dormant – rape debate.
Not Anna’s new information seems to fit nicely into this chain of events. Why did self-styled sex law campaigner Rudling miss the most vigorous debate on “his” issue for years, only to rush in several weeks too late after being called out on it? Was he afraid that his cover was about to be blown?
Arbed, thanks for alerting me. I try to keep up but I’m busy on so many other issues I hardly get a minute. So I was unaware that Göran Rudling was back on the scene after my outing of him as Anonymouse (though I agree there may be more than one Anonymouse). Now he has been outed again. Very pleased to be one of your troops Arbed. Will get to work on the tasks you’ve given me.
Hi John,
Ah, bless you, I know how busy you are. I want to congratulate you on the articles you have been putting out recently. They are all excellent, truly excellent.
Going back to your ‘fight’ with Anonymouse, I don’t know if you remember me telling the board that I had had run-ins with “Anonymouse” on other commenting forums? I caught them referring to “cute Anna” in one of their posts (the subject of our commenting discussion was the DNA-free condom, btw) – a turn of phrase that I felt indicated that Anonymouse and Anna Ardin might be close friends, or at least part of the same social circle.
I wonder if this would tie in with the information by Not Anna, Axel and Vera above that Goran Rudling and Anna Ardin work together to influence and/or limit the way in which the Swedish case is discussed online and in social media?
Goran
Many thanks for picking out the many inconsistencies in the case being made by the cult of Assange. What I find interesting how Arbed never replied to my previous post (although she offered pretty rapid responses on everything else) below as to why trial by internet is not appropriate – any thoughts? I think it is also worth noting that the corollary of trying to use the internet to override legal processes to declare someone not guilty is that they have little qualms in declaring someone guilty before a court case as well – as Craig did in his recent posting on the Pistorius case. All this really just demonstrates the type of society that they would favour in the unlikely event that they ever got anywhere near holding power.
Remember that we are the 99%.
“Arbed
I have seen details in respect of the condom many times – it is nothing new and the cult has been using every opprortunity to make it public.
As I have said many times the internet is not the place to examine evidence in a case and then form views as to innocence or guilt. I think you should consider a few questions:
1. Is this the only piece of evidence on which the case is based? The answer is almost certainly no.
2. Have you seen all the evidence that is relevant to the case? The answer to this should be no, especially in respect of a court case, unless you or someone else has acted unethically to make the evidence available,
3. Are you aware that legal cases are very often decided on more than a single piece of evidence and it is usually the case that evidence presented can point in different directions even though it is possible to reach a final verdict on the balance of the evidence.
Don’t you think it right that those representing both the accused and defendant should be given the opportunity to question the evidence – especially since they have the appropriate skills (or access to them) and are trained to do so.
The fact that you continually believe that your partisan approach to evidence (also evidenced by how you ignored Nick Davies response to your attack on him) is sufficient to decide whether or someone has a case to answer really just demonstrates your contempt for how proper legal processes should operate. Of course the corollary of this is that many supporters of the Assange, as often demonstreated by those here, are often only too prepared to proclaim someone’s guilt on the basis of similar techniques. There are good reasons why decent legal systems have such basic processes – and should not be replaced by the summary justice you suggest.
If the evidence is entirely as you suggest I have little doubt that Assange would be found innocent in a Swedish court – and if the case is as flimsy and one sided then undoubtedly those who initiated the case would have some very difficult questions to answer. But as I have said before these things have to go through proper legal process in a civilised country rather than being judged on the internet. So please do not ask me to comment on detailed evidence again.
The whole issue of extradition to the US really is something of a red herring – since it is very difficult to see how the position differs between the UK and Sweden, and we don’t even know the basis on which the US might wish to extradite. And I’m afraid that is a view that is shared by many of Assange’s former friends, despite the habitual character assassination that is doled out to them by cult members (which again demonstreates their utter contempt for anything remotely akin to justice). Just look at the insults heaped on poor JK’s head – eventhough her NS article (and also the NS editorial (with which I agreed practically word for word) continued to be very supportive of many of Assanges’s and Wikipedia’s activities and objectives).”
@Arbed
“I wonder if this would tie in with the information by Not Anna, Axel and Vera above that Goran Rudling and Anna Ardin work together to influence and/or limit the way in which the Swedish case is discussed online and in social media?”
So people get together to try and discuss how the Assange case is discussed online and in social media – well knock me over with a feather. Of course that never, never happens with the case for defence does it? Many thanks for providing another argument as to why such trials are best conducted in the courts rather than over the internet.
Arbed, you are so kind about my articles. As to Anonymouse I was thinking the same thing some months back when you were hinting at an electronic liaison between the two, Göran Rudling and Anna Ardin. Yes I do recall you mentioning it and consider it to be a valid assumption.
By the way the big hairy creature under the bridge keeps appearing unexpectedly. Starvation is always the answer, but of course you know that. Hungry bridge sentinels may then start to wonder why nobody feeds them
Axel, 1.22pm
Indeed, I’ve long been aware of how crucial Linda Wassgren’s memo is to deconstructing how this whole mess came about. I didn’t know that Bjorn Hurtig was unaware of its existence until December 2010, and that he’s been refused access to it – thanks for that.
If you look back through the pages of comments on this thread you will see that Goran posted here the text of what he claimed was the English translation of the redacted version of Wassgren’s memo (which has since become public in Sweden). Given how uncertain Rudling’s true motives are, could you please take a look at what he claims is an exact English translation of the memo and let us know whether it is indeed accurate? I would hate to think that he’s been attempting to misinform English-speaking followers of the Assange case by seeding a false translation here.
I have my own personal theory about what an unredacted version of Linda Wassgren’s note might reveal. I’ve set that out in various posts here (longish ones, I’m afraid – I think they’re on pages 3 to 5). Briefly, my theory is that Wilen and Ardin conspired to tell the same story about deliberately damaged condoms. As evidence of this, I look to these supporting facts:
1. Mats Gehlin’s note on the forensic report that SW had said she heard “pulling balloon” sounds in the night and found a fragment of used condom under the bed where Assange had been.
2. Uncertainty as to when and where this “piece of condom” evidence was collected from SW. Collected from her home? Passed to the police via one or other of the ‘rape clinic’ hospitals she visited? Submitted by Ardin along with her own “damaged”/faked condom evidence under the same docket number? If either of the latter two scenarios, what on earth was Wilen doing carrying around a “piece of condom” (and not the whole thing) when she claims she only wanted to get HIV tests done? That story does not make sense.
3. The redacted version of Wassgren’s memo says “rape was mentioned from the start” and “two women were seeking advice about earlier events they were unsure about”. This implies two women giving the same story.
4. Donald Bostrom’s witness statement outlines how Ardin added one sentence – “I believe Sophia is telling the truth because the same thing happened to me” (or words to that effect) – which turned the whole thing into a formal complaint “because there were two women saying the same thing”. But there really isn’t a strong similarity between Ardin’s complaint and Wilen’s story according to her statement to Irmeli Krans (or, at least, the later doctored version of it we’ve all seen). Where does Ardin talk about being asleep when sex was initiated? Where does she talk about having had unprotected sex? The evidence we have available indicates their experiences weren’t particularly similar. So was their first story – the one they may have agreed on before going to the police station together, and which precipitated the original arrest – quite different from the stories they each later told.
5. There is no mention whatsoever of “pulling balloon sounds” or damaged condoms in Wilen’s statement to Irmeli Krans. Why not? Gehlin must have heard the information he noted on the forensic report from somewhere. Was it from Wassgren when she telephoned him after she interviewed the two women?
6. It is possible to deduce from analysis of the statements of Wilen’s other ‘witnesses’ that, bar one, they all may have first heard of Wilen’s “phobia” about HIV on or after Wilen contacted Ardin on 18 August 2010 – or indeed much later even than this. (I did a long post on one of the previous pages here looking at what each of the statements had to say on this “HIV phobia” issue.)
7. We don’t yet know where Ardin disappeared to the Thursday night before she met up with Wilen to go to the police. She told Assange she stayed out all night visiting a journalist friend. Maybe so, but is it possible she visited Wilen in Enkoping to finalise plans? The following morning Wilen travelled quite some distance to go to a ‘rape clinic’ hospital, despite having already been seen by one hospital several days previously (afternoon/evening of Tuesday 17 August, I believe).
Resident Dissident, 3.54pm
Not addressed to me, of course, but I’d like to address your points as they seem to be directed at me.
It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to me that others like yourself might disagree with my approach but one factor you overlook – the one truly unique thing in this case, absolutely not shared with a single other case like it anywhere in the world – is that a very large proportion of the prosecution evidence file has been leaked onto the internet. It is not inappropriate that serious researchers might use this resource to take a deeper look at what is undoubtedly a highly politicised case, or indeed to talk about their findings online. Nature of the beast.
I don’t understand what you mean by this: “evidenced by how you ignored Nick Davies response to your attack on him”. What attack [of mine] on Nick Davies please? And what response? Are you confusing me with someone else?
Neither have I attacked Jemima Khan. If you look at the comments to her New Statesman article I’m in there, congratulating her on producing a fair and balanced piece.
@ Axel:
You are perfectly right and my english is bad. The bougus email from Anna is not known in full length in public, and I did not write the fully email-address, only the start of that “name”, only Rudling was able to see the complete email string….
As some of you suspects a tie between Anna and Rudling, you should be aware of the following interesting detail.
Previous to Assanges trouble, Anna Ardin was the press spokes person for the Swedish “brotherhood” back in May 2010, when 9 (?) people was killed in the famous “Ship To Gaza-incident”. Back then only one journo was able to jump on the same plane as a bunch of swedes was thrown into with 1 hour prior notice as the were jailed up in Tel-aviv, The name of this journo is the same man as later in august made Assanges name public, does the name Niklas Svensson ring a bell…..?
There has been some investigation into this leak back in May, and the Swedish foregin-dept did not receive full info of the swedes when they were thrown out of Israel, but someone had to organize a airfare, as Israel does not pay for that, and it was the brotherhood that had to make a very quick booking = Peter Weiderud and Anna Ardin were the persons that had full knowledge of the upcoming deportation. The journa Niklas Svensson claims that he flew down in advance and then asked the booking staff at Ben Gurion airport on which flight they were booked, that has been dismissed as very bad lie due to the extreme security at that airport.
And in august, just 3 months later Ardin and Svensson is on the front page again. When the info of Assange came out, there were 2 reporters sitting at the Expressen news desk, while Niklas + 1 cameraman, was dining and drinking together with Carl Bildt and the swedish goverment at a place called Harpsund ( approx 2 hr drive from Stockholm). For a very strange reason, the cameraman later quoted that he received sms around 19hrs that Assange was wanted for rape, and that made both him and Niklas drive like crazy back to the newsdesk in central Stockholm (calculated speed to 140km/hr at 55 min driving time). There was no need for Niklas to get back to the newsdesk as there already were 2 reporter, still this is up in the blue why they both raced back, but as we know that civilian police was searching most nightclubs in the center of Stockholm that night, the most common to calculate is that Niklas wanted to have a photo taken when Assange got arrested, and therefore someone in the police was leaking/directing them were they were searching.
Arbed, ResDiss has form, he goes for the person who is asking awkward questions and who connects facts, and to ask chaotic questions is part and parcel of ResDiss repertoire.
looking at what is crystallising, thanks to Arbed’s most astute, almost judicial in its zest, sleuthing, it looks like Mr. Rudling is carrying out orders as well as AA.
What’s left? to follow the money?
How much influence has the Wallenberg empire since they joined the NYSE board? what was the deal? and was Julian Assange’s extradition to the US part of the deal? How much can the judiciary be influenced by economically central figures?
What is also left is the chance for AA to come clean, the world is asking how much more sub plotting and being discovered at it can you stand Ms. A? And three cheers to the Swedish public who now realises that Goran Rudlings pursuits, or lack of, could raise the question of who is steering him?
@arbed. Some very quick comments to your post:
Arbed wrote:
2. Uncertainty as to when and where this “piece of condom” evidence was collected from SW. Collected from her home? Passed to the police via one or other of the ‘rape clinic’ hospitals she visited? Submitted by Ardin along with her own “damaged”/faked condom evidence under the same docket number? If either of the latter two scenarios, what on earth was Wilen doing carrying around a “piece of condom” (and not the whole thing) when she claims she only wanted to get HIV tests done? That story does not make sense.
Response: Since Anna’s condom was collected at her flat by police Sara Wennerblom I guess that the same thing happened for Sofia a day or two later, certainly before the 25th of August.
Arbed wrote: 3. The redacted version of Wassgren’s memo says “rape was mentioned from the start” and “two women were seeking advice about earlier events they were unsure about”. This implies two women giving the same story.
Response: It looks like that. The same story could simply be a story that their common ex-lover was trying to have sex without a condom, or more specifically that he was actually tearing up the condoms. However “rape was mentioned from the start” is a formulation which does not reveal who did the mentioning. Was it one or both women?
Arbed wrote: 4. Donald Bostrom’s witness statement outlines how Ardin added one sentence – “I believe Sophia is telling the truth because the same thing happened to me” (or words to that effect) – which turned the whole thing into a formal complaint “because there were two women saying the same thing”. But there really isn’t a strong similarity between Ardin’s complaint and Wilen’s story according to her statement to Irmeli Krans (or, at least, the later doctored version of it we’ve all seen). Where does Ardin talk about being asleep when sex was initiated? Where does she talk about having had unprotected sex? The evidence we have available indicates their experiences weren’t particularly similar. So was their first story – the one they may have agreed on before going to the police station together, and which precipitated the original arrest – quite different from the stories they each later told.
Response: Yes, my impression is that their original stories, made up before they went to the police, were made to look more similar than they actually were. When Sofia is interrogated by Irmeli Krans the similarities start to crack up.
Arbed wrote: 5. There is no mention whatsoever of “pulling balloon sounds” or damaged condoms in Wilen’s statement to Irmeli Krans. Why not? Gehlin must have heard the information he noted on the forensic report from somewhere. Was it from Wassgren when she telephoned him after she interviewed the two women?
Response: It seems quite possible that it originates from the story that Linda W took from both women when they sat together. Anna mentions a “sound” in her formal witness statement. Sofia does not. But in his comment to the forensic report Gehlin refers to the “ballon sound” as something Sofia had reported.
Arbed wrote: 6. It is possible to deduce from analysis of the statements of Wilen’s other ‘witnesses’ that, bar one, they all may have first heard of Wilen’s “phobia” about HIV on or after Wilen contacted Ardin on 18 August 2010 – or indeed much later even than this. (I did a long post on one of the previous pages here looking at what each of the statements had to say on this “HIV phobia” issue.)
Response: Sofia sent an irritated text message to one of her friends during the night 16/17 that she had to take a HIV-test because Assange had spent so much time on foreplay (!). This text message could have been picked up by the Swedish security services that followed every step of Assange during his visit and probably tapped Anna’s and Sofia’s telephones as well as those of Assange. It would then have been simple to scare Sofia by claiming that Assange was perhaps already HIV-infected. All that was needed was another text message.
Arbed wrote: 7. We don’t yet know where Ardin disappeared to the Thursday night before she met up with Wilen to go to the police. She told Assange she stayed out all night visiting a journalist friend. Maybe so, but is it possible she visited Wilen in Enkoping to finalise plans? The following morning Wilen travelled quite some distance to go to a ‘rape clinic’ hospital, despite having already been seen by one hospital several days previously (afternoon/evening of Tuesday 17 August, I believe).
Response: I don’t think Anna went to Enköping on that Thursday, but it is not impossible of course. The speculation (pure speculation) has rather been that she visited her journalist friend Sonja Schwartzenberger who lived nearby. But it seems that the plot did change into a planned assault on Assange that Thursday evening.
Not Anna, but almost
Thank you very much indeed for all that. I personally already knew of everything you have set out, but that is only because I regularly review the Flashback forum using Google translate. However, due to the UK MSM taking the two-prong approach of either relentless smear against Assange or silence about the underlying facts of the case (I know, same in Swedish MSM…), very few who rely on the English-speaking media know about these things. That is why I have tried hard to keep this particular thread in Craig Murray’s blog open – so that you guys in Flashback had a way of getting your discoveries out into to the wider world. Craig’s blog is apparently the third most popular political blog (not sure whether that’s just in England, across Europe or even wider than that – still it means it’s very widely read). Please keep posting here!!
Thanks again for getting this info to us, and for setting it out so clearly.
Not Anna, But Almost and others. Trying to analyse Anna Ardin (Also known as Anna Bernardin) and her motivation is very difficult. She is suspected of having worked at the Swedish Embassy in Washington DC as well as the Swedish Embassy in Buenos Aries. CIA operatives are often among the most vocal in support of causes they do not really support. In other words they tell lies, their whole life is one big lie, because they have to create new lies to cover the old ones. They get themselves into the hierarchical positions in the organisations to which they belong by taking on extra work, or work which gets them noticed. Anna offered her flat to Julian Assange. Anna arrived back a day early. It was not Julian who asked her to come back early. Anna deleted texts which she thought might be incriminating to her rape-case, which was concocted days after the event. All these things make me really suspicious as to her role in the ‘Aid to Gaza’ episode. As a pro-Palestinian rights supporter, vegetarian for almost forty years, and a believer in both animal and human rights I ought to be supporting Anna Ardin, who also purports to support these causes. However, there are too many flaws in her character. I suspect she is only paying lip-service to the things I believe in.
http://www.marthamitchelleffect.org/#/assange-case-aa-cuba/4571327129
Sofia Wilen also began by doing a favour for Julian which would get her noticed.
Axel,
Thank you very much for that detailed response to my theory. It seems we both agree pretty closely on which pieces of evidence are required to decide on whether my theory has merit.
– the docket re the collection of the SW piece of condom
– unredacted version of Linda Wassgren’s memo
– the unredacted version of the 20 August Irmeli Krans statement (the undoctored version)
and, of course
– the suppressed 100+ SMS text messages between SW, AA and JA. By the way, did you see in John Pilger’s response to Alex Gibney’s New Statesman rant against Assange that he describes having seen this “critical evidence”, or at least some of these SMS? (see update at the bottom of the article):
http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/02/my-film-doesnt-abuse-julian-assange-story-about-wikileaks-facts-matter
Yes, that “irritated” text message to her friend was the “bar one” witness I was referring to who had knowledge of SW’s “HIV phobia” prior to, at the earliest, 18 August 2010. I too read this as “irritated” rather than worried – the sort of comment someone who was accustomed to regular HIV checks would make, as if it was akin to a boring chore (and maybe it was, given that Seth Benson had lived for many years in San Francisco?)
I’m also aware of the level of intelligence surveillance of Assange throughout his time in Sweden (courtesy of a very good Rixstep article on this) and the idea of a text ‘planting’ the rumour that Assange might be HIV-positive to set things off. Very little chance of unearthing further evidence to prove it, though. (Unless it’s in the suppressed SMS, of course… ;))
Thanks for the name of Ardin’s journalist friend Sonja Schwartzenberger – that’s new to me.
Best wishes. Thank you SO much.
Over two years on from when the claimants first made their complaints, there is much about the case that remains unclear and one has to wonder whether cases like this shouldn’t be subject to a media blackout until they are resolved. Whether by design or not, parties on both sides of the argument have been guilty of obfuscation, and this particular bystander no longer knows what to believe.
But I do know this: the Agreed Statement of Facts (from the UK Supreme Court), states that both AA and SW were worried about the consequences of unprotected sex with Assange and that SW wanted Assange to take an STD test:
“SW wanted the Appellant to get tested for disease. On 20th August 2010 SW went to the police to seek advice. AA accompanied her for support.”
This clearly shows that, contrary to what Mr Rudling believes, there was obviously talk of getting Assange tested for STDs.
The same document (the contents of which were attested to by prosecution and defence) claims that, although the claimants might have been interviewed on separate days, the formal reports from both claimants were filed on the 20th. This would seem to (but not necessarily) undermine Mr Murray’s thesis.
And one other thing. I wonder if Anna’s flat had audio and video surveillance in it. Who goes away and leaves their flat to a stranger? And if it is someone they would like to meet and get to know, they would want to cancel whatever else might interfere with such a union. She is an odd woman. My guess in this respect is that all the video and audio provided was Julian Assange working on his computer day and night. So not having the evidence they sent her back early to get some. Doesn’t she say somewhere in her statement that Julian seemed to want to spend all his time on the computer? Instead of paying her the attention needed to get him banged up for rape.
Arbed
My original question which I quoted was addressed to you.
So the prosecution leaked evidence – and it is also pretty clear that the defence and those around Assange have done exactly the same thing. I’m afraid that two wrongs do not make a right – and neitehr is a argument for conducting the case over the internet.
As for Nick Davies – you originally posted a link to an attack on him, without including one of his response to that attack. I very much doubt given your closeness to all matters on Assange that you were unaware of his response.
As for JK, I was quite careful not to accuse you of making such an attack, larely because I had neither the time or inclination to go back through your many postings. It would however, be disingenuous to say that other supporters of JA held back from attacking JK.
Nevermind – I ask awkward questions that go against the prevailing ethos on this blog – if that creates chaos so be it. You may believe that the prevailing ethos here is the one that is asking awkward questions of society as a whole. That is a view to which you are entitled – but it is somewhat arrogant to believe that it should go unchallenged, to say nothing about it being distinctly unhealthy. Perhaps you should read a little Orwell to understand what happens when “revolutionary” views go unchallenged.
Resident Dissident, 3.54pm
First this:
“your partisan approach to evidence (also evidenced by how you ignored Nick Davies response to your attack on him)”
8.49pm
And then this:
“As for Nick Davies – you originally posted a link to an attack on him, without including one of his response to that attack”
I am SO sorry. I was completely unaware that I was obliged to do so. In future, I shall take more care to also provide all comments and responses to the articles to which I link. 🙂
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/11/the-uk-supreme-court-susanne-maier-gerge42-and-the-truth/#more-1598
A comment by Robert Riley to Goran Rudling on the above blog –
Robert Riley on November 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm said:
“In short, if your answers are correct, the investigation phase is on- going and is legally stalled because JA cannot be brought before the prosecutor for interview.”
Let us remind ourselves of two very usual caveats:
That one has the right to the presumption of innocence, even in Sweden.
Under the European Court of Human Rights it is held that the (subject) right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 one wonders just what the power of ‘Interview’ would produce in such a circumstance. If Sweden has a case it would have done well by all concerned to have charged Assange.
My kindest regards,
R. Riley.
. . . . .
I have raised this issue twice before, to no avail – ie Assange’s right to silence and therefore the purpose of a prosecution that appears to depend on Assange’s self-incrimination. If Assange remains silent, are the police willing to go on and charge him? Will the prosecutors have enough evidence to win a conviction without Assange’s cooperation? If the answers are ‘No’, then what is the purpose of an extradition application purporting to facilitate an interview that can yield no incriminating evidence, no charges following that interview and therefore no prospect of a trial and conviction?
*sound of crickets*
@arbed March 3rd 8:36
I read the following in John Pilger’s update at the bottom of the article in New Statesman:
http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/02/my-film-doesnt-abuse-julian-assange-story-about-wikileaks-facts-matter
I “have reviewed all the discovered evidence including critical evidence of the women’s SMS exchanges.”
George Galloway made a similar remark at his Oxford Union talk. He had seen some of the SMS evidence, he claimed.
Now this surprises me somewhat. Hurtig has seen the SMS, but was not allowed to copy them or talk about them. So I assume that he, at the most, have been able to give an oral summary to Julian Assange. In the Swedish version of the 100-page leaked document there are plenty of references to the text messages (SMSs)scribbled in by hand (by Hurtig probably)in the margins. I don’t know if they are marked in the English translation.
It should be possible to construct a list of text messages, covering a certain proportion of those, by indirect evidence. Is this what Pilger refers to? Or is there a written assessment of their content based on talk that is circulating?
Hi Axel,
I note what you say that perhaps what Pilger is referring to is some reconstruction made from Hurtig’s handwritten notes in the margins, but no, I think what Pilger is saying is much, much more definite than that. John Pilger’s reputation as a journalist speaks for itself and if he is stating categorically that he has seen the “critical evidence” of the women’s SMSs then he has, fullstop. Please pass this info back to Flashback – it is a very important new development, in my view.
You also mention George Galloway’s hints about his knowledge of the Swedish case in his Oxford Union address. Here’s that video again, if you haven’t already got it. His speech was on 19 October 2012:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaeW_A1K7SY&feature=relmfu
Here’s George Galloway’s earlier podcast – in full – when he first mentioned that he had in his possession the women’s SMSs and they led him to believe “it’s a set-up”. It comes at around the 25 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4I5F05jNg
As I mentioned earlier Arbed “the big hairy creature under the bridge keeps appearing unexpectedly. Starvation is always the answer, but of course you know that.” Don’t feed the trolls. Their aim is to disrupt the flow.
Oh, I should have mentioned at 8.49 p.m yesterday. Genuine debate is one thing but disruption for the sake of it another.
Any legal eagles here please? Your assistance would be appreciated.
A DFAT document recently released under FOI laws in Australia seems to confirm the existence of the infamous sealed indictment/s for Assange and Wikileaks. It depends what exactly the word “pleadings” means in the context of a Grand Jury. Anyway, there’s six of them, they’ve existed since at least November 2011 and the document in question confirms:
“just cause for the continued sealing of the documents at issue because, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the United States, unsealing of the documents at this time would damage an ongoing criminal investigation”
The 26-page document (pdf) is linked in this article and the section about the sealed “pleadings” is on pages 10/11 of it:
http://darkernet.in/aussie-fm-lied-on-tv-show-re-wikileaks-grand-jury-proof/
Actually, here’s the pdf itself:
http://darkernet.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/dfat-foi-1212-F4791.pdf
Found out the answer to above query. These six “pleadings” relate to the 10 November 2011 motion to have the Wikileaks Three’s Twitter subpoenas unsealed, which was denied.
So… that means the sealed indictment for Assange is under paragraph s 22 1(a)(ii) on the previous page – the one with the bloody great X through it and ‘REDACTED’ written across the whole page…
Arbed
Absolutely right you are not obliged to respond – but that is the reason why trials should take place in court rather than on the internet – and those who present the evidence for one side and who are not prepare to countenance the arguments of the others, or just ignore those that they do not like, should not pretend that they have made a clear cut case. Yes John if you want to make out that you have a clear cut case one way or the other you have to accept a little disruption to the flow.
I’m afraid I’m still with JK, DAG (as you so kindly call him) and many others in believing that the best way to judge this case is through the Swedish legal process which from everthing I have seen is rather more robust that the kangaroo court processes that are favoured here.
Resident Dissident,
Do you review Flashback? It’s a very good indication of how Swedish citizens themselves view their nation’s judicial system in these types of cases.
Hi there, long time-no see….
Some interesting docs has just emerged from the Swedish state dep, it ties some persons within the Swartholm case directly to mr. Assange´s case, you have to use google-translate as most parts are in Swedish- but a lot of stuff is an eye-opener.
Sorry to see such much of forum-sliding taking place here, but it confirms that this blog in some eyes is getting to close to some details, but the majority here is aware of those dirty tricks.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/126352713/GSW2-pdf read and enjoy
Resi. Dissi. wrote:
“…the best way to judge this case is through the Swedish legal process which from everything I have seen is rather more robust that the kangaroo court processes that are favoured here”.
Response:
It is far from robust. It has been distorted from day 1 when the name of the accused was revealed to the press against the rule book. For the moment the process is stuck and inflexible. It did avoid, for 18 months, the use of Mutual Legal Assistance, which would have been the appropriate action. It lacked proportionality by using instead the EAW and an Interpol red alert. It disregarded, and continues to disregard, the interests of the two complainants, for whom a speedy questioning of Assange would have been so much better. Today it ignores totally the offer by the Ecuadorian government to conduct the questioning in their London Embassy.
In this way, the present Swedish prosecutor has avoided a decision whether or not to charge Assange. This is the important point. A lot flows from this non-decision. She avoids the question of whether or not any charge would be for crime against one or both women. Neither does she have to reveal for which crime she intends to charge Assange, if she indeed intends to do that at all. By not charging she also avoids showing her evidence, for what it is worth, to the accused or to his lawyers. They have been left in the dark for 2. 5 years now. The recent appeal against her way of conducting the case by two Swedish journalists, to the Justitie Ombudsman, was dismissed with the motivation that the process “is still going on”, in spite of the striking inactivity of the prosecutor. In other words, she protects herself from audit by holding everything at bay. And does sh answers questions from the press? No.
Derailed is a better characterization of the process than “robust” in this case.
A fierce letter sent last Friday from WikiLeaks ‘ambassador’ Joseph Farrell to Jemima Khan in response to her strange attack on Assange in the New Statesman has been leaked to Pastebin:
http://pastebin.com/rrhqvJ5Q
Well, that’s telling her then.