Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar 2008


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.

Anna tweets at 14.00:

‘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.

Liked this article? Share using the links below. Then View Latest Posts


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

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

1 38 39 40 41 42 67
  • Duqu

    Re: Arbed (Ardin matter)

    She erased her pictures and twitter (as usual) so your link is now incorrect and not working. But as we on Flashback keeps our eyes open we also saves matters that we know is in a risk to be deleted. So f you still want to see the porn picture, here you are:

    http://bayimg.com/dAkAKaAEH

    Btw, she have an account on “happypancake.se” (dating site), I think that photo should be her official dating profile as a corrupt swedish feminist, but that is another story….

  • Arbed

    Thanks Duqu.

    Glad that one’s recorded for posterity.

    http://bayimg.com/dAkAKaAEH

    It angers me really (hence my sarcasm above). Anna Ardin’s antics and her self-imposed ‘victim’ status give genuine rape victims a very bad name. Meanwhile, of course, Assange has been bankrupted and driven to refugee status because of this woman’s lies.

  • John Goss

    I think the above photograph posted by Arbed and Duqu speaks volumes about the type of woman she is. I have never seen or heard anything so crude come from the Julian Assange stable.

    I will do a short blog on it.

  • Arbed

    Hey Duqu and Flashbackers,

    Not sure about any of the details yet, ie. date, but I hear that there’s going to be a demonstration by Assange supporters later this month outside the Swedish embassy in London, with maybe a letter to the Swedish ambassador handed in.

    Any of you guys fancy a daytrip over to London? I believe there’s a couple of Swedish people based over here helping out with banners and stuff but the more, the merrier…

  • duqu

    Re: @arbed > demonstration.

    Interesting, do you have any contact-info that I can post on Flashback for those that may be interested to swing over….
    Hopefully-someone puts it up on Bambuser or somewere else so those that cannot travel could join via internet.
    One thought directly, I think 4 corners in Australia would be very pleased to gain some footage over that event, and one
    crazy suggestion would be a huge paper blowup of Ardins shoes with the text, swedish justice keeps walking down the ditch….

  • Arbed

    Hi Duqu,

    I just learned about it this morning. I haven’t got any details on the date or anything yet, but I will certainly let you know as soon as I can. It’s being organised by the good people who maintain a daily vigil outside of the Ecuadorian embassy, so I suppose you could try them. Their twitter account is @LONFowl.

    I posted the info below on another of Craig’s threads this morning. Do you think there’s anything that can be done with it?

    The latest news out of Sweden is that the Ecuadorian offer to interrogate Assange in the London embassy that was hand-delivered by the Ecuadorian ambassador in Stockholm on 25 July 2012 was not only passed by the Swedish FO to their “America section” but also to the official within the Swedish Justice Department responsible for Mutual Legal Assistance.

    This link says there was some kind of marginal mark “For further action”. They did nothing, of course. It’s also debatable whether either the FO or the Justice Department even bothered to pass this offer to the Chief Investigator of the case, Marianne Ny.

    http://twitlonger.com/show/l8anr8

    And they say the case has nothing to do with the Swedish government, it’s “purely a judicial matter”. Pull the other one.

    This shows two things:

    1) contrary to Carl Bildt’s statement last year that to question Assange in London would be ‘unconstitutional’ for Sweden (he said this in person to Jennifer Robinson but was quickly shot down about it by Swedish legal experts), the Swedish Justice Ministry does have a section dealing with the use of Mutual Legal Assistance to questions suspects abroad; and

    2) the case is being controlled over there by the Justice Ministry, not the case prosecutor. Interestingly, one of the points raised in the UK Supreme Court hearing over whether a prosecutor was an appropriate ‘judicial authority’ for the purposes of an EAW was that a Minister of Justice, being part of the executive, was certainly not. It should be in the transcript of the hearing somewhere. I’ll try to dig it out.

  • resident dissident

    Axel

    I would have thought that most prosecutors in most reputable legal systems would hold on making a charge until they had the opportunity to question the accused. I don’t pretend to argue that all in the Swedish legal process is robust – I doubt that could be said of any legal system – but it is certainly more robust than trial by internet. And if you need evidence of that latter statement perhaps you might just want to look at the character assassination of Ardin that has taken place this week – do you really beleive that any of that would be considered admissible evidence in a robust legal system?

  • axel

    @Resi Dissi,
    There has been many opportunities to question Assange, first in Sweden, then for 18 months during house arrest when he visited the British police every day, now in the Ecuadorian Embassy. “A reputable system” would have used these opportunities. I am sure you know about Mutual Legal Assistance in European Law.

    In fact, Assange has already been questioned in Stockholm once about the Anna Ardin accusations. That should have been enough for a decision to charge or not charge regarding those accusations. It seems that the Prosecutor does not want to show her hand.

    A trial by internet is not pretty, I agree on that. A trial by media is even uglier. That is why the inaction of the Swedish prosecutor is immoral. The best you can say to her defense is that it might not any longer be her own decisions whether to proceed or not.

    The note from the Ecuadorian embassy, of July 25th 2012, with an assurance that the Ecuadorian government would do everything in its power to facilitate the questioning of Assange, was never forwarded to the Prosecutor, Marianne Ny. The foreign office forwarded it, the same day, to Per Hedvall at the Ministry of Justice. His unit, BIRS, deals with European Arrest Warrants and Mutual Legal Assistance. They were in fact the people that certified the EAW, which Marianne Ny handed in to the British legal system in December 2010. Why did they not let Marianne Ny see the note this time? We know this because she wrote to Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Samuelsson, that she heard rumours in the media about an offer to question him at the embassy. Very embarrassing for her. It suggests strongly that she is not in charge any more. I conclude that either there is a war between the Prosecutor and the Ministry, or the Prosecutor is not an independent judiciary any more.

    Can’t you see that the whole process is derailed long ago.

  • Jemand - Evolutionary Religion 101

    @Resident Dissident

    Why would the Swedish prosecutors hold back on charging Assange if they already have enough evidence to prosecute? What do they hope to accomplish by interviewing Assange if he will not incriminate himself? Indeed, he has the right to remain silent without any prejudice, has he not? The prosecutors have had plenty of time to investigate and to lay charges if they have sufficient evidence but so far they have chosen not to. Quite obviously, they don’t have a case.

    I’m not sure why you object to people discussing this case on the internet. There is no trial here, no legal outcomes from the dozens of opinions that float around in cyberspace. The Swedish police started the public discussion when they leaked details to the media. Why did they do that? It’s a conversation about a highly suspicious matter involving a very important person. Even Putin has weighed in with his opinion. But if you do object, why are you participating in it?

  • resident dissident

    Jemand/Axel

    I am most pointedly not participating in the trial by internet – I have not expressed any view whatsoever on the guilt of Assange or the others involved in the case. You may have formed the view that there is no case to answer – that was not the view of the UK or Swedish Courts, or of those former Assange supporters who believe that Assange should go back to Sweden to answer the case against him. You are obviously interested parties who are only prepared to see one side of the argument.

    I can see quite legitimate reasons why the Swedish legal system is not prepared to take evidence outside its jurisdiction – and why the Swedish Govt take the view that it should support its own legal system. I think what is going on here is rather more than discussion of the case – but is rather a very attempt to present a partial view of a case often organised by those who are close to Assange and his legal advisers. There is very little in the way of allowing those with alternative views to present their case and/or cross examine the case being put by the defence. Many have already been led into expressing views on innocnce/guilt of the various parties on the basis of what is at best incomplete evidence.

    BTW Putin’s view on legal cases, especially those involving someone who is one of his employee, carry very little weight in my opinion, given that man’s near total disregard for proper legal processes.

  • Jemand - Evolutionary Religion 101

    Resident Dissident.

    There is no internet trial. It’s a discussion full of lots of different opinions. For better or worse, Putin’s is just one of many. The internet has dozens of websites that report and blog about the case, like this one, and you are more or less free to participate in the various overlapping discussions that are taking place on those sites. Whether you like me to observe this fact or not, you are indeed participating in a discussion.

    I don’t think that either the UK or Swedish courts have made judgements about there being a case to answer. My understanding, correct me if I am wrong, is that the UK courts only judged the validity of the EAW. It never examined the validity of charges, probably because charges have not been laid. Whether there exists a case to answer is normally determined by a preliminary hearing after charges have been laid and the defendent is in custody and able to be presented to the court (so-called habeus corpus). So far, there is no statement from the Swedish courts that there is a case to answer. 

    Maybe you will agree with me, but Assange has a right to the presumption of innocence and when you understand what that means you might agree that he then has the right to demand fair treatment regardless of what powers the law provides prosecutors. I don’t think it is fair that he should be held incommunicado for extensible periods of time that amount to indefinite detention. He has every right to resist unfair treatment.

    You didn’t explain what the Swedes hope to accomplish by interviewing a man who will not incriminate himself or exercise his right to silence. If they have enough evidence without his cooperation surely they should be preparing to charge him.

  • axel

    Resident Dissident wrote:
    “I think what is going on here is rather more than discussion of the case – but is rather a very attempt to present a partial view of a case often organised by those who are close to Assange and his legal advisers.”

    Response: I can assure you that you are wrong on this point. I am not close to Assange in any way, never met him, seen him or been in touch in any other way. The same would be true for the majority of the critics in Sweden. But I am, and many others are, impressed by his work with Wikileaks. Assange asked, August 18th 2010, for permanent residence in Sweden to establish Sweden as a base for Wikileaks publishing activities, protected by Swedish constitution. This was denied, of course.

    My motive is an embarrassment with the way the Swedish legal system has been handling the accusations from the two women. It is also motivated by the way the Swedish political system has dealt with US pressures against Wikileaks establishing itself in Sweden. Both processes are intertwined; has been from day 1. It smells of corruption. So far no-one of authority is interfering to put things right. It is as simple as that. Surely, we must dig out the facts.

  • resident dissident

    Jemand

    I’m sorry I don’t buy your argument – saying that there is a presumption of innocence is not the same as saying that someone has a right to avoid an appearance before the legal authorities – even if they exercise their right to remain silence. Otherwise – anyone could avoid helping the police/prosecuting authority with their enquires. The only person holding Assange incommunicado at present is Assange himself.

    Axel

    I’m glad you are not connected with Assange’s legal defence – would others be prepared to offer that assurance?
    Of course you are entitled to your view that the Swedish legal system is incapable of acting independently from the political system which in turn is not capable of operating independently from the US political system. This would of course be an argument that many others could employ to avoid prosecution whenever they could demonstrate a link to the US – I don’t think you have thought through the consequences of European legal systems of allowing such a defence e.g. who would define which cases qualify and which don’t? Would common assault/burglary/acts of terrorism against US targets in Europe in effect become crimes for which you could avoid arrest/questioning? I should also point out that many have pointed out that Assange’s situation vis-a-vis a prosecution from the US for his Wikileaks activity is little different whether or not he choses to face the music in Stockholm – and actually my guess is that it would be significantly strengthened if he were to go to Sweden and prove the accusations to be as baseless as you and his many supporters believe them to be.

  • Arbed

    This was a reply to someone’s query on another thread but I’m reproducing it here as I know there are some readers who probably only read this thread. The article linked within it contains some useful statistics of a general nature, as well as a couple of comments specific to the Assange case.

    Ok, this article contains a goodly selection of statistics on the subject of false rape reports. As you will see, there is no conclusive answer on the matter but, before you object to the author’s comments regarding Assange’s case, please bear in mind that it was written on 23 August 2010, at which date the case against him had “been dismissed as groundless by the Swedish authorities, who are still investigating the charge of sexual assault, The Times reports today (p 25)”, as the article reports. I’m afraid there are no statistics compiled that directly relate to your query about the production of false physical evidence, as opposed to merely making false statements – a sign perhaps that this course of action is indeed very, very rare.

    http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/crying-rape-falsely-rare-or-common

    However, one does not need statistics to point out the logical fallacy in your argument that genuine rape victims sometimes hand in false evidence to the police (and remember we are talking about false physical evidence here – a condom which has been manipulated to appear used and ‘torn’ but which, on forensic examination, contains no DNA whatsoever, not even the woman’s own DNA) – if the story you are telling is true, you do not need to fabricate evidence.

  • Arbed

    Resident Dissident, 8.09pm

    many have pointed out that Assange’s situation vis-a-vis a prosecution from the US for his Wikileaks activity is little different whether or not he choses to face the music in Stockholm – and actually my guess is that it would be significantly strengthened if he were to go to Sweden

    Not if the Swedish government’s latest move – to expand their current laws regarding “foreign espionage” – are successful:

    http://www.expressen.se/debatt/krigsjournalistik-maste-fa-vara-fri/

    Even the Swedish MSM are extremely worried about this latest announcement and seem to see it as especially worrisome for journalists. Here’s Flashback’s full discussion of the implications for Assange of this new legal push, in which they set out chapter and verse with how it fits in with Sweden’s extradition laws:

    https://www.flashback.org/t1275257p4339

    You’ll have to use Google translate for both links – sorry about that – although perhaps either Axel or Duqu would be kind enough to provide us with a better English translation?

  • axel

    Resi Dissi wrote:
    “Of course you are entitled to your view that the Swedish legal system is incapable of acting independently from the political system which in turn is not capable of operating independently from the US political system. This would of course be an argument that many others could employ to avoid prosecution whenever they could demonstrate a link to the US – I don’t think you have thought through the consequences of European legal systems of allowing such a defence…”

    Response: Thank you for allowing me to hold such a view. It is based on knowledge, rather than speculation. US exercised heavy pressure on Sweden in the weeks before the rape case exploded. The prime minister was asked on television of whether he was ready to resist such pressure. Let me also point out to you that Sweden was (and still is) brother-in-arms with the US and Britain in Afghanistan, a very controversial issue in the parliamentary election that took place in Sweden a couple of weeks after the sex allegations were made. The topic of Assange’s seminar in Stockholm was exactly on this issue: the afghan war. Its title: “the first casualty in war is truth”.

    I am only giving you this background (which I think you are unaware of) to make you understand that the political pressures surrounding the legal process were immense. They also provide the most logical way of explaining its many unexpected turns and twists.

  • Arbed

    Duqu, 9 Mar 4.23pm

    More details on the demo:

    A one-off demonstration outside the Sweden embassy in London – 11 Montagu Place, London W1H 2AL – in support of Julian Assange, and to demand that he be questioned by the Swedish authorities here, will start from 3pm on Tuesday 19th March. (I expect it will last until at least 6pm to give some people a chance to come down after work – if they work in the city, that is.)

    Anyone who wants further details can email [email protected]

    I’m going myself. It would be great if a couple of people from Flashback could come over to show that disgust at the way in which this investigation is being run is shared by Swedish people too. Please can you repost this notice in the forum? Many thanks.

  • duqu

    Thanks for your info – its out on Flashback as well, we got your or whoever it was -message there as well.
    Duqu

  • Arbed

    A very clear explanation from Flashback of how what happened to the 25 July 2012 hand-delivered Ecuadorian offer to facilitate Assange’s interrogation at their embassy – and particularly Marianne Ny’s seeming exclusion from the Swedish response to that – shows that the UK Supreme Court’s decision that a Swedish prosecutor is an independent and “impartial judicial authority”, and not part of the executive, was completely and utterly wrong.

    https://www.flashback.org/sp42419603

  • Arbed

    I thought I would copy these parts of a conversation on another thread to here, because they are so revealing of the kind of misunderstanding of Assange’s case in the UK (due principally to misreporting by the UK press):

    Yes, it’s very curious, isn’t it, that despite the fact that Marianne Ny’s EAW is dated 6 December 2010 she chose to submit to the UK court the unsigned version of SW’s statement (the one Irmeli Krans entered into the police computer system, as instructed “with the necessary changes”, on 26 August 2010). It was Bjorn Hurtig (might have been Claus Borgstrom too) who confirmed that a further statement was taken from SW on 2 September 2010 (which presumably she did sign) – and yet Ms Ny chose to present the earlier, unsigned version to the UK court. She would only confirm – not under oath, of course, because she didn’t attend the hearing herself – that the later, signed statement “said substantially the same thing”…

    Hmm. Nothing fishy about that, is there? It’s not as if 2 September to 6 December is a particularly long timescale for a prosecutor to get her court filings together, is it?

    CE

    “I strongly doubt that the kind of unsigned statement to which you refer would have been allowed to pass through numerous courts of law without objection.”

    CE,

    Wanna know how it happened?

    18 November 2010 – Swedish District Court looked at a one-page summary presented by Marianne Ny to grant the domestic arrest warrant she requested. The court hearing took 1 hour, 45 minutes.

    24 November 2010 – The Svea Court of Appeal refused to hear Assange’s appeal.

    February 2011 – Justice Howard Riddle at Belmarsh Magistrates Court granted the extradition appeal, based solely on the wording of the EAW warrant. See my comment above about it being the unsigned version of SW’s statement dated 26 August 2010 which was submitted as part of the prosecution file. If you wish, I will try to dig out a link confirming the quote from Marianne Ny I give above concerning her reasons for not using the later, signed statement from SW (although this was known to exist). Riddle made it clear in his judgment that under the terms of the EAW Framework Directive it was not within the requesting state’s remit to examine the “underlying evidence” so he did not look at any of it. Indeed, these are the rules of the EAW extradition process – under it the UK courts do not seek to establish whether there is a prima facie case to answer.

    July 2011 – Justices Thomas and Ouesley (spelling?) did look at the women’s statements during Assange’s High Court appeal but again, in accordance with the rules of the EAW Framework Directive, they were not allowed to take any of the underlying evidence into account in their decision. They were, in fact, concerned with only two issues: whether Assange was a ‘suspect’ or an ‘accused’ for the purposes of an EAW and whether an investigating prosecutor was a proper ‘judicial authority’ to issue an EAW.

    February 2012 – UK Supreme Court did not look at the case itself at all. They accepted to hear Assange appeal solely for the purposes of a point law of “great public importance” – the issue of whether an investigating prosecutor was a proper ‘judicial authority’ in accordance with the UK’s Extradition Act 2003. Astonishingly, this had never come up in an English court before so there were no prior legal authorities on the question, hence the Supreme Court felt it an urgent point of law to deliberate. They decided, scandalously in my view – and Craig’s, if you recall – that a Swedish case Chief Investigator/prosecutor is a suitably impartial judicial figure. Nonsense, of course, but there you have it. We can all be extradited at the whim of foreign policemen now thanks to the precedent the Supreme Court set with Assange’s case.

    So, you see, an unsigned witness statement managed to make it through five courts without a single peep from anyone. All totally legal and following the ‘proper’ processes. All boxes ticked and correct. A marvellous thing, our legal system, isn’t it?

    “that a Swedish case Chief Investigator/prosecutor is a suitably impartial judicial figure. Nonsense, of course, but there you have it. We can all be extradited at the whim of foreign policemen now thanks to the precedent the Supreme Court set with Assange’s case.”

    Rubbish Swedish prosecutors are not policemen – a simple search of Wikipedia or even an episode of Wallander would demonstrate that this is not the case. they are officers of the court employed by a separate prosecuting authority. Many European countries employ a similar system.

    Resident Dissident, 9.39am

    Rubbish Swedish prosecutors are not policemen – a simple search of Wikipedia or even an episode of Wallander would demonstrate that this is not the case

    But a better source might be the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s own website in English, where it is set out very clearly that Swedish prosecutors do indeed have a dual role: investigators of preliminary investigations (though the police are usually in sole charge of very minor offences) and/or prosecutors as the case moves from preliminary investigation to an actual prosecution:

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Preliminary-investigation/Police-or-prosecutor/

    The Swedish Prosecution Authority themselves admit this peculiar arrangement whereby the prosecutor is both policeman [therefore part of the State executive] and the judicial figure deciding on prosecution matters (there are only two European countries which have this prosecutorial dual role, Sweden being one of them) can lead to acccusations of a lack of impartiality in the Swedish judicial system. They have therefore built-in a legal obligation on prosecutors – called the Objectivity Demand – to take into account any evidence favourable to the suspect in their decision-making:

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Objectivity-demand/

    Of course, Assange’s supporters point out that Marianne Ny’s self-elected role as Chief Investigator on this particular preliminary investigation, in which the strongest of the allegations is labelled “[minor] rape less serious offence”, would ordinarily be left with the police, and her ‘overlooking’ of a forensic report showing no DNA on the condom evidence handed in by one of the complainants which she had in her possession at least three weeks before writing out an international arrest warrant for a suspect’s extradition does not meet either of these requirements of the Swedish judicial system.

    You are probably unaware of this Resident Dissident but there are a lot of clear miscarriages of justice in the Swedish system. Thomas Quick is currently the most famous example, but there are plenty of others.

  • Arbed

    The view from Sweden…

    First, back in January 2011, on Marianne Ny’s dubious use of an EAW warrant:

    http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsmill.se%2Fartikel%2F2010%2F12%2F17%2Futl-mning-av-assange-svenskt-r-ttsv-sen-p-svartfisketur

    and, in July 2012, on the British government’s extraordinary invitation that the Swedish prosecutor could partake in her extradition case against Assange in London, not as a witness or to make statements under oath, but undercover:

    http://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fnyheter%2Finrikes%2Faklagare-erbjods-tackmantel-i-london_7339304.svd

  • axel

    The offer to Marianne Ny from the British Crown Prosecution Service to attend the British Court, disguised as a young law student, is hilarious. She is approaching 60 and must have been flattered.

    More seriously, where people not asked to show an ID when entering these proceedings. Or does the CPS provide false ID:s? 🙂

  • Göran Rudling

    Axel,

    Rudling is suddenly quiet.

    I am not quiet. It is Craig Murray that thinks he can keep me out of this debate by blocking my IP address. Craig, the great defender of free speech, is using censorship again.

  • Göran Rudling

    Axel,

    Your comments makes me convinced you are as interested in the truth about the Assange case as Arbed, duqu, Jemand and the grand wizard of the Assange Klan, the coward Craig Murray (and some other mental midgets).

    Regarding Craig Murray’s false claim that Anna Ardin took Sofia Wilén across town to Klara Närpolisstation. A few weeks ago I told you that the best and nearest police station for the two women involved, one at Södersjukhuset and the other at Sveavägen 68, was Klara Närpolisstation. (Axel, it is the best and nearest police station for two heterosexual men too, can you believe it?) And it is the only choice considering that one of the women had to leave for Enköping by train after the visit. What is your response apart from saying “I have never seen that information before”? Nothing really.

    Let’s look at your argument. You think that the best and nearest police station is the one at Torkel Knutssongatan. In order for you to come to this conclusion you have to make the assumption that Anna Ardin was at her home before she went to the police. Is there anything in the official documents that support this assumption? No. Nothing. The truth is actually contrary to your assumption. Anna Ardin and Julian Assange have confirmed in their police statements that Anna was not at home during the hours prior to the visit to the police station. So your assumption is just as stupid as Craig Murray’s.

    Where was Anna prior to the visit to the police station? According to my sources she was at work. At Sveavägen 68. The police documents support she wasn’t at home. So your assumption is simply wrong. What do you do when your assumption is obviously false? You maintain your argument Craig Murray style. No matter what the facts are you just go on and on and on.

    Axel. Please. Just tell me if one person is at Södersjukhuset and another is at Sveavägen 68 and they have to meet before one of them is taking off for Enköping by train, where is the best place to meet?

    When you answer this question we can advance this discussion.

  • Göran Rudling

    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?

    For you and your idiot friend Jemand. I am paid by many governments (UK, US, Iran, North Korea, Sweden, Japan, Norway, Andorra) and the Boy Scouts of Canada to discuss the case online.

1 38 39 40 41 42 67

Comments are closed.