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.
Re: Rudling.
So instead of writing in your own blog, you jump over here and try to thrash it. (no readers I assume – craig wrote erlier of only 4 linkings…)
Btw -Craig – if you read this, please list Rudlings IP- it could help other to check this guy, especially as we suspect that he got at least 10 other names as well, not only on this blog
Rudling wrote: “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.”
Response: According to your sources? What sources?
Where was she?
1)I find it quite likely that she had met up with Sofia at Södersjukhuset.
2)The police document does not say that she was not at home. She did not sleep at home on Thursday night, true. But Julian moved out of her flat on Friday, it is quite possible that she could have returned on Friday morning or lunchtime.
Advise to Rudling: stop being a besser-wisser. stop insulting people. stop being destructive.
Cross-posting back from the “Craig Murray in Cotton Corruption Scandal” thread as there’s been some good discussion of the Assange vs Sweden case going on there.
Sorry, should have explained…
The above discussion was kicked off by this:
Göran Rudling “For you and your idiot friend Jemand”.
If I was Jermand I would take legal action against this foul-mouthed statement. The word “idiot” is one not even used by qualified medical staff. I quote:
“A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.”
Be careful Göran Rudling you are overstepping the boundary of what is considered decent. Your fight against rape would be considered admirable were it not for the fact that you want to redefine its meaning to include any man who makes advances to a woman and engages in consensual sex after being accepted with that woman. Now it would seem you would redefine the word “idiot” too.
Thanks John, it’s not fussing me too much. Goran is under a lot of pressure from both his advisers and those of us who sometimes lose patience with him. It must be a tough job he’s doing.
But, I am interested in asking Goran to clarify what assistance he has received from the UK and Swedish governments, as he has admitted before on this thread. I think it’s appropriate that commentators disclose what assistance, financial or otherwise, they receive in the interests of transparency.
In his last reply, Goran tried to cast doubt on his earlier admissions by facetiously listing obviously nonsensical sponsors. But the original admission is clear – the UK and Swedish governments have been sponsoring his work to discredit Julian Assange and this confirms our suspicions that anti-Wikileaks forces are at work in shaping public opinion on forums like this blog.
Jemand, what surprises me is how he changed from being a supporter of Assange to a supporter of Anna Ardin (whose own e-postings and tweets show what kind of a woman she is). If any government is funding Göran it would not be done openly, and is unlikely to be traceable back to government. Likewise the prosecution firm of Borgström and Bodström who are known to have long had ties with the US government are not doing this for the good of their health. And did you know that Julian’s interviewing police interrogator and friend of Anna Ardin, Irmeli Krans, is also a politician now?
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Irmeli-Krans/168867889836069?fref=ts
Politics is a shady business.
John Goss
Yes, the turnaround is curious without an explanation from Goran himself. That leaves us to speculate what caused it. I imagine that he started following the case out of personal interest and when he discovered those deleted tweets of Anna Ardin, he saw an opportunity to move from being a spectator to becoming a player. At some point, I imagine that he has been approached by ‘interested people’ who want to provide him with assistance on condition of him changing course – hence the turnaround. Of course it can only be speculation until Goran himself is prepared to supply a credible explanation of his behaviour.
Regarding Irmeli Krans and her Social Democrats political career – it fits perfectly with the narrative of a politically motivated scheme to destroy Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
RE: Jemand – Evolutionary Religion 101
Just a quick remark of history:
Anna Ardins deleted twitter was published and written about at swedish Flashback in aug 2010, 1 month later in sept 2010 mr Rudling picks this up himself and gets a free ticket to London. All those specs and links are some pages back here.
Bob Wright
(W)Right you are, Bob. Thanks. I’ve fallen into the trap of remembering only the oft repeated legend of the coach-driving folk hero who chanced upon a magic artifact on his journey to save princesses from the evils of men.
Anti-whaling Sea Shepard founder, Paul Watson, has Interpol alerts out on him. There were fears that he would be arrested in Australia and extradited to Japan. The Australian government has implied that he is free to enter Australia without risk of arrest and extradition.
“But … a person cannot be extradited from Australia in the absence of an Australian warrant and the approval of the Australian government in making decisions on requests for arrests warrants,” he said [Federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus speaking in Parliament].
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/govt-must-clear-air-on-anti-whaler-brown/story-fn3dxiwe-1226601515155
That sounds like standard international practice to me. Why can’t Sweden give similar assurances and admit to the fact that the Swedish government, likewise, must approve extradition requests?
The Interparliamentary union is meeting today in Quito, Ecuador.
http://www.ipu.org/conf-e/128agnd.htm
Flashback reports that there will be a discussion about Assange with Ecuadorian parliamentarians. At least one member of the Swedish Parliament’s Standing Committee on Legal Affairs (Justitieutskottet) will attend in Quito.
Query:
What happened with the demonstration outside the embassy ? (we mailed the listed address but no reply)
Hi Duqu,
It did happen, but it was pretty low-key. I certainly didn’t see much publicity going on for it so perhaps they just wanted to test the water for this first one, to see what kind of reaction it got – y’know, lots of nutters turn up, totally over-the-top police presence, etc (it looks from the photos as if someone has put out a few crowd control barriers in readiness). I couldn’t make it myself on the day in the end. Never mind, the article says they’ll be doing some more protests in future so I’d suggest you just email the contact person again and ask them to let you know when the next one is.
Activists head to Swedish embassy to demand guarantee of no further extradition:
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/03/507814.html
Jemand, you probably know this, but further to the last post about government-funding of various outlets, and why this funding is untraceable is complex. Here is my take on it. I have a very strong suspicion that Prime PR, of which Billy McCormac, buddy of Karl Rove, is an executive, is a CIA-funded outlet. Money flows in and out for getting key-speakers from department ministers right up to the prime minister. The PR company also arranges introductions for those wishing to influence government policy to pay an up-front figure for an introduction to key political players, again right up to the prime minister. The PR company, while paying the speakers, in turn takes a cut, as it does with introductions. This puts a political PR company, like Prime, in a very strong position, not only to influence policy itself, but to vet those who would also seek to influence policy. The CIA, MI5, MOSSAD and other secret services are masters at setting up businesses like these which ordinary individuals find hard to trace back to their front doors.
You may recall that Anna Ardin made a visit to Prime PR. Why would a supposed Palestinian supporter pay Prime PR a visit? Perhaps it is innocent. But the person the prosecution firm is keeping under wraps is Sofia Wilen, possibly because she is an innocent pawn in all this, and that would not blow the cover. However somebody with the same name has a job with Sony in Sweden as a project manager. Other than that, and her time in Wales as an art and photography student, there is little on her although she appears to have a LinkedIn account, if this is the same person, but she’s out of my network.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=2382506&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=dWcE&locale=en_US&srchid=6230b532-11ab-4a70-b1bc-e49ed36c776c-0&srchindex=1&srchtotal=2&goback=%2Efps_PBCK_sofia+wilen_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*2_*1_Y_*1_*1_*1_false_1_R_*1_*51_*1_*51_true_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2&pvs=ps&trk=pp_profile_name_link
@john goss,
Interesting speculation. About two years ago an inside leak revealed that Prime had paid members of the Swedish Labour Party (Socialdemokraterna)large grants to lobby for right wing policies in their own party. Niklas Nordström was one of the persons who was revealed to undertake such paid lobbying within the Labour Party. The money came from the Swedish Employers Union. This became a scandal and created bitterness within the Labour Party.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article8292920.ab
People referred to this as “Primegate”. Prime, skilful as they are, immediately opened a web pag called Primegate where they gave their spin to the whole story. http://primegate.se/
CIA? I don’t know. But nothing seems to be impossible in the shabby business of PR-companies. I believe that the account holders, like Billy McC, can use their own accounts with full discretion. No one else will be in a position to know exactly how much money an account holds and for what purposes an it is used.
John Goss,
Yes, I see what you mean. Businesses are set up to provide cover for foreign political influence. A public relations firm seems ideal because it naturally serves as a hub of a network of powerful people where contact between them can be coordinated. Large sums of money can be legitimately paid to and received by politicians and public officials under various guises but, in reality, it’s money for influence.
In the case of Prime PR, they appear to be a pre-existing business although that doesn’t prevent them from accepting fees from American businesses working on behalf of the US govt.
Prime PR –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Group
Reminds me of this fellow, convicted lobbyist –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
Salander, thanks very much for those two links. Yes, that is exactly how it works. It is how Tony Blair changed the UK Labour Party into another Tory Party. And look how rich Blair is! Nobody knows exactly where the slime-slick greasy cash eases through Blair’s blood-soaked hands into his various bank accounts but journalists do not seem to be able to trace it all. If Rudling was paid to change his opinions the first place I would start looking would be the accounts of Prime PR.
Jemand, thanks for the support, it does seem the most logical way of, let’s face it, ‘laundering’ money. Unfortunately these people appear to be untouchable. I tried to cover it with my amateurish cartoon called “Public relations” which I thought might have received more hits than it did.
Re: Prime PR. Back in late 2010 and early 2011, the astroturfing campaign “#prataomdet” was all over the Swedish media, and it was quite successful in shaping public discourse on the Assange case. The campaign encouraged ordinary people to talk about their personal experiences of rape and “grey zone” sex, in the context of the Assange rape case. Assange was effectively made a poster boy for rape.
Before #prataomdet, media coverage of the case had been reasonably even-handed. There had been a fair share of skeptical and critical voices. After the campaign, these voices were all but gone. No one wanted to be branded a rape apologist by the Swedish cultural elite.
The campaign was presented to the public as a grassroots movement, but it had in fact been coordinated and launched by a group of journalist friends of Anna Ardin, who had links to every major Swedish media outlet. The impact was enormous.
There is a long and fascinating thread on Flashback where the birth of the campaign is mapped out in great detail. One persistent rumour is that Prime PR were somehow involved. Certainly, some of the participants had links to Prime, as well as to the right wing think-tank Timbro – home of Roland Poirier Martinsson, prominent Assange-hater and personal friend of Karl Rove. But most were probably in it because they believed in the cause. Quite a few had personal ties to Ardin. But were they somehow “encouraged” by people close to Prime?
AFAIK, no proof was ever found of Prime’s involvement. But #prataomdet had all the hallmarks of a professional PR campaign, and for those interested in Billy McCormac and Prime, it’s not a bad place to start digging.
https://www.flashback.org/t1433249
LOOKOUT FOR THIS
http://assangeinswedenbook.com/
Best regards from Sweden
Just a reflection.
Our good friend Göran Rudling changed header to English.
http://samtycke.nu/
I thought the concept of this site was to change Swedish sex law (into contract signing before penetration) not English sex law.
Mr “my penis is beautiful” is a shady motherf.
Bob-Wright is Goran Rudling.
Interesting developments:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/assange-prosecutor-quits-while-accuser-sacks-lawyer-20130328-2gwjk.html
And on the mentioned Stefan Lindskog, see this:
http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/201201/17/20120117110023_Realtid743/20120117110023_Realtid743.dbp.asp
same with ggle translate: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=fi&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realtid.se%2FArticlePages%2F201201%2F17%2F20120117110023_Realtid743%2F20120117110023_Realtid743.dbp.asp
Lifad, 7.48am
Interesting indeed…
It will be interesting to see whether Sophie Wilen retains Claus Borgstrom as her lawyer because there has never been any confirmation – other than from Borgstrom himself – that she’s had any dealings with him. He’s claimed at various points that he’s “spoken to both women” but that can only be verified in AA’s case.
Also interesting in that article is the fact that it’s taken AA from 28 February until now to receive permission from the Swedish authorities to change her State-appointed (and State-paid) lawyer, which contrasts markedly from how long it originally took politician/lawyer Claus Borgstrom to get himself appointed onto the case: three days, from 24 August 2010 when he was first telephoned by AA until 27 August 2010 when he petitioned his old friend Marianne Ny to reopen the closed case. Significantly (and this is a matter of public record, confirmed by Borgstrom) AA didn’t know it was even possible to get a case reopened. So why did she phone him? Claus Borgstrom is mostly known as a defence lawyer.
Hello, any visiters from Flashback around? I wonder if I could ask a favour?
It would be a great boon to English-speaking supporters of Assange to have these pages of Claus Borgstrom’s $17,000+ bill to the Swedish Prosecution Authority translated line-by-line:
http://bayimg.com/iAlCGaAeB
http://bayimg.com/IaLCHaAeb
http://bayimg.com/iaLckaAeb
http://bayimg.com/IalCMaAEB
I’m particularly intrigued by the reference to “USA” at the bottom of the third page. Also, these line items:
110427
110718
110725
110815
So far, as far as I can work out:
a) it seems true that Claus Borgstrom has NEVER represented Sophie Wilen at all. She’s not mentioned once in Borgstrom’s account of his work.
b) Ardin tried to get an “amicable settlement” with Assange after she was questioned by police on 27 April 2011. Then she gets questioned AGAIN on 15 August 2011. However, I understand civil settlements of this nature are not possible in Sweden in cases where the nature of the allegations makes them a matter for the public prosecutors, ie criminal cases.
Do you think it’s likely that AA being questioned by police three or four times is to do with the faked condom evidence?
@ arbed
although I am not with Rixstep, the reference to USA says “extradiion to USA”, so he is referring to “reviewing” (genomgång) of diffrent legal texts, incl. the legislation in place regarding extration between Sweden and USA.
@arbed
have a look here: http://rixstep.com/1/20130328,00.shtml
Hi Lifad,
Just read Rixstep’s translation but I can see no mention from him of the “extradition to USA” part, although it’s clearly visible on the scans of Borgstrom’s bill. What’s going on?
Hi Arbed
Sophie Wilen might not appear on the account, as it is presented here, because it is a separate service or Borgstrom has not finished providing services. I think that privacy issues would necessitate discrete billing in any case.
“amicable settlement” – in civil matters, this implies compensating an aggrieved party for losses that can be described in material or monetary terms. In criminal matters, it makes no sense and suggests that there was no crime to begin with.
Police questioning of Ardin could be for anything, including that sinister fabrication of evidence (the now infamous fake torn condom). Perhaps this condom caused a rift between her and Borgstrom resulting in a parting of ways. Ardin might have invested so much in this case that she has become desperate for it to amount to something – at the very least, a vindication of her conduct. Various online accounts of her behaviour, attitudes and adventures depict a person who is restless, ambitious and quite prepared to engage in ethically questionable conduct (eg steps to revenge). The credibility of any complainant of a crime is always relevant.
I don’t think that a collapse of this case will present an easy outcome for Assange. There is probably an expectation that he will just walk out of the Ecuadorean embassy and resume his work without obstruction. The UK and US have certainly developed contingencies to embroil Assange in a series of problems, legal and otherwise, to bring his work on Wikileaks to a halt.
Assange needs to come home to Oz – secretly, by boat, unannounced. He is safest here, in my view. Any attempt to extradite him to the US would be met with an aggressive public backlash. Even the comparatively unpopular David Hicks caused a big problem for the Howard Liberal Govt. And if he makes it back to Oz, he can no longer travel abroad for fear of being apprehended in a US friendly port. His days as a free man are over, even as a senator.
@arbed
yes, the rixstep translation is only for the dates, not the “appendix” where B lists related work, like reviewing law texts, phone calls, mails etc.
I would gree what Jemand said – this bill is about AA only as he finished her job. No reason to mention SW.