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.
Arbed. Good questions.
John Goss, 6.07pm
Thanks. Unfortunately – despite Duqu’s best efforts – my questions got completely buried in Flashback (which has been taken over by a very annoying troll, who has distracted the entire forum).
I’m not on Twitter so I have no other way of contacting someone like Espressino to get these questions on to a Twitlonger and fired at Australian supporters – @jaraparilla, @JLLLOW, @AssangeC, @karwalski, @akaWACA – who might be able to make some use of them. I’m very conscious of the fact that Australia is 12 hours ahead of us here, so Stefan Lindskop’s lecture is effectively in about 18 hours’ time.
Got any ideas who else I could try to get these questions in a Twitlonger?
Re: Arbed.
You sure of 18 hrs left…? Leccture is wed april 3 7-9pm local time CDT. Current time zone offset: UTC/GMT +10:30 hours
That gives me the conversion of +8:30 hrs for Sweden and 9:30 hrs for UK as we just switched to summertime in europe.
Sweden: = Wed april 3 10;30 to 12:30 CET Stockholm
UK = Wed april 3 09:30 to 11:30 BST London
So right it is approx 25 hrs to leccure as this is written 08:45 local sweden (07:45 BST)
BTW Flashback is down right now…..
Hi Arbed – John Goss
Very good questions, I have passed it on to contacts in Australia who may be able to assist in getting the message across.
R.
@ Arbed – xlnt questions 🙂
tweeted @jaraparilla, @JLLLOW, @AssangeC, @karwalski, @akaWACA
to have a look here for the Qs
keep up the good work 🙂
Hi Arbed, I’ve been engrossed in other concerns and missed your comment at 9.52
However, as you can see, Rastafari – Sweden has picked up on this and got your excellent questions to Australia. I will try with my contacts if not too late.
John
Thanks Lifad. I too have contacted someone but I guess it is a bit late now. Hopefully some of these searching questions will be asked.
Thanks, everyone above, for coming to my rescue.
I see they’ve been tweeted across to Australia now:
https://twitter.com/marthagroup/status/319073507382263808
https://twitter.com/marthagroup/status/319073765491343361
https://twitter.com/marthagroup/status/319074534349230080
The addressees on those tweets should guarantee a pretty wide distribution, haha! 🙂
The official Wikileaks Party website now open for business –
http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/
Well done Arbed. My contact tells me he’s distributed them also. And thanks Jemand for the Wikileaks party link. In addition the barrister Greg Barns is running the Wikileaks campaign.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/australiaandpacific/australia/9965815/Julian-Assange-appoints-republican-lawyer-to-run-Wikileaks-Party-campaign-in-Australia.html
Swedish backdown? Growing support? Or false assurance of security?
“In a rare public lecture delivered in Adelaide, Justice Stefan Lindskog defended the leaking of classified information, saying the case against the WikiLeaks founder was “a mess”, and raised many questions over the legality of the US ever being able to extradite Assange via Sweden.”
Swedish Judge in Oz –
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/top-swedish-judge-backs-wikileaks-20130403-2h7fv.html
Arbed; What happened to the X posting? If I’d known this was another Al-Hilli thread I would’ve dropped by.
Welcome Ben,
Do keep dropping by here if you are interested in developments in the Assange case/Wikileaks Grand Jury. Quite a few people from the Flashback forum in Sweden contribute here regularly nowadays.
My take on Lindskog’s revelations until further information is available, or further developments take place, is that this is still part of a plan aimed at getting Julian Assange out of circulation. Hopefully that opinion will change.
It seems hardly coincidental that judge Stefan Lindskog has made a statement, no doubt supported by the Swedish government, that Assange “may” not be extradited under terms of an existing treaty with the US, directly after the two main prosecution personnel, Claes Borgstrom and Marianne Ny (both having blotted their copybooks) have been taken off the case. However, it takes more than one judicial interpretation to reach an extradition decision and as Lindskog says, the Swedish legal system is a mess. The plan might just be to get Assange imprisoned on trumped-up charges.
I sincerely hope this is the wrong interpretation and Sweden is coming to its senses realising that the case is creating bad international publicity for them. If I were a young man I would not go to Sweden just in case I met a woman there and it developed into a relationship – and all because of what has happened to Assange. The Assange set-up has done real rape-victims a great disservice. Sweden needs to change its laws to protect men against sirens. The legal system is a mess. The only way I would be sure that there was a change in policy was if they sent the new prosecutor to London to interview him – since President Correa specially offered the Embassy for such questioning. Anyway, we will see.
(This is a slightly modified comment from one added to the Nuclear Nightmare post, but belongs more fittingly here.)
Sweden´s Ambassador to Australia knew about illegal renditions.
What a thug!!!
Thursday, April 4, 2013
4
Crikey says: threat to Assange confirmed (again)
APR 04, 2013 12:51PM | EMAIL | PRINT
SHARE
It was “sheer fantasy” that Julian Assange was in danger of being extradited from Sweden to the United States, Bob Carr declared in February. If anything, it was even less likely Assange could be extradited from Sweden than the United Kingdom.
Last night Swedish justice Stefan Lindskog—engaging in the highly unusual step of discussing publicly, and in detail, a case that might yet come before the Swedish justice system—described the case against Assange as “a mess” and, contrary to some media reports today, admitted the possibility that Assange might be extradited. Lindskog, perhaps purposefully hedging his bets on the issue of extradition, suggested it may be difficult for Assange to be legally extradited to the US under Swedish restrictions on extradition, but conceded Sweden had previously illegally rendered people to America.
In 2001 two Egyptian nationals, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, were handed by the Swedish government to the CIA and transported to Egypt, where they were tortured. The current Swedish ambassador to Australia, Sven-Olof Petersson, knew of the rendition at the time as a Swedish foreign affairs officer. Lindskog last night expressed the hope that the Swedish government wouldn’t act illegally in that manner again.
Carr’s cavalier dismissal of the threat to Assange is consistent with his insouciant approach to the case. Carr has persistently denied there is a US investigation underway into Assange, despite the fact that as recently as last week a Department of Justice spokesman confirmed a WikiLeaks grand jury investigation is continuing.
The allegations made against Assange in Sweden are serious, and deserve to be resolved. But they should not be the pretext for yet another US government assault on whistleblowers and online activists—people it has persistently subjected to exemplary punishment and ongoing persecution. But the response of Carr, and the Gillard government, has been to turn its back.
Yes, thanks Rastafari – Sweden for that informed discussion.
Although the Assange persecution is as political an issue as is possible let us not forget the main instigator of this attack on the Wikileaks founder: Anna Ardin. Whether she is a CIA agent or not is largely irrelevant because if she is not she has served the same purpose as if she were (and I must admit I think she is). Without her made-up testimony long after the alleged sexual assault (a testimony which has already been thrown out once) Assange would not be seeking refuge. I missed this Daily Mail article at the time of publication but Wikileaks as just put out the link again: it almost shows a photograph of the smiling and abused Anna.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193641/Julian-Assange-rape-claim-Is-photo-clear-him.html
Yes, indeed.
Sweden’s present ambassador to Australia, Sven-Olof Pettersson, was a member of the inner circle that took the decision to allow CIA to illegally capture two persons in december 2001 thereby sending them to torture in Egypt. The government has more or less said “we are sorry” afterwards, but as far as I know, noone has been taken to court for this. It would be good thing for Australian journalists to ask the ambassador about.
Listen to Australian Human Rights Lawyer Julian Burnside expose the Swedish government agenda on Julian Assange, from April 3 in response to swedish justice Lindskog propaganda visit to Australia:
http://thing2thing.com/?p=3555
Julian Burnside vs Justice Stefan Lindskog | THING2THING
thing2thing.com
THING2THING –
Axel,
Yes, indeed.
Sweden’s present ambassador to Australia, Sven-Olof Pettersson, was a member of the inner circle that took the decision to allow CIA to illegally capture two persons in december 2001 thereby sending them to torture in Egypt. The government has more or less said “we are sorry” afterwards, but as far as I know, noone has been taken to court for this. It would be good thing for Australian journalists to ask the ambassador about.
The Australian MSM journalists like their Swedish, UK and US counterparts have limited freedom to take up significant issue. Try to get them as well as Swedish journalists involved in getting the question put directly to Pettersson.
Rastafari – Sweden, thanks for the Thing2Thing link of Julian Burnside’s speech at Adelaide University. I love the statement:
“If governments of the world do not wish to be embarrassed [by leaks] they should stop behaving in embarrassing ways”.
http://thing2thing.com/?p=3555
No wonder the audience exploded into applause.
Arbed; As you probably know, a Swedish judge has shown some sympathetic* outreach to JA’s case. Is this a ruse, IYO?
BTW; *for B Manning as well.
Hi Ben,
Yes, I think it was a very carefully stage-managed PR exercise (Lindskop’s lecture was part-funded by the Swedish embassy) but it has backfired horribly on them. (My cunning plan has worked! Details as follows)
I am not on twitter or facebook and I don’t have my own blog, however I DO have this blog and know of its links to Flashback in Sweden so when I spotted the dangers posed by Sweden’s newly introduced “foreign espionage” law for Assange’s onward extradition to the States I wrote out the five questions you can see in the thread here above. Flashback kindly reposted them in Sweden and others here also tipped in to get word of these questions over to Wikileaks supporters Down Under – my aim was to get Stefan Lindskop put on the spot about this new law by in-yer-face questions from the audience. So here’s how my plan played out:
MarthaMitchellGroup
@marthagroup
@ulvdis The questions we would love to see Stefan Lindskop asked: http://tl.gd/n_1rjhv6r cc @jaraparilla @JLLLOW
https://twitter.com/marthagroup/status/319073507382263808
The MarthaMitchell Group also posted my questions on their website, which helped too:
http://www.marthamitchelleffect.org/#/questions-for-stefan-lindskop/4575275914
Then I spot this tweet from ADFOWL – Friends of Wikileaks in Adelaide telling @ulvdis (a strong Swedish supporter) that they’re just printing out the questions before heading to the lecture in 15 minutes:
ADFoWL
@ADFOWL
@jaraparilla @ulvdis Just saw them..printing out right now have to leave in 15 min thx
https://twitter.com/ADFOWL/status/319331341080600576
Then there’s this:
ADFoWL
@ADFOWL
In answer to question from audience Swedish Judge admits it is possible #Assange could be extradited to U.S. #Wikileaks
https://twitter.com/ADFOWL/status/319705797829484544
And then The Australian breaks the story:
“A TOP Swedish judge has conceded it was possible that his government may send Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to the US if it successfully extradited him over a sex crime investigation.
Supreme court judge Stefan Lindskog, speaking about the legal questions surrounding Mr Assange’s case at the University of Adelaide last night, said it should never be presumed that a “state, or any part of it, is always good”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/chance-of-assange-going-to-us/story-fn59nm2j-1226612076483
That’s a really important public admission and – I believe – it will have big political ramifications for the US/Swedish extradition attempts.
Isn’t the Internetz wonderful? (And fun to play with, haha!)
Good work, Arbed.
STEFAN LINDSKOG: “Extradition shall be granted only if Swedish courts would be competent to exercise jurisdiction in similar circumstances. As I understand it, it is about espionage or treason. Do we have an equivalent criminalisation in Sweden? Yes of course.”
Audio and transcript of ABC story –
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3729368.htm
. . . .
I think we can safely then say that a top Swedish judge, Stefan Lindskog, has confirmed that Julian Assange can be extradited from Sweden to the US for espionage because Sweden has equivalent criminalisation and this is not a purely military or political crime.
Spread the word.
Arbed, let me echo the ‘good work’ commented upon by Jemand. Like you say it has backfired big-style. Also the excellent challenge from Julian Burnside, and strong audience support for that challenge, must be sending a message to Sweden and Gillard that most in the two governments do not want to hear. Hague is probably not too happy either. Roll on the Australian elections. The debate has done Julian Assange’s campaign a great deal of good.
Public Lecture by Justice Stefan Lindskog of the Supreme Court of Sweden
Video –
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/live/theassangeaffairapril2013.html
Jemand, thanks for posting the video of Justice Stefan Lindskog’s speech at Adelaide University on 3rd April. I’ve watched it now. Lindskog asks a lot of questions and provides very few answers. For those who do not want to sit through the whole lot I will make the following observation based on his lecture. Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden under Swedish law to face questions about something that may, or may not, have been a crime. However, a definite crime was committed, according to Lindskog. Nobody should have leaked information about what may or may not have been a crime (that is the contents of the police interviews of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen) to a journalist, because that is a criminal act. However, according to Swedish law, the person who leaked this information is protected because a journalist cannot divulge the source of the leakage.
That is very interesting. My understanding is that ‘Rape’ by Julian Assange was splattered as a headline in Expressen the day after the interview of Sofia Wilen by Irmeli Krans (the police interrogator who knew Anna Ardin, the other alleged victim in this sex without a condom case). This was before Anna herself had been interviewed. Only three people could have leaked that information. Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilen of Irmeli Krans. The behaviour of Irmeli Krans in this case has been abominable. To my mind she leaked the information. After the prosecutor dropped the case against Assange she tweeted, in Police time, that she was going to get her friend Borgstrom on the case (which is what happened). Anyway one of the three of them leaked information and definitely broke the law. Two of them, allegedly, did not know that not using a condom was ‘rape’. One person who presumably did know was Irmeli Krans. One of the three should be prosecuted. My guess is it is Krans.
@john goss
Expressen published, five o’clock in the morning August 21st, the news that Assange was arrested in absentio for rape and that is about two women. We know the source of that: Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, the Duty Prosecutor. She was confronted by two journalists and confirmed this plus gave more info, only a few hours after her decision to arrest Assange. Who told these two journalists?
A large number of people know about the arrest the same evening. The government had their annual crayfish party gathering at a place called Harpsund (like Chequers) that evening. Lots of journalists invited. The government inner circle would have known about Assange’s arrest a couple of hours after it happened, at the latest. Niklas Svensson, the journalist who broke the news, was there at the party. Further, he has admitted that he was there when he got the tip from someone. It could easily have been someone there, even Carl Bildt, who told him. Or he could have got the info via a text message from Anna A. Or from Linda Wassgren, the police women who steered the whole process up to the arrest moment. Or her boss Johan Hallberg. Or Irmeli Krans. Or Sara Wennerblom who joined Krans at the questionning of Sofia.
Krans resisted, according to her own statement, that the Wilen case should be labelled “rape”. She was told by Linda Wassgren that “it was already decided that it should be labelled rape”. Irmeli Krans behaved very wrongly a few days later, but her role on August 20th is often misunderstood. I think there is active desinformation around her role that evening to conceal something else.
John Goss, you’re welcome. Interesting thoughts on Irmeli Krans and her protection as a leak source. I think we will be waiting a few years before people spill the beans on exactly what happened – maybe upon obtaining a book and movie deal.
Axel, thanks very much for that. It complicates the issue since instead of there being three ‘leak’ suspects, there appears to be six. Bildt is quite capable of leaking such a story and of course has all the contacts from his political career. If it was him it would show that there was a political dimension to the accusation.
However, adding Bildt to the equation complicates matters, because the leak, as I see it, had to come from the police station – at least initially. In this country, with such a serious issue, there would be an internal police inquiry, because this ‘leak’ is the only crime known to have taken place. Even with six suspects it should not be difficult to determine who the culprit was, (or culprits were). If the result of that inquiry was unsatisfactory the independent police complaints commission (IPCC) could be instructed to look into police procedures to determine what had happened. The IPCC has not got a very good success rate when investigating the police, since ex-police officers dominate it (so hardly independent). In fact, if I recall, its success rate is abysmal, especially over deaths in police custody and police shootings.
Every one of the suspects should be tweeted and asked if he/she is responsible. It should be pointed out to each that if they are responsible and do not admit it, they are indirectly having a finger pointed at others, who are innocent. They should all be tried for this crime.
The main outstanding question is why has Julian Assange, of whom there is no evidence of a crime, been persecuted, while real criminals are protecting one another in this leakage to the press?
Sorry, I should have written the leak had to come from somebody who was at the police-station (including Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen).