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.
@John Goss
Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand’s husband, Per Kjellstrand, worked in the Ministry of Justice on a very senior position. MHK could have called him. He could have told his minister, who told the inner cabinet, within minutes from the arrest warrant on Assange.
When the Duty Prosecutor took her decision she also asked police patrols to look for Assange on town. They searched restaurants etc. That evening a fair number of police must have known that Assange was wanted (but not necessarily why).
I think it is extremly difficult to have a very well founded idea on the source.
I agree with you on the total shamefulness of it all.
Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand is the Duty Prosecutor, if I forgot to clarify that
Axel, in certain circumstances journalists do not protect their sources, (for example the recent Leveson Inquiry into press standards has revealed some who have deliberately broken the law to get a story). Whatever Stefan Lindskog says – if journalists and police deliberately break the law they should be forced to divulge the source of information. Thanks for your well-informed comments.
John Goss
It’s all about selective prosecution. Allowing some people to break the law, unpunished, empowers them in a way that decent people are not. Selective prosecution allows crooked cops to serve their political masters, politicians to become protected war criminals and wealthy people to steal from the poor. Selective punishment provides an evolutionary mechanism that weeds out good people from a group, leaving the favoured bad people to enter systems of corruption wherein they support and maintain those corrupt processes – for the benefit of “inner ring”.
Selective punishment also has a chilling effect. It serves as a warning to others “play along or you’re next”. Bradley Manning’s prosecution is just that. While others committed war crimes, they SELECTED Manning for prosecution. He didn’t serve any valuable function to the inner ring, and his leaking of materials worked against their hidden agendas. So he is removed and now used as a reminder to anyone who might get similar ideas.
The antidote to selective prosecution/punishment is properly constructed legislation that does not allow people who wield power any discretion over matters of discipline and punishment. Remove the power of ‘selection’ and you remove the power of corrupt favouritism.
Jemand, I agree. Unfortunately we have to live in the world the way it is with laws made by those with interests to protect. I would love to see “roperly constructed legislation that does not allow people who wield power any discretion over matters of discipline and punishment”.
Like footballers, judges are paid too much money. How can you expect them to be fair?
http://www.affarsvarlden.se/affarsjuridik/article3571058.ece
got this one via twitter today.
https://hd.se/skane/2013/04/06/forhor-i-norge-om-forsvunnen/
the google translate for the site doens’t seem to work (?) but maybe our swedish friends can help here?
as I understand swedish investigators went to Norway for interviewing several people in an investigation of a missing person.
So besides the Serbia-case another proof that it IS legal and possible for Swedish police to go abroad for investigations.
The “questions” that never got aired from Adelide/Australia with judge Lindskog has now popped up on vimeo…..
http://vimeo.com/63459054
Lifad wrote:
“got this one via twitter today.
https://hd.se/skane/2013/04/06/forhor-i-norge-om-forsvunnen/
the google translate for the site doens’t seem to work (?) but maybe our swedish friends can help here?
as I understand swedish investigators went to Norway for interviewing several people in an investigation of a missing person.”
So besides the Serbia-case another proof that it IS legal and possible for Swedish police to go abroad for investigations.
Response.
You are correct. Several people in Bergen, Norway, were questioned by Swedish police. In fact this happens all the time. It is the practical solution to police work, and expected under the European agreement on “Mutual Legal Assistance”.
Even Stefan Lindskog admitted this in Adelaide:
“I would like to comment upon the possibility of the prosecutor to go to London. It is possible that the prosecutor could travel to London and interrogate him there. I have no answer to the question why that hasn’t happened.”
Wikileaks releases 1.7M US intelligence reports from the 1970s
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305437/Julian-Assange-WikiLeaks-release-1-7m-US-diplomatic-intelligence-reports.html
Bob Carr, NSW Premier, Oz FM, US Informant –
http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/news/australia-world-news/wikileaks-reveals-bob-carr-as-long-term-intelligence-source-to-us.htm
Duqu, 7 April 7.48 am. I meant to thank you for that link. All Lindskog’s answers were brief and not very helpful, except perhaps the one when he was asked about the two Swedish refugees rendered to Egypt where they were tortured. When asked how he could guarantee Julian Assange’s safety when that happened before his answer was that the Egyptians never appeared before the court. This is true. They were picked up by the CIA without ever having a chance to plead their case by arrangement with Bodstrom, Peterrson and company. It’s a pity the questioner did not get back at Lindskog to ask what assurances the legal system could apply to ensure the same thing did not happen to Assange. He was right about one thing. It is a mess.
I’d say this was an overall Thumbs Up from the BBC on the PlusD Public Library of US Diplomacy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22095116
The article really hits the nail on the head; the value in having the Kissinger Cables so widely and easily accessible is because he was to a large extent the architect of ‘real-politick’, the modus operandi of the US empire ever since.
Much more sympathetic treatment of the Swedish case in this article too – given the BBC’s status as the UK’s state broadcaster, I wonder if that signals the UK government is not quite as convinced of its need to “fulfil its legal obligation to extradite Assange” as it once was?
Arbed, it could be a positive sign. However, as you know, the US will never give up on neutralising Assange and Wikileaks. If the UK pikes out of the scheme, and Sweden similarly back down, Assange is still a target. I’d like to see him come home and get this election campaign rolling.
Swedish mainstream magazine Paragraf.se publishes article highly critical of the Assange allegations:
http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.magasinetparagraf.se%2Fdebatt%2Ffor-manga-tillfalligheter
For those who can’t stand Google’s mangling of language, here is a ‘translation’ (which takes a few liberties, in my view) of the above:
http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/04/12/too-many-coincidences/
And another mainstream Swedish publication criticising the prosecutor’s handling of the Assange investigation. This one’s from Dagens Juridik, Sweden’s main legal blog:
“Assangeaffären – gender trap or sour cream?”
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagensjuridik.se%2F2013%2F04%2Fassangeaffaren-genusfalla-eller-graddfil
and here’s a truncated English translation:
http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/04/15/the-assange-case-as-a-gender-trap/
A legal question for our english friends.
If a witness makes wrong and false statement in the witness-stand at the court, but does not get exposed about this until after the courts verdict, would it be enough to reopen the case once more again for the accused person ?
Here´s a link to the written statement, and there are some points that are wrong and also false. Interesting indeed is also that this witness was not in the swedish police protocol at all.
http://www.divshare.com/download/launch/23689859-f18
Hi Duqu,
I’ve copied your comment to the ‘front page’ to ask if there are any lawyers among us who can answer your question (I’m not a lawyer myself).
What exactly have you found out that Goran said which was false?
Re Legal question
There are lots of examples where appeals are hard to get up even when there is glaring evidence of perjury and withholding of exculpatory evidence from the defence (American cases seem to be common). My impression is that most appeals are based on errors of law in judgements. Both the defence and prosecution are required to present their best case so appeals based on a failure to indentify and challenge faulty testimony is hard won. If a witness provided incorrect testimony on which the judgement was materially based, a corrected version would need to offer a high probability of a significantly different verdict in order to justify a partial retrial. That’s my opinion read from the back of a box of cornflakes.
Any chance of knowing the particulars?
I’ve blogged again on Assange and Anna Ardin.
http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/time-for-reality-check.html
Good blog, John. Glad you included this little treasure regarding the timing of events on 21st August 2010:
http://radsoft.net/rants/20130202,00.shtml
A wealth of important factual details in that one, all time-stamped and fully sourced.
Hey, remember the story about the Ecuadorian ambassador showing up unexpectedly at the Swedish Foreign Office last July with his country’s formal offer to facilitate questioning at their embassy, and that request being copied to the “America” section of the FO (and then not forwarded to the prosecutor of the case/duly buried by the Swedish Justice Department)? Well, lookee here…
Turns out the person in the “America” section of the Swedish Foreign Office is a friend of Anna Ardin:
https://www.flashback.org/sp43055386 (Google translate required, sorry)
Ah, sorry – here’s the background/missing link to the above post:
http://rixstep.com/1/20130210,00.shtml
Aw, this was a very nice post. In idea I would like to put in writing like this additionally – taking time and actual effort to make an excellent article… however what can I say… I procrastinate alot and in no way seem to get something done.
Thanks for those links Arbed. The second one I’d seen before. Rixstep is so good. And so are the Swedish comment-makers like Trenterx. Do you think Ms Ny ignored the visit of Jonas Lovén or did Alexander Akhlaghi withhold notification?
I see that Flashback want to do some more digging about Marie Thorne’s witness statement that SW had been contacted by an American paper and stood to “make a lot of money”.
This article doesn’t pre-date Thorne’s testimony but I wondered if it might provide a starting point for Flashback’s research:
AOL News 2/12/2010 article claims they reached “the 2nd woman by mobile today”:
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/02/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/
It’s definitely SW they are referring to, and according to them she does give a ‘no comment’.
******
If anyone from Flashback does read this, can I put in a request please for something I’d like to see more discussion about? It’s the issue of the ‘piece’ of condom with male DNA on it retrieved from Wilen, which was ‘found under the bed’ (whether by the police visiting her home or by her, I don’t know). This detail is given by Mats Gehlin on his notes on the forensic report, together with a remark that Wilen had reported hearing a ‘noise like pulling on a balloon’ in the dark.
Now, I have previously suggested that this sounds to me awfully like Wilen claiming that a condom was deliberately damaged by Assange (same as Ardin’s story) but nobody seems to agree with me. Why? Can someone please offer me an alternative interpretation for these strange notes by Mats Gehlin? Because I simply cannot understand why no one sees this as I do…
Something has to explain why only a piece of condom from Wilen ended up getting forensically analysed.
Something has to explain why Mats Gehlin was so convinced he had a double rape on his hands that he disobeyed Eva Finne’s orders and submitted Wilen’s condom fragment along with Ardin’s fake one (and labelled her docket rape too).
Something has to explain how two stories which don’t sound all that much alike in the two women’s separate witness statements (half-asleep condomless sex vs deliberately torn condom during wide-awake sex) could be, in Ardin’s words, “two women with the same story”. And how Ardin’s filling in of one sentence – “I think Sofia is telling the truth, the same thing happened to me” – turned their visit into a formal complaint that the police interpreted as double rape.
Something has to explain why Klara cops went bananas and “everyone agreed it was rape” and they issued a warrant before the formal interviews – ie based on what both women spoke to Wassgren about (and which is redacted from her memo to Eva Finne). “Rape was mentioned from the beginning” sounds like Wilen to me. She was the lead figure; it’s her story that Ardin chips in with a sentence that changes everything. I think Wilen told Wassgren that she thought Assange had deliberately damaged a condom (but she wasn’t sure because it was dark… she heard a noise like someone pulling a balloon… “Look, I found this under the bed where he was”…)
Anyone got an alternative theory on the meaning of Gehlin’s notes on the forensic report?
This is big news to keep an eye on. Nine years after the fact, the US Dept of Justice has decided to unseal an indictment on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage for Marta Rita Velazquez, an ex-USAID official who left the United States in 2002 on hearing that Ana Belen Montes (now serving a 25-year sentence for espionage) was co-operating with authorities. Velazquez now lives in Stockholm.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/charge-disclosed-cuban-spying-against-us
The Washington Post is reporting the unsealing as a signal of US DoJ frustration that Sweden’s laws prevent extradition for political crimes including espionage:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/charge-in-9-year-old-cuban-spy-case-unsealed-accusing-ex-state-dept-officer-of-conspiracy/2013/04/25/b567a192-ade5-11e2-b240-9ef3a72c67cc_story.html
Begs a few questions, doesn’t it? Like, why now? This case is nine years old. Also, as Velazquez couldn’t be reached by media last night for comment, is she still sitting pretty in her Swedish home?
Which, by the way, turns out to be rather flash. She happens to be married to a very senior Swedish prosecutor. And if I understand Flashback’s sleuthing correctly, that’s someone called Anders Kviele:
http://www.ratsit.se/19570702-Marta_Rita_Velazquez_Stockholm/XrMTTleQQ1JTZVF-Ew6Gp3EhEWyj1S989EkVEleiQPk
http://www.ratsit.se/19610302-Bengt_Olof_Anders_Kviele_Stockholm/S8AcugO8BJ_SB95PgyzyS5-qM0iOjgL90ewDnol7ei0
Anders Kviele was/is part of Sweden’s Council of Ministers and therefore influential in formulating Sweden’s foreign policy, including, by the way, the policy of sending young activists such as Anna Ardin to Cuba to help/fund Cuban opposition groups.
Is the card being played here by the US DoJ no more than a public relations exercise, designed to bolster the now-flagging public opinion that Assange should go to Sweden because “It’s impossible for Sweden to extradite him. Look, we can’t even get someone after nine years…”? (Because, if that’s the case, why go public with a sealed indictment? – they are not supposed to be unsealed until someone’s in custody: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sealed-indictment/ )
Or is there a certain amount of under-bus throwing going on here? If so, who exactly is being jettisoned? Ardin? Officials with the Swedish Prosecution Authority? Officials with the Swedish Foreign Office? Or is it designed to give the Swedes a way of offering the guarantees against onward extradition long demanded of it, while still saving face?
So many questions… It would be really great if Flashback could pop in here to offer their perspective.
Couple more links giving a little more background on the post above:
http://runeberg.org/statskal/1984/0852.html
Think that one shows what Kviele’s official job title is (or was). Not sure, perhaps Flashback can give further details?
http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=75439
Havana Times article from last July confirming that Anna Ardin was sent to Cuba by the Social Democrats Christian Brotherhood (the same people who co-ordinated Assange’s fateful trip to Stockholm in 2010). Ardin is also a close personal friend of Jens Aron Modig, her Swedish compatriot here who got into a lot of trouble following the death of a Cuban opposition leader in a car accident.
Swedish Justice Ministry, Foreign Ministry and secret services (SAPO) scrambling to get the story straight in Swedish media…
Spy Indicted married to Swedish UD [Foreign Office] man:
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/spionatalad-gift-med-svensk-ud-man_8124218.svd
… in which the Swedish Justice Minister’s office admits they’ve known about this woman’s case for years but in nine years there has NOT been any extradition request from the US for her.
Makes you wonder what has been going on all that time then, that the US has now finally, battle-scared, given up the ghost on ever getting their mits on their wanted spy and decided “Hey, what the hell, let’s make the indictment public anyways”…
And a laugh out loud moment in this article on DN.se:
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/spionatalad-gift-med-svensk-ud-man
“DN have searched but could not reach managers at the Swedish Ministry of Justice to be told what to do.”
I’ll assume that’s just Google translate being unkind… 😉
Two more helpful links in the US-spy-married-to-Swedish-FO saga:
2011 Swedish Parliamentary agenda showing Anders Kviele’s role as adviser to their Foreign Relations Council (item 9):
http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Utskottens-dokument/Ovriga/Utrikesutskottets-sammantrade-_GYA3UU33/
… so that puts paid to the idea Swedish government spokesmen are trying to float that her husband had left the employ of the FO before he married the US spy/her case became known about in Sweden.
Anders Kviele’s part in intern placement in foreign embassies:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oMAUVfJNokwJ:www.liu.se/utbildning/program/polkand/student/filkatalog/praktikplatser/vt%25202007/1.121256/praktik-Lissabon-vt2007-ny.doc+Anders%2BKviele&cd=9&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se
… does seem to indicate that he may have had some part to play in sending Anna Ardin off to Cuba with a wodge of money for opposition forces there.
Perhaps readers here will be interested to read Anna Ardin’s now-deleted blog post (Poor Anna, everything she writes somehow gets preserved anyway, haha) about her deportation from Cuba in 2006.
https://www.flashback.org/sp25035413 (Google translate required)
It’s particularly interesting in that it mentions “permission from SAPO” [Sweden’s security service] and a final-night dinner “at an embassy” (note that “an” – not “the” Swedish embassy in Cuba, “an” embassy there…)