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.
Jemand: as a humanist myself, I find your deconstruction of feminism almost salaciously inhuman, to the point of being nonsensical. “like a collection of animal species with a taxonomy of its own” – what a peculiar way to describe a civil rights movement.
@Jemand, thanks.
FWIW, I don’t think @technicolour has tried to drive any wedge – part of my post did need clarification, and I was happy to provide it.
I call myself a feminist because: the ancient religious discrimination against women has caused a rift in society that maintains animosity between the genders; feminism has not evolved to the same degree as the other anti-discrimination movements*, and needs the assistance that comes from joining into the debate sympathetically; and, as naive and abstract as it sounds, because I believe in justice.
* I find it interesting that anti-racist movements comprise people of all colours, and anti-homophobia movements welcome people of all sexualities. Feminism however isn’t generally welcoming of men, and this is its core weakness – yet there must be plenty of progressive men who are interested in healing this divide.
I don’t at all find the label “feminist” to be divisive, but I appreciate you do because of your poor previous experience. Hopefully you now at least have a mixed view of “feminists”, since you’ve now met some moderate ones!
@Technicolour
Thanks for the comment as it proves what I already know about you feminists. When a perfectly sound analogy or comparison is made, all sorts of emotional objections are made.
I take it then that you do not object to my comparison of political evolution to animal evolution? That is perfectly acceptable provided there is no mention of women.
Reminds me again of racism and its equally noxious counterpart, hysterical anti-racism. I once described to some colleagues an experience of visiting a Vietnames restaurant and the dreadful and dishonest service I encountered. My Asian colleague pointedly implied that I was racist. Being caucasian, I have discovered that simply saying the word “Asian” is racist. Similarly, being a male, I have discovered that simply saying the word “woman” attracts the same automatic, offensive reaction. It’s all part of the same process that is a cultural revolution in the West. I reject it.
@Jon – I have no problem with your position, you don’t need to explain anything. Obviously we walk common ground on matters of fairness and due process. But I don’t see you as a feminist. Don’t be offended, it’s a good thing. You are the Oskar Schindler of Feminism. Take it as a compliment.
“I take it then that you do not object to my comparison of political evolution to animal evolution?” – well, you can compare apples to jumbo jets, if you like. Let me just point out that a Marxist can, and sometimes does, change to being a Tory. A chimpanzee cannot change into a Bonobo.
As for ‘hysterical anti-racism’ being as bad as racism – there’s a Ku Klux klan of anti-racists, stringing up good old white boys, is there? Not to mention the centuries of exploitation, slavery, poverty and the discrimination which still exists on a global and personal scale today?
How interesting.
@Technicolour
Yes, how interesting that you should tacitly endorse workplace harrassment of white people for the sins of American slave owners.
“As for ‘hysterical anti-racism’ being as bad as racism – there’s a Ku Klux klan of anti-racists, stringing up good old white boys, is there?”
Yes again. They were called The Black Panthers – you would have liked them. Unfortunately, the FBI, which is made up of “good old white boys”, stopped them in their tracks before too much damage was done. I think they later reinvented themselves as Sesame Street. Maybe you can find out. And while you’re at it, do some research into slavery inside Africa and the Rawandan Genocide. It just might make for some uncomfortable reading for a person who clearly hates white males.
Me, I love white males. None of the ones I know would try to compare the Black Panthers, a self-defence movement who called for “Land, Bread, Housing, Education, Clothing, Justice and Peace” to a group of racist lynchers and murderers. Nor would they try and disguise the reality of UK and US participation in and exploitation of racism and the slave trade. What a peculiar anomaly you are, ‘Jemand’.
@John Goss, To be honest, I know to little about exactly where the real power reside, and I also think the prerogative varies somewhat between areas and subjects. I am not a journalist, and my nascent interest in this is of a fairly recent date.
At a quick glance, the official owner structure looks like this, (numbers refers to daily print editions),
Schibsted media Group, is the majority owner in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schibsted
—————————————–
Aftonbladet, largest tabloid, (Independent Social democratic, ~210 000)
Svenska Dagbladet 3:e largest morning newspaper, (Liberal conservative, ~ 185 000)
The Bonnier Group,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnier_Group
—————————————–
Dagens Nyheter, Largest morning newspaper, (Independent Liberal, ~280 000)
Expressen, 2:nd largest tabloid, (Independent liberal, ~150 000, if you add local editions of GT and Kvällsposten, ~250 000)
Sydsvenska dagbladet, 4th largest morning newspaper, (Independent Liberal, ~110 000)
TV4, biggest commercial TV channel
Stampen media group,
—————————————–
Göteborgs-Posten, 2:nd biggest morning newspaper, (Liberal, ~215 000)
22+ local newspapers around Sweden
Public Service,
—————————————–
Sveriges Television (SVT)
Sveriges Radio (SR)
SVT still dominates TV, with its prime channels SVT1 & SVT2 that reaches 45% and 25% every day, TV4 reaches 37% and the next, TV3 17% (reaches = the relative number of individuals that watches >5min each day)
Technicolour asked: Which leads me to wonder, can Assange counter-sue? Good question. As Mr. Murray explained the evidence of AA’s case is so weak because normally such a rape case in Sweden isn’t conducted in public.
Which leads to the question why supporters of JA can’t seek publicity to reveal the flaws in the Swedish juridicial system. Why not set up a political tribunal to test the evidence and evaluate the political implications? As Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre did in the sixties. Paradoxical partly in Stockholm. Venue now a neutral country, for instance Switzerland, Denmark or the Netherlands (The Hague). What’s your opinion about that, Mr. Murray?
Lastbluebell, thanks very much for your help. I will try and do some digging with the facts you have presented.
@Technicolour
“.. Nor would they try and disguise the reality of UK and US participation in and exploitation of racism and the slave trade.”
You’re not a very honest person are you? So you have nothing to say about man’s inhumanity to man, unless it’s white inhumanity? Yep. You’re a typical feminist and denier. But not a very well educated one. Say, why don’t we do each other a favour and just pretend we never even met.
Another swipe at the female gender by the ‘peculiar’ Jamend, incorrigibly digging his hole:
“@Observer – Yo mama’s so fat that when she sits around the house, she sits A R O U N D the house!”
—-
Technicolour, please be warned you are dealing with someone not just peculiar but plainly abusive. Tho only one he is courteous with, in eventual disagreement, is Jon where you will observe him sucking up to the moderator (no encouragement, of course), e.g.:
Jemand: “@Jon – I have no problem with your position, you don’t need to explain anything. Obviously we walk common ground on matters of fairness and due process. But I don’t see you as a feminist. Don’t be offended, it’s a good thing. You are the Oskar Schindler of Feminism. Take it as a compliment.”
when Jon had just told him (worth repeating):
“I don’t at all find the label “feminist” to be divisive, but I appreciate you do because of your poor previous experience. Hopefully you now at least have a mixed view of “feminists”, since you’ve now met some moderate ones!”
Good summary, and response, too Jon!
Technicolour opined:
“Me, I love white males. None of the ones I know would try to compare the Black Panthers, a self-defence movement who called for “Land, Bread, Housing, Education, Clothing, Justice and Peace” to a group of racist lynchers and murderers[the KKK].”
Which brings us back to Anna Ardin and Julian Assange; because the ‘good old boys’ in the KKK, were lynching and castrating black men on the grounds of protecting white women, who had accused said black men of raping them.
“You’re not a very honest person are you?” – good grief.
“you have nothing to say about man’s inhumanity to man, unless it’s white inhumanity?” – sorry, your posts keep making me snort. Actually, let’s just remember who brought up these ideas:
“feminists use rape as propaganda against all men”
“Joining the ranks of feminism is like joining an army with a reputation for war crimes”
“hysterical anti-racism is as bad as racism”
“banging your thumb with a hammer is like being shot in the face with a machine gun”
– oh, the last one was me.
@Jemand
“Even workers want good shoes. But currently, we have reasonable shoes at a cheap price made by very poor workers enriching wealthy scumbags who drive mercedes benzs on pot-holed roads.”
Exactly, I don’t buy cheap shoes and walk tall having not contributed to slave labour. It may mean I only have two sets of shoes, one work, one best, but that’s ok because I despise fashion.
“If we let those poor workers take over, they will give themselves a pay rise and start making crap shoes for the same selling price.”
Actually history tells us otherwise. Yes they no longer work for pittance but the quality of the shoes get better. Really, this happens. I am not talking about the diabolical soviets which were not worker run at all. I am talking about UK factories, Spanish farms, US techs…the list is far bigger than you would believe from the corporate media.
“Why can’t we, the shoe buyer (we are workers too), vote for a management team that delivers good shoes at a fair price under working conditions that are reasonable?”
Well the worker’s normally vote in a management team. That team are paid a wage and are ultimately answerable to the workers rather than lord muck.
For Technicolour, and her considered opinions:
http://www1.assumption.edu/ahc/raceriots/default.html
A little light relief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nIrLS3gI8A&feature=context-gau
Enjoy and spread please.
“The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.”
– Big, bearded, bonking, butch Oscar Wilde. The terror of the ladies. 114 illegitimate children, world heavyweight boxing champion and author of the best-selling pamphlet “Why I Like To Do It With Girls.”
@John Goss, I actually think John Pilger did some investigative work into the power structures of Swedish media already sometimes back in 2010/2011, but I can not seem to find it now, so maybe I misremembered.
@Everyone,
Another thing that have peaked my interest, (also in regard to the latest string of comments) is in regard to the discussion of feminism, and its influence.
It is hard to succinctly describe the situation in Sweden, and I have little to compare to. But in 2010 The public service television in Norway, (NRK) and Harald Eia, did an investigative series of 7 episodes into gender and the debate of nature and nurture, and in the extension, gender and equality politics in Norway, called “hjenevask” or “Brainwash”. I think Sweden and Norway are similar in many ways, so it could be informative as a context. On a personal note, I think subjective that the its influence on politics in Sweden is much greater and deeper then in Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing_%28TV-program%29
The series had a dramatic impact (to say the least) in Norway, and in its wake the national state science founding council in Norway retracted (all?) 60 million Nkr (approx 6 million £) of founding as a direct result of what was exposed in this series (if I understand correctly).
The series has not been aired in Sweden.
It has in total 7 episodes of appriox 40 min, see Wikipedia link for episode details, and participating scientists, which include Simon Baron Cohen, Steven Pinker, Judith Rich Harris among others, and local Norwegian scientists and politicians.
http://vimeo.com/19707588 part 1, The Gender Equality Paradox
…
http://vimeo.com/19889788 part 7, Nature or Nurture
correction/addition to my last post
What it was ment to read was that,
Norways science founding council retracted 60 million of founding into, “gender reasearch”.
Nice one John Goss @12 Sep, 2012 – 2:02 pm
@JimmyGiro
“As in so many lynchings, this one arose out of charges that black men raped a white woman”
Sure, yes the cry of rape was a common pretense to lynch black men. But I strongly suspect that if you do the research you’ll find the brothers and fathers of the not raped women were the accusers. To hold women responsible, with the information you posted, is nuts.
@ Phil
And how many of those ‘Southern Bells’ stood up and said: “Stop the lie, this man is innocent!”
@Jemand – I think you’ve got Tech wrong – she is not the militant you assume. I am not offended though – you may choose to not call me whatever you like 🙂
I don’t think citing Black Power as an equal supremacist force to the KKK is at all valid. Black Power was a response to severe racial intolerance, and would in itself not have gotten a foothold if not for the injustices that went before it.
I certainly see your point about the problems caused by the counter-reaction to anti-discrimination: the gay recipient of positive discrimination feels patronised; the white middle class male feels aggrieved because he feels newly discriminated against; a person of colour uses an accusation of racism to deflect attention from their own wrongdoing etc. So, this reaction has to be taken into account when deciding whether positive discrimination (PD) is worthwhile in each situation – will the resentment caused outweigh the repair that is being attempted?
I think such repair is worth trying, and even as a while middle-class able-bodied male myself I tend to support it. PD in point-scoring systems (say, for job or academic entrance) only accounts for a small percentage, and meanwhile I am confident enough about my abilities to try again if I get rejected.
If PD is counterproductive, what then – if anything – should we use to correct ancient mistakes? One theory is that we should just build an equitable society, and the mistakes would correct themselves. That’s probably true enough, but at present, the equitable society is retreating, and the everyone-for-themselves society is looming large.
The other corrective is/was political correctness, and I’ve never been sure how much of an effect that has had. In its original intention – the modification of language to reduce subconscious bias – it was a good idea. But in some cases it goes too far, and of course there was a similar aggressive counter-reaction. Again, if not PC, then what? I am not sure the injustices should be left uncorrected.
@JimmyGiro
How do you know they didn’t? but they were ignored? I doubt if ‘Southern Bells’ had much authority regarding lynchings, or anything else that the men decided to do.
Hard luck on those who were the victims in these cases. Why has it taken so long to unearth these miscarriages of justice and what has happened to the cases? Where are the remedies?
Detective Ryan Coleman-Farrow faked police records
Coleman-Farrow pleaded guilty to 13 counts of misconduct
A detective constable who specialised in rape cases has pleaded guilty to faking police records.
{..}
‘The 13 counts Coleman-Farrow pleaded guilty to relate to 10 rape cases and three cases of sexual assault.
The offences he should have investigated were committed between January 2007 and September 2010, while he was an officer at Kingston-upon-Thames, south-west London, working for Scotland Yard’s specialist Sapphire unit.
The court heard he failed to send items for analysis, take witness statements and falsified witness statements.’
/..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19567298
Nuid wrote:
“How do you know they didn’t? but they were ignored? I doubt if ‘Southern Bells’ had much authority regarding lynchings, or anything else that the men decided to do.”
The answer, alas, has “Gone with the wind”.
@JimmyGiro – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Kill_a_Mockingbird
@Phil – you can keep your Bulgarian workers party shoes, i’ll stick with some shabby Nikes made in the 1980s.
I read your link on worker owned companies and recognised one – Golder and Assoc. To get into that company, you have to pay US $50,000. Now that was for an engineering associate in 2009. But I suspect that with other successful worker-owned companies there is a high barriers to entry and strict conditions on participation in ownership.
Mary @ 12 Sep, 2012 – 3:30 pm
His problem was that he made the wrong kind of mistake. If he botched evidence that would otherwise free innocent men, then he would have been promoted, along with all the others. But because he botched evidence to incriminate men, he was hung up by the ku-klux-BBC.
“But because he botched evidence to incriminate men, he was hung up by the ku-klux-BBC.”
Don’t you mean evidence “against” men, Jimmy?