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: Arbed and posts at Flashback.
Done !
Wow! Arbed I must apologise. I did not read your included links until now after the comments you wanted posting on Flashback which Duqu kindly obliged and then I went back to them. I thought what is Arbed going on about? I don’t remember reading anything about Sofia hearing “pulling balloon sounds” and one of the Rixstep links I clicked on I had already read. So apologies for missing these great links and let me congratulate you on a great piece of detective work, especially the lab results. Now everything is starting to make sense.
This is great news! If I were Sofia Wilen, or Anna Ardin, I would pull out now from this case. But my understanding is that a prosecution in Sweden can go ahead regardless of whether the complainant or complainants want it or not. Can people refuse to testify in Sweden? If it was the USA there would be the fifth amendment they could take.
One thing that occurs to me now, is because of Edward Snowden’s revelations, which most of us who are abreast of the activities of the secret services worldwide knew about anyway, however most ordinary people do not know about them and it will not sit easily on the consciences of the general Swedish public to know that the US has been intercepting all their electronic communications for at least 20 years. This is something that needs ramming home in the case of Julian Assange, in my opinion.
Axel, I’m sure most Swedes, if not all Swedes except agents, dispose of their condoms straight away, as we do in England, or in my case used to do. And my facetious comment was not an attack on Swedes but an attempt to show just how ludicrous this whole affair is.
Although not a Catholic myself here now is a confession. In my forties I wrote comedies to detract from the boring life of being a technical author, a profession which Adam Osborne, inventor of the first personal computer, described as “the armpit of the industry”. The first lay “Something Fishy” was produced at the Midlands Arts Centre (1997), and its sequel “Ice Cold in Alaska” at the Australian Bar (1998). Both plays, with the same cast of three (a married couple and Uncle Tom) are quite involved in condoms, since Uncle Tom made his wealth from the manufacture of condoms.
“Ice Cold in Alaska” has the three of them rehearsing at home a play within a play. (Don’t know where I got that idea from). Anyway set in a gold-mining town of Alaska the plot has Vivien (played by Tom’s wife Helen) prostituting herself without his approval for gold soldiers to the townsfolk of Caribou. The gold soldiers are moulded by the blacksmith of the town. To produce the gold soldiers for the play we used ‘Plaster of Paris’ moulded in condoms, which were painted gold when they dried. Oh. it’s a wonderful comedy. Believe me.
http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsG/goss-john.html#47653
Don’t know why I shared this tangential information except all this condom business is nonsense when a man’s freedom has been taken from him by vindictive people, and sometime a little levity helps, together with a near finished bottle of French Cabernet-Syrah which is going down rather well.
Interesting tweet yesterday:
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/352610666948984832
Come on George, release those SMS you have! It’s time. You know you want to…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4I5F05jNg
Watch, 25-minute mark in.
@arbed.
He is actually saying that he has got those text messages, at least part of them. I wasn’t quite aware of that. I believe that the publication of all, or part of them, would change the ball game, at least the Sweden part of it. What’s stopping him?
Hi Axel,
Who knows what’s been stopping him? Waiting for the most opportune moment, politically? A sourcing issue? Or perhaps – this is an assumption on my part – Galloway doesn’t speak Swedish, presumably, so maybe he has English translations of them – less valuable as evidence than the originals; people could accuse that they are fakes? Still, it would then be very interesting to see who exactly did that accusing, and how they claim to know what the originals say, wouldn’t you agree?
PS:
To Duqu, and other at Flashback – thank you so much for reposting my posts of 1st July, 3.54pm and 7.53pm into Flashback. It is SO frustrating that nobody looked at them because they were hidden in spoilers – especially as the forum WAS particularly interested in the Sofia Wilen 17 August 2010 timeline when they were reposted in Flashback. It could have kicked off a good discussion, particularly as I had highlighted in bold:
The only thing that happened was 84,000 posts from the troll moderator Carlito to knock the forum off-track again. It occurs to me that perhaps the troll was the only one who bothered to open the spoiler view and read my posts…
Can we try again please? Without putting these posts in spoilers, and also reproducing the highlighting that I’ve put in? – I’ve found over the months that no one seems to pick up on what I’m telling them, what’s there in black and white in front of their eyes if only they could see, unless I really spell it out for them:
Rixstep 26/4/13: Something has to explain…
http://rixstep.com/1/20130426,00.shtml
(What Rixstep reproduces there is written by me, by the way – he must have picked it up from here in Craig’s blog.)
Done it again, this time, I added a lot of court docs and other info just to knock the thread back on track again.
Bless you, Duqu. Hopefully, it’ll get some response this time.
Arbed and Duqu. You are both doing a very good job.
Arbed at 5.32 pm on the glorious 4th of July. Do you know how long the reports now available in English were available in Swedish first? I ask just in case some of the Flashbackers are already aware. But I suspect what you say is the proper cause, troll intervention. I’m not on Flashback. But I think I can read some of the messages and even understand those in English.
Another issue that comes to mind is that, as the Overlooked Evidence in the Assange Trial article linked above makes clear, not only did the Swedish prosecutor have the Lab Report to hand which clearly indicates faked evidence from one woman (Ardin’s DNA-free “used” condom) and that the other woman has told different stories at different times but so did the UK High Court judges.
http://wlcentral.org/node/2325
For them to make their (false) remarks that the lab tests indicated the damage to Wilen’s and Ardin’s condom “evidence” was “created by wear and tear of the condom” they have to have seen English translations of the Lab Report in the first place. Yet they studiously ignore its most obvious finding:
Now, this quote is from Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensic report, which we know he wrote there on 20 October 2010 at 3.08pm (timestamped) after a phone call to the lab. When the actual report comes through on 25 October 2010, it seems he set about making further enquires, in this order:
The Lab Report mentions that the actual DNA results themselves were sent under separate cover, and these are not in the police protocol leaked in January 2011. As what leaked at that time was the police protocol that had been sent to Assange’s defence team – and therefore the one seen by the UK courts (District and High Court) – maybe we can conclude that the UK High Court judges did not mention the lack of DNA on Ardin’s condom because the DNA results were deliberately withheld from the UK courts by Marianne Ny in her zeal to win an extradition that she knew EU law did not allow, and would in any case fail if any judge worth his salt took one look at the forensic evidence she had.
Corruption of the highest order. Marianne Ny could probably by prosecuted in the UK for perjury or malicious prosecution.
Hi John,
The lab results – at least the part of them now in English (the actual DNA results were sent under different cover, and not leaked) – have been available in Swedish for a long time. That Overlooked Evidence in Assange Trial article (which includes a pdf of the full Swedish police protocol, including the pages about the forensics) was written back in November 2011.
People have just not been looking in the right places… 🙁
So, next question – which will, in my mind, settle the question of whether the UK High Court judges themselves been corrupt, or merely hoodwinked – did the police protocol leaked in January 2011 (which was in Swedish and got leaked on its way from Bjorn Hurtig to Jennifer Robinson) include the page of the forensics report that carried Mats Gehlin’s notes on 20 October 2010? The Overlooked Evidence article includes a pdf of the Swedish FUP which includes it, but we don’t know where the author of that article sourced it from. Is it the same version as the Hurtig/Robinson leak one, or not?
This is rather crucial info, as without that particular page with Gehlin’s notes of 20 October, the UK judges wouldn’t have a clue that the DNA evidence suggested Ardin handed in fake evidence and Wilen told two different stories (one of them indicating that she too faked evidence).
If they did have that page, their judgment turning down Assange’s appeal against extradition is corrupt.
Arbed wrote:
“Who knows what’s been stopping him? Waiting for the most opportune moment, politically? A sourcing issue? Or perhaps – this is an assumption on my part – Galloway doesn’t speak Swedish, presumably, so maybe he has English translations of them – less valuable as evidence than the originals; people could accuse that they are fakes? Still, it would then be very interesting to see who exactly did that accusing, and how they claim to know what the originals say, wouldn’t you agree?”
I agree 100%. I would hope that he actually has the original text messages in Swedish. Whichever, the release of that information would change the ball game. Any chance that you, or you and some else, could go and see him? Explain to him that he should let go of that information now.
@arbed. On your posts of July 5th. As far as I understand, this is the situation: the 100 page document that was presented to the Swedish court before the EAW included Mats Gehlin´s two memos of Oct 20th and October 28th. I have a leaked copy of the document sent from Hurtig to Jennifer Robinson- it includes these two memos. The first one with the text that no DNA was found etc…But it does not include the formal lab report, “sent under separat cover”, reporting this unexpected finding.
My intuition, for what it is worth, tells me that the formal lab report on the DNA test was not delivered to the Swedish court for the November 18th proceedings. The second labtest for DNA (if there indeed was one) was probably not presented to the Swedish courts either.
I doubt that any formal lab test for DNA was ever seen by the British court. But they did see the wear and tear report from SKL. And they must (?) have seen Mats Gehlin’s two memos, unless the document was “edited” by Marianne Ny.
As others have pointed out Sweden is getting a very bad name. It has become a laughing-stock worldwide, which is such a shame because as well as giving us ABBA, it gave us the much more important SIPRI (the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). It was a country of peace. But the good leaders, Olof Palme, Bernt Carlsson (who was assassinated in the Lockerbie mid-air explosion while he was in the process of internationally prosecuting Namibian uranium and diamond companies – cases dropped after his death) and Anna Lindh were all assassinated. It left a free path for Public Relations companies to dominate politicians and policy with chequebook diplomacy. My suspicion is if you search around the masonic lodges of Stockholm you will find the people behind this, some of Karl Rove’s friends like, Billy McCormac junior.
Regarding what emails or electronic texts are in the possession of George Galloway do we know that these are not Anna Ardin’s tweets that she deleted, which we all know about but the general public does not. Or does he really have extra information not in the public domain? I do not know how to contact him, though I get his newsletters. I might be able to make contact through a third party.
Hi John,
No, you’re barking up the wrong tree there. If you watch the video podcast I supplied, Galloway makes it perfectly clear that he is talking about SMS “between the two women” and “between the women and Julian Assange”.
John, you are right about the changing perception of Sweden in the world today. It is depressing to see how the ruling circles in Sweden are ruining our reputation.
The present subservient mentality is so different from what we saw during the Vietnam war. Sweden then spoke freely. It took almost 500 American refuseniks, soldiers that deserted the war. They were protected by both public opinion and the law and many of the deserters have stayed until today.
It has been a 100% turnaround in international politics. It will not last, I hope.
Arbed, I’ve privately messaged a friend who is acquainted with George Galloway with a link to your 4 Jul, 2013 – 3:50 pm comment. Hopefully he can get a response. It would be good to have George Galloway join the debate on here. Will keep you posted on any progress.
Axel, I hope it will not last too.
Oz ABC’s ‘At The Movies’, review of “We Steal Secrets”
http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s3780164.htm
Comments are moderated.
Wow! Some pretty heavy censorship going on at the Independent’s article today about Edward Snowden’s and Julian Assange’s “stateless” plight. This article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/in-depth-julian-assange-and-edward-snowden–enemies-of-the-state-take-flight-8692598.html
had a lively Disqus discussion going on all day – 200+ posts – but the WHOLE Disqus section has now been REMOVED entirely. I suspect this was because a lot of the discussion was about what is revealed by the case forensic report (now available in English).
So, I’ve reposted the forensic report to the comments section of an Al-Jazeera article instead – view in Newest first, for best results ;). Let’s see how long it lasts there:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2013/07/2013761037537873.html?utm_content=automate&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=NewSocialFlow&utm_term=plustweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount
What is censorship a sign of?
Fear.
Arbed, is it because people are mentioning the names of Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilen and Irmeli Krans. Craig mentioned in another blog that there were names that could not be mentioned. As to your reference on the current blog I think it is unlikely they have a take-down time but more likely if a Neocon-Zionist plant (sorry moderator) sees it it tells its master and down will come cradle, baby and all. But they must be worried that everybody is getting to know the truth slowly and the government case is on its knees. I hear from a Wikileaks colleague that the Julian Assange political campaign is going well. It needs more money if there are any comfortable potential benefactors.
https://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/forms/credit-card-payment.html
No John, not a single post in the entire 220+ in the comments column (last time I looked) mentioned either woman by name.
I strongly suspect the Independent received a formal take-down notice.
“I suspect this was because a lot of the discussion was about what is revealed by the case forensic report (now available in English). ”
If that is the case then as it will be relevant to any forthcoming court case it could be that the Independent feared it might be “sub judice”.
Hi Kempe,
Interesting point you make there. We have been told on umpteen occasions that Assange “has exhausted all legal recourse in the UK” – the case has already been through the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. So, no possibility of being sub judice here then. And Assange is wanted for questioning in a preliminary investigation in its early stages in a foreign jurisdiction. The case is so weak most Swedish jurists who’ve reviewed the case material say it could never actually reach the courts; it simply isn’t strong enough. And Assange is now a political refugee living in Ecuador (strictly speaking). All told, it looks like there is never going to be a trial.
But, aside from all that, since when could publication in the UK be counted as sub judice on a faint possibility of a trial in the courts of another nation? Has sovereignty broken down entirely, do you think?
@kempe at 1.29 July 8th: “I suspect this was because a lot of the discussion was about what is revealed by the case forensic report (now available in English). ”
If this is potentially important material in the UK it may explain something that has been going on at Flashback recently. We have seen a very aggressive denial of the Gehlin memo statement that “no DNA was found” by a certain person on Flashback. The signature “Carlito Brigante”, always in favour of the official Swedish prosecutor position, has used more than a 100 postings to deny the report. He/she claims that we know nothing, since we have not access to the actual forensic report, only to Gehlin’s memo.
The forensic report is probably very sensitive and damaging material for the Swedish prosecutor’s case.
My comment posted on Oz ABC’s movie review program website wasn’t published. I’ve posted it below to give it some gasping life beyond its intended audience.
– – –
Not your best review, Margaret and David.
“Double standards”? – Assange advocated for transparency of democratic institutions, not private organisations and people.
“Narcissism”? – Assange is acknowledged as intelligent, his work as groundbreaking and women (Swedish et al) apparently want to bed him. How does that amount to “narcissism”?
I’ve seen the movie and can say I’ve read a much better and more detailed review here –
http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html
Apparently, this film is bombing at the box office because of its availability on the internet and the general disinclination of cinema-goers to spend money on faux documentaries – except for Spinal Tap, which totally rocks!
Arbed, I see no comments on the Aljazeera site you linked to. A message “Disqus seems to be taking longer than usual. Reload?” appears instead.
Seems a bit odd to me (feigning naivity)…..?!!?!?
Hi Jemand,
No, the Al-Jazeera comments are still there. Disqus sometimes does that slow loading thing. Refresh, or wait a while, usually solves it.
Interestingly, someone else has picked up on it. Look at this:
UK news site censors discussion of Sofia Wilén
http://wlcentral.org/node/2848
They’ve even filched my answer to Kempe’s comments about sub judice earlier in this thread too, cheeky blighters. I think Axel’s right (3.08pm) – this is a hot issue (hotter than July, haha – sheesh today was hot here) and someone – or maybe many interested parties – are watching it like a hawk.