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.
Alex, 3.08pm
“He/she claims that we know nothing, since we have not access to the actual forensic report”
but that’s not quite true, is it? We do have access to the report, of which Gehlin’s memo forms part. We just don’t have access to the DNA results themselves, sent under separate cover (and clearly suppressed by the prosecutor). By the way, I didn’t say thank you for your post explaining that the UK courts are almost certain to have seen Gehlin’s memo – so they’ve no excuse for waving through what they must have known was an illegimate extradition request.
Thanks Arbed.
It seems your discussion on this point has hit a sensitive spot. So it is probably worth pursuing with vigour despite the pulldowns.
But I should point out that this issue would be a very hard read for casual followers, most of whom are quite unfamiliar with most of the fine details. Connecting the dots is a bit of a brain pain. I recommend developing a cogent summary version to make it easier for them to digest the significance with the more elaborate version in following discussion. As we all appreciate, ordinary folk are an essential part of public opinion and we need to give them the gist first – I think.
I also think the kid gloves can be removed now with discussions of AA and SW. They both, individually, appear to have acted outside of that zone of conduct in which we expect alleged victims of crime to act to appear credible. Although discretion is still advised in order to maintain the dignity of criticisms and not become quotable instances of online harrassment. AA made a complaint in Gibney’s doco regarding criticisms by Assange supporters and falsely accused Assange of having power to quell the worst of them – absolutely ridiculous, but you see how some criticisms can be used as ammunition against supporters as a whole.
Anyway, both of my ABC movie review comments were not published, the second one being quite modest. I’ll post a complaint about censorship and see if there is any response.
Keep up the good work.
Dear Arbed / Jemand / Axel / John Goss and others
I truly admire the compact dignity with which you address this outrageous behaviour of the swedish authorities, a case which the world can see is nothing more than a holding case for extradition to the US, as exemplified in the UK / Sweden role in blocking further EU investigation of US mass surveillance. Carl Bildt normally tweets about bullshit like the colour of his tie in between remarks on international affairs. He has notably on the Snowden case, never uttered a single word or tweet. What a slimy thug !!.
Sweden as a country is paying a high price for this “condom affair”. People are watching their actions globally. It is a gross violation of human rights for Mr. Assange to be subjected to house arrest for the past year, without access to fresh air and sunlight. This is the international behavior of a country that prides itself on human rights and the Nobel prizes etc. The hypocrisy in this country runs through the veins, don´t forget Sweden allowed two million Nazi troops to transit Sweden on occupation duty in Norway, under the guise of neutrality. Where was swedish law in the cases of illegal renditions and illegal over flights in the past decade?
Its time for an international boycott call in terms of trade and cultural exchange, hopefully the courageous South American ALBA countries can start this call. Sweden has for the past decade been actively involved in destabilising the ALBA countries and install pro US right wing thugs in this countries.
Interestingly, so called human rights orientated Sweden is not among the 21 countries selected by Edward Snowden for asylum. Some idiot geo political experts in Sweden expressed in press remarks that Snowden should apply for asylum in Sweden. These so called experts don´t realise that this country is seen globally as nothing more than a US lapdog and has nothing to do with proclaimed neutrality.
The so-called sexual allegations against Assange have all the hallmarks of a set up and can´t stand a chance in any court of law in any civilized country. Any trial in Sweden would make them the laughing stock of the civilized world. No doubt they are aware of this and are fence sitting for time and tide. Therefore a call for a trade and cultural boycott must be given priority, diplomacy is getting not producing results.
Arbed, your comment ”
“but that’s not quite true, is it? We do have access to the report, of which Gehlin’s memo forms part. We just don’t have access to the DNA results themselves, sent under separate cover (and clearly suppressed by the prosecutor).”
is of course correct.
Note that the report mentions that the first DNA-test is “sent under separate cover”. Gehlin, on getting the results from the first DNA/test supposedly asked for a second test (“it could be done in two weeks”). This second report is not leaked or known either, although some journalists in Sweden has reported, on Flashback, that it revealed mitochondrial DNA.
Your question about what the UK court did know is relevant for Sweden also: did the two Swedish courts that cleared the way for an EAW ever saw the DNA-report no 1, or the DNA-report no 2? I doubt it.
Hi Axel,
Yes, I know about the second DNA testing. Of course, it is a complete red herring, whatever its findings. Any condom which shows zero chromosonal DNA on first testing is NOT going to find quantities of same sufficient for the condom to have actually been used. Not going to happen.
Mitochondrial DNA would be interesting, though. My understanding is that mDNA is the non-nucleic variety – passed down through the maternal line only – and is therefore not an accurate marker of identity, only a clue to family membership, etc. Also, I believe that when mDNA is found but there is no chromosonal DNA present it can ONLY have come from hair or nails. Which would tend to back up a theory that Anna Ardin faked her condom evidence by sticking an unused one on a dildo – or a vase or similar-shaped object (maybe even a pair of shoes, in her case ;)) – while wearing surgical gloves, but had to remove one glove to pierce the top of the condom with her fingernail to form the tear.
Just a theory, of course. Pure guesswork on my part; nothing to base it on.
“maybe even a pair of shoes ..”
Both shoes? Hah! I know which ones you mean – the ‘high’ heels.
Is anyone here on Twitter who can help push this article out by retweeting it?
https://twitter.com/wl_central/status/354343994928537601
I think it contains some key facts that could help get the Swedish case closed down if they became more widely known. Of course, you’ll need to something juicy from the article in your tweet to get people to bite, but there’s plenty of those:
Arbed, will do so. Excellent work. The final buck is with the swedish government that is complicit in this case, with Foreign Minister Carl Bildt at the helm.
As I seem to be suffering a nasty bout of MSM censorship at the moment, I’m re-posting here something I’ve just put in the Guardian (which I suspect may ‘disappear’ imminently), for preservation.
Julian Assange stakeout at Ecuadorean embassy costs Met police £3.8m:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/10/julian-assange-ecuadorian-embassy-police-cost#comment-25043639
Let’s see. The article has been up a full day or so, so the moderators may not notice this latest contribution of mine. The first removed comment was basically a couple of the twitter links above at 10.28am; the second I’ve described within this last comment. Both were responding to “Sybil Sanderson”, a notorious anti-Assange troll who defies all logic or evidence presented to her in the usual way of trolls.
By the way, this exact same problem I describe above – the censorship of comments in the Guardian in such a way as to obscure that they ever existed in the first place – has happened to me before and, note, in relation to the same “Sybil Sanderson” persona. I wonder – but can’t prove it – if “she” has links to the Guardian CIF moderation team (ie. her trolling is, as it were, an “inside job”). Can’t prove it. I just suspect that may be the case.
Postscript.
The troll has responded to my comment – on an article that’s been up for a full 24 hours and is therefore well outside the modern-day “news cycle” – within 9 minutes of its posting. I have a sneaking feeling that “Sybil” must be internal to the Guardian CIF moderation team to be able to keep that close an eye on particular topics and articles.
Post-postscript.
Well, there you go then. My comment removed, Ms Sybil’s reply, and my response to that.
Her reply said basically “All irrelevant, from para 93 onward issue is consent [not true, btw]. No condom = no consent. No consent in every part = rape in every country of the world.”
I had replied that she had spectacularly missed the point I was making. There was a condom. Assange had used one. There was no argument about that. The woman had said the condom broke, she felt deliberately. The judges and the forensic scientists had found the condom broke through wear and tear. Therefore Assange was not guilty of deception, per the judges’ analysis, wouldn’t she agree?
This was an argument Sybil could not win, therefore her chums in the moderating team removed the whole conversation.
Ahh, the Guardian – bastions of liberal free speech, don’tcha just love ’em…?
Just for fun, I’ve now posted this to the same article, directly above the stub of the removed conversation:
Hi Trenterx – I know you read this thread, so can I ask a favour of you please? I need the help of Flashbackers to do a bit more digging, but they seem a bit unable to see the core issues as regards Sofia Wilen. So I thought if I spelt things out really, really clearly that might jog them in the right direction.
So, my favour is: could you repost the following in Flashback, exactly as it appears here please?
Sorry Trenterx,
I screwed up the spacing in that post, there should be an extra line space after the liberte-info tweet.
But you get what I mean, I hope. The thing that nobody at Flashback is looking at – at all – is that Sofia Wilen has told the police two different stories. This is one:
“Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.”
and the other one, as we all know, is the one she told to Irmeli Krans and all her other friends – she was phobic about HIV and “woke up” to an attempt at unprotected sex.
If Flashback can dig to get more details on Story 1 (the damaged “balloon noise” story) – ie. chain of custody for when that condom fragment arrived in police hands; which hospital visit were the swabs from (because the timing speaks to SW’s intent about reporting “rape” on Tuesday 17 August maybe); and anything else that might be useful…
Arbed, Rastafari, Axel, Jemand, this is brilliant. At last it is looking like a breakthrough can be made regarding the forensic reports. I’ve been working on something concerned with the lack of inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly – the tenth anniversary of his death is next Thursday (18th) and a vigil will take place outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London on that day. I’ll try and write something about the forensic reports if I get time. That article is brilliant.
http://wlcentral.org/node/2848
Hi Trenterx,
Me again! Firstly, thank you SO much.
I saw your post about what date the police picked up Sofia’s condom fragment, and you suggest a possibility that it was picked up in the evening of Saturday, 21 August, just after Sara Wennerblom picked up Anna Ardin’s.
I had a think about that. It’s certainly possible it was done then, but didn’t Eva Finne basically close down the case formally on 23 August, with the exception of the allegation of AA’s “molestation” – which Gehlin specified in his interrogation of Assange did mean the deliberately torn condom incident (although that could have been his own deviation from her instructions if he couldn’t understand why Finne had closed down the investigation, because he’d heard SW’s “pulling on a balloon” story and still believed it).
Do we know for sure whether Finne kept that part of the investigation open because AA had said she might have the condom around somewhere, so there was still evidence to be looked at? If so, then if the SW condom fragment had already been collected before 23 August wouldn’t Finne have kept that case open too?
PS.
I had thought that Molok would be particularly interested in this, because he is particularly interested in the fact that Sofia Wilen’s timeline doesn’t work
and this
““Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.”
is very, very clearly a completely different timeline. I understand it would have to be about 5am in the morning for the room to be dark enough to not be able to see during a Swedish summer. In the 4 Corners documentary there are shots of Sofia Wilen’s apartment showing thin white blinds on the windows. At 09:59, 10:26, 25:48 in the video:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/23/3549280.htm
Hah! Again, many thanks Trenterx for pushing the Flashbackers to think through the evidence as regards Sofia Wilen’s “balloon noise” story – and particularly for getting them to question their assumption that Mats Gehlin’s 20 October 2010 note is just him getting confused.
What they must remember is what the forensic report shows us:
We have TWO condoms – one complete, the other a fragment – which the scientists found had tears which matched their test of deliberately “ripping” the back of the condom. That is, TWO condoms are deliberately ripped, and at least one of them we know cannot have been used for sex.
We have TWO condoms – collected separately but sent together to the lab at a very early stage of the investigation, 25 August 2010, under the same case number (because a prosecutor who had seen Sofia Wilen’s “official” statement to Irmeli Krans, which mentioned nothing about “balloon noises”, closed her case).
We have TWO timelines – one, a story of “balloon noises in the dark” before 5am, and another, around 9am, telling of a different type of sexual assault entirely, and the physical “evidence” from the former is found in under-bed space that Anna Ardin doesn’t have.
We have TWO women – BOTH producing physical “torn condom” evidence – who turn up at a police station together.
And we have TWO women telling the same story to Linda Wassgren. To quote Donald Bostrum’s statement, where he quotes Anna Ardin verbatim:
This is Anna telling Donald Bostrum that the comment she adds after Sofia has spoken to Linda Wassgren about something she experienced – “I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar” – is the KEY statement which turns their visit into a crime report. Anna then makes it clear that she is talking about her “deliberately torn” condom incident. The obvious inference is that Sofia was also telling Wassgren about a deliberately damaged condom – “a noise like someone pulling on a balloon in the dark” – she claims she experienced too. Remember, Wassgren was so convinced by what she heard that she initiated a process which ended in a duty prosecutor issuing a warrant for “double rape” prior to either women giving their formal statements.
I’ve just found another section of Donald Bostrum’s statement which is a bit ambiguous. There is an inaudible moment here, but is it possible that the “other occasion” being referred to here is with Sofia, not Anna – at least in the mind of Mats Gehlin? He doesn’t seem to clarify with Bostrum which woman is being talked about. 20 September, so about a month before he’s spoken to the forensics lab about the no DNA finding. How many interrogations of Wilen had been conducted at this point?
Missed a bit of bolding there. Try this:
(from the same section of Donald Bostrum’s statement where Anna is explaining her interjection into Linda Wassgren’s interview of Sofia Wilen)
I’ve added in quotation marks so people can see more clearly what Anna is saying.
Trenterx,
If people somehow interpret the above to mean there’s a possibility that Assange DID actually deliberately damage condoms with two different women, remind them of a few things:
1. One of those women has handed in fake evidence.
2. The other woman has for some reason mentioned nothing of the “damaged condom” in her formal statement, or to any of her friends. Two possibilities: got cold feet and wanted to avoid being prosecuted for false allegations; or toned it down so that any eventual case would be so weak it could be dropped easily in favour of a US extradition request.
3. Sofia Wilen went to a hospital rape clinic (when there was a much closer hospital with an STD clinic) before contacting Anna Ardin – and possibly before speaking to any of her friends about the incident (this can be checked by re-reading their statements for clues about dates/timings of when they first learned about things). Sofia Wilen contacted Anna Ardin, not the other way around.
Then get them to read up on the practice of “cold reading” someone. It’s how these “psychics” convince vulnerable people that the psychic “knows” something that individual thinks is something that only they themselves could know. People do not understand how much they give away in body language, figures of speech, how susceptible they are to someone “fishing” for clues. Not that I am saying Anna Ardin is “vulnerable”, but she does seem hot-headed and easily manipulated.
Excellent article by swedish based American journalist Al Burke. Pity that google translate does not do the article justice.
Sweden´s hounding of Assange by Nordic based American journalist Al Burke:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdebatt.svt.se%2F2013%2F07%2F12%2Fassange-jobbar-vidare-trots-hetsjakten%2F
The next Wikileaks dramatisation to come out is “The Fifth Estate”, based on a book by self-promoting saboteur and traitor, Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Trailers can be viewed online. I wonder if a good quality copy will be available for download off of a bit torrent site like isohunt.
Regaring Al Burkes article in SvT/Debatt it should be known that approx 98% of the comments was removed by the moderator for a unknown reason, so we can expect tha we already has a swedish type of “injuction” in action.
Another mindblowing detail is the aftermath of Michael Hastings that gets even more chilling, as “someone” decided to cremate his body against his widows wich….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=21WnsubYFps#at=15
A longer version of Al Burke’s article is to be found here:
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assan…
There are still 209 comments to his article on SVT/Debatt, so there is still a bit to go before total removal.
Re axel:
A majority of the 209 comments are as follows:
Guest 5 days ago
comment removed.
Guest 5 days ago answer to Guest
comment removed.
Guest 5 days ago answer to Guest
comment removed.
Guest 5 days ago
comment removed.
and so one-on-on….
Then there is about 4 persons occupying most of the thread-we have seen the same stuff at Flashback.
But there are some left, but hte good ones are gone…
Also, the article was made short at SvT compared with the original one, Al Burke writes about that in the bottom
of the commentary field and encloses a link to his homepage.
@duqu
Thanks for correcting med.I was fooled by the headline about 209 contributions.
There’s been some interesting developments in Sweden that may have a bearing on the Assange case.
Recent documents released via FOI show how a guy called Alexander Akhlaghi in the Americas section of Sweden’s Foreign Ministry was a central co-ordinator of pre-agreed responses to Ecuador’s decision on granting asylum to Julian Assange in August 2012. Such responses are meant to follow what the Swedes call “language rules” – aka media messaging/propaganda.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/152679308/Allmanna-handlingar-Assange-2013
The correspondence has thrown up quite a lot. Not just that public statements from Sweden were very prescriptive (and evasive of some core questions) but also a crucial conflict of interest of Akhlaghi himself. Alexander Akhlaghi is a fellow board member along with Anna Ardin of the “Heart” organisation within the Christian/Social Democrats party. Further, Akhlaghi is a frequent [overnight] visitor to Anna Ardin’s apartment and has been spotted there seated by the window in his boxer shorts:
https://www.flashback.org/sp44366207 (use Google translate)
More: https://www.flashback.org/sp43055386
As Akhlaghi clearly has access to high-level political and diplomatic correspondence about the case there is obviously huge conflict of interest here and it’s entirely possible Ardin has been using her friend to gain advance notice of significant developments as regards both the status of the Swedish investigation and Assange’s safe passage negotiations.
At the very end of the FOI release are two documents that are almost 100% redacted. The first is an email dated 21 May 2013 from Asa Hindborg – Akhlaghi’s boss in the Americas section of Sweden’s Foreign Ministry – to the Swedish ambassador in Bogota (Sweden has no embassy in Ecuador, so all Ecuadorian matters are handled by Bogota). The second is the reply from Bogota to the Americas FO section dated 6 June 2013. Again, 100% censored.
Flashback have pointed out that the first date matches that of Elisabeth Massi Fritz’ (Sofia Wilen’s new lawyer – and, it’s important to note, also the Swedish PM’s family lawyer) press release demanding that “Sweden pressures Ecuador” on behalf of her client. It’s already known that although Massi Fritz’ website dates this press release 21 May 2013, it is in fact a version written a few days later which had had embarrassing gaffes removed and the document backdated. More info on that, and the extent of Sofia Wilen’s political influence/ability to censor, here:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2848
Flashback speculates that the changes made to the embarrassing press release probably followed the Swedish FO’s “language rules” quite closely.
Notice too in that Flashback link – https://www.flashback.org/sp44366207 – that there is some connection between Alexander Akhlaghi and Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Either Akhlaghi or his sister were invited to the Swedish (?) launch of DDB’s scurrilous book about Wikileaks. This is something really worth investigating further, in my view, if anyone is able to do that or supply more details.
I have always felt that it was too much of a coincidence that DDB chose to commit his first act of sabotage at Wikileaks – disabling the mail server – on 25 August 2010. This is, of course, the same day that Eva Finne formally closed the case against Assange (leaving only a misdemeanour “molestation” offence still to be investigated – obviously too minor to warrant arrest or detainment of the Wikileaks boss). It’s also the day Mats Gehlin sent both women’s condom evidence to the lab under Ardin’s case number. DDB was caught red-handed and suspended from the organisation that day. What a busy, busy, happening day 25 August 2010 was, eh? I have always had a gut feeling DDB’s sabotage was spurred by the news coming out of Sweden that Assange was basically off the hook. Please if anyone can explore this and provide any relevant info I would be most grateful.
This is also worth reading – Assange’s statement following the destruction of unpublished whistleblower docs by DDB in August 2011 about the intelligence warnings about DDB he’d received the previous year:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2170
(I’ll come back to the issue of actions by other parties that I interpret as seemingly triggered – ie. as a panic response – to unexpected developments in the Swedish investigation in separate post below.)