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.
Hello Out of the Blue!
Answer to your question whether the timestamps on Sofia Wilen’s text messages quoted in those articles might be (UK) GMT rather than (Sweden) ECT:
No. The timestamps are taken from the Swedish lawyers’ email. They are the original Swedish timestamps of the texts themselves.
PS. It might be interesting for someone to write to Thomas O and Per S sending them a copy of Rixstep’s article and asking whether – as these texts are now in the public domain as English translations – they would be prepared to send you the original Swedish versions.
Perhaps a direct enquiry from interested members of the public with a query such as this – something based on new analysis of newly public evidence – would be the kick up the bum the lawyers need to start taking a more proactive approach to getting this investigation closed down?
There is a nice story on Flashback now about what happened shortly after a formal statement had been taken from Sofia 18.40 on Friday evening, August 20th. Arbed, it is your research into the Affidavit that has paid off! Molok and Trenterx tells the story (rough translation).
Shortly after the interrupted interview Sofia meets two persons, a man in a nice suite and a well dressed woman. Sofia is told that if she does not disturb the process against Assange, but plays along passively, all her economic worries will be gone. No debts from study loans, no living in unattractive dwellings in small-town Enköping. Instead, chances to work in photography and the arts without worrying about food bills and rent. “All this is going to be kept strictly secret. For the good of the country. And do you know what, Sofia? The other woman has already accepted a similar offer. So why say no? Buy the way, your boyfriend since a long time is not a Swedish citizen, is he?”
Sofia nodded, but looked concerned. The well dressed women explained. “All you need to do is to say that you only wanted to Assange to test for HIV. Nothing more. The rest you can leave to us.”
Sofia went home to sleep. She slept badly. Next morning, Aug 21st at 07.27, she texted a friend “I don’t want to accuse Julian of anything”. The same evening, when to her surprise she had found out that Eva Finne had closed the rape case, she wrote another text: It was late, already 22.25: She wrote: It was the police who made up the charges”.
https://www.flashback.org/sp46266523
https://www.flashback.org/sp46270700
Hi Alex,
Yes, I read it. Unfortunately, Flashback are getting a bit carried away. Some questions they should ask themselves:
1. Why would Mats Gehlin re-interview Sofia Wilen the day after the forensic report came back from the lab (26 October 2010) showing that one of the TWO ripped condoms collected from/handed in by (when/where for SW’s fragment???) the women had no DNA on it if “it was the police who made up the charges”? (SW: 21 August, 22.25)
2. Why would Mats Gehlin interview Sofia’s friend Marie Thorn the very next day (27 October), focusing particularly on Sofia’s motivations – money, newspapers, REVENGE – as hinted at in text messages between her and her friend if “it was the police who made up the charges”? (SW: 21 August, 22.25)
3. Why would Mats Gehlin write a note on the file the day he first spoke to the forensic lab (around 20 October) and learned of the surprising no-DNA-on-AA’s condom, and include his recollection of what Sofia Wilen told police about the sound of “someone pulling on a balloon” in the dark and a ripped condom fragment being “found” under her bed if “it was the police who made up the charges”? (SW: 21 August, 22.25)
Further things they should think about:
1. Sofia Wilen’s DNA examples from a rape-kit had already been taken at Soder hospital on Tuesday evening 17 August 2010 BEFORE SHE HAD SPOKEN TO AA FOR THE FIRST TIME. Why did she need to return to Soder on 20 August (a THIRD hospital visit) AFTER speaking to AA? – she’d done a HIV test already, she’d done DNA examples from a rape kit already – what more could she need? Might the purpose of this visit be to “help” the hospital speed up their HIV testing by supplying a ripped condom fragment with a man’s DNA on it? Sofia told Hanna: “Things would go faster if Assange took a test.” (from Hanna Rosqvist’s testimony)
2. Even if you take Sofia’s word for it (which, personally, I don’t and I’ll explain why in a minute) that “When she talked with her friends afterwards she understood she was the victim of a crime” and believe that this might be enough to explain why she went on from Dandryd hospital (HIV test?) to the rape clinic at Soder hospital for a full rape-kit examination, why is there no mention of having given her this advice – “I told Sofia I thought what had happened to her was rape”, or words to that effect – in her friends’ witness statements? This “advice” would have had to come in text messages or phone calls sometime after she put Assange on the train and kissed him goodbye, seemingly happy enough – why would her friends start haranging her that she had been raped if this is what she is telling them at that time? For example, Hanna Rosqvist seems puzzled, based on her conversations with Sofia, how Sofia ended up going to the police.
Much of Sofia’s friends’ witness statements deal with what they heard from her before she went to Klara on 20 August, but during that time period it is exclusively focused on HIV/pregnancy fears, there is no mention of rape, and there is nothing at all about a “someone pulling on a balloon” ripped condom incident. Why not?
WHEN – what date? – did the ripped condom fragment first come into the picture? The FIRST TIME we get to hear about it is in Donald Bostrum’s conversations with Anna Ardin on 20 August describing what Sofia has told her when Sofia contacted her earlier that day (further analysis on this aspect below). Why did Mats Gehlin decide that this ripped condom fragment was such a crucial piece of evidence regarding Sofia’s allegations (her *formal* allegations are about condomless half-asleep sex!) that he sent it to the forensics lab under Ardin’s docket while Sofia’s case was dismissed by Eva Finne?
3. I think Sofia Wilen first contacted Anna Ardin later in the day/evening on Thursday 19 August, or, more likely, the very early morning of Friday 20 August. This would be the first point at which she has confirmation that JA had also slept with AA. No doubt AA mentioned her grumbles about her guess that JA “deliberately” broke a condom to Sofia. Do we have a firm date/time for first contact from Sofia to AA yet?
We do, however, know that Sofia returned to the Soder hospital (her THIRD hospital visit) AFTER her conversation with AA – but why??
We also know that while she was at Soder on that Friday morning she told JA that she would NOT go to the police (as she agreed they would meet the next day to talk about his HIV test) but two hours later she was at the police station – was this a deliberate LIE on her part? Do we have any third-party confirmation from one of her friends that she had made up her mind to go to the police BEFORE this conversation with JA and/or after her conversation with Anna (perhaps it’s in one of the withheld SMSs that hasn’t come out yet?)
4. Then we have to consider what AA testified to, via Petra Ornstein and Donald Bostrum:
– Petra Ornstein: Anna rang [Petra] on Friday 20 August RIGHT AFTER the other girl contacted Anna. Anna told her THE OTHER GIRL TOLD HER SHE’D BEEN RAPED by Julian. According to Anna, there were a number of SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THEIR STORIES. What [Petra] primarily meant and what Anna told her was that Julian also had sex without a condom with the other girl. The OTHER GIRL wanted sex (but with a condom) but JULIAN HAD SEEN TO IT THEY HAD SEX WITHOUT A CONDOM WITHOUT HER WISHES. < "had seen to it" < does that sound like half-awake unprotected sex, or Anna truthfully recounting how Sofia has claimed to have had the "similarity" of "someone pulling on a balloon" to sneakily sabotage a condom?
"The other girl told her she'd been raped" < in this account Wilen is the first of the two women to say this. Is Ardin lying here, or is Sofia lying later on when she says "it was the police who made up the charges"? (SW: 21 August, 22.25)
– Donald Bostrum: Anna says "And then Sofia tells me Julian continues having sex with her in the morning without protection, without a condom. And she doesn't want that and she protests, uh, but Julian continues and completes the sex without protection despite Sofia's protests", says Anna.
But this is NOT what Sofia tells the police. So, is this Anna lying to Bostrum? Or Anna truthfully reporting to Bostrum lies that she has been told by Sofia in the conversation where Sofia first discovers that she is not the only woman JA is having sex with?
and: "Anna said that Sofia protested, clearly and loudly that, 'no don't go on'." < Again, is this Anna lying to Bostrum, or is she truthfully describing what Sofia said to her but later told police she only said "'You'd better not have HIV'. I couldn't be bothered to tell him…"? Which of the two ladies is lying here?
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT
Donald Bostrum relates how he confronts Julian: "He says SOFIA DIDN'T PROTEST AT ALL, they were just having fun. I really try to pressure him, did you take the condom off, DID YOU BREAK THE CONDOM, Uh, he doesn't even understand the question. So it's two separate, and I have no conclusions to draw from this.." < PLEASE NOTE Donald Bostrum is specifically referencing Sofia Wilen here when he asks "did you break the condom?"
Again, Anna confirms to Donald Bostrum that she specifically interjected into Sofia's interview with Linda Wassgren at the exact point where Sofia Wilen is claiming that JA has deliberately broken a condom during sex:
Bostrum: Anna rings again and says "Now we've been with the police and SOFIA TOLD HER STORY and, yeah, because I sat there SO I ADDED A COMMENT OF MY OWN" – This is very 'word for word' and as I remember her telling me. Uh, aha I say, and what was that comment? – "Yeah, that comment was that “I THINK SOFIA IS TELLING THE TRUTH BECAUSE I EXPERIENCED SOMETHING SIMILAR”, Anna says then. – And THEN SHE TOLD ME THAT BIT ABOUT THE CONDOM then – “SO THAT’S WHY I THINK IT’S TRUE”. And I don’t know anything about police technicalities but then Anna says, because we suddenly were two women who had a statement about, about the same man so it became a crime against the state.
I have put the actual comment Anna says (to Donald) that she made to the police in quote marks and capitals so Flashback don’t miss EXACTLY what Anna says if the formatting gets lost if someone reposts this paragraph in their forum. PLEASE NOTE that Anna explains to Donald that Sofia is telling a story to police that very closely mirrors her own experience – not seeing, but hearing something which she later imagines was JA deliberately interfering with a condom during sex (see how Anna describes it in her own statement) – and she interjects in Sofia’s interview with her own story to confirm that “Sofia is telling the truth”. Donald goes on to explain that, according to Anna, it’s the fact that two women are making the SAME statement about the SAME man which turns their adventure at Klara into a state crime.
Anna’s statement doesn’t actually describe a “sound” as such, but Mats Gehlin clearly remembers Sofia has said at some point she heard, but didn’t see in the dark, “a sound like someone pulling on a balloon” before a ripped condom fragment is “found” under her bed and somehow winds up in police hands…
Gehlin oddly, almost obsessively, focuses on this “sound” in his interview with JA – “I don’t want to nag but going back to this issue of a sound” (or similar words) he says at one point (asks twice, specifically about the sound of ripped condoms). To him, it seems a pretty key thing, although there’s no emphasis on a sound in Ardin’s statement. And, at this point in the investigation, he was supposed to be interviewing JA only about some non-sexual aggravation per Eva Finne. Deliberately damaging a condom can hardly be called “non-sexual” and yet Gehlin instead asks about AA’s allegation of deliberate ripping. Why did Gehlin think this was the most important thing?
Beats me why – in the face of all this evidence – anyone can still be thinking of Sofia Wilen as a “duped groupie”. Vengeful groupie, yep – very likely. But “duped” groupie telling the truth throughout while all the while only wanting to force JA to get a HIV test? Not. A. Chance.
PS. Flashback may have slightly skewed a piece of evidence in their keenness to believe Sofia (I say *may have* because I don’t know how the Swedish language treats tenses, of past, present and future action):
Next morning, Aug 21st at 07.27, she texted a friend “I don’t want to accuse Julian of anything”.
They have put this text of Sofia’s into the present tense. But the affidavit (albeit it’s a paraphrase, and in English translation) indicates that Sofia had sent a text to her friend that was in the past tense, she “didn’t want to accuse JA of anything” < ie it is a statement made AFTER THE EVENT, looking back, after the damage is done, and could be equally seen as trying to excuse herself for what's happened, rather than a statement that she continues to be totally opposed to how things have turned out.
She needed to correct her new solicitor, Massi Fritz, on this point too. I wonder what Massi Fritz had seen in all the investigation case file that she had requested from the police which had led her to assume that Sofia Wilen had wanted to report a rape from the very beginning?
One more bit from Flashback’s story (which, by the way, I’m not saying is essentially wrong in saying SW and AA may have come under pressure from/been supported by intelligence/political entities either immediately after events, or at a later stage):
“The same evening, when to her surprise she had found out that Eva Finne had closed the rape case, she wrote another text: It was late, already 22.25: She wrote: It was the police who made up the charges”.”
Yeah… and then she very quickly contacted Claes Borgstrom. It’s in his bill that he met up with Complainant A (Sofia Wilen) the day BEFORE he worked on amending her statement, which the following day were returned to police with “the necessary changes” which Mats Gehlin tells Irmeli Krans to input on 26 August. Check the dates of his bill. And then wonder about his statement when he was sacked by Sofia about his client being the one pushing him to do more and more media about her case.
Little Sofia Wilen is NOT the reluctant, “duped” groupie she’s worked so hard to convince everyone she is. “Vengeful” groupie sounds about right, though – and protected subsequently from the consequences of what she’s done because that suits a great many intel/political actors down to the ground.
Sorry, Axel (got your name wrong earlier, oops), one final final point. It’s about this bit of Petra Ornstein’s testimony:
“According to Anna, there were a number of SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THEIR STORIES. What [Petra] primarily meant and what Anna told her was that Julian *also* had sex without a condom with the other girl.”
Where does Anna ever claim that she herself had sex without a condom with JA? Anna says in her statement that Assange put on the condom that she fetched for him before they actually had sex. She claims they only had sex on one occasion (which JA’s statement part-collaborates as they only had full penetrative sex on one occasion). Obviously, what Petra and Anna are referring to here – in regard to Anna – is the experience of being unprotected because a condom that was used got broke, but that Anna views this experience as sex “without a [properly protective] condom”. So note that “also” that Petra/Anna use in Petra’s statement about “a number of similarities” between the two women’s experiences. Anna is drawing a direct parallel between her own experience and Sofia’s – she describes BOTH “similar” experiences as “without a condom”. Is she therefore here telling Petra that Sofia too claimed that a condom broke and left her unprotected?
And this I’m pointing out to Flashback, as loudly and clearly as I can. Two things, actually:
From above:
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT
Donald Bostrum relates how he confronts Julian: “He says SOFIA DIDN’T PROTEST AT ALL, they were just having fun. I really try to pressure him, did you take the condom off, DID YOU BREAK THE CONDOM, Uh, he doesn’t even understand the question. So it’s two separate, and I have no conclusions to draw from this..” < PLEASE NOTE Donald Bostrum is specifically referencing Sofia Wilen here when he asks "did you break the condom?"
Y'all do realise that this is the first evidence we have of when the ripped condom fragment from Sofia Wilen came into the picture. It is very important to realise that Donald is here describing a conversation he had with Julian – about a broken condom incident with Sofia – on the morning of Friday 20 August BEFORE THE WOMEN EVEN WENT TO THE POLICE. So, it WASN'T the police who made up any evidence of a ripped condom fragment from Sofia. This conversation between Donald and Julian was, obviously, BEFORE Mats Gehlin can possibly have heard anything about the sound of "someone pulling on a balloon", unseen in the dark, and that "the fragment was found under [Sofia's] bed on the side where the suspect lay".
Second thing, also from above:
Do we have any third-party confirmation from one of her friends that she had made up her mind to go to the police BEFORE this conversation with JA and/or after her conversation with Anna (perhaps it’s in one of the withheld SMSs that hasn’t come out yet?)
I’ll just leave that there 😉
Donald Bostrum’s statement:
Bostrum [WF]: Anna held a style and a line with me that was pleasant, credible, straight, fresh in some way. But then what happened, I understood later that a lot of things had happened. That the impression wasn’t correct…
MG: No.
WF: Uh, corresponded with reality.
DL: No.
WF: So, hmmm.
MG: How, and then when this comes out… In other words when she rings and tells you this…
WF: Hmmm.
MG: About THINGS having happened with Sofia. [note plural – does MG believe that two or more separate incidents are alleged to have happened with Sofia – one in the dark of night, which she didn’t actually see, and one in the light of morning, when she claims she had fallen back to sleep? Note also where I’ve pointed out above that Bostrum says “So, it’s two separate, and I have no conclusions” < there is confusion about whether he's talking about two separate incidents – one AA, one SW – or two separate incidents with Sofia alone.]
WF: Yes.
MG: And that you, even then, she tells you what was true and like that.
WF: Yeah.
MG: What do you think about her when she tells you what she claims has happened?
WF: I find it, uh… I was, partly I was of course flabbergasted that it’s a completely different impression all of a sudden.
MG: Hmmm.
WF: Uh, but then I think that, that I think she’s credible. And a bit like this, a woman who is in trouble you want to believe, in some way like that OK, it’s like…
MG: Hmmm.
WF: Uh, yeah so that was my feel, direct feeling.
MG: Hmmm.
WF: And yeah, but at the same time when, have, I got this thought, how could they have sex, consensual as she described it, so then something happens which she says is an assault, how could she gleefully arrange crayfish parties, let him go on living there, share her bed with him, and so forth. So I felt that here, here is something here that doesn’t add up. So I had both the feeling of her as a credible person but that something nevertheless didn’t add up in her story. [if Bostrum is explaining here that it seemed to him that AA was telling the truth, she seems credible, perhaps it’s because she was – the “not adding up” bit is because she may well have been goaded by Sofia’s tale of “pulling balloon sounds” to exaggerate her own experiences with JA, and that’s why they don’t “add up” with what DB has heard from AA earlier in the week.]
MG: No.
WF: But I decided not to dig into it, I won’t dig into it, you get to do that right? (Laughs.)
MG: Yeah! (Laughs.)
WF: So that it’s those two impressions I have in parallel, a credible girl, a strong girl who knows what she wants but something doesn’t add up. And it’s magnified a bit because I now have three versions of what happened.
MG: Hmmm.
WF: Uh, and Julian still says the same thing, I don’t understand anything.
MG: No.
WF: They liked this a lot and they really wanted me, yeah. Uh, so that yeah…
EO: Can I get a question in here?
MG: Of course.
EO: When you speak, when you spoke with Anna…
WF: Hmmm.
EO: And she says she’s been the victim of a sexual assault. Do you, do you get the feeling of what you thought she was subjected to actually, or Sofia? [Is this question a sign that, from the police’s point of view, the two women have reported exactly the same behaviour – the deliberate ripping of condoms?]
WF: Yeah, uh…
MG: Based on Anna’s story.
WF: Yes, I understand. Based on Anna’s story, when she rings me and says we had sex and this happened so she didn’t at all imply she’s been the victim of sexual assault. In other words she doesn’t even want to go to the police. But, she expresses it like I want, I’ll go along with, I promised Sofia I’d go along with her for support. Not that she had any business with the police herself. And so my impression is that she didn’t experience anything serious but was mostly angry. As in don’t fucking break the condoms but not that it was an assault. Uh, this is my impression because she doesn’t go to the police for her own sake.
Then she rings back and says that, as stated what I said then that because she supported Sofia’s story with that comment so the case turned out as she said, expressed it, stronger. She said precisely that. [Same allegation then, only stronger because Anna has made it stronger by duplicating it?]
Arbed,
You have managed to convince me that I should think through all this once again. For the moment, one question only. Where did you find the information that Sofia had the rape-kit examination already on Tuesday the 17th of August? I have up to now lived in the belief that it happened on Friday around lunchtime.
Hi Axel,
It’s in Wilen’s formal testimony:
As you can see, that all takes place on the same day. Ms Wilen was a very, very busy lady on Tuesday 17 August. We have analysed all the train times and distances in relation to the timings of the rest of her statement (at the local shop 8am, puts Assange on a train for a 12 noon meeting for which he will be more than an hour late, etc), and it is do-able. But, like I said, those texts and phone calls from friends advising her that she had been a crime victim must have been coming thick and fast that she would spend most of that afternoon and evening on trains and in rape clinic waiting rooms. There’s also the point that there’s a much nearer hospital she could have gone to, but that one doesn’t have a specialised rape clinic (so the whole story of only wanting HIV testing starts to fall apart as early as Tuesday 17 August 2010).
There is another source (an indisputable one) which confirms the rape kit was already done earlier in the week but I’m keeping that one under my hat.
hey Arbed. please check emails re topic posts. wishes m xx
Stockholm Allegations Information in the Affidavit of Julian Assange. Text Messages – Timing
Recently, Julian Assange launched a new preliminary investigation into the disappearance of laptops from his luggage at Arlanda airport on 27th September 2010. Buried in his affidavit (paragraph 97) were some text messages sent by Sofia Wilen (one of the women who has reportedly made allegations against Julian Assange) while she was at Klara police station on the 20th August 2010. She wrote that she:
did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him (sv: få tag på honom) (14:26);
and that she was:
“chocked [sic: shocked] when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test (17:06).
As well as the content, the timing of these text messages is curious: 14:26 is approximately 25 minutes after the two women (the other being Anna Ardin) behind the so-called ‘Stockholm affair’ allegations, first arrived at the police station.
However, the first text message was sent nearly two hours before Wilen was interviewed formally by Irmeli Krans “The interview commenced at 16:21 and was terminated at 18:40”.
What did Wilen and Ardin say to the police officer they initially spoke with (Linda Wassgren), for the Klara police to so quickly become “keen on getting a grip on [Assange]”? Surely, “a few pretty simple questions” about ensuring Assange took an HIV test would not cause such a reaction.
The second text message was sent at 17:06. This is precisely 6 minutes after the arrest warrant for Assange was first issued. However, Wilen was giving her formal statement to officer Irmeli Krans (a political acquaintance of Ardin’s) between 16:21 and 18.40. Firstly, why was she sending a text message to her friends during a formal police interview? And, how can Wilen know about something happening in another part of the police station – presumably Klara officers conduct interviews in private rooms and not at the duty prosecutor’s desk? Krans stated “In the course of the interview” both she and Wilen had been informed that “Assange had been arrested in absentia”.
Was it that Klara police officers interrupted a formal interview to announce that their “getting a grip on [Assange]” was underway? And if so, is this normal behaviour? Does it fit with the circumstances outlined by both Wilen and Ardin – an attempt to get Assange to take an HIV test?
A test understood by everyone at the Klara police station to be completely pointless because Wilen had already taken one herself.
In fact Wilen went to Dandryd hospital for an HIV test on the 17th and by the 20th should have had the results, which take between one and three days to be returned. On the 17th Wilen also went to “Söder Hospital where she was examined and where samples with a so-called rape kit were also taken.” Why did Wilen return to Söder with Ardin on the 20th just before going to Klara police station? The only possible explanation is to see if the ‘rape kit’ had turned up Assange’s DNA.
Assange “I was contacted by a mutual friend of Anna and me on Friday, the 20th. It was a woman named Sonja who was at the hospital. She said something about DNA and the police – and I was very upset to hear that. No one alleged anything.”
How can Wilen write on the 20th that “she only wanted him to take a test” when she’d already taken one and could likely find out the results by calling Dandryd hospital? How can Wilen write on the 21st that she “did not want to accuse JA for anything”; and that “it was the police who made up the charges”, when she went to Söder hospital on the 17th and the 20th?
At 18:40, Krans recorded that she felt it necessary to terminate the interview because Wilen had become distressed (“had difficulty concentrating”) about the arrest warrant. Krans also stated that Wilen said she felt that Assange was “angry” with her (after she had learnt about the arrest warrant). What could have happened between 17:06 (when, according to Wilen’s text, she first heard about the arrest warrant) and 18:40, (when Krans judged Wilen too distressed to go on giving her statement) for her to understand that “Assange was angry at her”? Is this when the stated intention (an HIV test) changed?
Or was it that this intention was always false, considering: it made no sense to begin with, it does not match the reaction of Klara officers, and what became of it – an incomprehensible allegation of rape – based on someone who either “awoke” or was “half-asleep” or “sleeping” (according to different witness statements) and who alleged that they “didn’t have the energy” to say that they wanted a condom to be used because it was “too late” and then failed to respond with either a yes or a no when Assange said he wanted to “come inside her”?
This allegation was leaked to the tabloid press within hours by the Klara police as simply “rape”. Under these circumstances, Wilen might assume Julian Assange would be angry with her?
In witness statements by friends of Ardin, Wilen went to the police to make an allegation of rape against Assange:
According to witness Kajsa Borgnäs “Anna had said that she and the other young woman had decided to go to the police so that the other woman could report Julian for rape, and that Anna would follow along in support.”
According to witness Petra Ornstein “Anna had said that the other woman had related that she had been raped by Julian. Anna […] herself did not intend to file a complaint against Julian but wanted to support the other young woman.”
In witness statements by friends of Assange, Wilen went to the police to get Assange to take an HIV test:
According to witness Donald Boström “Anna phoned me often and said that all we want is for him to take an HIV test; then we won’t file a complaint, she said.”
According to witness Johannes Wahlström “[Assange] replied, “I can take a blood test, but I don’t want to be blackmailed into taking a blood test. They are saying that either Sofia goes to the police, or I take a blood test.”
In witness statements by friends of Wilen, she went to the police to get Assange to take an HIV test:
According to witness Marie Thorn “When Sofia visited the hospital and the police, it did not turn out as Sofia wanted. She only wanted Julian to get tested. She felt that she had been run over by the police and others.”
According to witness Hanna Rosquist “Sofia wanted Assange to be tested for venereal disease. Sofia had gotten a test, but it would take a much longer time before she got the results. It would go much faster if Assange were to get a test.” (this is incorrect)
The content and timing of the Wilen’s text messages, which according to Marie Thorn’s statement include “figur[ing] out a good way to get revenge” because Wilen was “very angry with Julian” and “all the hullabaloo” he had caused – are inexplicable. Wilen’s stated intention – made before, during and after going to the police – does not match other witness statements, in fact it does not even match her own statement.
It is perhaps unsurprising that prosecutor Eva Finné stated the day after Wilen’s police interview “I do not believe there is any reason to suspect that Julian Assange has committed rape” and decided to dismiss all sex related charges four days later. What is suprising is that Ardin and Wilen then contacted the politician-lawyer Claes Borgström to have the case re-opened, which he succeeded in doing (courtesy of prosecutor Marianne Ny) on the 1st of September.
The disconnect between Wilen’s text messages and what she said to others, with what she told Ardin points to a conspiracy. There can be no other reason for such a disparity. Nothing about this case ‘adds up’ and yet when individuals say and do things that do not make sense, that conflict – there is always a reason. There is always something else going on.
http://www.marthamitchelleffect.org/textmessagetiming/4581076519
Preliminary attempt to tackle the issue of the chain of custody of Sofia Wilen’s condom fragment
Firstly, from the forensic lab results we have this:
Then, from Guy Sim’s book Julian Assange in Sweden: What really happened, we have some details regarding how both Ardin and Wilen’s condoms came to be in police custody.
From Chapter 16 Comments, The Condoms/page 38 of that book:
Guy Sim thinks that Anna Ardin handed in both her own and Sofia Wilen’s condoms together on 21 August, but I think he’s got this wrong, for the following reasons: (It would be really handy if someone can post a link for the redacted two-page requisition order so I can check EXACTLY what information is given on it.)
1. I think Guy Sim’s got the numbers -1 and -2 assigned to the condoms the wrong way round. As we can see from the lab report, they number Ardin’s condom as -1.
2. This would make sense in terms of Eva Finne making a public statement on 21 August 2010 rescinding the arrest warrant and saying she can see no reason to suspect rape from the witness statements she’s seen so far (Ardin’s telephone statement and Wilen’s unaltered 20 August statement), but leaving open one non-sexual offence to be investigated further.
3. It is not confirmed that Eva Finne requisitioned two different condoms from two different women. Given that Wilen’s formal statement mentions nothing about a ripped condom but rather alleges an offence where a condom was NOT used, it makes more sense that Finne’s request was for Ardin’s “torn” condom only. As we know, the two condoms were sent to the forensics lab only on 25 August 2010 but that both women’s condoms were submitted under Anna Ardin’s case docket. (Sofia Wilen’s case was suspended from at the latest 5pm, Saturday 21 August – prior to Wennerblom’s retrieval of Ardin’s condom. Her case had been closed entirely on 23 August 2010.)
4. With Ardin’s condom, we seem to have the basics of a chain-of-custody. We have an officer’s name (Sara Wennerblom), we have an exact time and date(6.12pm, Saturday 21 August 2010) and we have a circumstance (“after enquiry by the police” – likely a visit by them to Ardin’s apartment). With Sofia Wilen’s condom, however, all we have is heavy redaction and the single word “Produced”. We cannot assume that the officer’s name, Wennerblom, and the time 6.12pm also apply to Wilen’s condom given that these details appear on a docket relating to Anna Ardin’s case.
The confusion regarding numbering in Sim’s book is problematic, however – could the word “Produced” actually relate to the custody chain for Ardin’s fake used condom and the words “after enquiry by the police” to the chain of custody for Wilen’s deliberately ripped condom fragment? We need to find out.
All we know so far is that this custody chain for Wilen’s deliberately damaged fragment takes place sometime between 2pm Friday 20 August 2010 and whatever time on 25 August 2010 that it was sent to the forensics lab.
Did police go to Wilen’s flat to retrieve a condom fragment? In that case, who found it “under the bed on the side where the suspect lay” – the police, or Wilen herself? If the police did go to Wilen’s flat to collect the condom fragment, I cannot believe that there is not also a separate ‘executed’ requisition order for it, complete with details of police officer name and exact date/time of retrieval, perhaps somewhere in the investigation’s ‘slush bin’ of evidence that has not been released to the defence (but WILL have to be if Julian Assange is ever charged). If such a separate document exists for the collection of Wilen’s condom, I can understand why Gehlin would not have used it to forward the item to the lab, given that Wilen’s case had been fully closed by 25 August 2010.
Did police collect it instead from the Soder hospital? Is this what the redacted details on the requisition order hide, and, if so, is it clear on which of the two visits to Soder hospital that Sofia made it came into the hospital’s possession – Tuesday 17 August or Friday morning 20 August? The answer would be rather crucial as the latter visit comes AFTER Sofia has spoken to Anna Ardin for the first time and discovered that she was not the only woman Assange had been having sex with that week (and, of course, the first time that Sofia Wilen had heard another woman’s grumbles about a broken condom…)
Or did Sofia Wilen herself hand it to Linda Wassgren, with Anna Ardin sitting beside her to support her story? Could this explain why literally 25 minutes after the two women walked into the station the police and duty prosecutor were excitedly “keen to get a grip on” Assange (as reported in Sofia Wilen’s text messages), despite neither woman having given a formal statement yet? Is this why Linda Wassgren wrote in her memo to Eva Finne on 22 August trying to explain how the police/duty prosecutor had so disastrously jumped the gun that “rape was mentioned from the start… everyone agreed it was rape”?
Is this why Irmeli Krans was locked out of Durtva on Monday 23 August and prevented from finalising Wilen’s statement from the previous Friday – at least until Wilen’s newly appointed legal counsel had had a chance to look at it and fill in what the police assumed must be missing from the one Eva Finne had seen and based all her decisions on? Had the “special”, “not very bright” Sofia Wilen mysteriously forgotten to mention anything about the “deliberately ripped” fragment/sounds of someone “pulling on a balloon” she had heard in the night to Irmeli Krans…? Do we have a clear idea of when Linda Wassgren or Mats Gehlin (who I believe was in a different building during the telephone conference on 20 August between Wassgren, other officers and the duty prosecutor) first saw the statement taken from Wilen by Irmeli and biked to Eva Finne?
PS.
“Or did Sofia Wilen herself hand it to Linda Wassgren, with Anna Ardin sitting beside her to support her story?”
and
“Do we have a clear idea of when… [substitute Anna Ardin’s name] …first saw the statement taken from Wilen by Irmeli and biked to Eva Finne?”
If that first proposition is true – that Anna Ardin actually saw Sofia Wilen hand in a ripped condom fragment – and that it is likely that she [Ardin] didn’t realise that Sofia’s formal statement made no mention of it (until, possibly, Ardin saw the “draft” Wilen statement their mutual legal counsel Claes Borgstrom was busy amending on 25 August – and, of course, potentially much later than that), this could help explain why she so stupidly faked a “torn, used” condom and handed it in at 6.12pm on Saturday, 21 August – about an hour after Eva Finne had inexplicably, from Ardin’s point of view, rescinded the arrest warrant and publicly stated she could see no evidence of an offence at all.
We don’t know, AFAIR, whether Ardin was already aware of Eva Finne’s 5pm statement at the time she handed in her own faked condom – if she did, then she may have realised that Sofia Wilen’s case being suspended left herself as the sole bearer of a “formal complaint” relating to a “state crime”, and panic may also have been a factor.
It looks like the Washington Post is playing ball with the US DoJ by publishing a story that implies that Assange is free to safely return to Sweden to attend to the sexual assault allegations there.
WP: “The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made, and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impaneled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html
So we have hearsay from anonymous officials about an informal decision not to pursue a prosecution arising from a grand jury investigation that was repeatedly falsely denied as having ever existed – and we are expected to believe this bullshit? And the US DoJ reserves the right to bring new charges against Assange for crimes that are yet to be revealed.
But that doesn’t stop the predictable cascade of smugly confident stories, inspired by the Washington Post piece, that Assange has no remaining reason to stay at the Ecuadorean embassy. A snarky example here :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/27/excellent-news-now-julian-assange-can-go-to-sweden-to-face-those-rape-charges/
Hi Sterling,
Yes, that one really made my blood boil too. Still, if articles like that have comments open, I try to use them as an opportunity to paste in a few links to accurate information about the case, eg the Lab Results, the Supreme Court Agreed Facts, etc.
I wish there was some way I could do the same for yesterday’s Espressen, which contained the following very misleading quote from Elisabeth Massi Fritz, Sofia Wilen’s new lawyer:
I wish some kind Swedish soul would find a way to point out in Espressen‘s comments section (or other press forum if there isn’t one) that the sentence “My client… will stick to the story of the serious violation that she believes that she suffered” presents a teensy-weensy problem, because this below is the story she will have to “stick to”:
Does Espressen – or any of the Swedish newspapers – have a Letters from Readers page, or similar? I just think it would be great if supporters in Sweden/Flashback could take advantage of Massi Fritz every time she puts her foot in it when she makes such easily discredited remarks, and use them as an opportunity to get links to the facts (ie. the Affidavit) more widely circulated.
Following on from above, I note Longbow’s comment in Flashback that Massi Fritz’ statement to Espressen may well be an infringement of the Bar Association’s rules:
“§2. Lawyer’s conduct must be factual and correct and such confidence in the legal profession are maintained.” A Ramberg is sharp and I see it as entirely possible that Fritzen censured for this statement”
As we know, there has already been a formal complaint about Massi Fritz lodged with the Bar Association recently. I wonder if another one could be composed, based on the above disparity between Massi Fritz’ public comments made to Espressen and the information in her client’s text messages, which she MUST have in her possession and know to be factual?
Arbed and Martha: Thanks for good analyses above.
It seems that all Sofia’s statements and texts which were directed to her friends play up the motive of HIV-testing. Anna’s friends, on the other hand (Kajsa Borgnäs and Petra Ornstein) have the impression that Sofia will go to the police to report rape. In other words: Anna must have said to (at least some of) her friends that Sofia was the victim of a rape. And in all likelihood discussed this with Sofia before they went to the police.
Why does Anna then tell Donald Boström that they are only going to demand a HIV-test of Assange. And why do Sofia call Assange on Friday with an ultimatume: take an HIV-test or we go to the police? We, not I (Sofia).
It looks to me like both of them are dishonest, producing smokescreens to cover their true reason for going to the police. They can have different reasons for lying. Sofia may have known exactly where the action would lead, but be desperately anxious to conceal it. Anna might have less of a reason, she could later tell her friends proudly that they reported a rape.
Hi Axel, you said:
It would make sense if both of the women (after speaking to each other for the first time) were telling their friends that the OTHER one was claiming to have been raped. The thing is to work out/find out which woman was the one who said it first to the other one.
I think you’re right: Wilen in her communications with others is doing much more concealing than Ardin is. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Anna Ardin’s very first press interviews after the news of the arrest warrant for Assange was splashed all over Espressen seemed to go with the HIV-advice story, and the early Rebella post too. It was only in later amendments of that Rebella post that the story was ‘hardened’ to sound more like a complaint of sexual assault. It’s almost as if Ardin didn’t find out until later that Sofia Wilen’s formal statement to police said something very different to what Sofia had told her over the phone and which she’d listened to, and supported, Sofia telling Linda Wassgren.
How does this ‘mock-up’ of that first telephone contact between them, when Sofia phoned Anna Ardin early on Friday morning 20 August 2010, sound to you?:
Tell me that a conversation along those lines doesn’t fit exactly with what Anna Ardin has told other witnesses (Bostrum, Ornstein); with what she reports to Bostrum about her visit to Klara with Sofia; with Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensic report that *Sofia* reported ‘pulling balloon sounds’; with Linda Wassgren’s memo (“Rape was mentioned from the start and that both women were victims”); with the peculiarity of a condom *fragment* being examined as evidence for Sofia’s official story about sleepy condomless sex; with the disparity between what Sofia’s witness friends who heard from her BEFORE this conversation say about what she’s told them, and those who heard from her AFTER this conversation (check her brother’s statement); and also that it would have encouraged Anna to re-vision and exaggerate her own experiences with Assange earlier in the week in her own statement.
It also, of course, fits with the idea that Sofia Wilen’s texts while she was at the police station and the following day – “I was shocked when they arrested him”, “I didn’t want to report him for anything”, “I only wanted him to take a test”, “It was the police who made up the charges” – are “decoys”, part of Sofia’s pattern of concealment of her true actions and motives. Same with Wilen watering down her formal statement to Irmeli Krans. As Anna Ardin left Klara station before Sofia had finished talking to Krans (having got “too distressed” to sign her statement – or go on to explain to Krans anything about her actions subsequent to Tuesday evening, 17 August – one hour and thirty-four minutes after hearing that an arrest warrant had been issued for Assange), I think Claes Borgstrom’s invoice tells us that the earliest that Anna Ardin may have become aware that Sofia Wilen’s official statement told a completely different story to the one she’d heard would be 25 August 2010.
Axel, you also said:
I think I need to correct this. I’m not sure where you got that from, but I think it may be wrong.
According to Julian Assange in his unauthorised biography, it was definitely Assange who called Sofia while she was at the hospital – he says specifically that she asked him “Did you only call me because you’ve spoken to the other woman?”, at which point he thought the whole situation was getting “ludicrous”. He also says – both in the unauthorised biography, AND in his own police witness statement, AND Donald Bostrum’s statement backs this up as his recollection of what Julian Assange said to him [Bostrum] at the time, around midday on Friday 20 August 2010 before the women went to the police – that Sofia said she was NOT going to the police (she tells him she’d only mentioned that to AA in relation to asking advice about HIV) and agreed they would meet the following day to discuss Assange’s HIV test. But was this a deliberate LIE to Assange? Had she already told Anna – or any of her other friends – that she’d already made up her mind to report Julian Assange for “rape” BEFORE this conversation took place? I suspect the answer to that question may be in the still unreleased SMS text messages and phone records of the women.
Well worth reading pages 234 and 235 of Julian Assange’s unauthorised biography. In it, he also says:
“I did notice as I left on the Friday morning that she [Ardin] was a little strange.”
… as she would be if she’d just received an early morning phone call from Sofia Wilen along the lines of the ‘mock up’ I’ve reproduced above.
and
“Donald was ringing me again and again, saying that Ardin was trying to look out for me with this Wilen situation, and I was saying, “No, it’s fine, I’ve spoken to Wilen and we’re meeting tomorrow.”
… exactly as Bostrum reports him saying to him at the time. Interesting that Assange got the impression from Bostrum that Anna was at least partly trying to protect Assange from Wilen. I think this is consistent with what we know from other parts of the police protocol, and with Ardin’s early press statements: Ardin DIDN’T see herself as a victim, DIDN’T view the situation as rape, but DID think that HIV was the more important factor, and DID want to support another woman’s story/find out more about ‘deliberately’ broken condoms – which sounded so alike to her own experience that she hadn’t been sure of but was getting herself more and more convinced had been ‘deliberate’. So much so, that when Eva Finne announced publicly she couldn’t see any crime in Sofia Wilen’s witness statement (that Anna had not yet seen) she faked her own DNA-less “torn” condom (having been unable to find a real broken one) to lend weight to the complained-of events she *knew* both her and Sofia had experienced…
Postscript:
My theory is that it is AFTER Sofia Wilen’s first contact phone call with Anna Ardin early morning Friday 20 August 2010 that she then sabotages a ‘souvenir’ condom with Assange’s DNA on it to produce a “torn” fragment to back up the story she’s just invented for Ardin’s benefit (based on ‘cold reading’ Ardin’s remarks about Julian adjusting condoms, checking it was still in place, but she’s wet afterwards, ergo Julian must have broken the condom somehow) about hearing, not seeing, “someone pulling on a balloon” and “finding a fragment under her bed” when cleaning the next day. Then Wilen either takes the fragment back to Soder, pretending that she’s just handing in the fragment [deliberately torn, remember, according to the forensic report] to help them get speedier results on the HIV test she had a few days earlier (or, possibly, to back up the DNA ‘rape-kit’ swabs they’d also already done on her, that perhaps she hadn’t wanted to act on until she learned from Ardin she’d been “two-timed”). Or she took it with her to hand in to Linda Wassgren as she sat, with Ardin beside her for Dutch Courage, telling her story of “rape”…
This is why no mention of a ‘broken-condom/pulling balloon sounds/bits of condom under the bed’ incident with Wilen appears in any of her friends’ testimony – surely she’d mention an incident as peculiar and worrying HIV-wise as that to them if she was unhappy and grumbling about her star-fucker night with Assange? – or in her ‘official’ witness statement as she waters that down to avoid being nabbed for making false rape allegations (during which she’s busy sending out “decoy” text messages as she’s giving it, to counteract her informal, completely unrecorded, chat to Linda Wassgren that Assange *might* have been pulling on balloons in the night and refusing to listen to her non-existent “no, stop” protests about a condomless morning quickie…). And why Mats Gehlin seems to keep digging into her story and re-interrogating her again and again as he gradually realises he’s had the wool pulled over his eyes when he first heard from Klara police station on 20 August 2010.
The two keys to unlock the whole puzzle are:
1. Chain of custody for Wilen’s deliberately torn condom fragment. When and how did it first come into police hands?
2. The unreleased SMS text messages and phone records we know the police have of Wilen’s communications with Anna Ardin and with her own friends.
To Out of the Blue at Flashback:
You were wondering about that gap of 1 hour, 34 minutes between Sofia Wilen texting that she was “shocked when they arrested JA” at 17.06 and finally being “too distressed” to go on and the interrogation being terminated by Krans at 18.40 as a result, leaving it unsigned and with no real explanation of what Sofia Wilen did beyond Tuesday evening [the day of the ‘assault’], or how it came about that she and Ardin ended up turning up at the police station together.
You mention an inbalance in the statement itself: a long, long meandering section about all the earlier events leading up to the “assault” [which subheading, I think we know, is a later addition by Claes Borgstrom when he reviewed her statement before resubmitting it for input to Durtva. Ref: Guy Sim’s book] – all this irrelevant talk about buying computer cables and watching the geese – and then only four lines or so to describe the ‘assault’ itself.
I have some idea of how long it takes for a ‘conceptual’ witness statement reporting a rape to be given to/written down by police, and it’s much longer than 2 hours, 20 minutes. Here’s a thought: By 40 minutes into her story, Wilen hasn’t got much beyond how she came to first hear of Julian Assange, develop her hero worship, and attend the seminar. Then someone pops their head around the door to inform Wilen and Krans that an arrest warrant for Assange has just been issued. Wilen doesn’t react much, but immediately asks for a toilet break and sends out her ‘decoy’ text to her friend that she’s “shocked when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test” at 17.06pm BECAUSE she realises there’s a danger she may end up being charged with making a false allegation. Having done that, for the next hour and a half she spins out the earlier parts of her story, watering it down as she goes, getting increasingly vague and seemingly “distracted”, until Krans is finally anxious for Wilen to get to the point [she’s already stayed hours after her normal clock-off time to help by taking down her friend Anna’s friend’s story] and starts pressing Wilen for the nitty-gritty details of the actual ‘assault’. At which point, Wilen fakes “Oh they’ve arrested him. Julian is so angry with me” and rushes out a few quick summary sentences about the actual ‘assault’. Krans gives up. She’s obviously getting nowhere and there’s no point trying to get more detail out of Wilen tonight. To her, it seems that Sofia “cannot concentrate” after hearing news of the arrest, and she tells a “distressed” Wilen – who seems keen to get out the door as quickly as possible – that she can have her statement read back to her, approve it and sign it later, and writes her note about why she’s decided to terminate the interview at 18.40pm.
Well played, Little Ms Wilen, well played! [And I mean “played” – didn’t Sofia study “performance art” at college in Wales?]
Why, yes – yes, she did. Here’s proof of that (fished out from Chapter 22: Sofia Wilen, page 58 of Guy Sim’s book):
This probably isn’t directly relevant, but it may provide context:
https://medium.com/quinn-norton/654abf6aeff7
Thanks for link, Clark. Yes, contextually very relevant. That pastebin link within it revealing what the judge ordered censored from Jeremy Hammond’s sentencing statement (Wikileaks’ source for the Global Intelligence Files) is the most interesting part. It shows pure criminality on the part of Sabu’s FBI handlers. General consensus nowadays is that the FBI’s complicity in allowing the Stratfor hack to go ahead WASN’T designed as a honeytrap for Julian Assange/Wikileaks – they (and us, citizens of the world) were just the lucky beneficiaries of the fact that Jeremy Hammond was too smart for the FBI/a genuine political activist motivated by ideals, not money.
And here’s a great summary of the HUGE wealth of information that’s actually in the Global Intelligence Files by Douglas Lucas, one of the independent investigative journalists who’s spent the last 18 months digging down into them. Only a fraction of what’s in the Stratfor leak has really come out so far:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdSG-tpebOk [7-minute video]
Hey, Longbow! [at Flashback]
Yeah, you’re right – everyone around SW is quiet now. Where did all those trolls – Bob Wright/Goran Rudling, Carlito, etc etc – that used to infest Flashback every time stuff about SW got too close for comfort go? All quiet nowadays and Flashback is suddenly free to discuss the nitty-gritty details of Sofia Wilen’s role. It can only mean one thing: people are no longer getting paid to do it; all the political support and backing she once had is slipping away. She’s become isolated.
Hi Flashback,
I see you are discussing about when exactly and how many times SW visited Soder hospital. As you know, I pointed out the part of Sofia Wilen’s witness statement which details that she visited there, as well as Dandryd hospital, both hospitals, on the Tuesday in this post:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437325
but you didn’t read my post carefully enough. I also said:
Sofia Wilen’s first visit to Soder was on Tuesday. Wednesday at the very, very latest. Fact.
Which begs the question – the very big question – what was the purpose for her visit to Soder on the Friday morning after she had spoken to Anna Ardin, given that she’d already had a HIV test and they’d taken DNA-samples on the first visit? And did she lie to Julian Assange when he phoned her there, when she said she was NOT going to the police (and said to him, obviously in response to some question of his, that she had only mentioned about going to the police to Anna Ardin in relation to HIV testing) yet within two hours there she was at Klara police station after all? As Assange says in his own police statement, “Sonja said something about DNA…”
And DNA samples taken BEFORE Thursday 19 August 2010. Fact. 100% certain.
George Galloway is an English MP. 😉