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.
The people who submitted a formal complaint to the Swedish Bar Association about Sofia Wilen’s lawyer Elizabeth Massi Fritz making misleading statements to the press have now delivered a supplemental complaint to it, based partly on the DN Debatt piece by Assange’s lawyers and Dick Sundevall’s Paragraf article last week.
Here’s the text:
That should put the boot in to any compensation claim based on “prolonged and extreme” pyschological damage by Sofia Wilen (which, I speculate, is the real reason why Ms Wilen seems quite happy for the investigation to drag on for years and why Massi Fritz keeps emphasising her client’s “extreme”, “profound” psychological distress in media statements – I’ll say more on this in a later post).
Thanks Sterling and i’m in agreement with you that tactics will change as the situation develops and the months and years add up.
Sorry off-topic, but i need to correct myself. Apparently, Resident Dissident did “suggest that if anyone has Craig’s email they make him aware of the content of Goldystein’s email which are clearly aimed at inciting racial hatred and would probably be found illegal by a UK court. If Craig/Mod is not willing to take action then I shall refer the matter to the Police.”
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/10/edward-snowden-gets-sam-adams-award/comment-page-17/#comment-436847
——
Now back to moderation, Arbed i take your point about venue, but what do you think about my suggestion of a DEBATT?
Of course, its up to Jon to re-open the top thread so a constructive dialogue can take place. I imagine it would be very helpful to Craig, though everybody knows he’s his own man with generally clear perceptions and will ultimately decide for himself.
As a well-wisher of wikileaks, i do find it contradictory, on a daily basis, this spirit of freedom and transparency vs. a locked up comments board!
This is the problem with the world. The activists want to change it. Collectively we are only playing with the superstructures of society. Individually, we carry on living in the same old way; we refuse to change ourselves deeply. If Assange is using his time in house-arrest usefully, he would be thinking about these things inwardly. If he could marry deep insights about life itself with his external pursuit of freedom and transparency, then we will see some changes. Otherwise its just another sensational episode in the muddied consciousness of Man.
Clark
13 Dec, 2013 – 1:49 am
“Villager, your 12 Dec, 10:15 pm comment could start an off-topic row on this important thread, so this is the only response it will get from me.”
Thanks Clark. Or it could lead to an important consensus, having hit rock-bottom. Jon, should unlock the top thread immediately or explain why he insists to keep it in lock-down mode even a day longer. Surely he’s made his point….by now i.e. after over 5 weeks of silence?
“This is the problem with the world. The activists want to change it. ”
Villager; I absolutely love your passion for free speech and principles of that persuasion. Consider the relationship between Thaddeus Stevens and Abraham Lincoln. One was full of passion without a course of practical accomplishment. The other was passionate with a measure of practicality.
Which one accomplished the most ground in the strategy? I think you’ll find that Lincoln had the high ground. Stevens subscribed to that philosophy and History rewards him with creds.
Flashback recently file-shared a document called Assange-UC-Kompress. It appears to be a selection of (heavily redacted) prosecution documents obtained under FOI requests. You can access the document and download it yourself here:
https://www.flashback.org/sp46486105
I haven’t had a chance to go through this 41-page collection properly yet (but I intend to :)). Much of it I was already aware of but there are some pieces which I think are new (or, at least, new to me) and I anticipate there is new evidence to be picked over with a fine toothcomb in it. For example: I was already aware that Sofia Wilen had met with Claes Borgstrom on 23 August 2010 because this is detailed in Claes Borgstrom’s final bill for his services to Complainant A (SW), but the Assange-UC-Kompress file provides evidence that both women visited Borgstrom TOGETHER at his office on that day.
Hmmm, verrry interesting. Points to ponder:
1. Eva Finne had reviewed both complainants’ statements on Saturday 21 August and announced around 5pm that day that she had rescinded the arrest warrant for Julian Assange and “explained that suspicion of Assange being guilty of rape did not remain”. [from Borgstrom’s letter on pg 11 of the file]
2. On the same day, Saturday 21 August, Eva Finne formally requisitioned the collection of 3 items of evidence FROM ANNA ARDIN ONLY. [“Seizure Protocol” on pages 16/17 of the file]
3. Monday 23 August 2010 was the first working day following Eva Finne’s public announcement on the Saturday.
4. Claes Borgstrom confirmed in a press interview at the time that “the women did not even know that it was possible to re-open a case”.
5. The firm of Bodstrum & Borgstrom specialised in representing rape complainants/compensation claimants. Claes Borgstrom himself, of course, was most famous as a defence lawyer, due to his high-profile involvement as Thomas Quick’s lawyer. (Am I right in thinking that in August of 2010 the full extent of the corruption/mistrial in Quick’s case was not widely known at that stage?)
So why did they both women visit Claes Borgstrom at the first possible opportunity after a senior prosecutor declared that there was nothing she could see in either complaint that constituted a crime, other than a possible “molestation” offence in respect of Anna Ardin?
As Eva Finne’s requisition protocol included collection of Anna Ardin’s ‘torn’ condom, we can surmise that on Saturday 21 August (ie BEFORE she had received Linda Wassgren’s memo justifying the actions taken by the Klara police/duty prosecutor in issuing an arrest warrant for Assange on the Friday evening) Eva Finne felt that this ‘torn’ condom had “a bearing on the investigation” of the outstanding “molestation” offence.
Of course, as at Monday 23 August, Anna Ardin already knows that she has submitted a fake ‘torn’ condom with no DNA on it, and Sofia Wilen already knows that her story that she was only going to the police because “she only wanted him to take a HIV test”/get advice will not hold up in light of the fact that she has already had DNA ‘rape kit’ samples taken (and therefore already received ’emergency’ PEP post-infection HIV medication) BY AT THE VERY LATEST WEDNESDAY 18 AUGUST.
If both women knew that what – in Anna’s words – “made it become a formal complaint” was the fact that two women had spoken to Linda Wassgren about a man who they both said had deliberately torn a condom during sex, and they knew that this story would inevitably unravel and backfire badly on them, well, they would consult a defence lawyer pronto, wouldn’t they?
There’s more in this Assange-UC-Kompress document, and one thing in particular which really backs up my theory that Anna Ardin was tricked by Sofia Wilen into helping her file false allegations, then double-crossed by SW’s change of story to a completely Bowdlerised version containing NO allegations of actual wrongdoing by Assange in her formal interview with Krans, thus leaving Anna Ardin panicking that she’s the ONLY complainant by the time Sara Wennerblom comes to collect a ‘torn’ condom (which she can’t find, because it never existed – she’d only imagined after all!) at 6pm on Saturday, 21 August 2010.
But – she teases 😉 – I’ll let you know that “one thing in particular” I’ve spotted in Assange-UC-Kompress next time…
Seems like Sweden’s extreme rape laws have necessitated rape complainant lawyers who can feed off of the state by protecting jilted lovers from prosecution for their fake complaints.
Question:
Does anyone know anything about how Eva Finne requested that memo from Linda Wassgren written on Sunday, 22 August 2010? Was there any kind of public announcement made that an enquiry would be made into how an arrest warrant came to be issued that would be rescinded 24 hours later?
Can anyone (Flashback?) provide an answer to this?
Arbed wrote:
“…Claes Borgstrom confirmed in a press interview at the time that “the women did not even know that it was possible to re-open a case…
….So why did they both women visit Claes Borgstrom at the first possible opportunity after a senior prosecutor declared that there was nothing she could see in either complaint that constituted a crime, other than a possible “molestation” offence in respect of Anna Ardin?”
My comment:
Anna might have known about the possibility to reopen the case, in spite of Borgströms statement. Reopening the case would perhaps, in Anna’s mind, protect her, not expose her as the only accuser (having handed in false evidence). Her knowledge about this legislation was probably quite good. She had been equality ombudsman at Uppsala university, if I remember right.
If Anna did not know this, something else triggered the visit. I see some possibilities. 1)Their visit was the result of Borgström asking them to come. 2)Or someone else telling them that they should. It is remarkable that Sofia visits Borgström if her SMSs from Saturday were honest (“I did not want to accuse him of anything”). She must have been under heavy pressure, unless she is totally and utterly dishonest and cynical, which I doubt.
Wasn’t there something in Finné’s approval of Borgström as the women’s lawyer about the media attention the case had got? Even if she had been happy to drop the case, she could have needed some advice how to deal with the aftermath. Not a word have come out about her being disappointed with Borgström until last spring when she switched to Elisabeth Massi Fritz. So for over two years she was happy with Borgström, after having felt railroaded by the police and others?
Previous comment: First sentence about Finné, the rest about Wilén. Apologies for the confusion.
Arbed’s question:
“Does anyone know anything about how Eva Finne requested that memo from Linda Wassgren written on Sunday, 22 August 2010? Was there any kind of public announcement made that an enquiry would be made into how an arrest warrant came to be issued that would be rescinded 24 hours later?”
Response:
The following was published in ”Dagens Juridik” on December 10, 2010, by Stefan Wahlberg. He is a TV-journalist specializing in legal affairs. He has read Linda Wassgren’s police memo. It is probably the first time this memo is mentioned in Swedish or other media.
http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2010/12/globalt-nalsoga-sverige-i-assange-fallet
”Exakt varför PM:et är upprättat är oklart men en kvalificerad gissning är att polismannen har fått order om att dokumentera exakt vad som hände just med tanke på det rabalder som händelsen utlöste.”
“Exactly why this memo was written is unclear, but a qualified guess is that this police/Linda W/ was ordered to document exactly what happened in view of the turmoil that this event created”.
Eva Finne would be the one that ordered Linda to write the memo.
The missing bits in the memo have been partly decoded by Glugg at Flashback. Here: https://www.flashback.org/sp39474474
Thanks, Axel
Yes, I hadn’t really doubted that it was Eva Finne who was responsible for ordering Linda Wassgren to write the memo. What I was trying to get at was were there any press statements on 21 or 22 August 2010 that the Klara police/prosecutor’s decisions would be looked into? Stefan Wahlberg talks of “the turmoil that this event created” – presumably that means a LOT of media attention and questions. Did any official respond to those questions publicly with a “we’re looking into why this has happened”?
I note from Claes Borgstrom’s bill that he reviewed Linda Wassgren’s memo and Sofia Wilen’s formal complaint THE DAY BEFORE he even looked at her witness statement:
Arbed,
“I haven’t had a chance to go through this 41-page collection properly yet (but I intend to 🙂 ). Much of it I was already aware of but there are some pieces which I think are new (or, at least, new to me) and I anticipate there is new evidence to be picked over with a fine toothcomb in it. For example: I was already aware that Sofia Wilen had met with Claes Borgstrom on 23 August 2010 because this is detailed in Claes Borgstrom’s final bill for his services to Complainant A (SW), but the Assange-UC-Kompress file provides evidence that both women visited Borgstrom TOGETHER at his office on that day.
“Both complainants visited me in my office 2010-08-23.” [English translation, from page 11 of the file]
Hmmm, verrry interesting.”
A. I have a strong feeling that the fact that both women went together to meet CB has been out there for a long time.
B. Anyway, what makes it so “verrry interesting.”? I agree with Axel and The Blue there could be other reasons, indeed many other reasons, why they would go to meet with a lawyer. Your calling him a “defence lawyer” can sound like deliberate spin.
As Paul Simon said, “There are 50 ways to leave your lover”. But, unfortunately, not the way Assange left them. SW would’ve been left feeling used as a one-night stand. He did not return her phone calls for days. Had he dropped all the ‘important’ things he was doing and gone and had a test, perhaps wires would not’ve been crossed with AA triggering the tandem approach. I believe JA’s close friend had encouraged him in that direction, but he did not listen.
So Arbed there are fifty reasons as to why two jilted women might go see a lawyer together. Nothing sinister about it from a legal standpoint.
Apart from the legal story, which derives from the fact that Sweden has very rigourous rape-laws, there is a very interesting human story here. And i do feel for Assange and the price he has paid and is paying.
In that context, very astute one-line observation by Sterling above.
Simply put, i’m very interested in what is Assange’s legal/diplomatic strategy on the way forward? Is their a possible solution under European/International Human Rights laws? Or is he going to be left to rot at the embassy for 27 years?
The rest is legal-eagle details.
If Sofia wanted to make it look as if it always was someone else who interpreted the described incident as rape she couldn’t have done a better job. First she reports it was after talking to friends (plural, no names) that she “understood”. Then Linda Wassgren and her colleagues for some reason became utterly convinced, even though Sofia herself “only wanted him tested”. Finally she chooses a lawyer infamous for his view that a woman can’t tell for herself if she has been raped.
It’s clear from the interview with Irmeli that Sofia wanted to choose lawyer herself. And even though I don’t know how widely known Borgström’s view was at the time, it can’t have emerged the moment she became his client. Could this view of his be the reason she chose him?
The interview with Irmeli didn’t convince anyone about rape though, and Irmeli seems to have felt the need to put on record that she, Irmeli, wasn’t the one classifying it as such. I wonder if there’s a connection between Sofia’s “breakdown”, allegedly towards the end of interview (even though she had heard of the arrest much earlier), and Expressen’s statement on Saturday that the women were scared for their lives and too fearful to cooperate, causing difficulties for the police and prosecutor. According to Irmeli, Sofia only had time to say “he’s angry with me” before Irmeli decided to end the interview because of Sofia’s state of mind. Did she pretend to be scared of him and because of that too afraid to tell the same story again, relying on the police to believe more in the first statement? Irmeli only described it as Sofia’s failure to concentrate on the questions.
Anna did her best to refute that they were scared, or felt threatened, or that any violence was involved, in a statement shortly after to Aftonbladet. She appeared to be speaking for both of them. So where did the idea that they were scared for their lives come from? Sofias “he’s angry with me”? It doesn’t seem to have come from Anna.
“the womed are scared for their lives”
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/wikileaks-grundare-anhallen-for-valdtakt/
“it’s absolutely wrong that we’re afraid of him” http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
Hi Villager,
Villager, 10.30pm
Oh, I see you’ve also missed the bit about Eva Finne not actually formally closing down Sofia Wilen’s case until 25 August 2010. Obviously, in the two days-worth of dealings with Claes Borgstrom Sofia Wilen had before that point, she did not NEED to re-open anything. (Anna’s case was never fully closed, simply reduced to one count of alleged molestation, so she didn’t need to re-open a case during her visit to Borgstrom either.)
As you can see from the section of her lawyer’s bill that I included – here, I’ll reproduce it again for you:
It is only on the day that Sofia Wilen’s case is closed by Eva Finne that Borgstrom even gets around to looking at the witness statement she gave to Irmeli Krans. Prior to that, Borgstrom’s discussions with Wilen are about a separate document detailing the formal lodging of her complaint (which I’ve seen; it contains details of the information she was given about various legal protocols and timings) and the women’s interrogation by LINDA WASSGREN, as detailed in the 22 August memo.
So, I’ll say it again, the women did not consult Borgstrom to get the case re-opened – as he stated himself in the press – because neither case was closed at the time. So, what was the real purpose of their visit?
The Blue, 10.59pm
Very astute observations. I’d forgotten about that Expressen quote about the women “being scared out of their lives” and, once again, there’s a big discrepancy between Sofia Wilen’s various statements (the text message “I never wanted to accuse JA for anything” doesn’t sound very scared) and what Anna Ardin believed was happening.
I suppose it could just be Expressen being the worst type of scumbag journalists and making that bit up themselves for “colour”, I believe the term is.
Arbed, you don’t seem to answer my questions on the way forward.
Alright, lets assume that JA will win the case if it ever goes to trial in Sweden. But right now we don’t see how it will go to trial. As far as the complainants and the US are concerned they’ve already got Assange where they want him-sequestered.
Also you’re mixing up emergency treatment for HIV with a test. I don’t know how assured the treatment is — is it 100% effective? I can see why she would still want JA to responsibly take a test. As far as “made arrangements to meet the following day to organise his HIV test? ” is concerned, he had obviously already lost her trust. Unsurprising in the context of jilted lover situation etc. and her possibly feeling strung out. Why couldn’t he hop into a cab and go take that test that very afternoon?
Finally, “So, what was the real purpose of their visit?” why does it matter? Anyway, if you’re in a legal situation, it would be a good idea to be in touch with a lawyer.
Repeat, you don’t seem to want to address the way forward. For the real issue is his entanglement seems to be a very tight corner, with very little room to manoeuvre. I do feel sorry for him. JA did make some mistakes but the price he’s having to pay seems extraordinarily high. Is there any justice in this world at all?
2010-08-25 Review of interrogation 2010-08-26.
Look at this. Claes Borgström reviews the “interrogation” of Sofia on the 25th. But the interrogation is dated the 26th. In the morning of the 26th (if I remember right) Mats Gehlin tells Irmeli Krans to “add necessary changes” to the interrogation text.
Surely this strongly suggests that Borgström was involved in formulating these “neccssary changes”. For the purpose of opening up the rape case again, I presume.
Hi Villager,
I think we seem to be talking at cross-purposes because we have different objectives. You wish to discuss the political negotiations to resolve the situation going forward, whereas I consider those to be very high-level and I simply don’t have enough knowledge of the rarified spheres of international diplomacy to make a sensible contribution to that discussion. I can just about keep up with how the political climate is shifting in xxxx or xxxx country, as reflected in media reports, and I do try to post the latest news on that level.
My main objective here, however, has always been a detailed research project: to dig down into how this whole mess came about, in granular detail – the exact order of events/motivations/outcomes, etc – to uncover new evidence that may help ‘resolve’ the case through that investigative project. And new evidence HAS been dribbling out recently. So this thread is a good place to take that new evidence and re-examine the whole jigsaw in light of it, to see where that gets us in terms of understanding. The timestamps of the 20 August/21 August text messages of Sofia Wilen which finally emerged into the public domain in September 2013 are a perfect example. The timestamps of those texts – granular detail, you see? – are literally turning people’s understanding of her actions upsidedown. The story we all thought we knew cannot work anymore in light of those timings.
I do appreciate how difficult it is for you to jump into 9 pages-worth of detailed research and still be up to speed on why contributors here are making the assertions that they are. But you can always ask if you don’t understand why we’re saying something; I’m sure people will be happy to fill you in.
Villager, 9.05am
“Also you’re mixing up emergency treatment for HIV with a test. I don’t know how assured the treatment is — is it 100% effective?”
Just a quickie, to fill you in on this bit. I’m not mixing anything up. My asertion is based on detailed discussions on the Swedish investigative forum Flashback – by people who know the exact procedures of the exact hospitals concerned, and who work in the field of HIV diagnostics, etc – of exactly when the specialised rape clinic at Soder Hospital in Stockholm would have offered PEP post-infection HIV treatment to a rape victim on whom they had just done a ‘rape-kit’ examination (ie. immediately). These contributors know the exact dosages, timing, side effects etc of the PEP post-infection treatment. And we know from other evidence available in the public domain (and one other source) which day Sofia Wilen had that examination done, ergo which day she started treatment on.
And it makes sense if you think about it. How ethical do you think it would be for a hospital that has felt it necessary to do a ‘rape-kit’ examination on someone to withhold immediate treatment for HIV that she might have caught as a result of that rape unless she gets her rapist to take a test too? What rape counselling service is going to advise a rape victim to contact her rapist again otherwise she can’t have treatment?
Axel,
Yes, quite right. Sofia Wilen’s 20 August interrogation by Irmeli Krans was sent to Claes Borgstrom, as her ‘plaintiff’s counsel’, on 25 August for review before it was input to the police computer Durtva on 26 August 2010. Apparently, in Sweden it is perfectly legal for a lawyer to check and tidy up his or her client’s statements prior to them being officially logged.
But there is evidence that Borgstrom did a little more than just check for accuracy or clarity. We know he added at least three crucial sentences and some sub-headings which weren’t there at all in the original, to bring the witness statement in line with something that might conceivable fit the Swedish definitions of rape. Irmeli Krans appears to have noticed that Borgstrom’s “necessary changes” went beyond the norm and took care to make a note of the irregularity, presumably to go on record that she was not complicit in it but was ordered to input them as part of her job.
Thank you kindly, Arbed.
You say: “The timestamps of those texts – granular detail, you see? – are literally turning people’s understanding of her actions upsidedown. The story we all thought we knew cannot work anymore in light of those timings.”
So what is the current understanding of her actions? Can you please point me where i can read this? I am a little confused on the dynamics between, and motivations of, the two women in those days that lead to the formal complaints, especially in light of the preceding paragraph.
Hi Villager,
Yes, it’s a veritable Brown Windsor Soup of obscurity to try to work out what was going on immediately before and immediately after both women attended a police station and an arrest order was issued for ‘rape’ for Assange.
Here’s some links from earlier in the thread which highlight how the timestamps on texts sent by Sofia Wilen on the day complicate the story that we all thought we knew from the newspapers:
Before reading these two, bear one fact in mind: the arrest warrant for ‘rape’ for Assange is NOT based on Sofia Wilen’s witness statement to Irmeli Krans (which was still in progress at the time), but was based on what the two women TOGETHER had informally told to policewoman Linda Wassgren before that. Linda had phoned round her colleagues to consult on what the two ladies had said, and on that basis the duty prosecutor had issued the warrant at 5pm.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437239
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437378
There are two other texts she sent the day AFTER her witness statement to Irmeli Krans: Next morning, Aug 21st at 07.27, she texted a friend that she “didn’t want to accuse Julian of anything” and at 22.25 she wrote “It was the police who made up the charges”.
I ask some questions regarding how other factors in the public-domain evidence do not square with that second text from Sofia – about the police ‘making up’ the charges – here: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437309
The other major complicating factor between the ‘story of Sofia Wilen’ and her text messages stating that she simply wished to visit the police for advice about HIV testing, and how things actually turned out, is the physical evidence of a manually torn condom fragment tested by the forensics lab in relation to Sofia Wilen’s allegations. Except, of course, that her ‘official’ allegations, and her text messages claiming she was only worried about HIV, make this piece of physical evidence completely superfluous. It simply ‘doesn’t fit’:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437353
Sorry, that’s quite a bit of reading I’ve given you there! Apologies that it’s all so wordy and verbose. The fact that there’s so much conflicting evidence in the public domain already makes it harder in some respects to sort wood (or smoke and mirrors) from trees and get all the jigsaw pieces to fit together in a logical way.
Ah, Villager, I’ve just found an earlier post which gives a short-form version of what the above links are about. Read those first (if you can bear it), then this one, to clarify things for you:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437377
If someone told me “as complainant you’re entitled to free legal councel, it won’t cost you a dime” I think I’d say “yes thank you” even if I didn’t have a clear idea what I wanted to get out of it. Simply the fact that she saw a lawyer under such circumstances may not mean much. But I’m a little surprised she decided to choose one herself. Perhaps I shouldn’t be, but if she was tired, confused, shocked by the turn of events, I’d almost expect her to just have one assigned to her. Simply the fact that she went home and consulted with friends or the internet or whatever shows she made an active choice. On what grounds? Of all available lawyers in the Stockholm-Enköping area, she must have chosen Borgström for some particular reason. It could mean she had a very clear idea what she wanted to get out of it.
I just read the post you linked to in your last post
[http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437377)
and the thought hit me that perhaps the circumstances around the torn fragment is why she fell silent during the interview with Krans. One of the last things described is how she goes home, takes a shower, cleans and does laundry. That’s when she should have discovered the condom piece, right? Perhaps at that moment she realises she doesn’t know how to incorporate the condom fragment into her story, and falls silent because she wasn’t prepared for this detailed step by step account of how everything happened, not after the moment she cleaned everything.
The lack of concentration the interviewer described could be because she was too busy adjusting her story, making up new lies to go with the ones already told.
The Blue:
“Simply the fact that she went home and consulted with friends or the internet or whatever shows she made an active choice. On what grounds? Of all available lawyers in the Stockholm-Enköping area, she must have chosen Borgström for some particular reason. It could mean she had a very clear idea what she wanted to get out of it.”
Didn’t AA and CB already know each other? Maybe SW just followed AA’s advice, as they were already co-ordinating with each other.
Arbed: “Didn’t AA and CB already know each other? Maybe SW just followed AA’s advice, as they were already co-ordinating with each other.”
AA must have known ABOUT Claes Borgström, at the very least. He had a high profile in gender matters. In feminist circles he had a good reputation at that time (the Quick affair had not exploded yet). I believe that he joined the same political party as Anna, Labour/the social democrats, only in the summer of 2010, perhaps anticipating a reward in the form of a government position.
If Anna and Sofia talked to each other about a possible lawyer to visit it is likely that Anna would have suggested Claes Borgström.