2,008 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar”

• 

  the blue January 19, 2014 at 14:43

  If Sofia had in any way misled Anna, that could be an explaination for Sofia’s silence during the interview conducted by Anna’s friend Irmeli. She couldn’t tell Anna’s friend a too different story from than the one she had just told Anna, or she risked being caught with a lie. It could have been something she needed to keep from the police, or something she wanted to keep from Anna (and hence from Anna’s friend). So it could have been both a disadvantage and an advantage for Sofia to be interviewed by the other complainant’s friend.

• 

  Arbed January 19, 2014 at 16:00

  Axel and Blue,

  You both make excellent points. Just in case anyone thinks that Mats Gehlin’s note which he especially creates a special file note for after his first conversation with the lab is the result of him getting confused a couple of months down the road:

  1. Unlikely, because he’s already conducted several interrogations with Sofia Wilen by the date of his file note.

  2. There are photographs of Anna Ardin’s apartment as it was in August 2010. She had a single, box ‘storage’ bed; there was no “under the bed” where a fragment of condom could be found. Besides which, Ardin didn’t hand in a fragment, and she says in her telephone statement 21 August that she expects the condom may still be somewhere in her apartment – she obviously means a whole one; she never mentions finding a fragment.

• 

  the blue January 22, 2014 at 09:50

  The only link between the story that they only wanted advice about HIV-testing, and the filing of a rape complaint, is the ultimatum posed that if he didn’t immediately agree to a test, they’d go straight to the police to report him for rape.

  If they only needed advice, that could have been done in much less time over the phone, especially if they wanted to be anonymous to start with, to avoid a complaint being filed and an arrest warrant to be issued. The choice of police station is also curious. Klara is located inside the Central Station, which should have been quite busy on a friday afternoon. It’s small, and separated from the station by a transparent glass wall. The reception desk and a door to an interrogation room is visible to people walking past or having coffee in a nearby coffe shop. It’s as if they were on stage. Hundreds of people must have seen them without knowing what went on.

  They didn’t look for privacy, anonymity or to avoid a complaint being filed. Sofia was a frequent traveller at the Central Station and must have been well aware what Klara police station looked like. Of all police stations in central Stockholm or her home town, this display window of a station was her choice. As if everything had to happen right in front of the eyes of the public. As if an element of exhibitionism was involved.

• 

  Arbed January 25, 2014 at 16:07

  New Swedish law going through at the moment (will be effective from 1st June this year) will – I think – affect Julian Assange’s case. It will strengthen a suspect’s “unconditional right” to see all underlying evidence forming the basis for an arrest decision. This, of course, has been denied to Assange so far. If the investigation against him is not closed before June, his case will come under this law as his detention via arrest in absentia is ongoing.

  http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2014/01/misstankta-ska-fa-ta-del-av-omstandigheter-som-ligger-till-grund-anhallande-nytt-lagforslag

  (use Google translate)

• 

  Arbed January 26, 2014 at 12:11

  Trenterx,

  I share your concern about Rixstep and think he may have had an accident or medical emergency. I would suggest that people in Flashback who are in contact with him get in touch to check that he’s alright now.

• 

  Arbed January 26, 2014 at 14:14

  Yet another Swedish legal professional speaking out against the way Julian Assange’s case has been handled, and saying it should be dropped. This is starting to look like a campaign, isn’t it? I like how this article insists that the women should NOT be given ex-gratia payments just for making allegations that have not been proven. As the author rightly points out, there are civil courts in which the women could pursue a claim for compensation if they truly believed in their cause:

  http://www.gp.se/nyheter/debatt/1.2256088-fallet-julian-assange-drivs-av-prestige

  (Google translate required)

• 

  Arbed January 28, 2014 at 13:28

  Informative article from the Solicitors Journal on where the UK’s opt-out/opt-back-in to the EAW system currently stands:

  What future for the European arrest warrant in the UK
  http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/comment/what-future-european-arrest-warrant-uk

  Interesting that it’s still unclear whether the opt-back-in provisos the UK is suggesting to the Extradition Act 2003 so that EAWs can be refused on grounds of disproportionality over trivial offences and/or that the case is not prosecution-ready – both issues applicable in the Assange extradition case – would stand up to legal challenge in the European Court of Justice. Best they get that sorted out fairly pronto. Overall, article says that the kind of tinkering proposed by the UK will not do much good – what’s needed is Europe-wide root and branch reform of the Framework Directive underlying the EAW system.

• 

  Arbed January 30, 2014 at 21:00

  Hi Trenterx,

  The 16 August 2012 episode of BBC Newsnight where Johan Pehrson took part in a discussion of the Assange case has been taken down by the BBC:

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01m26m1

  Oddly, it also seems to have been taken off YouTube, although episodes from the weeks’ before and after are still there:

  http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=BBC+Newsnight+16+August+2012+Assange&sm=12

• 

  Arbed February 2, 2014 at 08:40

  US Attorney-General Eric Holder is visiting Sweden on 4 February, Prof. Ferrada de Noli reports.

  Amidst discussion in Sweden on dropping the case VS. Assange, arrives US Justice Minister Eric Holder. Meeting Swedish counterpart & lectures in Parliament
  http://professorsblogg.com/2014/02/02/holder2visitswe/

  I guess that explains the week of high-profile “debate” about the case in Sweden leading up to this.

• 

  Arbed February 2, 2014 at 10:09

  Here’s the Swedish announcement of it. Only announced on 31 January. He’s doing an invite-only speech in Swedish parliament:

  http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/usas-justitieminister-till-sverige_8948998.svd

  And, verrrry weirdly, here’s the US State Department press department fielding questions – also on 31 January – about how State co-ordinates with the US Justice Department Office of International Affairs about extradition, and saying that they cannot comment on individual extraditions:

  http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/01/221128.htm

  Meanwhile, the Justice Department OIA’s weekly press release of officials’ schedules for this coming week is not up yet. Here’s the page to keep an eye on, for anyone here who’s interested in this development. If Holder’s 4 February visit is not included in the weekly schedule tomorrow (Monday) then they are definitely trying to keep this visit quiet.

  http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/calendar/week-2014-01-26.html

• 

  Arbed February 2, 2014 at 10:44

  Probably a better link for checking whether the US Justice Dept formally announces tomorrow Eric Holder’s cosy chat to the Swedish parliament on 4 February, and what they have to say about it:

  http://www.justice.gov/opa/calendar/

  Here’s Swedish radio’s announcement of tonight’s Agenda debate on whether Sweden should dismiss the investigation against Assange (Google translate required):

  https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2108&artikel=5772882

  Here’s Johan Pehrson, Swedish Liberal Party spokesman, saying that it should:

  http://instagram.com/p/jyjM2FSwIc/#

  Sounds like Holder’s visit might be a case of attempted damage-limitation (with a touch strong-arming bully tactics thrown in too)

• 

  Arbed February 3, 2014 at 08:19

  Hi Flashbackers,

  Can someone please give me an exact translation of what Claes Borgstrom said on Agenda about AA being “ambivalent” – something to do with questioning in London? I’d really like to know whether the exact wording gives any clues as to her present state of mind.

  Actually, is there a transcription of the whole programme available in English? The programme segment didn’t seem to be very long. Perhaps someone can do a transcript in Swedish and whizz it over? – I’ll get it translated over here.

• 

  axel February 3, 2014 at 18:25

  Here is the interview with Claes Borgström, Swedish Television programme Agenda on February 2nd, 2014 about 22 minutes into the programme. My translation:
  Interviewer: What does your client have to say, is she not keen to see the investigation move forward?

  C Borgström: My client, it is an ambivalent situation for her…she has…it is a very long time since this happened and it is of course the case that she wants to get away from this at the same time as she wants him to be called to account (for what he has done).

  Original in Swedish:
  -Vad säger då din klient är inte hon angelägen om att utredningen förs framåt?
  -Min klient, det är en kluven situation för henne..hon har..det är väldigt länge sedan det här inträffande och det är naturligtvis så att hon dels vill komma bort från det här samtidigt som hon vill att man ska ställa honom till svars alltså.
  http://www.svt.se/agenda/se-program/article1768676.svt?autostart=true

• 

  axel February 3, 2014 at 18:36

  There is another thing about Borgström’s interview that is odd. He does not want the prosecutor to travel to London to interview Assange. Some of the reasons given are these: that the prosecutor in such a case first has to apply for permission, then that the questions have been put by the British (!) police, finally that the prosecutor cannot ask exactly what she wants.

  What on earth is he going on about? The EAW cannot apply inside the Ecuadorian embassy, or…?

• 

  John Goss February 3, 2014 at 19:10

  Great comment by Arbed121 on The Local’s reporting of last night’s television debate.

  ”

  My gosh, I’ve never heard hypocrisy sound so shrill.

  Bildt, Reinfeld, Ask, Perklov and Cecilia Malmstrom have all made public remarks prejudicial to Assange over the past three years, so how can they criticise others for “interfering in the case”? I guess they all must be worried that Uncle Eric Holder – US Attorney-General – is arriving in Stockholm tomorrow and they are all expecting smacked bottoms for allowing – oh, the horror – a public debate to have started about how badly this investigation has been handled. Uncle Sam is very, very angry.

  “Swedish prosecutors, however, refuse to handle the trial in London” – What trial? No one is asking for a trial in London – Mr Assange would, however, really like the opportunity of a police interview about the allegations so that he can give his side of the story and clear his name – something which the prosecutor has denied him for three years now. Elizabeth Massi Fritz talking about a “media witch hunt” has more irony than I can take on an empty stomach, given that media witch hunts are a speciality of her own.”

  http://www.thelocal.se/20140203/prosecutor-pressed-to-speed-up-assange-case

• 

  axel February 3, 2014 at 21:46

  The head of the Swedish Bar Association, Anne Ramberg, has observed this, quoted from the Agenda TV program:

  “It is not inconceivable that an interview with Assange would result in the case being dropped. But that possibility will be excluded by not taking contact with him.”

  Perhaps Ramberg pointed out the real reason for not hearing Assange in London during the 38 months that he has been available there, every single day?

  I found the quote here, in this summary in English of the last weeks’ changing discussion in Sweden: http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/critics.pdf

• 

  Arbed February 4, 2014 at 11:09

  Thanks, Axel! I think Claes Borgstrom’s excuses on the Agenda debate for not interviewing Assange in London are all patent nonsense. The Mutual Legal Assistance procedures for questioning a suspect in the UK are all very thoroughly detailed here [links at bottom]:

  The Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Letter of Request (LOR), Disclosure and Abuse of Process in the Julian Assange Case: The Factors Requiring the Prosecution to Deny an Interview in London
  http://www.marthamitchelleffect.org/mutual-legal-assistance-mla/4571327144

  Meanwhile, I’ve been thinking about another very “ambivalent” statement from Sweden recently… which I’ll do as a separate post.

• 

  Arbed February 4, 2014 at 17:04

  Why did Marianne Ny keep Allegation 2 on the EAW despite already knowing that forensics results showed the condom ‘evidence’ had no sign of DNA on it?

  As a reminder, here’s Allegation 2 as written on Ny’s arrest warrant to extradite Assange from the UK. It concerns Anna Ardin’s allegation that she believed a condom had broken during sex with Assange and that he had broken it deliberately:

  2. Sexual molestation

  On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

  As we know, Marianne Ny was already aware by 25 October 2010, when she received the forensic results report back from the SKL lab, that Anna Ardin had, in fact, handed in a condom made to look torn and used but which had no DNA on it. Clearly, from Ny’s point of view, this ‘evidence’ was useless to her purpose of prosecuting Assange for Allegation 2. Rather, the crime it pointed to was one of making false allegations. So why would Marianne Ny include on the EAW that she drew up over a month later at the end of November 2010 an allegation she knew full well she would later have to withdraw?

  The question in the title above was prompted by a curiously worded statement added to the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s website ahead of Swedish broadcaster SvD’s Agenda debate on the stalled investigation. Within a statement responding to the debate was a link to some extra clarification added to the reasons the SPA website gave back in 2012 why Assange could not be interviewed in London:

  [Google translate from Swedish original] The prosecutor’s opportunity to ask questions about things in the investigation that is not directly expressed in the EAW are limited. Thus there was a significant risk that a hearing in London will not bring the investigation forward.
  http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Assangearendet/Varfor-kan-inte-aklagaren-forhora-Assange-i-Storbritannien/

  Well, of course that “opportunity” is limited. Under the rule of specialty, it is a condition of European Arrest Warrants that, once extradited, you cannot prosecute someone for offences that are not detailed on the warrant itself:

  The rule of specialty, which prohibits a person being dealt with in the requesting state for matters other than those referenced in the extradition request
  .
  http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/extradition/

  So, Marianne Ny knows she will have to drop Allegation 2, but nevertheless needs it to be written in the warrant for some reason. She also wishes to interrogate Assange about something not directly expressed on the EAW. This could – possibly – relate to some nefarious plan for Sweden to prosecute the Wikileaks founder on computer hacking charges a la Anakata or Sweden’s new ‘foreign espionage’ law, but that’s not really Marianne Ny’s area. She’s a specialist. Her vocation in life is to head up the Swedish Sex Crimes Development Unit in Gothenburg with a mission to expand Sweden’s sex crimes legislation, so it’s more likely the “things not directly expressed in the EAW” Ms Ny is so keen to discuss with Assange – but only “in person” and only once in Sweden – fall within that remit.

  Let’s take a little detour through another creative attempt to set new precedents in sex crimes legislation. In the UK High Court judgment refusing Assange’s appeal against Ny’s warrant, the judges go to inordinate lengths [paragraphs 79 to 96, as discussed in this article] to look at Allegation 2 in the context of previous UK rape trials involving an element of ‘rape by deception’ to see whether Marianne Ny’s Allegation 2 could meet the dual-criminality criteria for extradition (ie. that the alleged offence would also constitute a crime in British law). They decide that it does, but then go and spoil all that hard sleuthing through UK case law they’ve just done to justify Allegation 2 as an extraditable offence by mentioning in paragraph 94 that the forensic report in the Assange case suggests the rip in the condom which Anna Ardin presented as evidence is the result of wear and tear. As a creative addition to sex crimes legislation, “wear and tear” equalling “rape by deception” is unlikely to make the grade. [Why did the UK High Court undercut its own argument by inserting this remark – the only reference to the Swedish investigation’s underlying physical evidence in the entire judgment – in paragraph 94? It’s deliberate, of course, because “The conclusion of the expert was that there was nothing to indicate that a tool had been used, but that the damage to the condom was created by the wear and tear of the condom” is a lie. Take another look at that forensic results report. It clearly states that the tear edges on BOTH condoms (that “both” is important, but I’ll come back to that) match a ‘control’ rip in the back of Anna Ardin’s condom that the laboratory technicians manually made themselves. No one has yet figured out what the purpose of the judges’ obfuscation might be; however, we do know that UK High Court judges do not spend three months deliberating on a high profile, highly politicised case such as Assange’s only to make an elementary ‘mistake’ like this.]

  It is clear from the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s most recent statements that the European Arrest Warrant issued by Marianne Ny is for investigative purposes after all, despite her misleading the UK court that she had already decided to prosecute Assange (under Swedish law, it is illegal for her to do so before the preliminary investigation is concluded). So, are there any matters in the Swedish police protocol still to be fully investigated for which Anna Ardin’s Allegation 2 could act as a “placeholder” – matters not “directly expressed” on the EAW but nevertheless still ‘there’ in a more oblique way? Matters which could still go forward to prosecution, taking into account the rule on specialty, if Ardin’s Allegation 2 was later withdrawn because the forensics results indicate her evidence is faked? Something which could be neatly slotted in as a substitute Allegation 2 (Allegation 2.0, as it were) and still meet both the specialty rule and dual criminality criteria?

  Why yes – yes, there is.

  Shortly after 9.30am on Friday 20 August 2010 Anna Ardin told her friend Petra Ornstein, whom she phoned her immediately after first being contacted by Sofia Wilen, that “there were a number of similarities between their stories” and that she’d just been told that “Julian had seen to it [the other girl] had sex without a condom against her wishes”. Remember too how Ardin confirmed to Donald Bostrum after she had left the police station later that day that it was because “we suddenly were two women who had a statement about the same man so it became a crime against the state”. But are those “similarities” Ardin describes between her own allegations and those of Sofia Wilen similar enough to enable Marianne Ny to substitue one for the other in respect of Allegation 2 on the EAW? Ny’s rather peculiar wording of Allegation 2 as written on the face of the EAW warrant – “Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity… consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge” does seem to echo that other statement about Sofia Wilen’s claims: “Julian had seen to it they had sex without a condom against her wishes” to a remarkable degree.

  Is it effectively the same “statement about the same man” that the two women tell police when they visit Klara police station together on Friday 20 August 2010? Apparently, whatever they said was powerful enough to convince the duty prosecutor to issue an arrest warrant for Assange for “double rape” even before either woman’s formal statement had been taken or either of their complaints had been officially lodged in the police Durtva computer system – despite one woman issuing multiple text messages while still at the police station that “she only wanted him to take a [HIV] test” and “did not want to put any charges on JA”, and the other woman later insisting she only went along to support the younger woman’s complaint.

  Of course, Marianne Ny may not place too much credibility on Sofia Wilen’s text messages – she has withheld 100 SMS text messages from the women’s phone records from the file she submitted to the UK to support her extradition request, and refused to allow the Assange defence team to make copies of them – particularly if she feels there is evidence in the police protocol which contradicts what they say. Back to that forensics results report, which points towards a completely different interpretation of the case from the one we all think we know from its public presentation to date. On the day he first heard from the forensics lab that they could find no DNA on Anna Ardin’s condom evidence, lead police investigator Mats Gehlin (yes, the same policeman Marianne Ny insists is the only policeman qualified to interrogate Assange on the allegations he hasn’t been asked about yet) wrote out a separate file note, datestamped 20/10/2010 15:08, and added it to the police investigation file. But the note seems less concerned about Anna Ardin’s condom evidence than it does about the condom fragment from Wilen, which he’d sent to the lab on 25 August 2010 (ie. after Wilen’s case had been closed down by senior prosecutor Eva Finne and before it had been re-opened by Marianne Ny on 1 September) with the specific instruction to test how the tears in BOTH Wilen’s and Ardin’s “torn” condoms had been created; he hadn’t even ticked the box requesting DNA analysis. The file note reads:

  A conversation with SKL yielded the following.

  The condom from the residence of complainant 2 [Ardin] had no traces of DNA.

  Vaginal swabs from complainant 1 [Wilén] had DNA from complainant 1 [Wilén] and a man.

  The bit of condom found in the residence of complainant 1 [Wilén] had DNA from complainant 1 [Wilén] and the same man found on the vaginal swabs.

  Complainant 1 [Wilén] did not notice that a condom broke as it was dark in the room, and when the suspect put on the condom, she heard a noise as if he were pulling on a balloon. The bit of condom was found under the bed, under the part of the bed where the suspect was lying when he put on the condom.

  The police protocol includes seizure protocol documentation, authorised by Eva Finne, for the collection of evidence items from Anna Ardin on 21 August 2010, including the condom she submitted. However, there is no corresponding documentation in the leaked protocol relating to a chain of custody for the deliberately torn fragment of condom from Sofia Wilen seen in the forensic lab photograph; it is simply appended to Ardin’s case docket with the word “produced”. We therefore do not know whether police collected this condom fragment from Wilen’s apartment (if so, why is there no police documentation for it?), or whether Wilen handed it to Stockholm’s Soder Hospital rape clinic on the third visit she made to a hospital on the Friday morning after her conversation with Anna Ardin (she’d been to two separate hospitals three days earlier, in the second of which she’d had a rape kit done taking “DNA examples” and, almost certainly, received precautionary PEP post-HIV infection treatment within its 72-hour effectiveness window), or whether Sofia simply handed it to the first policewoman she spoke to at Klara police station prior to sitting down with a second policewoman, officer Irmeli Krans, to give her formal witness statement.

  It is high time that a formal Freedom of Information request is put in for the release of the police seizure protocol relating to Sofia Wilen’s condom fragment (if one exists, that is), or, if no such document exists, any and all other documentation pertaining to it. The SKL forensic lab reference number for Wilen’s condom fragment is 201001231102 under Designation AB/7525-10/G001 and her case number is K246314 if anyone wishes to follow up on this – surely this is something any enterprising Swedish journalist or citizen alarmed at the damage being done to the reputation of Sweden’s judicial system ought to pursue? It may hold the key to unlocking the mystery of Marianne Ny’s extraordinary behaviour and mishandling of this investigation.

• 

  the blue February 4, 2014 at 21:17

  It could be worth checking with the Enköping police, in case they were involved in taking a look at Sofia’s bedroom or handling some kind of evidence.

• 

  axel February 12, 2014 at 09:01

  Thomas Olsson and Per-Erik Samuelsson confronts the deadlock in an article today. A brief summary:

  -Swedish law demands a speedy investigation, Assange should be heard in London now. Elisabeth Massi Fritz and Claes Borgström do not properly represent their own clients since they are not pushing for a questioning of Assange in London. Marianne Ny has locked herself into an impossiblöe situation and is presently totally passive. It would be a good idea for a superior prosecutor to look into the matter.

  http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/behandla-assange-enligt-svensk-lag_8982476.svd

• 

  axel February 12, 2014 at 09:03

  Svenska Dagbladet has published an english version too. Here:

  http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/assange-should-be-treated-according-to-swedish-law_8982528.svd

• 

  Arbed February 12, 2014 at 22:30

  Thanks, Axel

  Glad to see things starting to shift over there!

• 

  Arbed February 13, 2014 at 10:12

  For Trenterx,

  Re: that odd SMS from Erika Lejnefors on 8 October which seems to retroactively refer to past events in the wrong tense “Odd that he is no longer available on Thursday”. If this “Thursday” was 6 October, then I think Rixstep has an article which helps explain it.

  It comes from when Hurtig submitted his bill and a curious comment that Erika had made that is noted on it against the billing item when Hurtig was asked to make himself available on 6 October as an arrest was expected. “Three wasted hours”, or something like that. I think it was Erika who tipped the wink to Hurtig about the paparazzi ambush arrest. This curiously-timed SMS from Erika to her boss – “Odd that he is no longer available…” – might therefore be Erika playing ‘innocent face’ to cover her own ass.

• 

  Jemand February 15, 2014 at 15:26

  Assange story:
  Media watchdog dismisses complaint against Four Corners

  http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/assange-story-media-watchdog-dismisses-complaint-against-four-corners-20140214-32qv2.html

• 

  axel February 16, 2014 at 11:38

  Present discussions on Flashback seems to clarify a couple of things:

  1. Marianne Ny did not issue an arrest warrant on September 27th 2010, this happened later.
  2. Julian Assange’s travel from Stockholm to Berlin on September 27th was not improvised suddenly. It was planned during the preceeding month, as witnessed by several people involved in preparations of those meetings held in Berlin.
  3. The reference to Julian’s “running away from justice” in Swedish courts, and backing up the EAW, is not based on facts.

  And did the theme of “running away from justice” not play a role also in the British legal proceedings around Assange?

• 

  Arbed February 19, 2014 at 23:42

  Hi Axel,

  And did the theme of “running away from justice” not play a role also in the British legal proceedings around Assange?

  Well, it was reported in the UK press that way, but I don’t remember it featuring in the later court hearings at all. In the Belmarsh hearing Justice Riddle commented that the fact that Assange as soon as he entered Britain had got his lawyers to contact the Metropolitan Police to say his whereabouts were known should he be wanted for questioning, and his voluntary surrender on 7 December 2010 once the EAW was certified, was “hardly the actions of a fugitive”.

• 

  Arbed March 10, 2014 at 22:56

  Part 3 of this exhaustively researched response to Andrew O’Hagan “Ghosting” article in the London Review of Books is particularly good on what he got wrong about the Swedish investigation.

  Part 1. Cross-Purposes http://hazelpress.org/ghosting-wikileaks/4583092610
  Part 2. A Breach of Trust http://hazelpress.org/ghosting-wikileaks-2/4583123508
  Part 3. Fact and Fiction http://hazelpress.org/ghosting-wikileaks-3/4583145831
  Part 4. All Moral Authority http://hazelpress.org/ghosting-wikileaks-4/4583254299
  Part 5. Total Surveillance http://hazelpress.org/ghosting-wikileaks-5/4583299419

  Note to moderators: Any chance of clearing the spambots’ postings above?

• 

  Arbed March 16, 2014 at 08:02

  Such a cosy little arrangement…

  After months of investigation into the relevations of NSA spying from Edward Snowden the EU issues a resolution (unfortunately, not a legally binding one) which criticises Sweden for its role:

  “Countries designated to help the U.S. with data collection – including Sweden – are invited in turn to clarify what happened and revise their laws.”
  http://hbl.fi/nyheter/2014-03-12/579766/kritik-mot-sverige-i-nsa-resolution (Swedish, use Google translate)

  Sweden’s response?

  Swedish member Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (M): “Sweden has a law, FRA, which is modern and has become a model for transparency and democratic control. It is not credible to Parliament calling for a revision”, said Corazza Bildt in the debate after the vote.

  Yes, Carl Bildt’s wife.

• 

  axel March 27, 2014 at 12:39

  Eva Joly, member of the European Parliament (green) and once a runner for the French presidency, will give a press conference in Stockholkm today. “I have found a solution” she says. The Minister of justice, Beatrice Ask, and Marianne Ny both refuse to meet her.

  http://www.dagbladet.no/2014/03/26/nyheter/politikk/julian_assange/wikileaks/utenriks/32503680/

• 

  Arbed March 31, 2014 at 15:47

  Hi Axel,

  Yes, MEP Eva Joly has certainly been blasting a hole in the Swedish prosecutor’s prevarications on the Assange case:

  English translation of interviewed screened by TV4:
  http://wlcentral.org/node/2930

  Ditto, English translations of Eva Joly’s press conference proposing all sorts of solutions for moving the investigation forward:

  Part One: http://wlcentral.org/node/2927
  Part Two: http://wlcentral.org/node/2929

Comments are closed.