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.
Arbed
4 Feb, 2014 – 5:04 pm
The second link has been removed.
http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Assangearendet/Varfor-kan-inte-aklagaren-forhora-Assange-i-Storbritannien/
I’m trying to catch up. 🙂
Because feminism is so strong in Sweden I thought I would share this article with you. In it prizewinning Turkish novelist, playwright and poet, Meltem Arikan, looks at how a more appropriate use of words can free people from the stigma attached to emotive words. This is important for men too. Julian Assange would probably be a free man if this feminist view of thoughtful usage was adopted.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2014/04/18/empowering-words-from-raped-and-abused-to-without-my-consent/
If you can give this publicity in Sweden please do. Thanks.
The US Office of the Director of Intelligence has issued a new edict forbidding all intelligence employees from talking to the press, even about unclassified stuff:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/26/new-snowden-obama-administration-anti-leak-guidelines
So, the US governing elite and powerbrokers are turning inward, drawing in their web and cutting their own ability to communicate, just as predicted in this rather famous essay…
Julian Assange: Conspiracy as Governance:
http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
Makes for an interesting re-read at this point in time.
Baroness Jenny Jones, deputy chair of the Police and Crime Committee at the London Assembly, has suggested sending the policing bill for Julian Assange’s detention at the Ecuador embassy to Sweden, or “the police should walk away”. Daily Mail readers up in arms (surprisingly, mostly in favour of Assange. How odd…:))
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613102/Julian-Assange-costs-Britain-6m-policing-costs-bill-guard-Ecudorean-embassy-Wikileaks-fugitive-hiding-soars.html
Arbed; What do you make of the Intercept’s dearth of revelatory posts?
April 14th was the last entry on the subject of ‘Passover’
Ebay buyer’s remorse?
Hi Ben,
Don’t know what’s going on at The Intercept, but it sure doesn’t seem like it’s working out. No love lost, for me, for Omidyar (I thought his weasel words when challenged by Wikileaks regarding Paypal’s role in the Wikileaks financial blockade were a disgrace) but I do feel for the high-quality journalists who were lured onboard.
Here’s a few links with more detail about the The Intercept’s failure to produce the kind of investigative journalism it promised. I think the very last link may well be the biggest clue to what’s happened:
A first look at First Look Media: six months of love:
http://en.goatsing.org/2014/04/21/a-first-look-at-first-look-media/
In Which Our Self-Proclaimed Hero Explodes Himself [on Greenwald/Omidyar]:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/in-which-our-self-proclaimed-hero.html
Glenn, Intercepted: Pierre Omidyar’s quarter billion dollar journalism project seems to have stopped publishing:
http://pando.com/2014/04/13/glenn-intercepted-pierre-omidyars-quarter-billion-dollar-journalism-project-seems-to-have-stopped-publishing/
First Look publishes new editorial independence statement after Pando reveals Omidyar White House ties:
http://pando.com/2014/03/24/first-look-publishes-new-editorial-independence-statement-after-pando-reveals-omidyar-white-house-ties/
Revealed: Visitor logs show full extent of Pierre and Pamela Omidyar’s cozy White House ties:
http://pando.com/2014/03/23/revealed-visitor-logs-show-full-extent-of-pierre-and-pamela-omidyars-cozy-white-house-ties/
How do you see the latest comments on these very long threads?
Craig; Thank you for leaving these huge thread comments open. It certainly assists with keeping new threads on topic. I love it !
Arbed; Thanks for those links. The comments at Intercept are slow to appear, as though in moderation, but they do show up. Many have been expressing the same sentiments and to their credit they allow them to stand, albeit without much real explanation other than they want to avoid releasing info that could be detrimental to the health of some. I think a healthy skepticism is healthy. 🙂
Craig, there are two sets of page buttons; one above the comment form, and one below the original post. Click the highest page number and then scroll to the bottom of the comment thread.
Arbed
This is going to sound horribly big-headed and I don’t see how to avoid that or the resulting flak.
I am probably the most prominent and high profile blogging whistleblower around. Because I was in a much more senior position on the inside than other security state whistleblowers, my sources and contacts are unequalled in this area. Yet there has never been any attempt at all by the folks at The Intercept to contact me. I found that very strange, and somewhat suspicious.
Eva Joly’s visit to Stockholm seems to have triggered a new development. Retired judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman has written to the Swedish Justice Ombudsman (“Justitieombudsmannen, JO)and asked it to look into the way the Assange case has been handled by the Swedish Prosecutor. A similar request was made earlier by journalist Helen Bergman, but rejected on the grounds that the case was ongoing. Brita Sundberg-Weitman argues that the case is not ongoing, but standing still, moving nowhere for the moment. She appeals on the ground that the Swedish prosecutor has violated the principle about proportionality and that Assange’s rights according to the European Convention of human rights, have been violated. Sundberg-Weitman was one of the witnesses in the first trial in London, as you may recall. More here: https://www.flashback.org/sp48510972
Craig,
That’s an exceptionally good point. I know The Intercept’s source-protection method for anonymous whistleblowers, SecureDrop, is not sufficiently robust for national security leakers, so maybe that is why they aren’t going after the kind of high-level security state which your access allows?
Axel,
That’s very good news, thanks! Did you see that even Bob Carr, ex-FM of Australia, who was notoriously antagonistic to Julian Assange while in office, has called for the Swedish prosecutor to hotfoot it to London?
Craig,
…the kind of high-level security state *stories* – typo, sorry
This is what being extradited to the US to face a Grand Jury indictment drives people to – a retired British couple tried to commit suicide today after all their appeals in the UK courts and to the UK’s Home Secretary and Prime Minister failed. They’d lost everything – their jobs, their home (bankrupted by the legal costs), even their mental health:
Extradition couple Paul and Sandra Dunham who made suicide pact treated by paramedics
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10832695/Paramedics-called-to-home-of-extradition-couple-who-made-suicide-pact.html
RT covered the case very well back in January.
Worse than Death? Unfair UK-US extradition rules see Brits…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IURa37hhhg
And people ridicule Assange for seeking political asylum in an embassy against US extradition…?
In defence of Julian Assange, by publisher Colin Robinson:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/06/julian-assange-publisher-defence-wikileaks
Quick update:
Tuesday 24 June Assange’s Swedish lawyers filed an application to Stockholm District Court to have the EAW rescinded (on several grounds, but I provide links about the most important one below): http://justice4assange.com/Court-filing-to-remove-warrant-24.html?update
Predictably, most mainstream reports either ignored it altogether, or focused on comments by the Swedish lawyers about the EAW no longer being enforceable given Assange has political asylum in an embassy. Only the Guardian has written about the most significant of the grounds cited by in the court filing – that a new law in Sweden which came into effect on 1st June stipulates that that anyone arrested or detained has the right to be made aware of “facts forming the basis for the decision to arrest” (ie. hand over the evidence you’ve been hiding from the courts all this time, Marianne Ny). The court will rule on Assange’s submission in a few days.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/24/julian-assange-legal-bid-sweden-rape-case?CMP=twt_gu
Finally, the Swedish press woke up to (some of) the implications of this latest move by Assange:
The Local 25/6/14: http://www.thelocal.se/20140625/swedish-womans-texts-could-clear-julian-assange
Perhaps some of you will remember that Assange’s lawyer was allowed by Marianne Ny’s office to view, but not copy, a cache of 100 text messages by Sofia Wilen. He managed to memorise 22 of them and four have been used in a previous affidavit by Assange:
http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#efmNEpSj6
This article points out some troubling questions raised by the timestamps of just two of these texts about what we already (think we) know from the women’s witness statements released to the press and available on the internet:
http://hazelpress.org/textmessagetiming/4581076519
If the rest of the 100 texts reveal similar discrepancies in the women’s stories and case investigation, Marianne Ny will have a heart attack if the court rules she must reveal them to Assange’s defence (and the world ;)). I’m sure she will much prefer to simply cancel the EAW warrant than do that
This article outlines some of the other evidence that Assange’s court filing will also force discovery of:
http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2014/06/24/marianne-ny-withholding-evidence/
Arbed, thanks for the update.
Arbed
Seconded. But what are the chances that Marianne Ny has “lost” the unhelpful texts?
A possible situation, but if she did I for one, would not be surprised.
I wrote here at Wikileaks Central in 2010 relating to arrest for the purposes of investigation among other issues
The European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 states:
There has been a long running argument as to whether Assange was charged. IMO he wasn’t but that is not determinative of the argument that because this was an EAW (and keeping in mind Article 6’s minimum requirement), Sweden should have but did not disclose their case (and not in English, fully, either)
Now Sweden IS required to disclose their case, however it could be that they argue the new law is NOT retrospective to Assange’s matter.
My argument is and always was, that Assange’s human rights will be/would have been breached if he was held without bail in Sweden while that dreadful prosecutor Ny egged on by that appalling Claus Bogtrotter “investigate” the matter for months and months before trial.
Thanks Peter for your link and evaluation. I doubt they will make it an easy passage to freedom for Assange. He is definitely not safe in Sweden with its known affiliation to the United States. A colleague in Sweden has informed me that come September there will be a change of government and he believes the social democrats will want to start with a clean sheet.
As a result of my last article I was contacted privately by a woman who states that most cases of rape, even rape as we might understand it in the UK, never go to court in Sweden, and certainly nothing as insubstantial as the accusations being levelled against JA.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2014/06/17/swedens-politically-motivated-persecution-of-wikileaks-assange/
I would like to write something on what she told me but feel restricted because the reports are in Swedish and you cannot always trust the electronic translation packages.
Hurrah, Assange’s lawyers seem to have managed to force Marianne Ny in front of a court to explain herself:
Swedish court sets date for Julian Assange rape case hearing:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/03/swedish-court-date-julian-assange-rape-case-hearing?CMP=twt_gu
Somewhat misleading headline there (Guardian, so quel surprise) as this hearing is about Marianne Ny’s conduct Assange’s rights to be informed properly of the reasons for the arrest warrant. The article refers to a “sharply worded statement” by the prosecutor, which is true but I think better characterised as ‘vindictive’-sounding. Also extremely evasive with many lies of omission. Ny showed in the statement she faxed to Belmarsh how crafted her statements are to imply everything, yet state nothing. This one is no different. It’s available in Swedish here:
http://t.co/MnAgh47gNv
and there’s an English translation coming but not ready yet.
Note, though, the final paragraph of that Guardian article: “Thomas Olsson, a Stockholm-based lawyer for Assange, said: “The statement from the prosecutor gives us strong arguments for our case.” That’s right – you can drive a coach and horses through the gaps and omissions in Marianne Ny’s statement to the District Court.
Craig,
In answer to your query about the chances of Ny “losing” the text messages, not very likely at this point, I’d say. Too well-known already in late 2010 that there were 100 of them, and Assange’s lawyers have already memorised (incl. exact timestamps) 22 of them. Her credibility in the eyes of the world will drop to zero if she cannot produce them now. I think it would be very difficult for her to proceed any further with her case – already seen in Swedish legal circles as “too weak to ever reach court” – in that event.
Craig,
PS. Assange’s affidavit used only 4 of the memorised text messages, but did go on record that they were in possession of 22. The problem for Ny is that she doesn’t know which ones are the other 18… 😉
Here are English translation of both Assange’s submission to Stockholm District Court to have his arrest warrant rescinded/proper discovery of withheld evidence, and Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny’s response:
Assange:
http://justice4assange.com/IMG/pdf/JASubmissionCourt24June14.pdf
Prosecutor:
http://justice4assange.com/IMG/pdf/PA_2014-07-01-2.pdf
I’d say the former makes the latter look very thin indeed.
Sofias lawyer, Elisabeth Massi Fritz, attacks Thomas Olsson and Per Erik Samuelsson in today’s Svenska Dagbladet.
http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/forvriden-sanning-i-fallet-assange_3726238.svd
It is a tiresome read, full of sweeping statements.
Two points may be worth mentioning.
1. She objects to the argument that questioning in London is in the interest of her client. In the interest of her client is to question Assange in Stockholm, she claims. Full stop. No further motivation for that statement whatsoever.
2. She totally ignores or rejects any statement that Assange is threatened politically or legally by the US. “When Assange’s lawyers state that he is a political refugee, protected by the UN Convention on refugees, they could not possibly be further away from truth”.
As far as I understand she has no role whatsoever in the upcoming court case.
Hi Axel – good to see you!
Marianne Ny’s letter after hearing of the #Assange filing:
https://twitter.com/rixstep/status/487491655420108800/photo/1
Can any kind Swedish soul translate this to English for me please?
… also really interested in knowing what these two say:
https://twitter.com/rixstep/status/487485374663778304/photo/1
https://twitter.com/rixstep/status/487487970015207424/photo/1
(I believe the latter was in response to this enquiry, in English):
https://twitter.com/rixstep/status/487486865864671232
… which is pretty embarrassing for the Swedish Prosecution Authority.
Marianne Ny is keeping in close touch with Alison Riley at the CPS about developments.
Pardon my clumsy English. I tried to keep it very close to the original. I’m unsure of some legal or administrative terms, but you’ll get an idea. Let’s hope Rixstep will soon make a better one, if he hasn’t alreay. 🙂
Hi!
Tomas Olsson was on SVT’s morning show 07.05 today. It appears as if they don’t have any new pieces of information. I’ll be back when I know something.
Last night I informed Claes Borgström and Elisabet Massi Fritz about what I’ve read in media. They where both well up to date. Claes Borgström would take part in the morning show on phone and EMF had declined to participate. Considering that we have promised to keep the complainants [sic] we should maybe contact them directly. Is it possible for you to contact them in the morning and tell them that we don’t know any more than what has been in media. Nothing can be said about how the court will decide. However, no decision is to be expected today. Nor do I know if it will be handled in writing or through a hearing. There are only two possible outcomes though. Either the arrest warrant is vindicated and then the EAW stands, or is rescinded and then the EAW falls. However, the message is “Sit calm in the boat” for now.
On our part, the type of procedure [ written/oral ? ] and in the next step the court’s decision will determine how we will handle media and security issues. Those functions at and [sic]you will probably have to coordinate their potential activities.
Greetings
Marianne