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 above in resonse to Arbed
A couple of hours ago:
“The present stalemate is unworthy a country that subscribes to the rule of law”. Assange’s lawyers do reply to Massi Fritz’s statement earlier in the week.
http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/dodlaget-ar-ovardigt-sverige-som-rattsstat_3739704.svd
Some of their points:
-“no crime has taken place” (an exact copy of the wording in Eva Finne’s decision to close the rape case in august 2010).
– SW did not want to report a crime, quoting the content of text messages. And initially, none of the women wanted to report a crime- sex was by consent.
-Massi Fritz is seriously mistaken when she points finger to Ecuador and dismisses the danger to Assange from USA. Criminal investigations against Wikileaks and Assange has started in the US already.
-Pressing Assange to give up his political asylum, which seem to be the purpose of NY’s resistance to question Assange in London, is wrong.
-To keep the investigation open for four years without questioning Assange is against the principle of a speedy investigation.
– To cancel the arrest does not mean that the investigation comes to an end. We take the view that the investigation should be completed by allowing Assange to give his version.
That is a pretty sharp response o Massi Fritz’ recent piece and to Marianne Ny’s formal response to the court. The ball is moving at last…
Cross-posting from Craig’s excellent Stockholm Syndrome thread, for the record/pick-up by the Flashbackers –
😉 Arbed
An interesting article looking at the possibility that, although Marianne Ny refuses to use Mutual Legal Assistance to question Assange in London (because she’d then have to set out her evidence for UK authorities to assess), she might have filed an MLA request for wiretap surveillance of the Ecuadorian Embassy – something which MI5/MI6/GCHQ would look on favourably as they’d get to retain anything obtained as a result of it that is not directly related to the Swedish case. This could account for the major discrepancy between what the UK govt admits it’s spent on policing the embassy and what it should cost (ie. roughly half the amount). FOI requests for a full break-down of the figures have been met with refusal and some coy references to “national security”:
Is Sweden’s Prosecutor Secretly Spying on Julian Assange?
http://hazelpress.org/secret-mla-request/4585578136
Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet today publishes the story about how USAID used young Latin Americans, posing as tourists, to get in touch with opposition groups and undermine the Cuban government. However, neither Aron Modig, a Swedish Christian Democrat or Anna Ardin, from the christian wing of the Swedish Social Democrats are mentioned in their report. This USAID programme started in 2009, thus probably applies to Aron Modig who was caught delivering cash to the opposition. Anna Ardin, visited the country in 2006, delivered cash and managed to escape from arrest by a close shave. Ardin was in touch with Miami groups and the likelihood is that her visit was coordinated between the Sweden and the US by some earlier programme.
Swedish social democracy had a very good reputation in Cuba in all circles. Olof Palme visited the country in the 1970:ies and spoke to mass audiences in Spanish. Even twentyfive years later, being a young social democrat from Sweden would have been a good cover for clandestine activities.
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/usa-skickade-ungdomar-till-kuba_3796950.svd
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CUBA_SECRET_INFILTRATION_ABRIDGED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-08-04-01-11-33
The questioning of Sofia W on August the 20th 2010 (to be precis: a revised version of it)is published in the 100 page document that Marianne Ny used to secure a European arrest warrant.
We know today that there has been seven or eight additional questionings of Sofia W. That seems to be very unusual for a rape accusation case. The tone in email correspondence (recently released)between Marianne Ny and Sofia’s new lawyer, Elisabeth Massi Fritz, seems to be cold, if not unfriendly.
Is there some kind of friction/conflict between Sofia W and Marianne Ny?
Hi Axel,
Can you translate a couple of the statements by Ny in the recent correspondence that you describe as “cold” or “unfriendly” please? I’d like to judge for myself but I rely on Google translate for things released in Swedish, which misses a lot of nuance, I’m sure.
It wouldn’t surprise me if there was friction between the SW/EMF and Ny/Isgren camps. Marianne Ny nailed her name and her reputation to the mast on 1 September 2010 when she re-opened and expanded a closed case, believing no doubt at the time that such a cause celebre would be the making of her. It was, of course, nearly two months before the forensic results from the SKA lab and the later SW interrogations revealed that Ms Wilen’s claims (and thereby the whole case, as SW roped in Anna Ardin so effectively) were based on a pack of scheming lies. But it was too late to back out by then – Ny’s political masters (Perklev, Bildt, SAPO etc) would never allow it – and Marianne Ny was now a hostage to fortune.
Message for Trenterx:
Yes, quite right. I can’t reveal my source. Suffice it to say that my assertions about the timings of Wilen’s various hospital visits are based on her own words, time- and date-stamped, so I am very very sure of my facts.
You could try approaching George Galloway. He’s seen the 22 SMS that are part of the stash that Ny is withholding. He’s not the only one, of course – those SMSs have been circulating for a while now – but he’s the only one who’s actually said anything publicly about them. Perhaps he’d be prepared to offer further public comment? (But he’s very busy campaigning on Gaza at the moment.)
Re: Arbed and the infamous sms:es.
Could you try to get hold of those sms, or ask anyone in the UK “sitting” on these to make them public here or send copies to us. These sms could be the detail that would start things to move on and break up the legal grid-lock, every time this is mentioned on the swedish site, the thread gets sabotaged by useless text so there is an interest to keep these secret….
Hi Duqu,
Good to see you! Yes of course, you are right – there is an interest in keeping them secret, and exposure of them would, as Bjorn Hurtig once said, make the whole case ‘moot’.
BUT… the people who have seen these SMS feel it wouldn’t be right to pre-empt the Assange defence team. It is, after all, their case and it’s up to them when and how they wish to use this evidence. Remember that only 4 were used in the Affidavit, so a lot of thinking must have gone into selecting which ones to use, and which not. It all depends on their strategy. And I agree with this view of respecting the right of the Assange defence team to choose how to use the SMS. We all know by now the kind of dirty tricks that have been played by the prosecution in this case. It is probably very wise not to let the other side see what your hand is if they cannot be trusted to play fair. Perhaps the Assange defence team feels the better strategy – politically – is to push as far as they can to get the EAW warrant rescinded in the SVEA Appeal court and, if thereby they manage to dislodge the major element of coercive power from the situation, then they can go in harder to refute the original allegations and clear Assange’s name entirely.
However, there are other areas where it would be good to try to obtain new evidence which could be explored from within Sweden:
1. Seeing if anything can be flushed out of that list of Sofia Wilen’s Twitter follows.
2. Can Mats Gehlin be coaxed out of the woodwork? Has he made any comments anywhere (even privately) about what he knows about the case? I saw something which said he is suffering from depression. Everyone who has had any involvement in this blatant miscarriage of justice must feel that their name has been besmirsched on an international level merely by association with it, even if they were one of the ones just trying to do their job. If Mats Gehlin now knows the truth, then I bet he’s depressed at how it’s all worked out.
3. Quoting from a previous post of mine:
It really would be a good idea to coax this seizure protocol out of the authorities, if at all possible, or at least to get them to confirm whether one exists or not.
Hi Trenterx,
Thanks for trying to get Flashback interested in filing a FOI request for the Wilen condom fragment seizure protocol. I know you’ve also re-posted me in the past when I’ve asked the same thing. I confess I’m mystified when I see Flashbackers sail straight past this crucial point, almost as if they cannot see its importance. Why does that happen?
Perhaps it would help stir people into action if they re-read the whole of that post where I ask them to file an FOI for the seizure protocol? It is my attempt to outline how I think the Wilen condom figures in the extradition EAW (in which, of course, ostensibly it doesn’t – there is no mention whatsoever of a torn condom from Wilen in it). So in this post I examine the question of why Marianne Ny put Ardin’s allegation about a deliberately torn condom into the EAW knowing she’d have to drop that particular charge before the case ever reaches a court because the results of the lab tests prove Ardin’s condom is fake:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-10/#comment-439552
and one which sets out a good number of clues in the available record that Sofia’s torn condom fragment is something she invents to dupe Anna into helping her with the police:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437309
By the way, in that first link you’ll notice in the 2nd paragraph from the bottom the phrase “DNA examples”. Please note that I’ve included double quotation marks around it – because that’s how one indicates you’re repeating an exact-words quote of someone – and then think about what I said to you recently: “my assertions about the timings of Wilen’s various hospital visits are based on her own words, time- and date-stamped, so I am very very sure of my facts”.
You’ll find a lot of that sort of stuff in my posts here at Craig Murray’s blog if you look carefully enough. I try to sneak in as many little ‘breadcrumbs’ as I can, discreetly, to help guide other researchers where to dig harder. For example, here’s a few which all quote the same exact time for a particular event, which appears nowhere else. I leave it up to you to work out how I could possibly be so precise:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-10/#comment-438222 [1st paragraph]
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-10/#comment-439552 [just after “Why yes – yes, there is”]
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-10/#comment-438211 [final paragraph]
As regards when the phrase “DNA examples” might have first been ‘spoken’, here’s a couple of relevant posts:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437523 [paragraph beginning “Of course, as at Monday 23 August”]
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437394 [2nd from last paragraph, and the post following this one]
If you think about it, I can only be absolutely sure of the timings I’m giving there if my source ‘document’ confirming the “DNA examples” have already been taken can verifiably be timed to a point which makes it extremely unlikely that they are taken sometime during Thursday 19th August – for example, say, 7am in the morning on the Thursday.
Bonus ‘breadcrumb’:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437316
Hope that’s enough to get Flashback to realise how crucial it is to try to obtain hard evidence of the exact chain of custody of the Wilen fragment. When exactly, where exactly did it pass from Wilen into police hands?
Actually, it’s worth re-reading my post immediately after that last link too. In it I explain where I think Donald Bostrum might be telling the police that he spoke to Assange about Sofia Wilen’s ‘torn’ condom allegation during the morning of Friday 20th August, ie. after he has spoken to Anna after she has spoken to Wilen for the first time at 9.30am. [This post gives a fuller account of what I’m getting at: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437309 ] and I quote a section of Bostrum’s witness statement pointing out where it seems Gehlin and Bostrum might be talking about two separate torn condom incidents:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437318
Re-reading it myself, I’ve just noticed something I missed before [2nd para from end]:
“… And so my impression is that she didn’t experience anything serious but was mostly angry. As in don’t fucking break the condoms but not that it was an assault. Uh, this is my impression because she doesn’t go to the police for her own sake.” < see that plural there? – "the condoms” – since when did Anna say anything about there being more than one broken condom in her own experience with Assange? Is Anna under the impression Assange is in the habit of breaking condoms – despite only ‘experiencing’ one such incident herself – because she’s been told by someone else he did it to them too? And that’s why she’s angry with Assange, angry enough to go help someone else report him (because their experience – “No, no, stop” they told her they’d protested – sounds much much worse than her own)?
Apologies it’s such a lot of reading to follow all these ‘breadcrumbs’ through. My posts are always so very long and complex, I’m sorry. But, then again, it’s a very complex case… 🙂
The rumour started by SkyNews that Assange was about to surrender to authorities and leave the embassy is not true. Watch the smile on this video of the full press conference as he confirms he will leave “soon” (at the 11.35-min mark).
Assange: I will leave Ecuadorian Embassy soon (FULL SPEECH):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GDcPzWPL1E&feature=youtu.be
Hilarious watching the vulture press accumulate on the pavement opposite the embassy, not to mention guffawing at all the inaccurate press reports. About 300 non-stories spawned within two hours – haha, I think Julian Assange just trolled the entire Western media. Troll us, Master Troll! 🙂
By the way, the recent legal changes to UK extradition law which Assange referred to in the press conference when he thanked the UK government for making changes to the law to protect him are here:
http://jfhcrime.co.uk/extradition-act-changes/
They came into effect on 18 July 2014 (two days after the decision of Stockholm District Court to keep the arrest warrant in place) and are clearly relevant to Assange’s situation. They will give the Ecuadorian diplomats a much stronger hand in negotiating safe passage. Interestingly, in yesterday’s Daily Mail interview Assange mentioned that the Parliamentary Select Committee on Extradition Law reform had asked him to submit a report on whether the UK’s extradition system breached fundamental human rights:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726803/Wrath-Wiki-fugitive-Lack-sun-given-heart-defect-Hes-not-allowed-hospital-And-police-burn-240k-month-Indignant-unrepentant-interview-Julian-Assange.html
Can anyone give me a better English translation of this article from Dagens Juridik? I’m wary that Google translate is messing up the legal naunces of this new Swedish ruling:
Kammarrätten: Slasken blir inte offentlig när åtal väcks – polisen behöver inte lämna ut uppgifter
http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2014/08/kammarratten-slasken-blir-inte-offentlig-nar-atal-vacks-polisen-behover-inte-lamna-ut-uppgifer
Swedish prosecutors no longer have to publicly release their investigation ‘slops’ if a Freedom of Information request is made for them when a prosecution has been abandoned? Have I got that right?
How will this new ruling affect the Assange case – particularly in reference to the withheld text messages from Sofia Wilen; the seizure protocal documentation for her ‘torn’ condom fragment; the second Wilen statement to police that Marianne Ny told the UK court said “substantially the same” but she refused to use in place of the earlier unsigned one; the fabled medical certificate from Soder; the second forensic testing for DNA on Anna Ardin’s ‘torn’ condom; Marianne Ny’s new secret annex she added during the 16 July hearing, etc etc?
Does Marianne Ny now have the ability to ‘classify’ all of this information if she is ultimately forced to drop her investigation?
Arbed wrote:
“Kammarrätten: Slasken blir inte offentlig när åtal väcks – polisen behöver inte lämna ut uppgifter
http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2014/08/kammarratten-slasken-blir-inte-offentlig-nar-atal-vacks-polisen-behover-inte-lamna-ut-uppgifer
Swedish prosecutors no longer have to publicly release their investigation ‘slops’ if a Freedom of Information request is made for them when a prosecution has been abandoned? Have I got that right?”
Response:
The link does not work. But I think you got that the translation right.
I am not an expert on what you can dispose of. What goes down as “trash” (slask), and is therefore never available to the public, surely should only be things that are not important for the case. In the Thomas Quick case important material was put in the “slask” if I remember right.
Sorry not to be more helpful.
Hi Axel,
Sorry about that. Here’s that link again:
http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2014/08/kammarratten-slasken-blir-inte-offentlig-nar-atal-vacks-polisen-behover-inte-lamna-ut-uppgif
Axel, or any of our Swedish visitors to this blog
I’d be very grateful for an English translation of this link. I want to try to see if it has any impact on the Assange case but Google translate is not good enough for the purpose. Does this new ruling give Marianne Ny the ability to ensure that anything she wants to hide stays hidden forever?
http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2014/08/kammarratten-slasken-blir-inte-offentlig-nar-atal-vacks-polisen-behover-inte-lamna-ut-uppgif
Also for the benefit of our Swedish friends, this link is currently doing the rounds on Twitter.
The NGO Fair Trials International confirmed in July 2012 that the new EAW proportionality test introduced by the UK in its recent changes to its extradition law were explicitly requested by the chief Supreme Court judge during Assange’s appeal the previous month:
http://www.fairtrials.org/press/stopping-extradition/
Arbed, thanks for the link. I don’t think I am the right person to translate that text, too technical for me, not being legally trained.
However, I understand your fears. A decision to charge does not make “the trash” (“slasken”) publicly available, at least not before a trial and until a verdict is given. If an inquiry does not lead to a charge and a trial the information could remain secret. In this case a list of all the items in the trash was released, but only partially, since bits of it were masked.
But, if I read the text correctly it does not say anything about the right of the accused to get access to that information.
Arbed,
The impression I got reading the article in Dagens Juridik was that the main reason the material wasn’t released was that a final verdict hadn’t yet been given. I suppose that means that long as there is a possibility to appeal, or during such an appeal, they can keep the material hidden. But I’m no expert. “Lagakraftvunnen dom” or “vunnit laga kraft” seems to be the key term. “Final verdict” or “have gained legal force” are translations found online.
Thanks Axel & Blue! Sounds like it’s not quite as bad as I thought.
Axel, you mentioned this:
“In this case a list of all the items in the trash was released, but only partially, since bits of it were masked.”
You couldn’t get me a link – or a link and a page reference, whatever – to that ‘trash’ list. I’ve never seen it, and even the redacted version I would like a peek at. Thanks in advance.
Oh! I’ve just realised the phrase “In this case a list of all the items in the trash was released…” could be referring to the case spoken about in Dagens Juridik, and not the Assange case. Obviously, I’m not interested in the other case. Only if the ‘trash’ list is the one Marianne Ny has in Julian Assange’s case.
Arbed: “Oh! I’ve just realised the phrase “In this case a list of all the items in the trash was released…” could be referring to the case spoken about in Dagens Juridik, and not the Assange case.”
Indeed!It does refer to the case discussed by DJ.
Please, someone, tell me it is not true that the crazies in Sweden are thinking of making it a criminal offence to negligently “cause discomfort” to a sexual partner:
https://www.flashback.org/sp50117666
Lex Sofia indeed, if it’s true…
Hi Trenterx,
Very interesting points you make about the possibility of real-time interception by FRA/NSA of the phone & text message traffic between Wilen, her friends, Ardin and Assange:
https://www.flashback.org/sp50230450
I agree that thoughts along those lines could underlie Wikileaks’ two tweets yesterday. Assange’s affidavit also sees XKeyScore and/or similar surveillance programs as a key issue regarding the ability of the Swedish authorities to know the exact day he planned to leave Sweden (on 27 September 2010) to attend a business meeting in Berlin, as Stefania Maurizi of the Italian newspaper L’Espresso had used her gmail account to set it up a few weeks earlier:
http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/Affidavit_of_Julian_Assange.html#efmRD2Rb6
Obviously, this could have some bearing on the timing of Marianne Ny’s 27 September arrest warrant and the extraordinary fact that her warrant did NOT result in Assange being stopped at the border, but nevertheless Wikileaks’ computers containing evidence of US war crimes were stolen from Arlanda airport.
Moderators, can anything be done about these pesky spambots? Or at least, can their posts be deleted?
George Galloway has been banned from a BBC Scotland televised debate. Some (presumably radfem) women’s organisations, such as WomenForIndependence, chimed in on the basis of Galloway being a “rape apologist” for Julian Assange.
I have always worried that organisations fighting for women’s rights – especially the rights of rape victims to be heard – might potentially be shooting themselves in the foot by using this particular case (Assange’s) as a cause celebre. What happens if evidence eventually emerges that proves – as Galloway puts it – “the women are lying”? With so many feminist writers and organisations taking such a strong stance against Assange, and his supporters like Galloway, prior to him even being questioned let alone charged, the backlash against us if this evidence comes out and it is as Galloway describes will be immense. Feminists will be seen as having conducted a witchhunt of an innocent man based on women making false allegations (it does happen sometimes, we all know that) and the people who will suffer most from that backlash are genuine rape victims trying to report their crimes.
I refer people back to the 25’40” part of Galloway’s podcast about the Assange extradition, in which he definitively states he has the withheld SMS evidence of “texts between the women and between the women and Julian Assange”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4I5F05jNg
These feminist orgs really should know better than to try to slander someone like Galloway. He doesn’t make definitive public statements unless he is very very sure of his facts. Remember how he whupped the arse of the US Senate when they tried it on with him?
I suspect you’ve all seen this:
Julian Assange lawyers lodge appeal against Swedish ruling
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/12/julian-assange-lawyers-appeal-against-swedish-ruling
The most interesting aspects are 1) timing, of course; Sweden goes to the voting booths on Sunday 14 September. Change of govt likely.
And 2) the defence obviously plans to read out some of the withheld women’s SMSs:
It will be very interesting to see whether they are, in fact, allowed to do this, and which texts in particular they choose to read out.
I’m more and more convinced that on the morning of Friday, 20 August 2010, Anna Ardin told Donald Bostrum that when Sofia Wilen had called her Sofia had also claimed Assange had deliberately ripped a condom. In his statement, Bostrum describes how he confronted Julian directly on this matter (still on the morning of Friday, 20 August). Although it is very vaguely worded, I think Bostrum is describing to the police how he asked Assange about torn condoms in respect of both women. I try to show the exact words of Bostrum’s indicating this in these posts:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-10/#comment-473587 [last 2 paras]
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437316 [the whole post]
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437316 [the whole post]
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437318 [section of relevant part of Bostrum statement, with my annotations]
But, also, look at what Bostrum tells Alex Gibney in an interview included in the We Steal Secrets documentary:
I’m sure Donald Bostrum knows that the basis of Sofia Wilen’s “rape” reporting/visit to police “to seek advice about HIV testing” is actually that Wilen made (after speaking to Anna for the first time – and only after) the claim about the “pulling-balloon-sounds” torn condom. Over and over again in Bostrum’s comments, he links two sentences together which, together, imply the two women were both making allegations about torn condoms. He just hasn’t relayed that to the police very well in his transcribed statement.
Sorry, third link in above post should be this one:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-9/#comment-437309
Arbed wrote:
“I’m more and more convinced that on the morning of Friday, 20 August 2010, Anna Ardin told Donald Bostrum that when Sofia Wilen had called her Sofia had also claimed Assange had deliberately ripped a condom.”
Arbed, you might have seen yesterdays’s response from the prosecutor, published here: http://www.aklagare.se/PageFiles/13838/AM-131226-10_ÖYT_40116460_20140923090131.pdf
Julian’s Swedish lawyers are trying to get permission to read the SMS text messages to Svea Court. Marianne Ny and Ingrid Isgren do reject this very firmly. It is a big thing in their statement. I speculate that among the text messages is one which confirms that Sofia claimed that Julian ripped a condom. This would explain why text were presented to the lower court in secret session – it would strengthen Ny’s hand- yet giving no legal opportunity for Samuelsson and Olsson to argue against it in public.