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.
Nice to see Craig Murray conducting his own little internet kangaroo court here. He wasn’t there, doesn’t know all the evidence, has presumed that the accused is innocent and the accusers are guilty – and hey presto! Judge Craig Murray pronounces a verdict! And he says we shouldn’t trust the state. I have yet to find one good reason why we should trust anything that Craig Murray says without question.
Göran Rudling,
Facts are useful, but only if you use them for understanding.
Do you understand?
Göran Rudling equivocated:
“Irmeli Krans never read back the interview to Sofia or offered the interview for reading for the simple reason the interview was not typed up before Sofia left. This means that Irmeli Krans never asked Sofia to sign the interview. A normal person would understand that under those conditions it would be difficult to refuse to sign it. The claim that Sofia refused to sign the interview is a totally false claim.”
IF what you are writing is true, then that makes the whole statement from the Police Set-up, even more likely to be a chimera of Wilen’s words, and Krans’ ‘understanding’ of Wilen’s testament; which I would regard as even more damning than what Mr. Murray has stated.
Facts are useful, Göran Rudling, but understanding is as cool as blue tinted spectacles. By the way, what colour is your guide dog ?
Sofia Wilén’s complaint was registered at 16.11, according to line 9 (not counting the line at the very top), page 5 of this link containing original police records in Swedish
http://info.publicintelligence.net/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf
The interview starting at 16.21 must have taken place after Sofia had already told her story a first time, enough of it for the police to file a complaint. Donald Boström’s police interview shows that Anna Ardin was present at some time when Sofia told her story to the police, but it could have been before the 16.21 interview, before the complaints were registered.
From the English translation of the interview with Donald Boström found at
http://rixstep.com/1/20110202,04.shtml
And then Anna rings again and says now we’ve been with the police and Sofia told her story and, yeah because I sat there so I added a comment of my own. This is very ‘word for word’ and as I remember her telling me. Uh, aha I say, and what was that comment. Yeah that comment was that I think Sofia is telling the truth because I experienced something similar Anna says then.
It would be interesting to know at what time Donald Boström got that call from Anna Ardin.
@Jemand 13 Sep, 2012 – 10:35 am
Can you please point out the “scornful” comment. I cannot see it, but English is not my mother tongue.
“There is a predictably scornful comment on the site that attempts to discredit the claim that identifiable DNA should remain on a condom for many days after normal use
What I do write is “The absence of large amounts of DNA is puzzling.” I don’t think it is that condom you are referring to.
‘Jemand’ resorting to personal abuse rather than answering the question, I see. Tsk, tsk. Remember, you are trying to look reasonable here.
Evgueni, Roderick: “As for popular sovereignty versus a sovereign Parliament, for me it is popular sovereignty every time. Simply because – the problems of less democracy are demonstrably greater than those of more democracy.” – exactly.
@ Craig 13 Sep, 2012 – 11:13 am
“Goran specialises in talking nonsense with an air of great authority. Must ve the subglasses.”
Jumping to conclusions again. Are we?
JimmyGiro
“IF what you are writing is true, then that makes the whole statement from the Police Set-up, even more likely to be a chimera of Wilen’s words, and Krans’ ‘understanding’ of Wilen’s testament; which I would regard as even more damning than what Mr. Murray has stated.”
You have to explain this section. It does not make sense to me.
Mr. Murray states that Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement. That is not true. In your world “that makes the whole statement from the Police Set-up, even more likely to be a chimera of Wilen’s words”.
Do I understand you correctly? The more false claims Mr. Murray makes up out of thin air and ignorance the more likely it is to “be a chimera of Wilen’s words”
@Jemand – I don’t see how abusiveness is going to help you persuade people towards your cause, and meanwhile I am concerned that you are treating my very similar views a great deal better because of gender dynamics. You’ll hear a male feminist out, but one of those *female* feminists – must be a harpy militant by definition!
May I suggest you smoke the peace pipe, and stick to non-combative argumentation?
@Jimmy, yikes!
Your posts sometimes remind me of those clever bots people put on Twitter to auto-respond to particular phrases, with often mirthsome results. Maybe I should set up a JamesGiro emulator! Every time the word “feminism” is mentioned, it could pick from a grab-bag of nonsensical Tweets, like “You need to learn the difference between quim and arse!”, “It’s obvious you’re a Marxist Feminazi!”, etc.
The Twittersphere will never work out the difference.
“Do I understand you correctly? The more false claims Mr. Murray makes up out of thin air and ignorance the more likely it is to “be a chimera of Wilen’s words””
Dear Göran Rudling’s guide dog,
Woof… woof-woof, bark woof grawl… woof woof woof!
Jemand – 3:46 am
I already suspected that you and I have read some of the same books 🙂
Jon
“@Jemand – I don’t see how abusiveness is going to help you persuade people towards your cause, and meanwhile I am concerned that you are treating my very similar views a great deal better because of gender dynamics. You’ll hear a male feminist out, but one of those *female* feminists – must be a harpy militant by definition!
May I suggest you smoke the peace pipe, and stick to non-combative argumentation?”
Jon, well said, even if a tad overdue, you’re doing a very effective job of moderating, despite the pressure of traffic in the last few days. Re: “you are treating my very similar views a great deal better because of gender dynamics.”, i’m not so sure though its certainly plausible. I think the other reality is that you are the moderator, as was alluded to earlier in the thread. You set a fine example of diplomacy, yet never failing to make your point clearly. Good if people can emulate that.
Orb,
I understand that you would like to know what happened at Klara Närpolisstation on the 20th of August. I can understand it is difficult since there is so much disinformation and flat out lies about this event. I will try to explain it based on the police interviews, memos and talking to people involved.
The two women arrived about 14:00. They were met by police officer Linda Wassgren. Very soon the women started talking about the crime rape and that both of them were victims.
As soon as Linda Wassgren understood that the women wanted to make complaints about a serious crimes, she separated them and interviewed them one at a time in order to get more information. After the interviews Linda Wassgren made some phone calls to superiors. The phone calls made her convinced that the complaints amounted to rape. She called the prosecutor in charge and subsequently Julian Assange was arrested in absentia. Expressen was informed by some unknown and the story exploded.
The prosecutor in charge started a “förundersökning”, a formal police investigation.
Sofia Wilén’s complaint is registered at 16:11. Sofia’s interrogation started 16:21. Anna Ardin’s complaint is registered at 16:31. Most likely Anna Ardin left the police station around 17:00. There is a note that Anna Ardin was not present at the police station at 18:02. Sofia’s interrogation was not finished until 18:40.
It is evident that some of this time the two women talked to Linda Wassgren together. They must have, we know they arrived together. But what is important is that Linda Wassgren interviewed the women separately. It is also evident from the facts that Anna Ardin was not present for the beginning of Sofia Wiléns interrogation and not in the end. It is extremely unlikely that Anna Ardin was present at all during parts of Sofia’s interrogation.
Anna Ardin was interrogated over the phone the following day, 21 August, by Sara Wennerblom. It is important to note that the reason for the interview was suspicion of rape.
A memo by Linda Wassgren is below. There is no mentioning of talk about STD-tests or forcing Julian Assange to take a test. The story that the women went to the police to force Julian to take test is another made up story.
http://samtycke.nu/doc/police_pm_p29.pdf
Facts are that there were two interviews and one interrogation at Klara Närpolisstation on the 20th.
Now to the false claims that are most important. Mr Murray has an opinion about the case. It is evident that Mr Murray makes up stuff to support his opinion. He fabricates wildly in order to try to make the case look like some kind of set-up. Mr Murray seems to be what we call a “foliehat”, a tin-foil hat, a conspiracy theorist with little regard for facts since facts can destroy a good story.
I will in this post not mention all of Mr. Murray’s fabrications. It will take too long. Some important ones are below:
“Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview” There is not any evidence suggesting that this is true. It is fabrication.
He also goes on claiming that Sofia refused to sign her interview even though information in the interview clearly states that is not true. Fabrication.
In another article, about Irmeli Krans, Mr Murray makes an even more ridiculous claim, “They [the two women]arrived at 2pm and rather than see another officer, they waited two hours until Krans came on duty.” The memo and the “Brottsanmälan” proves that Mr Murray is fabricating.
What is worse. Mr Murray goes on and on and repeating fabricated stories even though he should know by now that they are fabrications. Why Mr Murray behaves like this is difficult to understand. It is more than willful ignorance.
@Jon – No, you are wrong. You have been polite and she has been snide. When someone falsely implies that I am a racist (I call that abuse) I reserve the right to respond. I am surprised that you cannot see this. Disappointed in fact. Remember, I did say that I thought we might have to agree to disagree but you wanted to elaborate on the matter with your friend snarling at me like a Rottweiler. I admire your positive attitude but it should not be spoiled by a bias in favour of your friends.
You also warned me about Jimmy, and I could see he has some digs at you, but I have not yet seen any abusiveness from him. Admittedly, I have not witnessed the history of posts between you all and nor should I have to. That is a matter between you two – maybe in time it’ll sort itself out.
@Goran
I only saw two posts, neither appeared to be from you.
@Goran
I only saw two posts, neither appeared to be from you.”
I don’t know what you are referring to. Can you help?
@Evgueni
“I already suspected that you and I have read some of the same books”
I bet you’ve read a whole lot more than me. Would like to see your list of favourites, maybe I could source them off the intergoogle. 🙂
Goran raises a very important point is his usual fashion, is there actually any evidence that AA was present during SW’s interview? Where does this information come from?
This seems to be another one these ‘facts’ about this case that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
@Goran
Why is it that we have to exchange so many bloody posts on a completely unimportant point?
1. I visted the website you quoted.
2. I read the article and read two comments on the website in [1].
3. I commented that one of those comments that i read on the website in [1] was scornful of the article.
4. You questioned me about the scornful comment as if you might have been the author.
5. I replied that I only read two comments and one did not appear to be authored by you.
6. You asked me what i am talking about.
7. I am writing this post to you explaining it in point form.
8. I am drinking a beer and hoping that it will soothe the onset of a migraine.
9. No. I don’t want to talk about it anymore. Talk about it with your therapist. I’ve run out of numbers.
Orb,
I missed this “It would be interesting to know at what time Donald Boström got that call from Anna Ardin” You are referring to the call when Donald learned that Anna knew about Julian’s horizontal golf with Sofia.
From Donald Boström’s interview he says he was called during Thursday 19 August.
Petra Ornstein’s interview places the call to Wednesday or Thursday.
What seems most likely is that Anna Ardin on Thursday after lunch got the information that Julian had sex with Sofia. On that day she left the apartment and stayed with a friend.
For some time I had great difficulty understanding the accusation from Wednesday 18 about Julian taking his clothes off his lower body and rubbing it against Anna. It seemed like nothing worth reporting to me considering the accusations about events on 13-14 August. I think the accusation is a cover story for explaining why Anna left the apartment on Thursday. If she did not tell police about the event on Wednesday 18 she had to tell them why she left the apartment on Thusday. More in link.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/weird-accusation-or-proof-of-lies-more-about-the-assange-case/
@Jon, no it’s fine: I think it’s quite amusing.
‘Jemand’: where did I ‘falsely imply’ that you were a racist? Are you really objecting to the fact that, as I point out, you make sweeping and exaggerated statements which can easily be seen to be such, including:
‘hysterical anti-racism is as bad as racism’
‘feminists use rape propaganda against all men’
As for racism, if you choose to conflate the Black Panthers, a self-defence movement which called for peace, with the lynchers and murderers of the KKK in your mind, that is up to you. But do so in public and you should not be surprised when such an obvious misreading is exposed.
Incidentally, Jimmy compared sane, humane Nuid to a real-life concentration camp Nazi. Your level of abuse is slightly more subtle, but still attempts to be abusive. I wonder why?
Jemand,
I think it is obvious from my article on the condom that I think it is very strange that the condom supplied by Anna Ardin does not have plenty of DNA. Your comment suggests that is not what I wrote.
“There is a predictably scornful comment on the site that attempts to discredit the claim that identifiable DNA should remain on a condom for many days after normal use”
The reason I asked you to show it to me is because I want to take it out since it does not reflect my view. My opinion is that it very strange that there isn’t any DNA.
Can you show me the comment?
If you rather want to drink your beer, maybe you can show me tomorrow when you are sober.
Goran, obviously your English is extremely poor.
I MADE NO NEGATIVE COMMENT ABOUT ANY DETAILS IN YOUR POST — I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE WEBSITE ARTICLE THAT YOU QUOTED.
Does anyone speak Swedish here?
The function of splitting the comments pages for every 200 posts, serves only to fragment the continuity of the narrative between commentators. Giving the moral relativists a target for burying the first 200 comments, with a deluge of their moral ‘gloop’.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it were not the initiative of Jon.
Jemand/Goran, I think i can see the misunderstanding here. Let me try. I think Jemand is referring to a comment on the blog/site left by a commenter, NOT a comment made by Goran within the content of his authored article.
It looks like this misunderstanding was encouraged by Craig in his remark “Yep, they are trying to get DNA out of Richard III at the minute. Goran specialises in talking nonsense with an air of great authority. Must ve the subglasses.” implying that the comment Jemand referred to was AUTHORED by Goran. I don’t think Craig had bothered to read the comment under discussion.
Jemand,
I don’t know if it is my English or your beer that is the problem.
“Goran, obviously your English is extremely poor.
I MADE NO NEGATIVE COMMENT ABOUT ANY DETAILS IN YOUR POST — I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE WEBSITE ARTICLE THAT YOU QUOTED
The website article I quoted is my blog. I wrote a post about the condom. You say there is a scornful comment in the website article I quoted. Please show it to me and I will take it out.
If you just would have shown me the scornful comment, no time would have been waisted. When I check my condom article that on my website I quoted I cannot find any scornful comment. Are you doing a Craig Murray?
I put the series of the comments below so you can understand that the website article I quoted is my own website.
I think it is your beer.
@Göran Rudling
13 Sep, 2012 – 4:55 am
The link Goran provided is interesting, but perhaps not for the point he wants to make. There is a predictably scornful comment on the site that attempts to discredit the claim that identifiable DNA should remain on a condom for many days after normal use. What this overly confident poster seems to be unaware of is the fact that DNA lasts such a long time that one can extract mappable DNA from a fingerbone of a 50,000yo Denisovan woman.
@ David Landy 11 Sep, 2012 – 6:48 p
Regarding condoms.
Mä 2 is Anna Ardin
Mä 1 is Sofia Wilén
A more detailed analysis is here.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/03/the-assange-case-the-condom-speaks-out/
Villager,
You are my hero.
What you have shown is how Craig Murray is operating. Not reading, implying stuff and jumping to conclusions. You almost caught him in the act.
It looks like this misunderstanding was encouraged by Craig in his remark “Yep, they are trying to get DNA out of Richard III at the minute. Goran specialises in talking nonsense with an air of great authority. Must ve the subglasses.” implying that the comment Jemand referred to was AUTHORED by Goran. I don’t think Craig had bothered to read the comment under discussion.
Goran,
1. I wasn’t aware that article was yours, on your blog. I don’t think that makes any difference, I stand by my comments.
2. I’m not going to encourage any removal of comments that are critical of your article, even if I disagree with the comment. Craig’s blog is most accomodating of disagreeable commentators and I think you should oblige in the same spirit. Unfortunately, I can’t think of any reliable system of removing comments without destroying an essential quality of freedom. Live with it.