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.
“I’m going to call the umpire in here and ask a direct question that I hope that he will be allowed to freely answer without prior appeal in protest”
and
“What do you mean? I haven’t appealed once”
which is quite funny. It’s the disturbing undertone, sometimes overtone of violence which isn’t. I am happy to note, and state, boldly and baldly, that there are very few places on the web to hide.
Btw Jimmy, dear, give it a rest. Although calling people ‘slime mould amoeba’ is probably preferable to suggesting that they merit a bullet in the head – but of course, you didn’t say that, did you, jemand?*
*”Another person, certainly not me, might even suggest that one could scribe the message on a bullet, plug it into your head and the message would still not penetrate. Again, I would never phrase it in such unseemly terms, but one could see his or her point”
Fancy answering the question yet? No? Off to supper for me too.
“I am the walrus.”
WHOOOOOOOOOH !!!
“He’s playing victim here; unbelievable.” — Villager
😀
@Jimmy
That’s hilarious. My mate is doing his PhD in antibiotic resistant bacteria and we talk all the time about strains of bacteria evolving and what not. I’m not a biologist, so some of the stuff he tells me is amazing/unbelievable. Your description could have come straight out of his mouth – humour so dry you could piss on it and it still wouldn’t get wet.
Playing the victim am I? I’m glad we’re all back on topic re Craig’s post.
“Playing the victim am I? I’m glad we’re all back on topic re Craig’s post.”
Game, set, and match.
Goran Rudling,
Get yourself a life, drive your taxi cab( you are a taxi driver by profession!!!) and in your spare time look out for sex offenders in Swedish public toilets but please stop your drivel in serious discussion forums.
JA trusted this country when invited here and this is what he gets in return. The message and lesson for the international community especially developing nations is simple. Do NOT TRUST SWEDES. This has always been a nation of opportunists and always will be.
jemand “That’s hilarious. My mate is doing his PhD in antibiotic resistant bacteria and we talk all the time about strains of bacteria evolving and” etc etc
jemand “I’m glad we’re all back on topic re Craig’s post”
Villager 😉
(Posted this by mistake on the Anna Ardin’s Police Statement page. Sorry for any condusion.)
@Rudling When I asked about what time Boström got the phone call from Ardin I was referring to the comment preceding it, about Ardin calling Boström telling him that they had been to the police station. The details of her phone calls during that day could tell quite a lot, I imagine.
I see no reason to call Craig a “liar”. Nobody knows all the facts and people sketch the events based on what they know. The picture may need som tweaking, but that’s just normal. Trying to piece together the exact details of what happened during that day is a work in progress and will be for some time. It’s more constructive to help with additional sources and pieces of information than to call someone liar when there’s no intent to mislead. Besides, it’s the big picture that matters and I think he got that right.
I think Ardin made her interview on the 21st, not 22nd as Craig suggests, but that doesn’t matter for his argument, so there’s no point wasting space calling anyone names. Ardin may not have been present during Krans’s interview with Wilén, but Ardin and Wilén had been in touch before they went to the police station so she probably knew the story anyway. In fact her support of Wilén was based on her having experienced something similar (or so she says) so she must have known the general story, at least parts relevant for the rape accusations, whether she was present during that particular interview or not. Even without her presence there are enough strange circumstances, like the date it was registered (26th), that a friend of Ardin conducted it, later additions, that it doesn’t appear to have been signed, and so on.
In the evening of the 20th Ardin went to a party. I wonder what Wilén did …
Yes, the 22nd should have been the 21st. Rixstep contacted me yesterday to point that out. However as Orb says it makes no difference at all to the sequence or the argument, si I hadn’t bothered to correct it till now. I will though.
Dear Craig Murray,
In your article about Anna Ardin you call her a liar on a number of occasions. You think you are entitled to it because Anna Ardin is, according to you, stating things that are not true. I have called you a liar for doing exactly the same thing. You state things that are not true. And, what I think is worse, you do nothing to stop. You just go on and on and on.
You were obviously very proud when you wrote “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?“ A comment that sounds as if it originated from J. Edgar Loophole, the world renowned circus detective. I will in a later comment show you that your detective skills are on par with Mr Clouseau but unfortunately you lack his humour.
You make many claims in the Assange case. Very many of them are false. I have asked you on a number of occasions to support your claims with facts. So far, you have not supported one of your claims. Not a single one.
Instead you continue to write comments like “Goran specialises in talking nonsense with an air of great authority. Must ve the subglasses.” and “Indeed you make numerous statements with an air of great authority, which all evaporate upon inspection.” This, of course, without you doing one single inspection.
The only time you have tried to show some facts was when I wrote:
I incorrectly assumed that anybody that without any evidence puts this in a blog post “lesbian feminist campaigner Irmeli Krans” is not only homophobic but involved in posting lies … and it seems like the honorable gentleman Mr Murray is involved in something that might be his favorite sport, calling people lesbians without foundation.
You responded in two comments:
I am most terribly sorry. I have read the article you linked to. I cannot find one single fact that indicates Irmeli Krans is lesbian. It is not even suggested in one of the many comments. So your claim “a great deal of material on the net that indicates that she is [lesbian]” is false too. In the article you quoted I can see the same unsubstantiated claims you make. It makes me wonder, is daddy’s blog one of sources?
Craig Murray’s playing cards
Your playing of the lesbian card backfired. But you don’t get it. You just go on hoping another card will save you. Now you play the feminist card. Or is it the second-wave feminist card?
I understand that you have no real knowledge about Sweden’s rape laws. The reason is your namecalling “Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws”. I would very much like to know in what way they are astonishing compared to the laws of England, Canada and Australia. Are they tougher? Is rape wider defined? Are they unjust? Are men treated unfairly? Or are you just trying to brand them as horrible by calling them ” “second-wave feminism” rape laws” And by the way, are you sure it is not “third-wave feminism” rape laws?
There must be more cards to play. Why not try the ultra-radical-feminist card played by Brita Sundberg-Weitman at the extradition hearing 7-8 Februari 2011. She was completely demolished by Clare Montgomery in cross-examination. But it could work for you if you combine it with the lesbian card.
According to page 16 of this set of documents
http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09/UC-ARKIV-120903171025.pdf
the police got the condom from Ardin on the 21st at 18.12. That is six hours after her telephone interview and eight days after the alleged assault.
The identifying code can be compared to page 80 of this link
http://info.publicintelligence.net/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf
to verify that 2010-0201-BG20840-2 is the broken condom on which barely any DNA was found. Tricky if you don’t read Swedish, but at least you know where to find the information.
Orb “I see no reason to call Craig a “liar”. Nobody knows all the facts and people sketch the events based on what they know. The picture may need som tweaking, but that’s just normal. Trying to piece together the exact details of what happened during that day is a work in progress and will be for some time. It’s more constructive to help with additional sources and pieces of information than to call someone liar when there’s no intent to mislead”
Agree, absolutely.
Orb,
I don’t know when Anna called Donald after she’s been to the police station.
Regarding liar. That Craig doesn’t know the facts does not mean he has a right to make up events that has not happened. I understand that most people don’t know what is true about this case. I also know why that is. There is tons and tons of disinformation coming out of Assange supporters. Even their lawyers lie. I know because I have worked with them.
I saw that Craig has commented on one fact. That the interview was not on the 22 but on the 21 first and then saying that doesn’t make a difference. Now look at Craig’s claim:
“22 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.”
The important error (choose your own word) is that Craig claims that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia Wilén’s interview. What does he say about? NOT ONE WORD.
Life is really tough. If you listen to the wrong people you get the wrong advice and wrong information. It is obvious that Craig gets his information from Rick Downes at Rixstep. That is why there are so many fundamental errors in what he writes.
If it is Rick Downes that have “fooled” Craig, why not say so. I am honestly sorry for Craig that he has to pay the small price of being called a liar by me when he the real liar is Rick Downes. The mother of deception. I am more than willing to speak softly and offer Craig a million excuses if he can just say that he trusted Rick Downes and it might be the case that Rick Downes not only ill-informed, but does not mind lying.
Thanks for your post so we can sort this out finally.
Please read this article about Rick Downes and feel free to comment.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/03/the-assange-case-rick-downes-at-rixstep-cooks-information/
Also agree that Goran’s information bears the hallmarks of some v decent journalism and well done on it.
Dear Craig Murray,
First thanks for a great blog and giving me the opportunity to comment even though my language is offensive.
If you rely on information from sources like Rick Downes at Rixstep, Daddy’s, Justice 4 Assange, Flashback Forum in Sweden etc I understand fully that you get the wrong picture of this case. If you would have told me I would have understood the problem and known that you are not the originator of the incorrect information.
I am really very sorry for calling you a liar and other things. I understand that you been lied to. I will tone down and help you to understand the case fully. You can ask me anything and I will try my best to give you answers.
I stumbled into this case by coincidence. I found the tweets. Since then I found a whole lot more. I stumbled into your blog and see what happened.
I suggest we do it like this. You can see my mail address. Send me an e-mail and I’ll send you a suggestion.
Best regards,
Göran Rudling
Goran,
No, Rick Downes was not my source for Ardin being present during the Wilens/Krans interview. There are numerous soruces for that. I still believe that to be true. The only thing I have ever received from Rixstep is one email telling em I had put 22 August instead of 21 August.
You appear obsessed with feuds and your own importance, rather than the facts of the case. For your next post, I invite you to do this. Set out the timeline I set out, leaving in everything that is fair and accurate and correcting anything you believe to be wrong. That would be constructive.
If you prefer to keep up the unconstructive criticism we are going to start editing you out.
My Dear Technicolour,
Nobody knows all the facts and people sketch the events based on what they know.
May I disagree. What I have seen in this case and what makes me upset, and sometimes offensive, is that people sketch the events based on what they want to know. Form an opinion and add facts later. And facts that contradict are discarded.
I think you should get the facts first and see where they take you. When I started looking into the case I was hoping to find info that Julian was guilty. The more I looked the less guilty he looked.
But I have an advantage over most. I don’t care who is guilty as long as the offender is caught. If Julian has done something criminal he should be punished. If Anna Ardin is making a false accusation, she should be punished.
technicolour
13 Sep, 2012 – 10:28 pm
Also agree that Goran’s information bears the hallmarks of some v decent journalism and well done on it.
————————————————————————————–
Seconded. Not bad for a troll on steroids. 😉
Is that confirmation then that AA was not present during SW’s interview? That’s quite a big deal if so?
Technicolour, Rudling is given credit for exposing Ardins “deleted tweets” which would any way still have come out. Fine, however his agenda here is to be apologetic on behalf of the Swedish state for the gross violation of Assange human rights, blaming it all on JA and bad advisers. What hogwash.
Rudling should be focusing his attention on the brainwashed swedish public and media if he seriously believes in Assange being innocent. Any rational person outside of Sweden can see what a “set up” this is.
Had JA not seeked asylum at the Equador Embassy he would be a “walked over case” in Sweden.
“Also agree that Goran’s information bears the hallmarks of some v decent journalism and well done on it” – specifically with relation to checking the Naomi Woolf piece, using primary sources, and asking for evidence for certain facts. I was interested to see that the conclusion he comes to agrees with Craig’s: that AA’s testimony is so flawed that it presents no case. I am used to dealing with people who make it their business to investigate one particular story without distraction – many of them not, officially, journalists, who are usually not afforded that luxury – and would not dismiss them (Rico).
Craig,
No, Rick Downes was not my source for Ardin being present during the Wilens/Krans interview. There are numerous soruces for that. I still believe that to be true. The only thing I have ever received from Rixstep is one email telling em I had put 22 August instead of 21 August.
Let us stick to one issue. And one issue only. The presence of Anna Ardin during Sofia’s interview. You BELIEVE she was. What I have asked of you is reveal one source that can verify that it is true. Just one.
I have police documents that prove that what you are saying is not correct. You may believe Anna was present but that does not maker her present.
Göran Rudling’s guide dog wrote:
“If you rely on information from sources like Rick Downes at Rixstep, Daddy’s, Justice 4 Assange, Flashback Forum in Sweden etc I understand fully that you get the wrong picture of this case.”
Craig Murray wrote:
“If you prefer to keep up the unconstructive criticism we are going to start editing you out.”
Don’t do that Mr. Murray. The best way to deal with slime molds is to expose them to the light of day.
Goran,
Is there any chance you could take Craig up on his suggestion and provide an alternative timeline of events for us?
I have no idea if Anna was in the room while Sofia’s statement was taken, but witness Donald Boström tells an interesting story about the interaction going on at the police station:
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
Johan,
Thank you. That does seem to indicate very plainly that Anna WAS in the room when Sofia told police her story – I can see no other possible interpretation. Which again leads me to believe that Goran is spreading disinformation.
@CE
Is there any chance you could take Craig up on his suggestion and provide an alternative timeline of events for us?
I’ve asked so many times for factual support for claims. We have now, after some time, come to the first one. Anna Ardin’s presence at Sofia Wiléns interview.
Craig writes
No, Rick Downes was not my source for Ardin being present during the Wilens/Krans interview. There are numerous soruces for that.
I have asked for just one source. One fact that backs up Craigs claim. Just one of the numerous sources Craig relies on. It is all quiet. When I ask for just one source that backs up one claim I am asked to produce a time line.
I have shown you events and documents that contradict the “gossip” in order to help you understand the case.
I have written extensively of how I think the case should be interpreted based on the police interviews and other information I have. It is in one long post and two short. Please read and feel free to comment. My conclusions are very different from Craigs.
If you start with this I think you get a good idea of the case.
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/weird-accusation-or-proof-of-lies-more-about-the-assange-case/
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/03/the-assange-case-the-condom-speaks-out/
“When I started looking into the case I was hoping to find info that Julian was guilty. The more I looked the less guilty he looked” – I think that is very much a part of journalism. And here (as often) it ends up in the same place as intuition and experience (Craig) which is doubtless why I am drawn to both.
Rico: “Rudling should be focusing his attention on the brainwashed swedish public and media” – well, his job here seems to be to look at the facts in the public domain.
But I agree with CE and Craig: if Goran provides a timeline of events, from his (linked) sources, and Craig could comment, from his sources, that could be nothing but helpful. Cooperation would be good, especially since reading your respective blogs, you seem to agree 🙂
“I think you should get the facts first and see where they take you” – yes, again. Goran, why, out of interest (not a loaded question) were you hoping to find info that Julian Assange was guilty?
Goran; just had a quick read of your last post: you’ve come onto this blog of your own free will; made several interesting points; and some accusations; been heard, and now you’re being asked for a simple timeline, with references. If you are the person you say you are, you would do it. It might take you a couple of days, but you would.
Dear Craig,
Thank you. That does seem to indicate very plainly that Anna WAS in the room when Sofia told police her story – I can see no other possible interpretation. Which again leads me to believe that Goran is spreading disinformation.
Thank you very much for informing me of you reasoning and your ability to draw conclusions. Your latest comment is very telling me how you collect information.
I have read the full interview with Donald probably 20 times trying to figure out what he is saying and what he means. I know in exactly what context the quoted words are said. And I know for a fact that his comment does not in any way suggest that Anna Ardin was present during Sofia’s interview. You have again jumped to conclusion without any investigation.
ONE OF YOUR SOURCES PLEASE
I asked you for one source on your numerous sources. You cannot come up with a single one. NOT ONE. For me that is telling. Do you have one source of your own? You think you are saved by the bell by Johan. Sorry, you missed again.
Now let’s look at what Donald Boström actually says.
Does he say in what room Anna made the comment?
Does he say at what time?
Does he say it was during Sofia´s interview?
Does he say that it was said when the police was entering the complaints in the computer?
Does he say anything that makes us understand exactly at what stage Anna Ardin’s very important words were said?
And what did Donald Boström say before the quoted words?
And what did he say afterwards?
From your comment I understand that you are ready to jump to any conclusion as long as you think it helps you.
In next post I will show to you clearly what Donald is actually saying. But before I send I want you to give just one of your numerous sources.