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 genuine investigation are and no charges. 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.
The original post with all the links functioning and some 2,000 comments is here.
There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. Before ever meeting Assange, she had been expelled from Cuba by its government as a suspected CIA agent. 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.
Sweden is a bastion of progressive values. Chief amongst them is the application of equivocal misandry in order to balance the scales of centuries of female abuse at the hands of males. The pendulum needs to hold that static position for a commensurate period of time in order to be fair. Juries would muddy those waters by applying too much justice to each case, allowing far too many men to escape the lash. That won’t do.
Sorry; clarity:
CE & RD, you seem to think that you’re standing up for protection of women. In fact you’re arguing for faux-legal exploitation of a woman, Sofia Wilen, by powerful but covert political forces.
Craig – you are clearly on to something here, and you do us a service by pointing out the nature of the Swedish legal procedure – something I did not hear mentioned by Andrew Neil on his Daily Politics as he praised that system. But all of that said want can you expect when Assange struck so effectively at the powers that be? They were bound to strike back. I do not condone it by any means, but it can hardly be surprising. When you fish in these troubled waters, as Assange clearly does, don’t be surprised if you catch a shark and it bites you. Nevertheless, well done on your efforts here. Truth still has a place.
”
I am one of those who, as the host for many years of the legendary women’s program Radio Ellen on Swedish Radio, fought for women’s rights and equality between the sexes.
I could never have dreamt that a legitimate struggle for equal rights and opportunities for both women and men would degenerate into state feminism devoid of common sense and reason.
Those of us who pioneered feminism in Sweden in the 1970s fought for our sexual freedom and for the right to take responsibility for ourselves, but we also fought to be able to, like men already do, enjoy sex.
Sexual liberation went hand-in-hand with the demand that we as women must be able to support ourselves and not be economically dependent on men. This is essential because only when we women are economically independent will we be able say ‘no’ if we feel we are being sexually used. Being a feminist is not about hating men. Feminism is about strengthening women’s self esteem, not about making ourselves into victims or being categorized by the state as victims by default.
But in today’s feminist Sweden, the following can happen. In the preliminary investigation minutes for the case of Julian Assange in Sweden, I read: Woman A. says about her relationship with Julian Assange: “I was proud as hell to get the world’s coolest man in bed and living in my apartment.” After having sexual intercourse on numerous occasions, she goes to the police.”
http://khelenebergman.blogspot.com/2012/06/julian-assange-is-already-condemned-by.html
Hear, hear.
CE
Good to see you back again after such a long absence! How are you and your lady?
Lets be blunt here, given the evidence, the charges against JA if made in the UK under UK criminal codes would not make it via the Crown Prosecution Service, given any competent Barrister would demolish any charges heard in a criminal court. As such, its rather strange that the powers that be chose a country that does not allow trial by jury in open for charges of rape to be heard. That’s all you need to know to understand the stitch-up. And yet I’m amazed at the bilge that streams out of the MSM about AS and this ‘non-rape’.
The UK’s response even rested its assertion on a Supreme Court decision which even the Supreme Court has distanced itself from. In the Bucnys case, the Supreme Court revisited its split decision in Assange vs. Swedish Prosecution Authority and explained that the single argument which had become the decisive point in Assange had been reached incorrectly.
Nevertheless, the corrective legislation in domestic UK law excluded any individual whose case had been already decided by the UK courts. Thus Mr. Assange was frozen out of a remedy, further contributing to his legally uncertain and precarious situation, without a willingness on the part of the United Kingdom to review the case given the subsequent circumstances (the granting of asylum), and with it, the principle of the retroactive application of the law which was favourable to the accused, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. The corrective legislation was passed to prevent arbitrary detention – to prevent people languishing in prison awaiting trial – but now the United Kingdom is not remedying the very case that led to it. The passage of the new legislation is an admission of previous unfairness and the very person abused by it is not getting its benefit.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx
I find this both illuminating and acutely interesting. This acuteness is because Craig Murray has been – in a previous life – an ambassador acting on behalf of the british government.
The interesting part is to posit the question: do you really think that the Ecuadorian Government, or an ambassador therefore, would soil their hands with a sordid rape case if they were not convinced that what is really hind this is the amerikan government’s attempts to get their hands on Assange?
Craig – would you ever have covered for a rapist when you were an ambassador; would you ever have granted political asylum to anyone without the confirmation of at least the Foreign Secretary?
Bert.
Bert,
I would never cover for anybody I believed ma be a rapist, either when an ambassador or subsequently.
I did protect dissidents occasionally in the Embassy when an Ambassador, but could not grant them asylum without, as you say, the authority of the Foreign Secretary. Had to find ways of helping smuggle them to safety, and was reprimanded for it.
Ardin was very well known before Assange even showed up in Sweden.
She started the lesbian and gay club called “club Fever” in Visby, that was held in conjuction with the “Almedalen” political rallyes thas is hold every summer in July in Visby/Gotland/Sweden.
Therefore, Anna had a long experience in sexual “matters” and had no problems with “sharing” a guy. Why she didn´t warn Sofia is becaused she wrote that Sofia was a “dumb blond” in one of here mails.
The interesting fact not mentioned, is why 2 male journos that was helping Julian 24/7 during his visit did not warn Julian about Anna:s intentions, instead-they got nervous over Sofia showing up….
Up to this day, neither one of these 2 journos has made any comment in this case, and even as the case with Anna Ardin now is closed, they keep the lid on. Swedish pirate party also was involved in some fishy things- they hasen´t even made a rely of the UN verdict, so it not just the swedish prosecutor that stinks, there is a lot of shady things going on.
Resident Dissident
7 Feb, 2016 – 2:40 pm
“I appreciate this is only one of the scenarios – but why should a rape victim have a duty to remind other potential victims so soon after the event? Perhaps they might just have other things on their mind.”
…………………………………………………………..
You mean like organising a crayfish party?
…………………………………………………………….
“No one is saying that Assange shouldn’t have defence lawyers or be able to challenge the evidence – and I have no reason to believe that this isn’t possible in Sweden…”
……………………………………………………………
The Swedish prosecution have had the opportunity, for years, to interview Assange in the Ecuador embassy. You have to remember that Assange has not been charged with anything.
……………………………………………………………..
“It will be interesting to see if Assange tries to take his case to the ECHR? If his case is so water tight why hasn’t this happened so far?”
……………………………………………………………..
If the Swedish prosecution case is so watertight why was Assange allowed to leave Sweden; why have they declined to interview Assange in Britain; why does the Swedish government not guarantee that Assange will not be extradited to the USA and why has the British government not given an assurance that they would object to an extradition request by the USA to Sweden?
You really are a tosser ResDis but everyone here already knows that.
If this were about a cabinet minister with an alleged unhealthy interest in children, the CPS would be completely justified in declining to bring it to trial. (It has just acknowledged that, despite a ‘fairly compelling’ witness, it would probably not have charged Leon Brittan, even had he survived long enough.) The police reports are in the public domain, and indicate major flaws in the quality of evidence and indeed in the integrity of the witnesses. Of course it’s a stitch-up. The validity of the one remaining charge depends entirely on one person’s word against another’s. Assange would hardly need to employ a brief to get the whole mess thrown out of even a Swedish court. The Swedes are fine with this, because it doesn’t matter. All that’s necessary is to get him into Swedish jurisdiction. There’s no chance he’s going to stay there, after all. Cue Gulfstream with in-flight restraint suite, while any assurances previously thought to have been given – but nowhere formally stated for anyon’s official record – can evaporate.
I don’t like Assange. He’s completely irresponsible, his friends footed the bill for his jumping bail, he’s a rampant self-publicist, and all that. But he can validly claim that the justice system has passed him by. If the Yanks want him (and there’s very little doubt they do, and even have a defensible reason – espionage) they should make their case directly, under international law.
” they should make their case directly, under international law.”
Is this an attempt at irony? What if USdotgov snatched him using loopholes designed by architects of international law? Are they still entitled to abscond with their secrets intact? Shall the most Western state ball-gag your narcissist? You’re ok with that? Sheesh.
Hi, Ben.
I can hardly invoke international law when getting infuriated about Israel, without acknowledging its possible role in the Assange matter. I am being impartial. The only – inadequate, but practically applicable – remedies for injustice require the application of existing law. Not popular morality, even when justified, until law has been written to reflect it. And here you have a foreign national who has obtained your country’s classified material and made it available to the world – are you suggesting that this is fine, too?
I repeat, if you want him, use the existing law to get him. It’s cost us £13M to keep him on ice for you so far…
Mr Murray and other commentators here are sadly behind the times.
They appeal to facts and logic which are now the tools of the loser.
The pursuit of Assange is a matter of religion. This religion worships
Victimhood and one of its powerful branches preaches the Victimhood of
Woman and the debased nature of Man the Victimiser; and they do not
care a straw for your irrelevant facts and logic.
Ardin has no cause to be concerned about the inconsistencies in her
accusation. To point out those inconsistencies merely identifies
oneself as a heretic and blasphemer who merits righteous
condemnation. Even the most preposterous accusation, e.g.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12144963/Commuter-who-walked-past-actress-at-Waterloo-station-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-claim.html
must now be taken seriously by the authorities. In this type of
‘who, whom?’ the man is always on the ‘whom’ end, and may
Victimhood-God have mercy on his debased, victimising soul.
” And here you have a foreign national who has obtained your country’s classified material and made it available to the world – are you suggesting that this is fine, too?”
Obviously you have misunderestimated me. I believe in international transparency and would welcome USdotgov’s revelations. Truth is not selective. And if you equate the deliberate and effusive international crimes of Israel and the rest of the West you have an ally in me. But please don’t make some moral equivalence betwixt the efforts of Assange to bring matters to light and israel hiding their behavior under a bushel. It’s more an antithesis.
But please don’t make some moral equivalence betwixt the efforts of Assange to bring matters to light and israel hiding their behavior under a bushel. It’s more an antithesis.
I’m not. I’m excluding morality, and keeping it technical, within the limits of what may be legally possible – or not.
Your moral stance is subjective. The Israeli government believes that it is justified, as Assange believes he is justified in releasing a very heterogenous mix of unredacted material without considering that some of those reading it, statistically speaking, are neither friends of the US nor of any ideally free real democracy. And the US, particularly the 50% of your neighbours voting Republican, believes it has a legitimate gripe against Assange. But not for sticking his morning glory into a slumbering Swede. There we can agree.
“CE & RD, you seem to think that you’re standing up for protection of women. In fact you’re arguing for faux-legal exploitation of a woman, Sofia Wilen, by powerful but covert political forces.”
No I’m not I’m arguing for the Swedish judicial process to be carried out to find out and judge the facts whatever they may be. Unlike yourself and others I don’t wish to play God and make such judgements.
“Assange has repeatedly requested the Swedish authorities to complete the questioning in a manner that keeps Assange safe from the threat of extradition to the USA.”
Assange had no problem with going to Sweden repeatedly before the rape accusations – if the UK or Sweden had wanted to extradite him to the US they had ample opportunity to do so before. You just don’t start horse trading with those who are suspects of criminal offences.
“The pursuit of Assange is a matter of religion.”
As is the support of Assange, as has been pointed out before. They have a particularly response to those who lose the faith.
” within the limits of what may be legally possible – or not.”
One would think it is logically possible for the ICC to indict Israel but there are forces (non-objective) who seek to circumvent the process. As has been recounted endlessly here, the legal process is a marketplace, and if you have to ask how much it costs to proceed you can’t afford it. How’s that for subjectivity?
Hi Ba’al,
Were you aware that every single one of Assange’s bail sureties has stood by him and say they completely back his actions in seeking asylum at the embassy, despite losing their money (with one exception – multi-millionairess Jemima Khan, who stumped up £20,000 out of the £240,000 bail)?
Even Justice Riddle (yes, him again) when he reduced the amount forfeited by each surety by about one-third said Assange “may have a defence of reasonable cause” [to not answer the extradition summons]
https://archive.today/nTvog#selection-731.111-753.595
That link selection from here:
Sureties and the trouble with the decision in Assange
http://diaryofalegaleagle.blogspot.fi/2012/10/sureties-and-trouble-with-decision-in.html
Ba’al; Are you a barrister or officer of the court?
I just learned Lysias is a practicing attorney.
Allow me to issue apologies for both past and future slurs against the profession. Unfortunately i can’t promise they won’t continue, but take solace in the notion you are the exception to the rule. Cheers.
Were you aware…
Yes. And?
Ba’al; Are you a barrister or officer of the court?
No. I have no dogs in this fight.
How’s that for subjectivity?
I’m not for a moment claiming that the application of the law is objective, but that the written law, within human limits, aims to be. I’m not comparing Israel’s and Assange’s crimes as equivalent- how could I? All I’m saying is that – to turn it around – if we are justified in rejecting legal action against Assange on the moral grounds advanced by his supporters, we are justified in rejecting legal action against Israel on the moral grounds advanced by its supporters. And I don’t want to be there, thanks.
How we reach the ideal state when the law is evenhandedly available to all, I haven’t the ghost of an idea. But we won’t get there any sooner by insisting on free passes for our chums.
” if we are justified in rejecting legal action against Assange on the moral grounds advanced by his supporters, we are justified in rejecting legal action against Israel on the moral grounds advanced by its supporters.”
I’d be interested in the chain of evidence that leads you to this.
As far as I know there is no impending legal action against Israel and that didn’t happen by accident. Their ‘chums’ made it so. I am not averse to taking advantage of my opponents position. Such is the nature of social politics. Nor am I averse to cutting some slack for those who have been targeted by those same ‘chums’.
If that means being inconsistent wrt legalisms, chalk it up to my disrespect for laws that have been crafted to the advantage of others. I am not a subscriber to Beatitudes.
Dear Craig,
as someone who usually sympathizes a lot with your positions and has always found your blog posts informative without fail, I think your post here belies a certain “UK-centrism” if I may call it like that and perhaps a bit too little understanding for what in a continental legal context must seem perfectly normal to any observer:
1) Secrecy: Trials in continental Europe (incl Sweden) are by default open to the public. Exceptions are regularly made for trials where sexual violence is alleged (NB: alleged. Obviously to determine guilt or innocence is the point of a trial). This is a standard practice because it is perceived that it is very embarrassing for victims of (alleged) sexual violence to recount precise details of what happened in public, more embarassing than, say, talking about how you were mugged in the street or beaten up in a bar.
There are usually restrictions by degree (e.g. “only accredited court reporters allowed” or “completely private hearing”). Again, what normally happens, and seems to be the intention in this case, is that parts of the hearing are closed, parts are open.
You are entitled to have your own opinion on whether this is “[alleged] victim’s rights gone too far” or whether it’s a sensible balance between right to privacy and principle of open justice. But it’s not a “Lex Assange” or something sinister done to hide his trial, it’s a standard practice for sexual violence cases.
2) Jury trial: Please at least acknowledge that not having jury trials holds true for most of the continent, and indeed big parts of the (non-Commonwealth) world. Again, your personal opinion (and this is where I would argue that you’re being slightly UK / common law-centric) may be that jury trials are the sine qua non of fair trials. But you have to respect that a lot of legal systems, among them many European democracies, have chosen to do without for various reasons (i.e. having a professional, trained judge versus a bunch of random jury members). If you think that having a fair trial is impossible without a jury, you’re basically saying that the UK may never extradite anyone to the majority of European jurisdictions. Are you making that claim? If not, please don’t paint the Assange case as a special case here.
My sympathy with Assange goes quite far, and my belief in the nefarious ways of the US secret services, likewise. But pretending that he will have a completely atypical trial in Sweden by clothing it in terms which for UK readers sound like injustice, but any Swede would be the contours of a perfectly standard trial of a sexual violence allegation, is a bit rich.
(For careful readers: this is not the place for a debate on what Sweden classifies as “sexual violence”. Read it as “crimes of a sexual nature” if that makes the above post easier to understand)
Interesting link to new documents giving a very detailed account of what happened.
http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/
Interesting link to new documents giving a very detailed account of what happened.
http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/