Victim or story teller?
In the Detention Memorandum (Häktningspromemorian) there is an attachment, “Bilaga – Skäligen misstänkt”, that lists all the sex crimes that Julian Assange is suspected of. It is a long list. It is one rape, one sexual coercion and five sexual molestations. Sofia Wilén is the the alleged victim of rape. According to the police investigation Anna Ardin is supposed to be the victim of six sex crimes.
In this article, that will be short, I will look closer at the alleged sexual molestation, the one that is supposed to have occured on Wednesday August 18. But before that, just a comment. The interview with Anna Ardin was on August 21. The interview was conducted over the phone and lasted for 49 minutes. During this time the police took Anna’s story and they also read back to her the contents of the interview. The interview is what is called “konceptförhör”. It is just a summary of what the interviewing officer thinks is important and is the officer’s interpretation of what is said. When I read the interview I have a very hard time finding five descriptions of sexual molestations. One must be the alleged destruction of a condom. And the other one Julian’s rubbing of his naked body against Anna. But I can’t find the other three. If anyone that reads this can help me to find three more sexual molestations I will be thankful. Continue reading
“If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
A “ducktest” is a method to try to figure out the true nature of an entity by studying its identifiable character traits. A simple method to reveal that a subject is not what it purports to be.
Allegations of sexual abuse that bear all the signs of being fake and lacking credibility is almost certainly false.
In the Assange case it is obvious that a “ducktest” has not yet been made by police and prosecutors. It is easy to see. For had it been done it could be seen that one of the plaintiff’s, charges, Anna Ardin’s, against Julian Assange are almost certainly false.
The Assange case was handled strangely from the beginning. The lack of quality in the investigation is evident. What is perhaps most disturbing is that since September 1, 2010 the matter was handled by a “highly qualified investigative unit” under the direction of the superior prosecutor Marianne Ny. If this is the best that Sweden has to offer with regard to investigations of sexual abuse, we have a huge problem with getting justice for victims of sexual abuse. If police and prosecutors cannot distinguish between true and false reports, it becomes very difficult to prosecute the real perpetrators.
An aide to false allegations?
The Assange case brings another important issue into focus. What is the complainant’s counsel (“målsägarbiträde”, non prosecution lawyer representing and supporting complainants) task during the process? If a complainant’s counsel reasonably assumes that the plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse are false, what is that counsel supposed to do? It cannot be that a complainant’s counsel’s mission is to support a plaintiff’s false accusations and to help ensure that an innocent person is tried and possibly convicted. If the complainant’s counsel helps a plaintiff to make false accusations what is the responsibility of that counsel? Abetting false accusation is what it is. And it should of course be punished. But what does the law say? Is it a crime? And what does the Bar’s disciplinary body say? Claes Borgström’s conduct in the Assange case must be thoroughly examined. Continue reading