Sex, lies, no videotape and more lies. False accusations in the Assange case

“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?

Claes Borgström

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.

“But do we know what really happened?”

I have received some criticism for what I write. Critics say “We do not know what happened!” That is indeed true, we do not know everything, but we know quite well what the police were told. And we know a lot of background information. This is the only material information that police and prosecutors can go on as they try to unravel the case. And from that material, we note that much of what has happened was not told to the police. And part of what is narrated is obviously not true.

Another common argument is that there are only three people who know what happened. That is also true. But as it stands, these three people have not told the police everything they know. Much has been omitted. One of them, Julian Assange, do not even want to come in for an interview. There were attempts by English lawyers telling strange stories to explain avoidance of questioning by Swedish police.

Alternative hypotheses

In a court hearing it is not enough that the prosecutor’s hypothesis of how the crime was committed is plausible and credible. An examination has to be made to check whether there are alternative hypotheses that are also reasonable and credible. It is not until you can rule out alternative hypotheses that we possibly can get to convict a defendant.

Often it is the defense that comes up with alternative hypotheses. It is one of the tasks of defense. For a trial to be good and certain, it’s a great benefit for police and prosecutors to investigate alternative hypotheses well before the case goes to court. Then elementary mistakes are avoided.

In the Assange case there is the hypothesis that he is guilty of a series of sex crimes: rape, sexual coercion, sexual molestation and molestation (våldtäkt, sexuellt tvång, sexuellt ofredande och ofredande). And he is reported by two women who have told police that they had consensual sex with him, sex that degenerated into some kind of sexual abuse. The complaints were made several days after the crimes were allegedly committed and the two women together have gone to the police after having spoken to each other. Assange has admitted he had consensual sex with the women but denied any wrongdoing.

What could be the alternative hypothesis? Manifestly it is not about any other offender. Sexual intercourse and sexual acts have occurred between Julian and the two women. This all parties confirmed. And the sex was consented to from the beginning, the women have also confirmed.

The fact that two women come to the police together to complain about one man for serious sexual assaults which occurred several days earlier is not common. Not even in Sweden. It would be entirely reasonable to assume that the police made a thorough examination of the two women’s relationship. When they came into contact with each other, why they came into contact, what they talked about and why they complained. And why they waited to report the alleged crimes for several days? And it would also be reasonable that if there was any indication that something does not seem right in the women’s stories, the police would have investigated it swiftly and thoroughly.

The alternative hypothesis in this case is that one or possibly two women made false accusations. It is the most obvious and reasonable alternative hypothesis. A “duck test” reveals that Anna Ardin’s accusations are almost certainly fictitious. From what I can see the police have not investigated the alternative hypothesis. It is extremely strange and indefensible.

Why do I print the names of those involved?

Julian Assange’s name became public on August 21, 2010 when the affair exploded worldwide. In early September, I received clear indications that Anna Ardin’s accusations were fabricated. At the time she was running for a seat in the Stockholm City Council in the general election in 2010 (date September 19). As a political candidate she should stand up to scrutiny. So I published her name.

Responsible police officers and prosecutors have in many cases done an appalling job. That is why I publish their names so we know who they are. I do not want all police officers and prosecutors to be tarred with the same brush. When I type in the text of police and prosecutors, I mean specifically those who worked on this particular case.

Since the end of January 2011 the “Detention Memorandum” (Häktningspromemoria) has been publicly available on the web. Normally this type of document is not in the public domain. In it are the full names of those involved . Since this article includes an examination of what the plaintiffs and witnesses said in police interviews (as part of the Detention Memorandum) readers will find it much easier to understand if all the names are printed in full.

Julian Assange has criticized the legal system in Sweden where certain parts of legal proceedings regarding sex crimes are held behind closed doors. So there is another reason to publish the names of those involved.

I am fully aware that some of the named individuals may be harmed by this. It is very unfortunate but inevitable. Responsibility for injury lies not with me but of those who through incompetence and bad judgment contributed to the Assange case becoming so lengthy and complex. Those responsible are police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, journalists, celebrities, bloggers, politicians and many many others. It befalls the main character, Julian Assange, also to share a large part of that responsibility. Julian Assange originally connected the allegations between his private life to his WikiLeaks work and history. Julian Assange had been a free agent but now he is still on bail and an appeal against his extradition to begin in London on 12-13 July.

What is credible?

To find out what’s credible requires more than one article on a blog. So this definition is very short: A credible story is a freely given, detailed and coherent narrative. And the story shall be a description of a real and true experience. To the narrator, to be credible also requires that he/she over time is consistent. It is the detail which is important so that the story can be verified against the known facts and other interviews.

Police instructions for interviewing witnesses and plaintiffs are to give the person time and space to freely share what they know and to go through that without stopping. Instructions that I think the police is following whether the interview is video-taped, audio-taped or if the interview is documented simply as a summation of what has been said (konceptförhör).

Just because two women met, talked together and then together go to the police and make reports of crimes committed several days later does not mean that the stories are untrue. If the women individually, independently of each other had come to the police and told their stories, they would have had greater credibility. If the women came to the police directly in connection to the alleged crimes committed, they would have had higher credibility. There is nothing strange about this. Just because the women come to the police together, after they talked together, and that they notified the alleged crime committed several days earlier, does not mean that they are false accusations. But the police did have more reason to investigate women’s relationship and why they complained.

Since the end of January 2011, the ‘Detention Memorandum’ have remained fully available online. In it we can read two interviews with the plaintiffs, one of the suspect and a total of nine interviews with various witnesses. A total of twelve interviews. Beyond that, I have also been interviewed by police.

I have analyzed the interview with the complainant Sofia Wilén in a previous article. Sofia’s story is coherent, detailed, and seems to be her own perception of events she experienced. Unfortunately, it is not recorded on video or on tape. Something that should have been done according to police operational instructions. Sofia’s story seems like it is freely given and it is very detailed. For me, the story is credible. Chief prosecutor Eva Finné makes the same assessment on the 21st and on 25th of August 2010. In my article about the case I go through Sofia’s story. I cannot find any criminal offence in Sofia’s story. Chief prosecutor Eva Finné in making her final decision August 25, 2010 finds likewise when she completely dismisses all allegations against Julian Assange in relation to Sofia.

The other plaintiff, Anna Ardin, has also been questioned. Her interview was in violation of the police’s operational instructions, being made over the phone. The interview was conducted the day following the two women were at the police station to make a police report. The interview is also documented as a summary (konceptförhör). Of the interview, we can deduce that the story is not coherent. It is not freely given and it lacks many details. It does not seem validly subjective. Moreover, we can see that a lot of information was withheld from the police investigators. A “duck test” on Anna Ardin’s story shows that it has many characteristics of false accusations. I will therefore make a careful examination of Anna Ardin’s story and compare it to known facts and other witnesses’ stories.

Known facts in the Assange case

On 11 August, Julian Assange arrived in Sweden to participate in a seminar organized by the Brotherhood movement, (Broderskapsrörelsen, the Christian wing of the Social Democratic Party). He also intended to seek a work and a residence permit and apply for a publisher credentials (“utgivningsbevis”) for his Wikileaks work. From his arrival until the seminar on Saturday 14 August, Julian Assange is informed that he can stay in Anna Ardin’s apartment in Södermalm since she will be away until 14 August.

The day before the seminar, Friday 13 August, Anna returns to her apartment a day earlier than agreed, and found Julian Assange there. After a dinner at local restaurant, the couple decided that it was okay to ‘cohabit’ in Anna Ardin’s small one bed apartment. Later that evening the couple had sex. This is the sex that a week later is reported to be criminal.

Saturday, August 14 Julian and Anna participate in the seminar in Stockholm held at the Labour Union’s premises in Stockholm (LO-borgen). At a lunch after the seminar Julian meets Sofia Wilén. Mutual interest arises. Before Julian and Sofia departed from lunch for some light erotic activity it was determined that Anna Ardin would hold a crayfish party for Julian later in the evening.

Julian Assange and others participate in Anna’s crayfish party in the evening. During the party, Julian contacts Sofia by telephone. At about 2:00 am Anna tweets on Twitter about how she feels.

“Sitting outdoors 2 am and barely freeze with the world’s coolest smartest folks, that is amazing!”

Sunday, August 15, the Pirate Party and Wikileaks have a meeting. At the meeting is Anna Troberg, Rick Falkvinge and an IT manager from the Pirate Party. Julian is obviously included. Anna Ardin is also included along with a friend, Petra Ornstein. Anna is acting as Julian Assange’s press secretary in Sweden, this is confirmed August 17 in a press release from the Pirate Party.

On Monday, August 16, Sofia tries to connect up with Julian. Around lunchtime, they talk with each other and decide to meet later in the evening. Approximately at 9 pm they meet. They take a walk in the old town, and after some rough necking on the quay at Kornhamnstorg the couple decides to go to Sofia’s apartment in Enköping, some 80 kilometers northwest of Stockholm. The couple has sex a few times. When the couple part company on the morning Tuesday 17 August, Julian Assange promises that he will call her.

Julian does not call Sofia. Sofia tries to reach Julian without success a couple of days. On Tuesday, the Pirate Party publishes the press release in which Anna Ardin is indicated to be Julian’s press secretary. On Wednesday, Julian applies for work and residence permits in Sweden. On Tuesday 17th and Wednesday 18th, Julian and Anna were cohabiting in her apartment

On Thursday August 19 Anna becomes aware that Julian has been intimate with Sofia. This awareness may have had the result from Thursday that Anna is no longer living with Julian. Anna informs Julian to move out of her apartment, something that he’s doing on Friday the 20th.

On the morning of August 20th Anna receives a text message from Sofia. In it Sofia asks for Anna’s help to get in contact with Julian. Anna calls Sofia and they compare notes. After some conversation Sofia decides to go Danderyd Hospital and later on Södersjukhuset. Södersjukhuset is the only hospital in Stockholm that has a clinic especially for victims of rape. Later the two women get together in preparation for a 2 pm visit to Klara police station to report Julian Assange for rape and molestation. At Klara police station at 5 pm Julian Assange is arrested in absentia. During the evening police patrols are looking for Julian Assange without success.

On the morning of Saturday 21 August the news explodes worldwide that Julian Assange has been arrested in absentia for rape and molestation. And that the accusers are two Swedish women.

Interviews with the plaintiffs

Interview with Sofia Wilén

Interviewing Officer: Irmeli Krans, personal interview documented as a summary
Friday 20 August, at. 4:21 to 6:40 pm. English translation, not verified by me.

In my article, “Våldtäktsanklagelsen mot Assange”, I analyze Sofia Wiléns story in detail. So this will be short.

“Suddenly, Julian said that he would lie down and sleep. She felt rejected and shocked. It came so abruptly, they had had a very long foreplay and then … nothing. She asked what was wrong, she did not understand anything. He pulled the blanket over him, turned away from her and fell asleep. She moved away and picked up a fleece blanket because she was cold. She lay awake a long time and wondered what was happening and texted some of her friends.”

“When she talked with her friends afterwards, she perceived that she had been victim of crime. She went to Danderyds Sjukhus (Danderyd’s Hospital) and from there to the Södersjukhuset (The Southern Hospital). There she was examined and samples were taken utilising a rape kit.”

My comments on Sofia Wiléns story

Sofia said once in the interview that she was “shocked”. That was when Julian decided to terminate the “foreplay” and turn away and go to sleep. It is evident that Sofia wanted to have sex with Julian. And that she was disappointed when that didn’t happen.

After the so called “assault” Sofia is does not say she is shocked or upset. Instead, she jokes that she might have become pregnant. She jokes with Julian on the name of the possible child, “Afghanistan”.

At the time of the “assault” Sofia was not aware that she was a victim of “abuse”. That is possibly why she did not resist or oppose the sexual acts. It is therefore unreasonable to believe that she had sex against her expressed will. It is only when Sophia talked to her friends afterwards that she believed she was the victim of a sexcrime. Who these friends are police did not investigate .

During the “assault” Sofia was not aware that she was the victim of an abuse or assault? She offered no resistance but had earlier expressed that a condom to be used. She had earlier in the night or morning had two, possibly three times, consensual acts of sex with Julian. How Julian would then understand that she did not want to have sex with him? Since Julian received no signal that Sofia did not want to have sex with him, he cannot possibly have had intent to commit a crime, mens rea, therefore he cannot be convicted.

So the conclusion is that Sofia Wiléns interview is credible but there is no ‘crime’ in her story. Just as the chief prosecutor decided in her decision on August 25.

What did Anna Ardin do around the time of the police report?

Anna Ardin was at the police station on August 20 along with Sofia Wilén from about 2 pm. She left before 6.02 pm as is evident from the police documents. She left without being interviewed. Why she chose to do so we do not know. Probably she was of the opinion that she would not be the subject of a rape investigation. And the police apparently did not think it was important that she was questioned immediately.

On Friday the 20th, possibly on Saturday 21, Anna deletes three comments on Twitter. Including the comment that shows that she thrived in Julian’s company. The whole story of the deleted tweets here. For an English version click here. She also contacts the Pirate Party and says that she is no longer Julian’s press secretary and asks them to remove her name from the press release of 17 August. If she makes additional deletions on Facebook, blogs, e-mail or SMS, we do not know. But it cannot be ruled out.

Of what we can see all her deletions have to do with her association with Julian. The deleted “evidence” suggests that she had a good relationship with Julian after the alleged “assault”.

On Saturday August 21 Anna’s blog is taken down at around 6 pm after she is “outed” on some websites. It will remain down until 24 August when she re-opens it again.

For some reason, Anna has a ‘mirror’ of her Twitter account on annaaardin.bloggy.se. In early September, I found the three commentaries on annaardin.bloggy.se that Anna deleted from Twitter. On September 13-14 Anna makes a second deletion. Then she deletes the three comments that are on Bloggy.se. For more information, see the Tenth Witness below.

Interview with Anna Ardin

Interviewing Officer: Sara Wennerblom, telephone interview documented as a summary
Saturday 21 August,  11:31 to 12:20 am. English version, not verified by me.

The reason Anna is interviewed is that the police are of the opinion that Anna could well be a victim of rape. That is the impression Anna left when she said something to the police the day before. The interview is made over the telephone even though it conflicts with the police and the prosecutor’s operational instructions. The interview is not tape recorded. It is documented as a summary of what the police think is important, (konceptförhör).

“Anna was going to be away from Stockholm from 11 to 14 August and therefore she made her apartment available to Assange. Anna however, returned to Stockholm on Friday August 13 one day earlier than agreed as she had much to do before the seminar. Anna and Assange had previously never met each other personally, but only had a working point of contact by mail and telephone.

On the Friday Assange and Anna went out to dinner together. They had agreed that Assange would stay in Anna’s apartment even though she had come home a day early. After dinner in the town, they went back to Anna’s apartment and drank tea”.

Later in the evening, the couple had consensual sex. How  it all started and what happened is described by Anna.

“To a question Anna replied, that neither she nor Assange drank alcohol during the evening. As they sat and drank tea Assange began to fondle Anna’s leg. On a question Anna says of Assange earlier in the evening that he did not make any physical advances towards her, except now so Anna initially welcomed it. However Anna felt “uncomfortable from the start” when Assange was rough and impatient. According to Anna it was “all so fast”. He tore off her clothes and pulled and broke her necklace. Anna tried to put some clothes back on again when it all happened so fast and she felt uncomfortable but Assange took them off again. Anna says that she thought she did not actually want to go on further but it was too late to say stop to Assange when she had “joined in it this far.” She felt that she “had only herself to blame.” So she let Assange pull off all her clothes.

Then they lie down in bed. Anna lay on her back and Julian on top of her. Anna felt as if Assange immediately wanted to insert his penis in her vagina which she did not want to then, as he had no condom on. She sought to turn her hips to one side and pinch together with her legs in order to prevent penetration. Anna tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange prevented her from doing by pinning her arms and prying her legs apart and still trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Anna said that she felt quite tearful when she was held fast and could not get hold of a condom and felt that “this could end badly.” On a question Anna says that Assange must have known it was a condom that Anna was reaching for and he therefore held her arms to prevent her.

After a moment Assange asked what Anna was doing and why she had closed her legs together. Anna told him that she wanted him to put on a condom before he came into her. Assange released her arms and put on a condom that Anna took out for him. Anna felt a great unspoken opposition from Assange to the use of condoms, which meant that she had the feeling that he did not put the on the one he was handed. She therefore put her hand down to Assange’s penis to check whether he’d really had put it on.”

“After a while Anna notices that Assange withdraws and begins to arrange the condom. It sounded to Anna that Assange took off the condom. He then pushed into her again and continued intercourse. Anna then again touched Assange’s penis as she done previously, and felt as before the edge of the condom was there at the base of the penis so she let him continue.”

“After another while Assange ejaculated inside her and withdrew. When Assange removed the condom from his penis Anna saw that it was empty of semen. When Anna then began to move her body, she noticed how something was “running” out of her vagina. Anna believed quickly that it must be Assange’s semen. She complains to Assange who denies it saying that it was just that she was wet. Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, broke the condom at the glans and then continued intercourse with the subsequent ejaculation. Anna says that she did not looked closely at the condom, if it was broken in the way she thought, but says that she thinks she has the condom at home and should investigate this. She also states that the sheets used on this occasion probably still lie in her basket of unwashed laundry.

After the above mentioned event Anna says that she and Assange did not have more sex. Assange however, stays with with Anna in her flat until yesterday (Friday 20 August, int.off note) . According to Anna Assange was trying to make sexual advances to her every day after the night when they first had sex. This, for example by touching her breasts. Anna rebuffed Assange on all these occasions, which Assange accepted. At one point, on Wednesday 18 August, he had suddenly taken off all his clothes on his lower body and then rubbed against her body, with his erect penis against Anna. Anna said that she felt this behavior strange and uncomfortable and had therefore moved down to a mattress and slept there instead of up in bed with Assange. The night after, Anna had stayed with a companion when she did not want to hang out or stay close to Assange because of his strange behavior. She had also made her intention known since Wednesday 18 August that she no longer wanted Assange to stay in her apartment, which he had not heeded until Friday when he took his things and gave back her apartment key.”

To a question Anna answers that Assange had stayed in her flat but that they hardly slept together as Assange had been awake at night working on his computer. When he went to bed, at approximately at 7 o’clock in the morning, Anna, in principle got up.

To a question Anna replies that she knew of Sofia when she was in contact with her before the above seminar and that they were both present at the actual seminar. According to Anna, Sofia had bought electronic cables for Assange and had lunch with Anna and Assange after the seminar. Anna had noticed Assange flirting with Sofia during lunch and saw that they were embarking on some sort of relationship because Assange called Sofia later in the evening when he was at Anna’s home for the crayfish party.

Yesterday (Friday 20 August, int. off. note) Anna receives an e-mail from Sofia, who wondered how she could get in touch with Assange because there was one important thing she has to tell him. Anna understood immediately what it was about and she called Sofia who then told her what happened to her, that Assange and she had had sex and that he did not want to use condoms, etc. Sofia wanted to pursue this to the police and Anna decided to accompany her, mainly as a support person.

Anna says that she already heard from some quarters that Assange ‘picks on all women who come in his way.’ Given Assange’s reputation Anna felt it was very important that they used a condom at the time they had sex, the day before the seminar.

Anna says that she had been feeling very bad after this instance when she and Assange hade sex. Mainly because of her worries that she may have been infected with HIV or another sexually transmitted disease. Anna says that she voluntarily agreed to have sex with Assange but that she would not have let it happen if she knew that he was not using a condom. Anna has been in contact with the clinic and gets an appointment for testing the following week. Anna accepts that the police obtain medical evidence.

My comment on Anna Ardin’s story

The interview with Anna Ardin is most important in the Assange case. The reason is that Anna is a key-player. She is involved in getting Julian to Stockholm, she is letting him stay in her flat and she is also crucial in helping Sofia Wilén to make a complaint against Julian. She is also making allegations of her own.

When analyzing an interview it is not enough to look at what the interviewee actually says. It is very important to find out what the interviewee is not saying. What is left out. Uncovering the reason why someone hides information often leads to new and better understanding.

Anna’s interview is conducted over the phone. And it is very short. It is not tape-recorded. It is documented as a summary. The recommended way to make an interview with a victim of sex crime is to do it in person and to video-record it. And to write it in dialogue form. This to make sure the actual words are preserved. The reason is that most of the time there are no eye-witnesses to sex crimes. So the actual words spoken by the victim and the suspect is often the only evidence.

Since the interview is documented as a summary it is more difficult to figure out what the complainant actually said. But we can immediately see that Anna did not give her statement freely. She did not reveal information on her own as much as one would expect a victim of sex crime would do. How we can tell is that the interviewing officer has on six occasions written the words “To a question” (på fråga). That means that the information was not given freely to the police but was obtained after a question. Below are the subjects that Anna did not seem to want to talk.

  • Whether Anna and Julian had been drinking any alcohol prior to the alleged crime
  • If Julian was physically intimate prior to the sex in Anna’s apartment. It seems like Anna is not giving the police a full account of what actually happened.
  • If she examined the condom
  • “On a question Anna says that Assange must have known it was a condom that Anna was reaching for and he therefore held her arms to prevent her.” Why Anna thought Julian held her arms.
  • Where Julian was staying. Anna did not want to talk about the fact that Julian had remained in her apartment from August 11 to August 20.
  • Her relationship with Sofia.

It is apparent that there is no free flow in Anna’s story. It is not a sequential story where one event is followed by another. Anna’s story does not seem like it is a description a real-life experience. There are many important facts and details that are left out. Here are a few:

  • Anna did not mention that she arranged a crayfish party for Julian
  • Anna did not mention that she talked to Petra Ornstein and Kajsa Borgnäs at the party about the alleged crime the night before.
  • Anna did not mention that the original plan was that Julian should stay in Anna’s flat until the day of the seminar, August 14, and then stay with people from the Pirate Party and that she, during the party, arranged so Julian could continue to stay in her flat.
  • Anna did not mention that she tweeted about the “world’s coolest smartest people” when she was with Julian at the party
  • Anna did not mention anything about the meeting with the Pirate Party. A meeting she attended in her new role as Julian’s press secretary.
  • Anna did not mention that Petra Ornstein was present at the meeting with the Pirate Party and that she gave Petra a detailed description of the events on the night of the alleged crime.
  • Anna did not mention when she first got information that Julian had been intimate with Sofia.
  • Anna did not mention that Sofia was extremely worried about HIV
  • Anna did not mention that Sofia wanted Julian to take an HIV test
  • Anna did not mention anything about giving Julian an ultimatum, if you don’t take an HIV test Sofia and I will go to the police.
  • Anna did not mention anything about her conversations with Donald Boström
  • Anna did not mention anything about her conversations with Kajsa Borgnäs at the party Friday 20 after Anna’s visit to the police station
  • Anna did not mention that she had erased tweets on her Twitter account (or was just about to do it)
  • Anna did not mention that she had contacted the Pirate Party and told them to erase her name from the press release of August 17 (or was just about to do it)

For some reason Anna is not interested in telling the police everything that happened in conjunction to the alleged crime. She just doesn’t want the police to know. She is not helping the police to make an proper investigation. And by not telling she is actually making it more difficult for the police to make an investigation.

What did Anna tell the police apart from her name and occupation? Not very much. It is a description of what happened when she had sex with Julian the first time and he deliberately destroyed a condom. And after that horrible experience Julian tried to initiate sex with Anna every day but she turned him down. And that one day Julian took off his clothes and rubbed his lower body and erect penis against her back. And that she was feeling really bad, mostly because of worry of having contracted HIV.

Indeed it is a strange interview. I am surprised that the police did not make a full investigation of Anna and her story. It is obvious that she is trying to hide something. And that some events are described in a way that is not believable.

Why is Anna interviewed in the first place? The reason is that Anna was very eager to support Sofia to make sure that Sofia woould report Julian for rape (or any other serious sex crime). When the two girls were at the police station and the police was talking to Sofia about her ordeal Anna “filled in a sentence”. She said something like, I had sex with Julian and then he willfully destroyed the condom and continued against my will, so therefore I think Sofia is telling the truth. Something similar happened to me. It is this “sentence”, according to Anna, that makes the police consider the case as more serious. See the interview with Donald Boström for more information.

It is this sentence that makes the police believe that Anna is a victim of rape too. So the police start a rape investigation regarding Anna. Anna did not anticipate that the police would consider her a victim of rape. She just wanted to make Sofia’s story more credible. So it is Anna’s “sentence” that results in the police interview the following day.

Anna describes the encounter with Julian in a remarkable way. The couple drank tea, Julian initiates intimacy by fondling her leg. Then Julian proceeds by ripping off Anna’s clothes, destroying a necklace and generally being rough and impatient. Anna, who really doesn’t want to go any further, thinks it is too late to say stop to Assange so she lets him rip of all her clothes.

Then the couple lies down in bed. Anna obviously consents to lie down. She is not pushed, forced or coerced to bed. When they are in bed, Julian is on top of her. Anna is of the impression that Julian wants to penetrate her. She doesn’t like the idea since Julian is not wearing a condom so she keeps her legs together and tries to move away. When Anna is trying to reach for a condom Julian pins her hands down, tries to pry her legs apart and tries to penetrate her. After some wrestling Julian is intrigued by Anna’s behavior and asks what she is doing on. Anna then, probably for the first time, says that she would like Julian to use a condom. When Julian hears it he lets Anna’s hands go, puts on the condom she provides and starts consensual sexual intercourse with Anna. This Anna confirms. Intercourse was voluntary. At no time during intercourse was Julian violent according to Anna.

Anna is skeptical that Julian really put on the condom  she provided so she touches his penis to confirm that it is properly on. According to Anna, she thought Julian was opposed to use a condom by grappling with her. And when Anna tells him what she wants, he does what she wants. A strange accusation follows.

During intercourse Julian pulls out and checks the condom. According to Anna, it sounds as if he takes off the condom. Since Anna believes that Julian took off his condom she again checks with her hand and feels that Julian is wearing the condom.

Police investigation of condom

After a while Julian climaxes and withdraws from Anna. When Julian is removing the condom from his penis Anna notices that it is empty of semen. An odd observation. If a condom is as damaged as the one depicted, the condom will slide down during intercourse and roll up like a ring around the root of the penis. Therefore it is rather easy to tell that a condom is broken. You don’t have to check the contents of the condom. You see it as a rubber ring around the root of the penis. Anna says she saw the condom being empty when it was removed. Her statement is not consistent with what a broken condom looks like. The full laboratory report on the broken condom is here.

Anna’s statement to the police bears all signs of being made up. This in combination that Anna leaves out so much information during her interview makes me absolutely sure that Anna is falsely accusing Julian.

Nine witness statements

Overall, apart from the complainants and the suspect, nine people are questioned as material witnesses in the Assange case. In my summary of each of the interviews, I take the information that I consider to be relevant for understanding what actually happened. There is a link to each interview and the interested reader can check if my selection is ok. All interviews in the Detention Memorandum are available here.

Note on translation

It is always difficult to translate from one language into another. The idea is try to convey the meaning of what is said. It is extra difficult to translate from Swedish. The reason is that Swedish is a very indirect language. Swedes don’t say what they mean. The receiver of the message has to decode the meaning from the context. It’s more like a “code” language. And you have to know the “code” to understand. I’ve noted that in my profession in training sales people. If you don’t ask the customer clarifying questions you will not understand what he really means. Misunderstanding is very often the result of not asking just a clarifying question.

If you just translate the words there are many ways a sentence could be translated that all are valid translations. But the sentence was uttered with one particular meaning in mind. And it is really difficult to get to the real meaning. Especially if the interviewer did not ask clarifying questions.

American English is very different from Swedish. It is one of the world’s most direct languages. On the other end of a scale. You say what you mean. And there is much less room for interpretation. And less misunderstanding. British English is in between Swedish and American English. Australian English is closer to American English.

To show what I mean I have taken a sentence from Kajsa Borgnäs’ interview.

”Kajsa uppgav att hon ändå tyckte att det fanns någon sorts spänning mellan Anna och Julian samtidigt som Julian flörtade med Kajsa och antagligen andra tjejer också.”

Kajsa said that she still thought there was some kind of excitement between Anna and Julian, while Julian flirted with Kajsa and probably other girls too.”

The significant word here is “spänning”. A word than can mean a many things. Below I list the alternatives that Google translation service offers.
Voltage, tension, excitement, suspense, stress, thrill, strain, stretch, tensity, unease, load and kick.

“Spänning” can mean excitement as well as unease, strain. In the sentence above I go for excitement. Someone can say, correctly, that “spänning” can be translated into unease, strain. But it doesn’t really fit in the sentence because of another word, “ändå” (still).

As can be seen from this example Swedes have to “translate” Swedish too in order to figure out what Kajsa means. In what context is Kajsa using the word “spänning” and what is it she is trying to convey? So how do we know what Kajsa meant? We really don’t. It is a guess, an educated guess.

To be sure of what Kajsa meant the police had to ask Kajsa to explain herself in some more detail. From this it is evident that it would be much easier if the conversation was recorded. Then you can see what actual words Kajsa used and get a much better understanding of what was being said and what Kajsa meant.

Interview with Petra Ornstein

Interviewing Officer: Ewa Olofsson. Telephone interview documented as a summary
Tuesday, September 7, at. 3.25 – 3:50 pm and Wednesday September 8, at. 1:10 – 1:50 pm. English version translation by Al Burke

Petra Ornstein is a good friend of Anna Ardin and reportedly they work together sometimes. Saturday 14th August, Anna called and invited Petra to the crayfish party that she organized for Julian Assange.

“During the conversation Anna also said that she has had a crazy weekend and that she had sex with Julian. Anna had also said something like Julian had ejaculated in her, but Petra was not sure exactly what Anna told her at the time. Anna told her that Julian made the condom break during intercourse, but Petra had thought that Julian had broken it by accident. It was not until Sunday had Petra understood that Anna suggested that Julian had deliberately destroyed it.”

Anna and Petra met again on Sunday 15 August. Then Anna revealed more about the encounter with Julian.

“The most remarkable detail according to Petra was that Anna had told her that she could not move when she and Julian had had sex because he held onto her. Anna had told her that she had decided that Julian could fuck her until he came because it was the easiest solution for her.”

Petra has also commented on the story of the broken condom.

“The story of the condom Petra said, felt like a different story which was also scary in itself, but the most unpleasant Petra thought was the violence that made it not pleasant for Anna to have sex with Julian.”

“Anna said that she could hardly move but she could move enough that she could check that Julian had the condom on. When Anna said that she used her head to indicate how she could see Julian’s genitals at the time. Anna said that they then had sex and it then had gone past the point when Anna was not interested anymore. Julian had sex with Anna until he came and then she felt something leaking from her lower abdomen and she had also seen that Julian’s condom was rolled up at the root of the penis. Julian did not answer Anna’s questions about it, but avoided the issue.”

“Anna also told her on Wednesday or Thursday (18th and 19th of August) that Julian had taken a shower and found another woman who he stayed over night with. When they talked about Julian still living in Anna’s flat, Petra interpreted it that Anna after a few days wanted Julian to leave her flat in a few days but for some reason he was still there. Julian wanted to postpone his moving out of the flat despite her efforts.”

“After this Anna called Petra on Friday 20th of August right after the other female had contacted Anna. Anna had said that the other girl had told her she’d been raped by Julian. According to Anna there were lots of similarities between Anna’s and the other girl’s stories. What Petra primarily meant and what Anna told her was that Julian also had wanted to have sex with other girl without a condom. The other girl wanted sex with a condom but Julian had managed to have sex with her without a condom against her will. Anna called Petra to inform her because she had not planned on reporting Julian but she wanted to support the other girl.”

My comments on Petra Ornstein’s interview

Petra tells a different story about Anna’s sex with Julian than Anna told the police. According to Petra, the sex was violent and Julian held Anna tight and restricted her movement. According to Anna, there was no violence during intercourse. The violence occurred prior to the intercourse when Julian and Anna wrestled.

“Petra met Julian on two occasions, first at the crayfish party and then at a dinner the next day.” In the interview with the police Petra talks about what happened at the crayfish party. And what she was talking to Anna about,that she did not understand. Then Petra talks about meeting Anna the following day, Sunday 15th,when she is getting the full story of what had occured between Julian and Anna. Even though she is told twice, she doesn’t get the story right. Or maybe it’s just Anna telling Petra one story and a different story to the police.

For some unknown reason Petra does not mention anything about her observations at the meeting with the Pirate party. She did not mention that Anna Ardin was Julian’s press secretary at the time. Petra does not mention how Anna behaved on seeing Julian. Not one thing about the second meeting with Julian. And the police obviously do not think it is important. So they do not ask any questions about the Petra’s second meeting with Julian.

That Petra withheld this information is surprising. She most definitely must have remembered the meeting. It is possible that Petra understands that telling the police too much of what has been going on between Julian and Anna will lower Anna’s credibility? Or could it be Anna that is telling Petra to leave out the press secretary bit?

How about Anna’s twitter comments? Did Petra read them? And if so, why doesn’t she tell the police about it?

It is most interesting that Petra confirms that Anna has already become aware of Sofia on Thursday, 19th. She does not say exactly what Anna said. And the interviewer is apparently sleeping. The police do not seem to understand that it is most important to find out when the two accusers got into contact the first time and what they talked about.

My opinion is that Petra’s interview is not completely credible. Mostly because she leaves out details that she knows but she declines to inform the police about. And I have to say that I get a hunch that Anna and Petra have talked about what to tell the police.

Petra’s interview is in two parts, 22 hours apart. Why the interview was interrupted the interviewer does not say. And why it is documented as one interview I don’t know.

Interview with Kajsa Borgnäs

Interviewing Officer: Ewa Olofsson. Telephone interview, documented as a summary.
Wednesday, September 8, at. 9:30 to 10:15 am. English version translated by Al Burke

Kajsa Borgnäs a good friend of Anna Ardin. Kajsa has been talking to Anna during the period in question, and she met Anna and Julian at the now world-famous crayfish party. At the crayfish party Kajsa and Anna talked to each other about Julian.

“Kajsa had among other things asked Anna if she was going to sleep with Julian, the reason for this is that Anna is single and Anna and Kajsa had talked about sex about sex before. Anna then told her that she had already done it (had sex with Julian) but Anna said that it was the worst sex she ever had. Anna had also told Kajsa that Kajsa could have him.”

“During the crayfish party Julian was terribly flirty and even hit on Kajsa. Kajsa said that she still thought it was some sort of excitement between Anna and Julian, while Julian flirted with Kajsa and probably other girls too.”

“At some point, probably during the crayfish party, Anna had said that Julian had restricted her hands when they had sex, that he had held Anna’s hands near Anna’s ears and that it had been unpleasant. Anna did not merely say it was the world’s worst sex but it was violent too. Anna had also shown with her arms the way she was laying when Julian held on to her. Kajsa had thought that it was unpleasant and bad but nothing more.”

“Kajsa and Anna talked again at some point during the week and Kajsa asked about Julian. Kajsa had among other things, wondered why Julian was still in Anna’s flat, Kajsa thought he would have gone abroad. Anna had not responded directly but acknowledged that he was still there.”

After Anna had been to the police on August 20 she went to a party with Kajsa. The two friends spent some time talking about what had occured at the police station and what had been going on between Anna and Julian.

“On Friday 20 August, Kajsa and Anna were at a party but it was after the police report and everything had already happened. Anna told her she had received a text message from the other girl who wanted to get into contact with Julian. Anna had understood what had happened and they had since spoken to each other. Anna told her that she and the other girl had decided to go to the police because the other girl would report Julian for rape and that Anna should go with her for support.”

“Then it had also emerged that police had taken up a report from Anna and that the police had interpreted it as if Anna also was a victim of crime. It was then that Anna told her that Julian first did not want to use a condom and that they had wrestled about it and that Anna had curled up. Julian had then put on a condom which Anna later thought that he deliberately destroyed during intercourse because she had heard a smacking sound. This sound was heard by Anna after he had pulled out of her during intercourse. Anna had then checked it and found that it was still there.”

“Anna had been sad and thoughtful, she wondered how she could explain for example at trial that she had let him to stay on despite everything that had happened. Anna had also said that she had thought it was unpleasant to have him living there and that she among other things had thrown up a few times because she thought it was so unpleasant.”

My comments on Kaisa Borgnäs’ interview

Kajsa talks to Anna Ardin at a party right after Anna had been to the police station to file a report. “Friday 20 August was when Kajsa got to know everything.” This is about 12 hours before Anna is interviewed by the police. It is therefore surprising that Kajsa’s story about what happened during Anna’s sex with Julian differs from Anna’s story to the police. But Kajsa may have forgotten something. Or been told a different story. Or been asked to tell a different story.

Kajsa, like Petra, says that Anna’s sex with Julian was violent. It is important to take notice of the fact that when Kajsa supposedly hears about it the first time, she does not take any notice. “Kajsa had thought that it was unpleasant and bad but nothing more.” Kajsa’s reaction is understandable because at the same time “Anna had also told Kajsa that Kajsa could have him.” To me that seems more like a description of bad sex. It does not seem like something similar to rape or any type of serious sex crime. It is most unlikely that Anna experienced the sex with Julian as a sexual assault. If Anna was a real victim of sexual assault it would have been likely that she could have described the event to her friend Kajsa so Kajsa would have remembered it. And what about the sentence, “Anna had also told Kajsa that Kajsa could have him.” Is it likely that someone who just have been sexually assaulted will recommend the perpetrator to a friend. I just doesn’t seem right.

Kajsa also expresses astonishment some time during the week of the fact that Julian is still staying together with Anna, but Anna does not offer an explanation why he is still there. If Kajsa had been told that Anna was seriously sexually assaulted and that the offender was still staying in her house, is it likely that Kajsa would just leave the matter as if it was just something ordinary?

At the police station Anna tells a story that makes the policewoman in charge, Linda Wassgren, to conclude that Anna too was a victim of rape. And the police initiate a rape investigation. According to Kajsa’s interview Anna is not of the same opinion. “Then it had also emerged that police had taken up a report from Anna and that the police had interpreted it as if Anna also was a victim of rape.” The use of the words “had interpreted” is worthy of note. What did Anna say at the police station? And why is she unhappy with the police interpretation? Was Anna sexually assaulted?

It seems as though Anna said something at the police station to reinforce Sofia Wilén’s story and that Anna did not realize it would involve a police investigation of her being raped. Kajsa’s interview is an indication that Anna said something very powerful in order to support Sofia. Something that she could not take back in her own interview the following day because then Sofia’s story might collapse.

Kajsa, just like Petra, does not mention anything about Anna’s Twitter comments. And she completely leaves out the fact that Anna was Julian’s press secretary from Sunday August 15. Why does she do that? Is it because she didn’t know, or is it because she understands that if the police knew about these facts Anna had some explaining to do?

Kajsa is honest and says that Anna did not tell her anything about the wrestling and the destruction of the condom until Anna came from the police station. Why didn’t Anna tell Kajsa before? And if she didn’t tell Kajsa until Friday 20, what did Anna tell Kajsa prior to Friday 20?

To me it seems like Kajsa is mostly credible. She is not making events up. But it seems like she does not tell everything she knows. Maybe she is trying to save a friend.

Interview with Johannes (Johann) Wahlström

Interviewing Officer: Ewa Olofsson, Interview Witness: Mats Gehlin, audiotape interview printed in dialogue form.
Monday, September 20, at. 9:42 to 11:30
Abbreviations. Interviewing Officer = IO, Interview Witness = IW, Johannes Wahlström = JW.  English version, not verified by me

Johannes Wahlström is WikiLeaks’ contact in Sweden. It is Johannes who has contact with the Swedish media and contacts with those that will receive or not receive material from WikiLeaks. Through this, Johannes gained influence and an income. You could say that Johannes is WikiLeaks ‘distributor’ in Sweden. That is why Johannes should have an interest in trying to help police with their investigation.

When asked on Julian’s relations with women:

“I noticed that, uh, that there was, it was like too many, that is, if I should put it without in any way seeming to be contemptuous of anyone,., there were too many groupies of a female character like that, circulating around him. Uh, and that even if he only talks to them in the way he lets them in, as in his conversation uh, it means that he would be lowering his guard in a different way than if he would talk to you or you or me.”

When asked about Julian’s accommodation during his stay in Stockholm:

“Given that the Brotherhood movement invited him eh, so they undertook to ensure that he would have somewhere to live. And then I found out that there was an apartment that was vacant and it belonged to the Brotherhood movement’s press secretary, she would be away. Would be away for …. To Saturday, if I remember correctly.”

How did Julian and Anna Ardin meet and why did it happen on Friday 13th?

“But what I remember very clearly was that uh, that Anna Ardin again, she would return to Stockholm a day earlier”.”And she, uh, she wanted to meet Julian, given that he lived in her apartment. But there was no accommodation problem because she had somewhere else to go.”

How Johannes met Anna for the first time on Saturday 14 August when he went to get Julian to the seminar.

“So I rang the doorbell and to my surprise Anna Ardin opened the door. And she … she looked well, uh, a little, what can I say. Uh, and I was definitely not expecting to see her, uh, in the morning.”

Since the arrangement was that Julian was going to live in Anna’s apartment until the seminar, Julian’s accommodation was discussed at the crayfish party. Johannes, feeling responsible for Julian, did not know where Julian was staying the night of 14 August, as the agreement for him to live in Anna’s apartment was only applicable up to the seminar.

“Uh, and also during the night so, uh, I imagined that I asked, uh, I asked Anna, uh … No, I asked, probably Julian first, uh, was, where he would be staying that night….Uh, and, and then he said, yes I have a few offers. Well, yes, yes, no, but seemed to be fixed like so….Uh, and then I asked Anna if it was okay that he stayed with her instead, or if she wanted me to take him. Eh, she said, oh no there is no problem, he may stay with me.”

Johannes states in the following dialogue how the relationship was between Julian and Anna:

“IO: Was there something, anything between them that you felt during the evening?
JW: One, a strong friendship.
IO: Okay. JW: … a mighty cordial friendship. There was no, no open flirting that I saw. And that’s why I do not, uh, or I got the feeling as somewhere to, uh, that Anna uh … She, she would like to take care of Julian in some way.”

When asked about Julian’s accommodation and why he continues cohabiting with Anna after the alleged “assault”.

“IO: …expresses her (Anna Ardin, my comment) wish that he’ll move from there?
JW: I actually asked her almost every day. Eh, I know that it is not my business to ask such a question. Uh, but, but I try, I’ll take away, take her off a little, some, a few times. And so I ask this, everything is quiet. So without going into details like this, would you, is it easy because he lives there, would you be like that I organize, try to arrange something else? Uh, and she says, no, but, it is precisely that he is, he is sleeping but not at night so it might be a bit tough, eh, and he finds it a little hard to take care of hygiene. Uh, but, no, it is clear that he will stay with me, so, there is no problem, just so I know approximately how long it will be for. Eh, but I think the question was asked on my part, either three or four times. That is, uh, from the first time, then on Saturday, uh, until …
IO: Seminar Day, you guessed it.
JW: … day of the seminar, Monday, Tuesday.”

On Friday 20 August, Johannes gets a phone call from Donald and is told that Julian was charged, was going to charges of rape by Sofia. Johannes is now in Kazakhstan around the Aral Sea, 4500 kilometers from Stockholm.

“JW: I called her [Anna] when the day of, uh, that is, exactly, after, after the call from Donald. But the conversation was very brief, she would just go and meet uh, Sofia to, uh, to go and consult with uh, with the police. But what emerged from that conversation was that uh, maybe I misunderstood, but what emerged from that conversation was not what Donald said before. Eh, but it was simply that Sofia wanted to force Julian to make a … That’s right, there, there was actually some that I have forgotten. She wanted to force him to do a, uh, a blood test. Eh, but not a rape report. Eh … And that was what emerged from that conversation.
IO: And the blood test would be to …?
JW: HIV. So they was, as I understood it was, uh, they had had sexual intercourse but, but .. But this is the second-hand sources on my part, that’s what Donald told me. That, and Anna.”

After Johannes received a call from Donald, Johannes phoned Julian to try to sort out what had happened and to help Julian to handle the situation.

“But when I called him and asked, what the hell is going on. And when he says that “yes, what it is, she wants me to do one, a blood test. So, but hell I won’t do it. What is the thing. So, no, but I, I can do a blood test but I do not want to be blackmailed into doing a blood test. Ehm … For they say that they either go to the police, or, Sofia, she either goes to the police or I do a blood test. So I can have one, I can give it to her but when I do it I’d rather do iff, of uh it being in benevolence you know, instead than it’s a blackmail situation. ” I said, but hell make sure you to that you do the damned blood test now as well. That’s, that is, if she is worried, but it’s preposterous. Uh, and then as I’m mixed up in it, uh (inaudible). And remember that I am 4500 km away and on the phone …”

Regarding Julian’s view of women. If there is something special that Johannes has noticed.

“Eh, but more like you know, very gentlemanly you know towards, towards women. Uh, and then I understood well and in hindsight, have put two and two together, that probably it was quite a few girls who like … Uh, did everything they could for getting into bed with him. And then where they ended up god knows but now let it sounds like, as it sounds like as it can be quite a few that have, uh, succeeded … Uh … But I noticed nothing remarkable in his attitude towards women. “

The police want to know how Julian behaved at the crayfish party. Was he flirting and trying to pick up the female guests? Or how does one describe it all. What did Johannes notice?

“IW: At this crayfish party as you said there were some other girls, including this girl who said something along the line like, that you reacted on.
Are there any of these other girls who sought the attention of Julian?
JW: In the evening?
IW: Mm.
JW: Not that, that way, uh … Not in a physical way, I can say. But, but, uh …. So if you imagine that there is one, very famous rock star who sits at a party, there are certain looks given, and in some ways like that, that would rather focus the attention on one person. In this way, I would say that, that almost all the girls at the crayfish party behaved towards him. But no, it does not make it sexual for the (inaudible).
IW: Yes. Julian himself when at this crayfish party, did you notice that he makes passes, not of sexual, but then tries to grab their attention?
JW: I did not notice it.”

Sofia Wilén has an important role in the affair Assange. Who is Sophia and how did Johannes feel about her, something that the police want to know.

“IW: Yes. All right. Do you know … No, we drop the issue. However you, we talked about what you spoke about this Anna, this cashmere-girl.
JW: It’s Sofia, cashmere-girl.
IW: Cashmere girl. But how, then it sounds, I get the feeling that it is a bit condescending.
JW: From Anna’s side?
IW: Yes, or from both of you may be in the conversation about her, so who is it.
JW: Yes, therefore it is, because she came from nowhere and there was no one who knew who, who, who she was. And so, in appearance, it was a girl who did everything to play on her sexuality in a context where people were exceptionally professional. But then it turns out that people are not always professional in other ways and it … “

My comments on Johannes Wahlstöm’s interview

Part of the interview with Johannes is about his worry that some parts of the interview might leak or be released to the press. It seems that Johannes is more afraid of what media, especifically Expressen, may write about his interview than he is about Julian’s trouble. It’s a strange attitude in the light of Julian being suspected of a very serious crime involving imprisonment. It seems that Johannes is more afraid for himself rather than helping the police to investigate if Julian did something criminal.

Johannes talks about his conversation with Anna on August 20 before she and Sofia go to the police. What it then comes down to is that Sofia would like Julian to be tested for HIV. If Julian doesn’t agree to take a test, then Sofia and Anna will go to the police.

It does not seem as if Johannes has prepared for the interview. As if he did not understand that it is important. Instead of telling all he knows and let the police do the investigation, it appears that he is trying to control everything he is saying. My assessment is that Johannes  is credible with some hesitation.

Interview with Donald Boström

Interviewing Officer: Mats Gehlin, Interview Witness: Ewa Olofsson, audiotape interview documented in dialogue form.
Monday, September 20, at. 11:20 to 12:17 am
Abbreviations: Interviewing Officer = IO, Interview Witness = IW and Donald Boström = DB. English version, not verified by me

Donald Boström is an experienced journalist, in his late 50’s and works for the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, that had contracted Julian for a column. He writes mainly about foreign affairs and has had contacts with Wikileaks, Julian Assange and Johannes Wahlström prior to this event. He has an important role in the seminar on August 14 as he helps Anna Ardin with press contacts.

“DB: Yes, I have, there’s a background story to this before … I had daily contact with Anna and Julian, all in connection with the seminar. And Anna and I had contact many times a day most often. Uh of course, because the media, that was a media frenzy so we had a lot of contact.

And before it all starts Anna calls me and says like this, it is not true what I have told you before, we have actually had sex, Julian and me. Earlier on she said that they hadn’t really, of her own accord without anybody asking she had joked about Julian stays in her flat and lies in her bed but we haven’t had any sex. He has tried of course but I have refused him. Yes nobody comments on it and the joke keeps going on.

One day the phone rings, I think it was Thursday then (Thursday the 19th of August my comment). Uh, and I can hear in her voice that she, that it is something serious. And then she says, it’s not true what I said, we have actually had sex. Oh yeah, I say, I’m a little surprised (unintelligible) she calls me and tells me this. Uh and then, and then she goes on to tell me that the other woman, Sofia has called and told her Julian has been there and has had sex with her. Both times it was consensual. And now I’m using Anna’s words, and this is the only version I have actually. Uh and we talked a lot, and I’m telling you all this to get back to your question…
IO: Hmmm.
DB: Uh, because there’ was a background story. And then she tells me that Julian and Sofia had traveled to Enköping and had consensual sex or however you say that, uh, up until the morning and then Anna says and then Sofia tells me Julian continues having sex with Sofia in the morning without protection, without a condom. And she doesn’t want that and she protests, uh, but Julian continues the sex without protection despite Sofia’s protests, says Anna. Uh, OK I say, I’m speechless of course from suddenly getting this call. And so I have to say that he, we had sex at an early stage at my place too and right in the middle, in the ongoing act or whatever (unintelligible) he destroyed the condom, she says. She doesn’t say it, takes it off or she says… For I get stuck with, destroying it, it’s such a strange… Either you have a condom or you don’t, or so one takes, yeah…

So therefore I remember exactly this description and she says that suddenly he destroyes it, the condom, and continues against my will. Uh, and I was again unbelievably stupefied and couldn’t comment, I was just shocked a bit of course about this has taken place

So that’s the background story and I believe, I think Anna is very, very credible. Or at least I’ve thought so all along. Uh, so I don’t dismiss it but contact Julian and confront him with this right away. Something like what the fuck is going on? Um, and his reaction is as in shock, he doesn’t understand anything, of course he has a contrary story. He says Sofia absolutely didn’t protest at all, they were just (unintelligible) having fun. Uh he, he, I really tried to pressure him, did you take the condom off, did you destroy the condom, Uh, he doesn’t even understand the question like that. So it’s two completely separate, and I have no conclusion of my own to from this…
IO: No.
DB: … not at all. But that’s the background story, and therefore I know, uh, what’s going to come so to speak. Because then Anna says Sofia’s asked me to go to the police, follow along with her and I’ve decided I’m going to follow along and support her through this. But we’re not going to file charges against Julian, we just want to go there and tell our stories. And so I wonder, can you tell a story without it becoming a real complai … Yeah, technicalities like that but I’m not going to look into it really, but that’s what she says.

Further into the interview Donald talks in detail about what Anna told him what actually happened at the police station on Friday August 20.

“DB: Eh, they want that Julian should take an HIV-test, eh, otherwise they are going to report him. That is the way they express it. Eh, they don’t want to talk to Julian. But Julian talks to Sofia he says and he thinks that everything has blown over. But I convey the message to Julian that, the girls wants you to take an HIV-test and if you do they will not report you and if you don’t they will report you. So I brought it to him, I was a messenger. I didn’t have any own, eh, and that is the case.

And then Anna calls again and says that now, now we have been to the police and Sofia told them her story and, yes, because I sat there I filled in with a sentence. This is very literal [“ordagrant”, meaning exactly the words used] as I remember that she is telling me. Uh, oh yea I said, and what was that sentence. Well the sentence was that I think that Sofia is telling the truth because I had a similar experience Anna says then. And then said the thing about the condom, therefore I think it is the truth. I am not familiar with police technicalities but then Anna said, because all of a sudden we were two women that had a complaint to, against the same man it, then it became a registered complaint even though we didn’t really make a complaint. And, so it became a complaint. And therefore I knew Julian’s reaction, and now to, now we coming to your question.
IO: Yes, Yes,
DB: Uh, that he was shocked and did not understand anything. It was his first, uh, …. And, then it was like it was two versions, first it was no sex uh, then it was sex but it had something that Anna did not want to happen, Uh, and the third now is that it is rape even. So I have from my point of view seen three different versions of the same event.”

Donald’s view on how Julian Assange is affecting women.

“DB: …. sure and he attracts an awful lot of women. It is so, remarkable. And it is in, yes it something like a rock star phenomena so to say.
IO: Okay.
DB: The world’s most famous man ….
IO: Yes.
DB: … in some people’s eyes, actually during a certain period he was just that. Incredibly intelligent, that is attractive and he challenges, you know Pentagon and so … That impresses a lot of people so I have seen a large number of women, I can say the overwhelming majority of women have fallen completely for him.”

About how Julian is responding to the attention he gets from women and how Anna Ardin saw it.

“IO: … how does he cope with this attention from the girls?
DB: I think he feels positively about it, actually.
IO: Mm.
DB: One can say, I understand the question but I think he thinks it is a positive experience and Anna’s comment when she actually calls me and says, Donald it wasn’t true, as I said before, we have had sex.
IO: Mm.
DB: And the she adds, just like on the theme as I say, uh, I was insanely proud, gets the world’s most fantastic man in bed and that lives in my apartment.”

About Anna Ardin’s flat and how come Julian ended up in it.

“DB: Yes. I was just going to say, I am the one who knows about it. Because it was when, before Julian’s arrival that Anna calls me for the first time. And it’s not about media matter but it is, we have never talked to each other, hi I am Anna Ardin I have, so, I’m involved in, of planning this seminar. I’ll be on an election campaign in the country so my flat will be empty, so Julian is welcome to stay there she says, can you tell him that. Uh, and moreover the Brotherhood would profit, save hotel costs. And Julian prefers living in a flat rather in a hotel so I forwarded the message and he jumped on it and so I connected the two, as easy as that.

So that, and then it was the intention that Julian would stay there until Friday I think. The seminar would be on Saturday. Anna should come home on Saturday I think it was the first plan. But then she returns on Friday instead. So, and it’s a bit like this, wow how is it going to work out, where is Julian going to stay this night and like that. Uh, but what I understand then, that’s when they go out and eat, then they go home, uh, and they decide that Julian can remain in her bed. So that was the simple, that Anna realizes, my flat is empty, it is in working condition. And she offers it to Julian, then he remains there until, for another week.”

The original plan for Julian’s stay in Stockholm was that the Pirate Party should arrange a place for him to stay after the seminar.

“There are also two people from the Pirate Party that are coming that have been contacted by Anna. The plan was that Julian was supposed to stay with them, Uh, that’s the reason they come because they shall meet, and be introduced. And then some friend of Anna, uh yes,”

About how Donald perceived the relationship between Anna and Donald. And the fact that Anna seemed to be involved with Julian.

“DB: And she jokes about Julian, she says he is a special guy. All of a sudden he is gone in the middle of the night and so is in the bathroom with his computer and … Uh, she cracks a few jokes in a funny way. And, and we, sometimes then, she talks about similar things. But at the crayfish party, she sits down next to Julian and the she says, and she brings it up, where did you go last night. Uh, that is, and I don’t have any recollection of that they have any relationship at all. I think that Anna, she’s a powerful lady, (unintelligible) in that way so … Uh, but he really reacts and looks at her. And I am sitting just next to them. And, I awoke and you were out of bed and I felt dumped she said. And that particular word made me jump a little. Uh, why did she feel dumped if she didn’t, yes … Uh, and I took notice afterwards that I, that that word came back to me, that she …
IO: But that was the night before the seminar, wasn’t it?
DB: No, that was after the seminar. Yes, yes, right, Friday night going towards Saturday.
IO: Mm.
DB: It was then Julian was supposed to move but instead they did go out and had supper, went home, decided he should stay on. And then they shared the bed. And then she had told me with a laugh how he, weird guy that disappears and sits in the bathroom with the computer. But for him there was another emotion, that she felt dumped. And I reacted specifically on that, because you don’t do that unless you have a relationship, so that, wow she feels dumped, yes ,,, Uh, that bit was during the crayfish party and then they sat and talked quietly about it for a while, because it ….

Right and she also joked about Julian had disappeared with a ‘random girl’ had (unintelligible) said (unintelligible) media. Because the people that had called her uh, and had asked about Julian and so, no but he disappeared with a ‘random girl’ and at that time I did not understood what she meant-“

When Donald was asked if there was something more that he noticed during the crayfish party and where Julian was supposed to stay.

“But, uh, I know that there is talk about where Julian shall sleep. Is he going to follow this couple home at it was planned out. There was another friend of Anna, uh, and it was Anna. Uh, but get it as if it is decided at the table right then that Julian is staying with Anna for that night. Uh, without me being involved in the discussion I understand that that’t the way it is going to be, so that … Again I am with the people that are the earliest to leave. And then the rest of them are sitting there and (unintelligible)”

If Julian was flirty and tried to pick up women during the crayfish party.

“IO: Mm. Did you notice if Julian was wooing any special lady at the crayfish party?
DB: I did not notice that. Maybe he did in hiding or how you would like to put it, but that is not anything that I can say I saw that he did.”

About the information that Anna had told Julian to move out of her apartment.

“DB: No, not what I know but he should actually have moved out on Friday as it was said, that was what had been decided. And then he stays on and I never heard about some other type of limit. I haven’t heard about it. If they have talked about among themselves … But I don’t think so because, that is maybe what you are getting at but later during the week, around Wednesday and then I think, Anna tells me, I want him to move she tells me. Yes but tell him I said. And then she says, but I have told him but he doesn’t want to move. And so I confronted him about this matter too.
IW: With Julian?
DB: With Julian, it’s time to move, Anna wants you to move, she tells me she has told you. And again he is surprised and says that she has not mentioned a word about me moving out she says, he says.”

What is Donald’s reaction to the Anna’s alleged sexual assault.

“DB: So that is just about the two pictures I have in parallel, a credible girl, a strong girl that knows what she wants but something just don’t add up. And it is strengthened a little of the fact that I now have three versions of what has happened. Uh, and Julian is just saying the same thing, I don’t understand anything.
IW: When you talk, when you talked to Anna ….
DB: Mm.
IW: ..and then says that she has been exposed to some type of sexual assault. Do, did you get a feeling of what you considered that she had been exposed to really, or Sofia?
DB: Yes, uh …
IW: On Anna’s account.
DB: Yes, I understand. On Anna’s account, when she calls me and says that we hade sex and this thing happened she did not at all express that she had been exposed to a sexual assault. You know it is not at all like she want to go to the police. But, she puts it as I want, I go along, I promised to go along with Sofia as support. Not as if she had a case. And that gives me the picture that she did not consider it as serious but she got pissed off. Like, for fucks sake don’t destroy the condom but that it wasn’t any sexual assault. Uh, that’s my picture because she doesn’t want to go the police with a case of her own
IO: How did you perceive her when she talks about what she claims she has experienced?
DB: I think that, uh … I was astonished because all of a sudden it is a different picture.
IO: Mm.
DB: Uh, but then I think that I, I consider her credible. And it is a bit like this, a woman that is a victim you want to believe in, in some kind of way you know, it’s just like ….

And yes, but at the same time when, has, I have this consideration, how could it be possible that if they have sex, of her own free will as she says, then something happens that she experiences as an assault, how can she still happily arrange a crayfish party, lets him stay on, share bed and so on.

So I got the feeling that, it is something in this that doesn’t add up. So I have both the feeling that she as a person is credible but still it is something in this story that just isn’t right.

Then she calls back and says that, as I said what I said then because she strengthened Sofia’s story with this sentence and what she said, expressed it, the case got stronger. That is exactly what she said. So she minimized it quite a lot as a bad thing or a thing that pissed her off. Uh, and no intentions to report or to develop further.
IO: But this is before you, that it is prior to … I feel it like if …..
DB: This is on Thursday, uh …
IO: And when she goes to the police, did you know it?
DB: Yes, Friday, uh, I thinks she goes to the police. And on Saturday I think that, uh, arrested in, Julian is arrested in absentia on Saturday. So, yes Friday afternoon when Anna is calling me frequently or we call each other, very, very many times this Friday. And now, she says, now Sofia is with the police. Now I have been to the police and the issue of HIV test are talked about again and … So that Friday is a rather intense traffic, uh … But she give me the impression that she is there to tell this. Uh, and that she is a supporting pal to Sofia. Just so …”

Donald’s conversation with Julian

“DB: She, and I also said it like that, Anna said that Sofia protested, clearly and loudly that, no don’t go on.”
IO: Mm.
DB: And the he gets, he has become upset many times. I have brought it up on a number of occasions. And he gets kind of upset, I did absolutely not do that he says forcefully, or she didn’t do it. And then he also says it is a pure, pure, pure, pure lie.
IO: Nm.
DB: And, and then he just says that, had a normal ordinary intercourse. And that at the time was leaked to the press that we joked about what the name of the child would be and so on.”

“DB: Uh, the other instance, (unintelligible), why do you destroy a condom. And then, then he said no I did not. That is, he means that we just continued as usual.“

At the end of the interview a very good question is asked by the Interviewing Officer.

“IO: Anything that you think that we should have asked you that you would like to convey?
DB: I think that we have covered it all. No it is this matter, it feels like as if, uh, there are too many versions of the same event.
IO: Mm.
DB: That’s something I think about.
IO:Mm.
DB: And some, it, Anna who sits and feels like she is dumped next to Julian. That has also stuck in my …. Why did she feel like that.
IW: One thing only, when this telephone call comes, on Thursday, when Anna …
DB: Yes.
IW: … and then you confronted Julilan.
DB: Yes.
IW: Is it revealed then that he has had sex with both Sofia and Anna or are you totally focused on Sofia?
DB: No about then, when Anna calls, I really think is is Thursday then.
IW: Mm.
DB: Until then she has just joked about that, he has not been successful in bedding me and like that ….
IW: Mm, mm.
DB: uh, but Thursday, that is when she says that, I too have had sex with Julian …
IW: Mm.
DB: … what I said before was not true, it is then it is revealed that they had sex.
IW: Mm.
DB: And the reason for her saying that, that is because Sofia is calling her and is telling her about their night ….
IW: Mm.
DB: …so within a minute it is understood, everybody understand I was just about saying, it is revealed that they both have had sex with Julian. But consensual sex ….
IW: But when, when you confront Julian with this ….
DB: Yes.
IW: … is it then, do you talk about both …
DB: Yes.
IW: … girls?
DB: I told him factually what, exactly what Anna had told me, that is what I am telling him.
IW: Yes.
DB: This destroyed condom and, why did you continue when Sofia says no, protests.

Donald is also asked if he knows whether Julian has had any contacts with the girls.

“DB: Not after the police report but this Friday, uh, when the girls actually go to the police (unintelligible), I think it is a Friday. Before that Anna calls me frequently. Uh, and says that we want that he, takes an HIV-test and we will not make report. Okay I said, I will call Julian and say so. And so I do. And so I call Anna and Anna calls me.

And then I call Julian again and then he says, no but I have had a long conversation with Sofia. That’s what he says on that Friday. And she, (unintelligible) no worries, that is she is not thinking about going to the police and it was, they were in complete agreement and … I say, is it really true because Anna, when I spoke to Anna just now I got a completely different picture, they are on the way to the police (unintelligible). No he says, she, we were in complte agreement, it was really nice, really kind.

And he returns to it on a number of occasions, and this that I spoke to her on Friday ands she said it like this. But after that I don’t know if they have had any contact. But I don’t think that they have had any contact.”

My comments on Donald Boström’s interview

Donald is trying to tell the police everything he knows without making any evaluation of the information. He is freely and coherently telling his story. And he expands his answers in order to help the police understand how everything is linked together.

One note-worthy part of Donald’s testimony is when he relates what Anna told directly after that she had been to the police. She says “I filled in with a sentence”. Anna admits that she says to the police that Julian destroyed a condom and that Julian then continued against Anna’s will. This is very important for understanding of the case. It is this statement by Anna that she has to defend in the police interview.

Donald has overheard a conversation between Anna and Julian at the crayfish party. Anna is telling Julian that she felt dumped when he left the bed and went into the bathroom to work on his computer. Something you don’t do if you do not have some kind of emotional relationship.

One piece of information that is very interesting is that Donald says that Anna called him on Thursday to inform him that she had talked with Sofia. Petra has in her interview also stated that Anna got to know about Julian’s relationship with Sofia on Thursday (maybe even on Wednesday). Anna herself in her interview says she did not learn about Sofia until Friday.

It is obvious that Donald is thinking a great deal about the case. And that he is trying to figure out what really did happen. He seems like the only witness that is interested in the case. Perhaps it is because to him it does not make sense. He has heard many peculiar things that have stuck in his mind. And he has heard Anna tell him three versions of the same event.

I get the impression that Donald is very credible. My feeling is that he is telling the police of everything he knows.

Interview with Hanna Rosquist

Interview Officer: Mats Gehlin. Telephone interview documented as summary
Wednesday September 9, 9.40 – 10-15 am  English version, not verified by me

“Hanna said that she is friends with Sofia since childhood. They have known each other since they were 11-12 years of age. They have lived and still live in Enköping. They see each other and talk to each other on a regular basis.

Hanna said that a few weeks prior to the event she talked to Sofia about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. Sofia did admire his work and the organization WikiLeaks. Sofia said that he seemed to be good and smart and courageous since he had been threatened because of his work.”

After the incident in the morning of August 17 Hanna is in contact with Sofia.

“The next time Hanna talked to Sofia was in the morning after Assange had slept at Sofia’s. She can’t remember if it was a call or a text-message. Sofia said that it there was a bad feeling and that she wanted him to go away. Sofia said that Assange should have been changed [transformed] at her home and become like a totally different person and that Sofia regretted that she had let Assange stay overnight.

After the incident Sofia told Hanna that she was feeling worse and worse. She said that it was bothering her that Assange had unprotected sex with her while she was sleeping. Sofia also said that Assange had nagged her and tried to have unprotected sex with her during the night but she had made him to put on a condom. Sofia had told Assange many times.”

“Hanna asked Sofia why she hadn’t pushed Assange away when she understood that Assange did not have a condom. Sofia had replied that she was so shocked and paralyzed and couldn’t really understand what was happening. She had tried to talk to him.”

“Hanna said that Sofia wanted Assange to take a test against sexually transmitted diseases. Sofia had taken a test but it takes a lot longer time for her to get the results. It would by much quicker is Assange took a test.

Hanna does not know what happened when Sofia reported the incident to the police.”

My comments to Hanna’s interview

Hanna states that Sofia wanted Julian to take an STD test because if he did she could get the result quicker. Sofia was worried that she had contracted HIV. And in order to avoid long time suffering she wanted Julian to get tested. Sofia does not tell Hanna that she wanted to report Julian. Nor did she say that she was raped.

According to Hanna Sofia “was so shocked and paralyzed and couldn’t really understand what was happening” so she could not push Julian away or even say anything. Sofia has in her interview said that she talked to Julian. And there is no mentioning of being “shocked and paralyzed” during the interview.

Why is it that Sofia says to Hanna that she was shocked and paralyzed. I think it is very simple. Hanna asks Sofia why didn’t you push him away. Just normal behavior. Because Sofia could not say to Hanna that the sex was consensual she had to say something to justify that she didn’t just push Julian away. So she says I was “shocked and paralyzed”. That is a proper answer to a friend that asks a question. But is obviously not true. So I can believe that Sofia told Hanna about being “shocked and paralyzed”.

Hanna asked why did you not push him away. So Sofia had to come up with an answer. So she made up that she was shocked and paralyzed. If Hanna instead had asked Sofia to tell her had happened it is likely that Sofia would have told Hanna the same story as Sofia told the police. This is an example of how easy it is to end up in a lie. And then one lie leads to another. The reason Sofia is not telling the truth about is because Hanna asked a bad question.

All in all I think that Hanna’ is credible.

Interview with Katarina Svensson

Interviewing Officer: Mats Gehlin. Telephone interview documented as a summary
Monday September 13, 9.09 – 9.25 am English version translated by Al Burke

Katarina is “a better friend at work”. This means that she and Sofia talks about personal matters. Katarina has been told a lot of what has happened.

“Sofia also said that when she was lying and was half asleep on her side she had awoken by Assange was inside her. Sofia had asked him what he was wearing and Assange should have replied “I am wearing you”. The witness said that Sofia did not notice that he came inside her but it was not until he already was inside as she woke up. The witness said that Sofia told her that she did not make any resistance as she felt it was too late. Sofia hade also said that she did not have sex with Assange but it was he that had sex with her.”

“The witness said that they talked about intimate matters and already before this incident Sofia had said that she never has sex without a condom. This to protect herself against diseases and pregnancy.”

My comments on Katarina Svensson’s interview

Katarina’s statement is corroborating Sofia’s statement to the police to a large part. Sofia was half asleep when Julian initiated the unprotected sex. During the unprotected sex Sofia talked to Julian and she did not resist as she felt it was too late.

Katarina’s interview also corroborates the fact that Sofia is and was very worried about disease and pregnancy and that was is the reason she does not have sex without a condom.

Katarina is credible in my view.

Interview with Joakim Wilén

Interviewing Officer: Mats Gehlin. Telephone interview documented as a summary
Wednesday October 6, 5,38 – 5.50 pm. English version translated by Al Burke

Joakim is Sofia’s younger brother.

“Joakim said that the next time he met with Sofia was a morning in the ICA-store. It was around 8 am.. Sofia was worked up and said something about a missing cord and that she had been to some kind of party afterwards and that Julian Assange had accompanied her to her place. Sofia told Joakim that Julian was in her apartment and that she had an awkward feeling. Joakim felt that Sofia was somewhat shaken up by the situation. She asked Joakim if he wanted to meet with Julian Assange but he did not want too. He drove Sofia home and after that went to his place.

The next time Joakim heard from Sofia was through a text message that she sent him and it read: Julian wan not so nice. Joakim was not told of what had happened until Sofia had gone to the police and it had been in the news papers. He got to know through Sofia’s and his mother. She had said that Julian had sex with Sofia without a condom and against her will when she was asleep.

Sofia has later said that she did not want to report Julian but just wanted that he should take a test against diseases. She went to the police to get advice and that the police registered a complaint. Sofia has also said that she talked to Julian that he should take a test and that Julian had told her that he did not have time to take a test and that she had to believe him when he said that he did not have any disease.

To a question from the Interviewing Officer Joakim responded that he and Sofia do not talk about sexual issues.

Joakim said that Sofia was mostly angry about what had happened and she felt terrible from the anti HIV medicines she had received. She was also upset about the fact that the incident had been picked up by media and that it had created such a turmoil.”

My comment on Joakim Wilén’s interview

Joakim confirms that Sofia did not want to report Julian. She wanted him to take a test against HIV and other STDs because she was worried. She went to the police to get advice. A fact that is well established through other witnesses. Joakim is credible.

Interview with Seth Benson

Interviewing Officer: Mats Gehlin. Telephone interview documented as a summary
Friday October 22, 2,15 – 2.35 pm. English version translated by Al Burke

Seth is an ex boyfriend to Sofia. They were together for two and a half years, the last year they lived together.

“Seth said that said the issue of infection was very important for Sofia and prior to having sex the first time, they’d tested themselves and then shared the results. During the two and one half years they never had sex once without a condom. It was completely unthinkable for Sofia. Seth said that was the agreement. He said that of what he knew, Sofia never had sex with anyone without a condom.

“Then Sofia said she had been raped by Julian Assange because he initiated the sex with her whilst she was sleeping and by not using a condom. Sofia said she had asked Assange if he was wearing anything. Assange should then have ‘Yes you’.”

“The IO asked Seth how Sofia reacted to this.
Sofia told Seth that she had become shocked and that she did not know what to do. Seth said that considering Sofia’s stern opinion about condoms when having sex, he can imagine she was very shocked and afraid. He knows how important it is for Sofia that condoms are used when she’s having sex.

Sofia told Seth that she could not understand how a representative for WikiLeaks who does so much good could be so disrespectful of another human being.”

My comments on Seth Benson’s interview

Seth talks about Sofia’s great fear of sexually transmitted disease. Something that is most important in this case. It seems like it is this fear that is the driving force behind much of Sofia’s actions.

Sofia told Seth that she had been raped by Julian. It is noteworthy that Seth is the only person that gets this version. I think it is easy to understand why Sofia says so. Firstly this is how the incident is described in the media. Secondly she has had a long term relationship to Seth and it was most important that a condom was used every time they had sex. And now Sofia is having unprotected sex with Julian whom she just met, like a one night stand. It is not unthinkable that Sofia, in an effort not to hurt Seth’s feelings says she was raped. And by saying so is trying minimize her own involvement and responsibility.

Seth also confirms that Sofia and Julian talked about a condom at the time Julian initiated the sex with Sofia. When Sofia was told that Julian did not wear a condom she could have said just one word, ‘Stop’. But she didn’t.

I am convinced that Seth is credible and that he is telling the police what Sofia has told him.

Interview with Marie Thorn

Interviewing Officer: Mats Gehlin. Telephone interview documented as a summary
Wednesday October 27, 5.00 – 5.25 pm. English version by Al Burke

Marie is a workmate of Sofia and she has talked to Sofia about what has happened. Over the time there have been many calls and text messages.

“When they came out from the movie Sofia said that she and Julian had been making out inside Cosmonova (cinema, my note).”

“Marie wasn’t told about the assault until the day after or if it was two days after and she got the impression Sofia was very worried she could have been infected. Sofia had said that she had told Julian that she might have become with child to which Julian had responded it was nothing to worry about and that the child would be named ‘Afghanistan’. If she was to keep the baby he would pay off her student loans.”

“Marie also wants to say that she has talked so much with Sofia that it’s difficult to remember what was said and what wasn’t. Marie wanted to say when Sofia been to the hospital and went to the police things didn’t turn out the way as Sofia wanted. She only wanted Julian to get a test. She felt she had been railroaded by the police and others around her”.

My comments on Marie Thorns interview

Marie is questioned very very late. About two months after the events actually happened. Obviously it is difficult for Marie to remember exactly when and what had been said in conversations with Sofia.

Marie and Sofia have talked about revenge and trying to make money out of  this case. As it seems these conversations were after Sofia been to the police. As Marie puts it, the conversations were more about trying to support Sofia at a very difficult time in her life than trying do something in real life. I buy that. To me there seems to be nothing that links Sofia to anything like revenge or trying to make money out of this case.

Marie also makes interesting final remark. Things did not turn out the way Sofia wanted. It seems like the report of rape came as the result of a sequence of events that Sofia did not control. She was “helped” to make the police report.

There is nothing that makes me question Marie’s credibility.

The tenth witness

Around September 1st 2010 I stumble across a micro blog, annaardin.bloggy.se, while searching for some information regarding the Assange case. Soon I learn that this blog is a “mirror-image” of Anna Ardin’s blog on Twitter. When comparing Anna’s tweets on Twitter to her tweets on Bloggy I note that they are almost identical. As if the tweets on Twitter and Bloggy are created at the same time.

To my surprise I discover three tweets on annaardin.bloggy.se that are unavailable on Anna’s Twitter account.

“@dekaminski do you mean worth it eating crayfish?”
“Sitting outdoors at 2 am barely freezing with the world’s coolest smartest folks, it’s amazing! #fb”
“Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anybody that has a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb”

Tweets that mention a crayfish party on August 14 and Anna’s feelings in the early morning of August 15. It seems like Anna is very happy in the company of Julian Assange. It is obvious that Anna has deleted these tweets on Twitter but forgot to delete them on bloggy. When Anna is tweeting she just does it once and the tweets appear on both blogs. But when she deletes she has to delete each account separately. She evidently forgot to make the second deletion.

As more information of the case became available I started to realize the significance of the deleted tweets, one tweet in particular. The alleged assault took place during the night between August 13 and 14. In the early morning of the 15th Anna tweets “Sitting outdoors at 2 am barely freezing with the world’s coolest smartest folks, it’s amazing! #fb”. Why is Anna still around the alleged offender, and why is she in a positive mood? It just doesn’t look like Anna is a victim of sexual assault the previous night.

On August 25 the Rebellablog published an article, “Wikileakshjältar kan också göra puckade saker” (the english version WikiLeaks heroes can also do dim-witted things) where the author, Sara Gunnerud, explained what might have happened at the police station when Anna and Sofia reported Julian. The Rebellablog is a Social Democratic feminist blog co-founded by Anna Ardin and where she also is an active contributor.

In order to test Anna I decided to post a comment on the article to see her reaction. On September 8th I posted a comment saying that I have seen the tweets that Anna had deleted on Twitter. Since comments are moderated at the Rebellablog my comment was not published. It is not until September 13 around 8 pm that my comment is moderated and immediately deleted. I then quickly post another comment stating the exact web address, annaardin.bloggy.se, where the tweets can be seen. Within 30 minutes my comment is deleted. Around 11 pm the whole Bloggy.se site goes down. When the site comes back on line at approx 4 am on September 14 the three tweets are removed from annaardin.bloggy.se.

When I noted the second deletion of tweets that indicated that Anna was happy in Julian’s company I immediately sensed foul play. Why is it so important for Anna to try to hide these tweets? After careful consideration I decided that I it was better that I reported my findings to the police. On September 15 I contacted Superiour Prosecutor Marianne Ny to report my findings. The following day, September 16, I got a call from police inspector Ewa Olofsson. I told her all about the deleted tweets and my suspicion that Anna Ardins’s story is made up. Since it is difficult to get all the facts correctly in a telephone interview I e-mailed Ewa Olofsson the complete story of the deletions. The next day, in another e-mail, I made some suggestions about things to investigate.

To me it was remarkable that nobody from the Rebella blog had tried to contact me since they must have known that I had seen the deleted tweets. If there was a legitimate reason for deleting them they could have told me so. Then I wouldn’t have done anything more about it. In order to initiate a contact with Sara Gunnerud I e-mailed her and informed her about my fears that Anna Ardin’s accusations were made up. And if so, it would have a detrimental effect on all real victims’ chances to get justice.

6.19 am on September 30 I published a post about the deleted tweets. 25 minutes later, at 6.44 am, I received an e-mail from an irritated Anna Ardin.

"I deleted the tweets to try to avoid the media attention I
 understood was coming, it was tough enough anyway, and the
translated list of revenge I have never tried to delete. I
don’t understand how it could be related to this."

Anna’s mail explains that she deleted the tweets in connection to the police report. And that she did it to avoid attention. From media. She didn’t mention that the the deletion also meant that Anna avoided attention from the police. I don’t understand that Anna deleted the tweets a second time on September 13-14. By that time it was evident that the tweets on annaardin.bloggy.se  did not create any attention at all. It was just me that paid attention.

In her mail Anna mentions a list of revenge. On January 19 2010 Anna posted an article  “Seven steps to get legal revenge” on her blog. A detailed list of what to do if you want to get revenge on someone who for instance has been unfaithful. Anna is part of the Christian section of the Social Democratic party. It is a little odd to read a Christian’s plan for legal  revenge. If you want to read more about this click this link.

In Anna’s mail from September 30 she said that she never had thought about deleting the list of revenge. The list was deleted sometime in November/December 2010. What remains of the seven step plan is just one step. That it is better to forgive.

As you probably have figured out by now I think that I am a credible witness. But a little surprised one since it is obvious that the police did not seriously investigate Anna Ardin’s accusations.

Interview with Julian Assange

Interviewing Officer: Mats Gehlin, Interview Witness: Ewa Olofsson, Defense Counsel: Leif Silbersky, Interpreter: Gun von Krusenstjerna
Audiotape interview, documented in dialogue form.
Monday, August 30, at 5:43 – 6:37 pm
Abbreviations: Interviewing Officer = IO, Interview Witness = IW, Defense Counsel = DC, Julian Assange = JA
English version not verified by me

The interview with Julian is only about the suspected molestation of Anna Ardin since the suspicion of rape of Sofia Wilén was thrown out by a decision of Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné on August 25. The interview is focusing on the accusation that Julian had deliberately destroyed a condom while having sex with Anna.

Part of the interview is a discussion of what part of the interview might end up in media, tabloids like Expressen. Since Sweden is a very open society police documents are to a very large extent public and anybody that wishes to see the relevant documents can just apply for a copy. Some documents may classified if the police department makes that choice. Sometimes parts of a document is crossed out if it is regarded to be sensitive information.

It is also evident that Julian is not willingly sharing with the police his view of what actually happened. It is not until the following exchange took place between Julian and his defense counsel and a short intermission where Julian had a private conversation with his defense counsel that Julian started to answer questions.

“DC: My view is that you should respond, because if they accuse you of something you haven’t responded to, they have to accept what the girl says. You have to defend yourself by telling them your version. Otherwise it will become known, that you didn’t respond, and then the prosecutor has to take the case to court
JA: Okay.
DC: But if you respond then the court, the prosecutor, get your version and the girl’s version then the prosecutor has to decide can I prove that he has done this.
JA: And how much of my version do I have to tell?
DC: (unintelligible)
IO: One more thing, you have the right during the interview to take a break in the interview. And then we will turn off the tape recorder and if you don’t want this discussion we are having now, because the interview should only be about the alleged crime.”

Julian denies that he has destroyed a condom. He admits that he has had a long and extended intercourse with Anna. During the intercourse just one condom was used. According to Julian no condom was broken and he has never heard that Anna mentioned anything about it.

“IO: The accusation is like that condom, a condom was broken after the intercourse and Anna is of the opinion that at a point when you withdrew your penis then it sounded like you removed the condom but when you re-entered her she felt (with her hand, my comment) that the condom was still on. Then when you ejaculate and she notices among other things that it is, that she has your semen inside of her. And she looks at the condom and there is no semen inside the condom.
And then there is this question to you, is this a situation that you are familiar with in any way?
JA: No. At some stage Anna pointed on the bed that had a wet spot. And said, look. And said, is that you. I said, no it must be you. And we didn’t discuss it any further. Until the accusation Friday (August 20, my comment), a week later”

“IO: This accusation, I might sound that I’m nagging but I have to ask anyway. It is a pretty clear picture that Anna has about what had happened. Exactly this sound from the condom.
JA: Anna Ardin has never talked to me about this incident in any way at all. Or somebody else that I know of. I got a very short and completely different version than, something else than what you say now, on Friday the 20th.
IF: What do you think that Anna meant by pointing to this particular wet spot?
JA: At that time I didn’t have a clue. Maybe she was trying to say how loving the sex was.“

“IO: Where you at any time rebuffed by Anna?
JA: In what way?
IO: That she rebuffed a sexual invitation from you?
JA: Yes sometimes, but it was not in any way important. Not in any way that should be out of the ordinary.”

“IO: Then you said you had sex, more sex that night?
JA: We paused on a number of occasions and then we started all over, with the same condom.
IO: So it was an extended intercourse?
JA: Yes.
IO: How long did time approximately?
JA: A couple of hours, I am not sure how many.”

“IO: What was the sexual relation like after this particular night?
JA: It was still pretty hot. It was on one occasion after this night when Anna had two orgasms. We slept in the same bed.
IO: And if I have understood you correctly you didn’t have sexual, you didn’t have intercourse at that time?
JA: That’s correct.
IO: And there weren’t anything during the time you stayed with her after the first night?
JA: Not any intercourse, that’s correct. But there were other sexual acts, yes.”

IO: Then there is another question from me.
Who was it that, shall we say, took the initiative when you started to get closer to each other?
JA: Anna.
IO: How did it happen?
JA: She said that I should sleep in her bed.
IO: And it was in bed that you started?
JA: Yes that is correct.
IO: Were there any type of advances from either of you before you got into bed?
JA: No.”

My comments on Julian Assange’s interview

What is evident from Julian’ interview is that he is most unwilling to say very much. He is on his guard and is unwilling to give his version of events. It is not until his lawyer, Leif Silbersky at the time, steps in and explains the situation that Julian starts to answer questions.

In Sweden and in the rest of the world you do not have to answer questions by the police. You have the right to remain silent. It is the prosecutor that has to prove that a person is guilty.

A suspect does not have to say anything in his own defense. If remaining silent is a good strategy is another matter. If you are falsely accused of a crime maybe it is not such a clever move to remain silent. If you do not give the police any indication that the accusations are false you are actually making it worse for yourself.

In the interview Julian does not with one word mention his conversations with Donald and Johannes. They have in their interviews talked about many and long conversations with Julian.

That Julian is not open about his conversations with Donald and Johannes and the fact that he is not cooperating with the police and on top of that is telling media stories that are untrue does not make him credible. I can understand that Julian is confused. And that he is afraid since I can detect a streak of paranoia in his comments about the case. But I am really surprised at how little he is doing to clear his name of accusations that have all trademarks of being false. As a suspect you don’t have to help the police to clear you of suspicions. But it seems like a good thing to do.

Discussion

The Assange case has become an extensive and complicated matter due to the involvement of many parties. Most important in the case, from the very beginning, is what did really occur between Julian Assange and the two females in mid August. So far it has not yet been properly investigated nor has been at the center of attention.

Police and prosecutors have made a mess of this case from early on. Instructions on how to conduct investigations regarding serious sexual offences have not been followed. It seems like the personnel in charge of the interviews do not understand how very important it is that the interviews are properly documented. Interviews regarding sex crimes should be video recorded. If that is not feasible they should at least be tape recorded. Of essence is to capture what the complainant and suspect actually say. The words they use, how they react to questions, what part of the story is freely given etc. Interviews regarding sex crimes should never be conducted over the phone.

Any seasoned investigator knows that if the evidence is not collected properly it is most difficult to conduct a proper investigation. Grave mistakes made early in an investigation reduces the chances of solving a crime.

What is particularly disturbing in this case is that there seems to be no improvement from the time superior prosecutor Marianne Ny decided to re-open the investigation. In some respects, quality has actually declined. Interviews are conducted over the phone on a regular basis and are documented as simple summaries (konceptförhör). The same method that is used to investigate bicycle theft. Many areas that need to be investigated are ignored. And, probably the most serious mistake is that the suspect, Julian Assange, is not being interviewed immediately. This means that the police have not been able to hear his side of the story and they have not been able to investigate his version of what happened.

Instead it appears as if superior prosecutor Marianne Ny has tried to collect evidence in order to build a case against Julian Assange before she is interested in hearing his side of the story. It is as if she has already decided that Julian is guilty of the crimes he is accused of. It is not until the police have interviewed seven witnesses, me included, that Marianne Ny shows any interest to interview Julian. That is 21 days after the re-opening of the case. 32 days after the complaints were made and 39 days after the first alleged crime was commited.

By that time Marianne Ny showed interest to interview Julian, around September 22, Julian was suspected of six criminal offences. One rape, four four sexual molestations and one case of molestation. The offence of sexual coercion is not introduced until September 27.

By not allowing Julian’s version of events the investigation is one sided. It is biased. The person responsible for making the investigation biased is superior prosecutor Marianne Ny. The police and the prosecutors are doing everything they can to find evidence against Julian Assange.

A proper investigation should have focused on finding out what had actually happened and then trying to determine if the accusations are credible and if the offences are criminal. It seems like the police and the prosecutors have made their minds up, Julian is guilty. And the reason they would like to interrogate him is to put pressure on him and hopefully get a confession.

In my examination of all of the police documents I cannot find any criminal offence. Not one. And a “duck-test” of Anna Ardin’s statement indicates that she is making a false report. Her statement is also contradicted by a number of witness testimonies. The only indication that Julian is guilty is his own behavior. He is doing his best to avoid being interviewed and is making a really silly defense trying to prove that the case is a political conspiracy in order to have him extradited to the US. A behavior probably caused by a cocktail of paranoia and bad advice.

Sofia Wilén’s rape accusation

In my article, “Våldtäktsanklagelsen mot Assange” (The rape accusation against Assange), I have shown that there is nothing criminal in Sofia’s story as it is told to the police. The same as chief prosecutor Eva Finné ruled on August 25. Five witness statements including Sofia’s own accounts confirm the fact that Sofia did not resist or protest against the unprotected sex with Julian. In no way did Sofia indicate to Julian that she did not consent to the sex. It is certain that it was not possible for Julian to understand that Sofia did not consent to the sex. Therefore it is not possible that Julian had sex with Sofia against her expressed will. There is no foundation for a rape charge. And it is not possible that Julian had the intent of having sex with Sofia against her will. The fact that Sofia rather would have had safe sex is not important. She did not express that wish during the sex. She kept her want of a condom inside her own head.

So to the question that seems to cause a lot of problems for the prosecutors. Did Sofia sleep when the intercourse was initiated or was she awake? Or was she half asleep? Or was she half awake?

The law is very clear. The law is there to protect people who, due to sleep, are unable to protect themselves since they are in a helpless state, “hjälplöst tillstånd”. The intent of the law is not to criminalize sexual acts against people that are asleep. If the intent was to punish everybody that committed sexual acts against sleeping people the law would not have included the words of helpless state. It is as simple as that.

The issue is not whether Sofia was asleep or half asleep. The issue is if she was in a helpless state due to sleep or half sleep. It is a confirmed fact that Sofia did not object to the sex when she “fully awoke” after Julian initiated the sex. It is also a fact that Sofia prior to this particular intercourse had two or maybe three acts of intercourse with Julian earlier in the morning. This sex was consented to and it was protected. Sofia told police she was “shocked” when Julian suddenly stopped foreplay, turned away and fell asleep. From this we can deduct that Sofia wanted to have sex with Julian and that Julian was aware of it. That is the reason that Sofia had protected sex with Julian two or three times just before the disputed intercourse.

Was Sofia in a helpless state? To answer that question we have to look at the events as Sofia describes them. Julian and Sofia had breakfast. After breakfast Julian undressed Sofia and the couple had consensual sex. Then they fall asleep, or more likely snooze. Shortly thereafter Julian initiates the disputed sex. Under no circumstances can this situation be described as if Sofia is in a helpless state. She had ample time and opportunity to ask Julian to stop. She choose not to.

Is it reasonable to believe that Julian was aware that Sofia did not want to have sex with him? That is out of question. Julian understood that Sofia wanted to have sex with him and consented several times to have sex with him. Is it reasonable to believe that Julian was aware that Sofia wanted to have safe sex? He must have understood that. Anything else is not believable. Sofia wanted Julian to use a condom during sex.

Then we arrive at the heart of the matter that is difficult for lawyers, judges, prosecutors, politicians and ordinary people in Sweden to understand. There is a fundamental difference between “vill” (want) and “samtycka” (consent). In common language people regard “vill” (want) and “samtycka” (consent) as the same. The sentence “Jag ville inte” (I did not want to) is interpreted by many Swedes as “Jag samtyckte inte” (I did not consent). It is of course wrong but most people don’t realize it.

The word “vill” (want) is a silent state of mind. It is an idea. The word “samtycka” (consent) is a verb. Something you do. The question if consent is a silent state of mind or if it is an act, a manifestation, is debated in Sweden. I have always felt that consent is an act, a manifestation. Nils Petter Ekdahl, the government appointed legal expert has made a survey on the changes of the sex laws in 2005. He has authored a green paper, SOU 2010:71, where for the first time in a proper analysis of our rape laws, he shows that there is a significant problem that Swedish law does not include consent/lack of consent in the definition of rape. It is Nils Petter Ekdahl’s view that consent is an act, a manifestation. The green paper that the law reform in 2005 was based on, SOU 2001:14, could not tell the difference between want and consent. That was the reason that consent/lack of consent did not become the basis for rape in the law 2005.

Many people in Sweden think that Julian is guilty of rape because Sofia wanted to have sex with a condom. And Julian initiated the sex without a condom. The idea that you can consent to something you do not want is not common. In this case it is evident that Sofia wanted a condom to be used and that she consented to sex without a condom.

What is important when we are trying to understand what a person consented to is not to try to figure out what they wanted. We must figure out how they acted, what they actually did or say. Sofia’s “inner wants” are not known to Julian at the time for the intercourse. The only thing he can understand is what Sofia says or what she does. And that she willingly took part in the intercourse is beyond doubt. She asked him if he was wearing anything and he answered “you.” And then she said, “You better not have HIV”, indicating that she was aware of the fact that the sex was unprotected.

If the sexual act cannot be described as rape, is there any other crime that Julian may have committed? This is not possible since Sofia consented to all the sex that occurred. So there is no crime. Just as chief prosecutor Eva Finné found in her evaluation of the case on August 25.

A large number of witnesses mention the fact that Sofia was afraid of catching a sexually transmitted disease. That is one reason she had never had unprotected sex until that fateful morning in August.

Sofia contacts Anna in order to get in contact with Julian since Julian does not answer his phone. When Sofia gets in contact with Anna and discovers that Anna too had sex with Julian, Sofia’s fear escalates. It appears as though Anna Ardin ruthlessly exploits Sofia’s fear of HIV to talk Sofia into going to the police to try to get some advice. Sofia does not want to report Julian. No witnesses mentions that Sofia wanted to report Julian The only person that mentions that Sofia was raped and that Sofia wanted to report Julian for rape is Anna Ardin. Nothing supports Anna Ardins statement.

How to get a quick HIV test in Stockholm

If Anna Ardin wanted to help Sofia to make Julian to take an HIV test she could have done so effortlessly. That is what Sofia really wanted. If Julian was tested Sofia’s anxiety of contracting HIV would have vanished. But nothing suggests that Anna was interested in helping Sofia. Anna was interested in using Sofia to report Julian for rape.

Anna Ardins’s apartment was on Tjurbergsgatan 36. Just across the street, some 85 meters away, is the office of HIV Sverige (HIV Sweden). An organization focused on HIV and HIV-infected persons’ rights. If Anna would have made just one phone call to HIV Sweden and asked where the nearest closest place is to get an HIV test the answer would have been at Södersjukhuset. The same hospital Sofia visited for her rape examination and where she got her anti HIV medication. A specialized clinic at Södersjukhuset, Venhälsan, performs HIV tests and they can give the result within 30 minutes thanks to advanced methods and trained staff. The test is free of charge. Walking distance to Södersjukhuset from Anna’s apartment is 950 meters, about a 10 minute walk.

Noaks Ark, on Birger Jarlsgatan, is another clinic specialized in fast HIV tests. They cooperate with Venhälsan. Both these clinics do tests on a drop-in basis. If for some reason you cannot come in during drop-in hours you can always book a time for a test. The staff knows how horrible it is to live with fear of HIV infection so they are very service minded and helpful. To have arranged for Julian to have a quick test with immediate result was not a problem for Anna.

It is not probable that Anna had any interest helping Sofia eliminate her worry of HIV. It looks as if Anna was much more interested in persuading Sofia to go to the police for “advice”. Anna must have been well aware of the fact that the police do not do HIV tests. That is the responsibility of the health services. And Anna must have known that you cannot force anybody to take an HIV test. It is not possible that Anna went to the police to get advice on HIV tests. She had another agenda. She wanted Sofia to report Julian for rape.

One peculiar circumstance in this story is Anna’s ultimatum to Julian. If Julian does not take a test “Sofia and I will go to the police” is what she says. Why is Anna so keen on going to the police? She does not want make a complaint herself according to the witnesses. Neither Sofia nor her witnesses mentions an ultimatum. On the contrary, one of the witnesses says that Sofia was disappointed with the police since things didn’t turn out the way Sofia anticipated. And during the interview, Sofia was told that Julian was arrested in absentia. When Sofia heard this she lost her concentration. The Interviewing Officer, Irmeli Krans, stopped the interview at that point.

In order to get a better understanding of the events in August we have to look at Anna’s interview in detail.

Anna Ardin’s accusations of sexual coercion, sexual molestation and molestation

Anna Ardin has in her short interview with the police come up with a number of accusations of sexual misconduct. In order to examine these accusations we have to look at one accusation at a time and compare Anna’s account of what happened to well known facts and other witnesses statements. To start, let’s look at the most serious one, the accusation of sexual coercion.

The story of the alleged sexual coercion

The alleged crime occurs in the night between August 13 and 14. In the interview Anna describes the event in a weird way. Everything would have started when Anna and Julian returns to the flat and has a cup of tea. Julian starts rubbing Anna’s legs. A gesture of intimacy Anna welcomes at first. Then Anna says she “felt uncomfortable from the start” and “everything was moving very fast”. Julian tore off Anna’s clothes, ripped a necklace, was impatient and rough. After this introduction Anna says “she was thinking that she did not really want to go any further but it was too late to say stop to Assange” so she then “allowed Assange to tear off all her clothes”.

Very quickly Anna had all her clothes removed by an impatient and rough Assange. The interview reads “Then they lay down in the bed”. She doesn’t say that Julian pushed her, guided her or in any way made her lie down. Anna consented to lie down in bed with Julian. In the end of the interview “Anna states that she voluntary had sex with Assange”.

It is when the couple lie in bed that the story takes another twist. According to Anna Julian pinned her hands down, pried her legs apart and tried to penetrate her with his penis. The couple wrestled for a while. Anna says that she was trying to reach for a condom and Julian held her hands to prevent her from doing so. When Julian was bewildered by Anna’s behavior he asked her what she was doing. She then told him, probably for the first time, that she wanted him to wear a condom. Julian let go of Anna’s hands, put a condom on and the couple started to have sex. Sex that was consensual. And as Anna describes it was void of pinned hands and other acts of violence. It is during this consensual sex that Anna notices something special about the condom. Below I will examine her condom story.

According to Anna there were elements of violence, “wrestling”, before the couple had sex. The violence ended when Julian asked Anna what she was doing and later put a condom on. Anna does not say that the reason she had sex with Julian was because of the violence prior the intercourse. The violence did not make Anna surrender to sex or in any other way influence her decision to engage in sex with Julian. She consented to the sex freely and willingly.

For me it is most difficult to figure out how the prosecutors have come up with the idea that Julian’s behavior is sexual coercion. From the Penal Code, “Brottsbalken”.

The Penal Code, Chapter 6, § 2
Whoever, otherwise than as provided in § 1 first paragraph, by unlawful coercion induces another person to undertake or endure a sexual act, is convicted of sexual coercion to imprisonment not exceeding two years.

The same applies to the carrying out a sexual act other than as referred to in § 1 second paragraph with a person under the conditions otherwise specified.

It is obvious that the first paragraph does not apply. There is no unlawful coercion and Anna consented to the sex.

The second paragraph refers to someone who by assault or otherwise by force or by threat of a criminal act compels a person to a sexual act other than one that is comparable to sexual intercourse. The violence, or force, that Anna is talking about in her statement is “assumed” to be used by Julian in order to prevent Anna from reaching a condom. Is it a sexual act to hold someone’s hands in order to prevent that person from reaching a condom? If so, is it a sexual act to hold someone’s hands from reaching a slice of pizza? It is true that Anna and Julian were naked at the time. Does that make a difference? Or is it a crime to try to pry someone’s legs apart? I don’t understand it?

Anna says in her statement that she is convinced that Julian was trying to prevent her from reaching a condom. How the act of preventing Anna from reaching a condom is regarded as some kind of sexual coercion is beyond me. Maybe I just don’t have as a “creative mind” as superior prosecutor Marianne Ny.

What is obvious from Anna’s account is that Julian is not holding Anna’s arms in order to prevent her from reaching a condom. As soon as Julian is told that she wants him to use a condom, her hands are released and Julian puts on a condom and the couple engage in consensual sex. As Anna has told her story it is difficult, not to say impossible, to fathom what the criminal act is.

I am not even sure that Anna’s description of what happened is true. Julian has not been interviewed about this so we don’t know his version yet. To me it sounds more like some kind of game played before sex.

I cannot think that Anna’s counsel, Claes Borgström, is happy with Anna’s account of events. Therefore I think that Anna is re-interviewed and given a chance to come up with a better story.

As it looks to me Anna’s story bears many characteristics of a made up story. And that Anna did not spend much time in inventing it. It just doesn’t make sense.

Kajsa Borgnäs, a supporting witness to Anna, claims that Anna did not tell her about the “wrestling” prior to sex until after Anna had been to the police. Petra Ornstein does not even mention the “wrestling” prior to sex. If the wrestling really did occur, why does not Anna tell her friends before she goes to the police? And why do Petra and Kajsa talk about that the sex was violent and that Anna was pinned down during it while Anna mentions nothing of it to the police? Anna’s supporting witnesses contradicts her story.

My conclusion is that Anna is not telling the truth about what happened. And that no sexual coercion took place.

Anna Ardin at the police station, the cause of it all

When Anna walks into the police station around 2 pm on Friday August 20 it is to support Sofia and that she has no intention to report Julian herself. This according to four witnesses.

At the police station Anna says something that makes the officer in charge, Linda Wassgren, presume that Anna too is a victim of rape. See Linda Wassgren’s Memorandum. This is the reason why the police interview Anna and why the police state that the motivation for the interview with Anna is as a suspected victim of rape.

Later on August 20 Anna is at a party with Kajsa Borgnäs. They talk about Anna´s visit to the police station. Kajsa says in her interview that Anna says something like the police have interpreted my words as if I am a victim of a crime too. Anna’s choice of words is an indication that she is not pleased with the police interpretation. It seems like Anna is starting to realize that what she has said in order to support Sofia’s story is regarded by the police as a crime committed against her. It is at this party that Kajsa for the first time hears about the violence, the wrestling and the story of the broken condom. Why is it that Anna tells Donald Boström about the broken condom before she tells her friend Kajsa? And if Anna did not tell Kajsa about the violence, the wrestling and the broken condom until August 20, what did Anna tell Kajsa at the crayfish party on August 14? I get the impression that Anna is making the whole story up on Friday prior to going to the police.

When Anna gets the information that Julian has had sex with Sofia, Anna calls Donald Boström on a number of occasions. In one conversation Anna tells Donald that when she had sex with Julian he breaks the condom and continues to have sex with her against her will. A way of saying it that resembles rape. Donald remembers this conversation very well since he thought it really odd. Destroying a condom on purpose during sex. To take it off, yes, but to destroy it, that is unusual to say the least.

According to Donald’s interview the whole matter really took of when Anna “added a sentence” when the police was talking to Sofia. It is the smoking gun in this case.

“And then Anna calls again and she says now we have been to the police and Sofia told them her story and, yes because I was sitting there so I added a sentence. This is very literal as I remember what she is telling me. Uh, oh yes I say, and what was the sentence. Yes the sentence was that I think Sofia is telling the truth because I had a similar experience Anna says then. And then she told me about the story of the condom, therefore I think it is true.”

According to Donald’s interview Anna says that her “sentence” at the police station is crucial. It is makes the police consider it more likely that Julian is guilty of rape since two women tell similar stories. The reason the police interviews Anna is because of this “sentence”. It is Anna’s eagerness to support Sofia in order to have Julian reported that is the key. When Anna had added the sentence she could not back down. She had gone too far. And from that moment at the police station everything started rolling.

My understanding of the events at the police station is that Anna was very eager to support Sofia so she would make a rape allegation. So she says something that sounded very much like as if she was raped. He broke the condom and continued to have sex with me against my will. By saying this Anna talked herself into a rape investigation without realizing it. This is why she tells Kajsa that the police had interpreted it as if she was a victim of rape as well.

The story of the broken condom

In her police interview Anna says that during sex Julian destroyed the condom and continued to have sex with her without a condom. The crime is classified as molestation or sexual molestation. The event as Anna describes it is that during sex Julian withdrew, destroyed the condom with his hand and then re-entered her and later ejaculated inside her.

It is obvious that Anna is telling the police one story. And she is telling her friends a different story. According to Petra and Kajsa, Anna was pinned down so hard during the sex that she could not move. According to Anna she was free to move during sex.

She used her free hands to check that Julian was wearing a condom twice. First when the sex was initiated because she said she wasn’t sure that Julian had put the condom on. The she checked a second time after Julian withdrew and adjusted the condom. Anna says she heard a noise as if Julian had removed the condom and she wanted to check that the condom was on Julian’s penis. So she used her hand to check.

After Julian had ejaculated he withdrew and removed the condom. In her statement Anna says: “When Assange removed the condom from his penis Anna saw that it was empty of semen.” A bit further down, “On question Anna responds that she did not look closer at the condom, if it was broken the way she thinks, but she states that she believes that she still have the condom at home and she will examine it”.

Anna’s description of the event is strange. First she says that it very important for her that Julian uses a condom since he is trying to bed any female that crosses his path. Then she says that she would never have consented to sex with Julian if she knew that he did not use a condom.

If it was so important that Julian used a condom how come that Anna did not check the condom when she saw it did not contain any semen. And how come she did not once check the condom from August 13 until August 21 when she told the police that she says she believes that she has the condom at home. Not even when she talks to Donald and says she is convinced that Julian broke the condom on purpose she decides to check the condom. What Anna says she is concerned about is not important to check. So the story is not believable.

Then another strange point. When a condom is broken it normally slides down the penis and ends up rolled-up around the root of the penis. It looks more like a rubber ring. If the condom was broken as Anna claims, how come Anna didn’t see that the condom was rolled-up around the root of Julian’s penis when she says she saw when he removed it? Petra claims that Anna had seen the condom rolled-up around the root of Julian’s penis.

In the evening of August 21 police collected a condom at Anna’s flat. In the Detention Memorandum a picture of the condom can be seen. It has half the top ripped open. It is extremely unlikely that a condom with that kind of damage will stay on a penis during intercourse. The condom will most likely slide down and end-up rolled up. Why doesn’t Anna see that the condom is rolled up around Julian’s penis. I can’t understand that.

Should one believe Anna she had the condom that was used in the night of August 13 in her house until August 21 eight days later? And not to forget, a large crayfish party in between. Crayfish are very nice to eat when fresh. But the remains from a party create a horrible odor. So it is normal to make a thorough cleaning of the house after a crayfish party. To me it just doesn’t seem plausible that a used condom is kept for a week. Just waiting to be found to support a mind-boggling story.

I have never heard of a story like this ever in my life. First that Julian destroys the condom on purpose in order to have unprotected sex with Anna. Then, that Anna has the condom in her possession seven days after it all happened. And during all this time Anna has made no effort what so ever to inspect it. I just can’t believe that this is for real.

The story of the sexual molestation on August 18

Finally Anna tells a story of how she was sexually molested by Julian on the 18th of August. Anna says that Julian “all of a sudden” had removed all his clothes on his lower body and rubbed his lower body and erect penis against her. On its own this behavior sounds odd. Maybe Julian is an odd sex offender.

When reading Anna’s statement some other important details emerge. At the time Anna was lying in bed. Julian removed his clothes to go to bed too. He left some type of clothing on his upper body. Anna doesn’t tell. Could it be a T-shirt? Then he lay down next to her in Anna’s bed. It is at this time the offensive rubbing occurs? So what did really happen? Anna doesn’t really tell. It seems like Julian in some kind of “aussie fore-play mode” tried to convey the message that he wanted Anna. Anna did not want any of it. She moved out of bed and lay down on a mattress next to the bed and continued to sleep there for the rest of the night.

Can this be regarded as sexual molestation? I really don’t think so. You have to be really strict to convict someone for this type of behavior. It seems like Anna is trying to make up another story in order to convince the police that Julian is some kind of sex offender.

When did Anna Ardin get into contact with Sofia Wilén?

According to Petra Ornstein’s interview Anna Ardin learned about the existence of the other woman on Wednesday 17 or Thursday 18 August. What Anna was told about Sofia’s connection with Julian Petra does not reveal. And the police do not ask any follow up questions.

According to Donald Boström’s interview Anna called him on Thursday to tell him about Sofia. That Sofia had been raped by Julian. Anna also tells Donald that she had sex with Julian and that it was more like an assault.

If Petra and Donald are correct then Anna is not telling the truth in her interview with the police. She says that she first learned about Sofia’s encounter with Julian on Friday morning when she got a text message from Sofia and followed it up with a phone call.

What we know is that Anna did not volunteer the information about Sofia and her conversations with Sofia in the police interview. The police did investigate Sofia’s and Anna’s relationship.

It cannot be ruled out that Donald is making a mistake about the day Anna called him the first time to tell him about Sofia. Anna’s behavior on Thursday evening is an indication that she learned everything about Sofia on Thursday. she did not co-habit with Julian on Thursday night.

It is very important for the case to find out when Sofia and Anna got in contact the first time to talk about sexual encounters with Julian.

Is Julian hitting on every female that crosses his path?

In Anna’s statement she talks about Julian’s reputation as a womanizer. She wants us to believe that before she had sex with Julian, she knew this. That is why Anna wants a condom to be used.

Kajsa reports that Julian was very flirtatious at the crayfish party. He was hitting on her too and tried to follow Kajsa home

Donald and Johannes are asked by the police about Julian’s behavior at the crayfish party. They did not note that Julian was flirtatious. On the contrary, Johannes says that it seemed like the girls present at the party were more interested in Julian than he was in them.

About Julian staying in Anna Ardin’s flat

Anna says in her interview that she had planned to be away from Stockholm until the day of the seminar, August 14. Julian was informed he could stay in her flat until the 14th. Anna returned home one day earlier than agreed.

Since Johannes was responsible for Julian during his stay he was most interested in finding out where Julian was staying. During the crayfish party Anna told Johannes that it was perfectly ok that Julian stayed with her in her flat. On a few occasions later that week Johannes checked with Anna that everything was ok and that Julian could stay with her. On every occasion Anna indicated that it was all right.

To me it is not likely that Anna would have allowed Julian to stay if he had sexually assaulted her as she describes in the police interview. Why would she agree to let a sex offender share her bed? It does not make sense. Anna’s willingness to let Julian share her bed after the alleged crime is another indication that Anna’s story is made up after she learned about Sofia’s encounter with Julian.

Why are the crimes reported so late?

Anna is reporting “crimes” that occurred seven days earlier. Sofia is reporting a “crime” that is three days old. Why the girls waited to report the crimes and how come they did it together is not investigated by police.

According to Anna’s friends, Anna did not want to report Julian. That is also supported by Donald’s and Johannes interview. The reason Anna followed Sofia to the police station was to offer support.

Donald makes an interesting observation in his conversations with Anna just after the girls have been to the police. Anna said something to support Sofia’s story. And the police interpreted Anna’s words as if Anna was a victim too. It seems like Anna had not anticipated this outcome. Anna said something that she could not retract. And since she had started to talk about being assaulted she just had to continue to make up a story that went along with what she said at the police station.

Donald Boström reflects

If you have managed to read up to here you probably agree with me that there are so many things that just don’t add up. Something is not right in this story. And I think it is Anna Ardin’s story. I just want to bring up one more that I think is important.

In his final remarks Donald informs the police about an issue that has bothered him a long time. During the cray fish party Donald overheard a conversation between Anna and Julian. He is sitting close to them. Eating cray fish. She says to Julian that she felt dumped when he, after sex, had walked out of bed into the bathroom to work with his computer. Why would she say that if she did not have a relationship with Julian? Is that something you would say to a person that has sexually assaulted you some 20 hours earlier. Obviously Donald does not think so.

Was Anna Ardin sexually assaulted or did she make up the story

Anna has told the police that she was sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. Is there anything that supports her story? In my effort to try to sort the case out I haven’t found anything that supports her story. Not even Anna’s friends statements support her story. They actually contradict Anna on a number of points.

What are the indications that Anna’s story is made up? Her own account of what has happened is an important indication that the story is made up. A simple “duck-test” shows that. But what is very telling is Anna’s own behavior.

  • After the “assault” Anna worked together with Julian at the seminar
  • After the seminar Anna decided to throw a crayfish party for Julian
  • At the party Anna decides that it Julian is welcome to stay in her flat
  • At the party Anna tweets about “the coolest smartest folks”
  • On Sunday August 15 Anna volunteers to become Julian’s press secretary
  • It is not until Thursday that Anna learns about the existence of Sofia’s encounter with Julian and it is not until Thursday that Anna chooses not to co-habit with Julian
  • On Friday she tells friends and contacts that Sofia has been raped by Julian even though Sofia did not say so to any of her friends.
  • On Friday she does everything she can to coerce Sofia to go to the police to get “advice”
  • Anna tells friends and contacts that she has no intention of reporting Julian
  • In connection to the police report Anna deletes three tweets
  • Anna contacts the Pirate Party and asks them to remove her name from the press release of the 17 of August where she is listed as Julian’s press secretary
  • In a conversation with Kajsa Anna says that the police misinterpreted what Anna said at the police station
  • In the police interview Anna leaves out a lot of information about what has happened. She says nothing about her tweets, her role as press secretary, what she talked to Sofia about, conversations with Donald etc.
  • On August 21 Anna closes her blog
  • On the night between September 13 and 14 Anna deletes her tweets a second time. This time from her “mirror” blog annaardin.bloggy.se

The list above in connection with all the inconsistencies in Anna’s statement to the police is enough to make anybody understand that Anna Ardin has made her story up. She is falsely accusing Julian Assange of sex crimes.

The alternative hypothesis

It is almost certain that Anna Ardin’s accusations are made up. And I have shown that virtually all available facts support this theory. In order to prove it the police have to make an investigation about false accusation (falsk tillvitelse) and re-interview Anna and some of the witnesses.

I am accusing Anna Ardin of criminal behavior. And I am fully aware that my accusation could have serious repercussions if I am wrong. It is my sincere hope that the police would finally investigate this case thoroughly. Just because I am convinced that Anna Ardin makes a false accusation does not make her guilty. Anna Ardin is innocent until she is found guilty in a court of law.

The hypothesis that Superior Prosecutor Marianne Ny’s for some reason is sticking to is that Julian Assange is guilty of a series of sex crimes. This hypothesis is most likely completely wrong. Facts and witness statements contradict this hypothesis.

Based on known facts and witness statements I have tried to reconstruct what happened in August between Julian and the two females. It is a much more plausible explanation than Marianne Ny’s hypothesis. It is an alternative hypothesis and I call it “Revenge by proxy.”

Revenge by proxy

Julian Assange arrived in Stockholm on August 11 and received a rock star’s welcome. He was on TV every day and he visited all the major news networks. Anna Ardin, an admirer of Julian and WikiLeaks, had been part of Julian’s coming to Sweden. She had arranged a seminar on August 14 and had the function of press secretary for the seminar. Anna had also arranged so that Julian stayed in her flat while in Stockholm

Anna returned to Stockholm one day earlier, August 13, than agreed in order to meet with Julian. The couple met, had a meal and progressed quickly to have romantic encounter, simple sex, in Anna’s flat.

The following day Julian and Anna worked together at the seminar and Anna arranged for the press to interview Julian. After the seminar Julian, Anna and a number of people had lunch. Sofia Wilén, another admirer of Julian, was invited to tag along. Sofia had assisted at the seminar and was “rewarded” by being invited for lunch. During the lunch Sofia and Julian flirted. They later left for some lighter erotic activity. At the lunch Anna decided to throw a crayfish party for Julian later that night.

Anna was very pleased to be close to Julian and having him sharing her flat. In a tweet she tells the world that Julian would like to eat crayfish and that Anna is connected to Julian. It is obvious that Anna is showing off her newly developed relationship to Julian.

In the evening Julian, Donald, Johannes and some friends of Anna get together at Anna’s place to eat crayfish. During the party Donald overhears a conversation between Julian and Anna where she tells Julian that she felt dumped when Julian in the middle of night left her bed and worked on his computer. An indication that Anna at the time somehow felt connected to Julian. Anna decided it was ok for Julian to stay on.

During the party Julian had a telephone conversation with Sofia. At about 2 am on Sunday morning Anna told the world by a tweet that she was very pleased to be in the company with the “world’s coolest smartest people”. At this time everything indicates that Anna was very pleased with Julian’s company. Nothing indicates that Julian had assaulted her the previous night.

On Sunday 15 Anna volunteers to become Julian’s press secretary at a meeting with the Pirate Party. Since Julian had come to Stockholm to apply for a work and residence permit it is likely that Anna thought that being press secretary meant an ongoing contact with Julian.

On Monday Julian visits Sofia and has sex with her Tuesday morning. On Wednesday Julian applies for work and residence permits.

Things are going well and Anna is very proud to be in the company of “information Jesus”. It gives her high status in her circle of friends. Anna understands that by being close to Julian she might increase her political importance. So she enjoys it in full.

Sofia is disappointed that Julian doesn’t call back. She is left all alone with worries of HIV. Some time, on Thursday 19 or Friday 20, Sofia contacts Anna in order to get in contact with Julian.

On Thursday August 19 Anna is made aware that Julian has had sex with Sofia. Anna does not spend the night in her flat but chooses to stay with a friend. When Anna realized that Julian was not in for a longer relationship, he was only in it for the sex, she lost it. She was disappointed and pissed off. She had made arrangements for him to come to Sweden, she had opened her flat and legs for him, she volunteered to become his Swedish press secretary, she did everything she could for him.

It is obvious to an outside observer that it is very important to Anna what other people think of her. She had shown “the world”, by tweets and comments, that she was close to Julian and WikiLeaks and all what it stands for. And when all of a sudden this picture she had painted of herself was disintegrating just because Julian was thinking with his dick. She got really mad.

So she started to think of how she could get even with Julian. To make him suffer. Anna is not unfamiliar with revenge. On January 19, 2010 she posted a “Seven step program on how to get legal revenge.” The reason for Anna to post it? Why not use her own words:

“Sometimes it is difficult to go on without some kind of payback. As a human being you should be able to understand that. In this case I was very upset with someone who betrayed me for a long time. My revenge at that point consisted in posting this translation.”

The revenge by proxy plan

On Friday August 20 Anna has come up with a plan. And that is to create hell for Julian without being seen as the person responsible. Sofia is the perfect tool for Anna. Sofia wants to get into contact with Julian because she is seriously worried that she’s contracted HIV and she wants Julian to take an HIV-test so she can stop worry about it. Anna spots an opportunity.

So the plan is to make Sofia report Julian for a sexual offence. Then Anna will be almost invisible in the background. To make this plan come true all Anna has to do is to talk to Sofia and somehow get Sofia to a police station. Then Anna can support Sofia’s statement and Julian will be in trouble..

To make the story believable for Anna’s friends Anna starts by saying that Sofia has been raped. And that she, just like an older sister, will help and support Sofia to go to the police. Anna tells her friends she has no interest in reporting Julian herself. The real reason is that she was not in any way assaulted but that information was left out.

To set the ball in motion Sofia is influenced to go to the rape clinic at Södersjukhuset. There she can be examined and get the prophylactic medicine against HIV. Anna talks to Donald and says that if Julian does not take an HIV test now she and Sofia will go to the police. When Julian does not comply it is easy for Anna to coax Sofia go to the police under the notion to get advice on how to make Julian take an HIV test.

At the police station Anna and Sofia are telling their stories. When Sofia is giving her account, Anna fills in with a sentence in order to support Sofia’s story. Anna does not realize that the police listen very carefully to what Anna is saying and they deduct that Anna is a victim of rape too. And since it is two women that have experience similar events it becomes more important for the police to get hold of Julian. So Julian is arrested in absentia and Anna is up for a rape investigation.

After Julian is arrested Anna leaves the police station. She understands that she will be interviewed at some time but she has not yet made up her story so it is better for her to leave.

Later that evening Anna talks to Kajsa Borgnäs and reveals for the first time details of the wrestling, the broken condom etc. It is a dress-rehearsal for what Anna will tell the police.

The following day Anna is interviewed by police and she is doing her best not to reveal any information surrounding the alleged crime. And the little she says does not really make sense.

Does facts and witness statements support the alternative hypothesis?

As shown there is no indication that the relationship between Julian and Anna was disturbed before August 19. Julian stayed with Anna until the 20th of August. She became his press secretary. She arranged a crayfish party and she tweeted happily about his company. Instead it suggest that they got on well.

Nothing in Donald Boström’s or Johannes Wahlström’s interviews indicate there was any sexual assault August 13/14. On the contrary actually.

Kajsa Borgnäs’ says was told the full story after Anna already had been to the police. The question is then, what was she told before Anna went to the police? Judging from Kajsa’s reaction, nothing very much. Kajsa did not take notice of what Anna said at the crayfish party. Kajsa is not even sure if what she was told at the crayfish party..

The only remaining witness is Petra Ornstein. She says she didn’t understand the importance of what Anna said at the crayfish party. It was not until the day after, Sunday, that she finally understood what Anna was saying. How come then that Petra’s account of what Anna told her is very different from what Anna herself told the police?

So it is basically Anna’s statement that is the only indication that something wasn’t right.

Most witnesses confirm that Anna did not want to report Julian. And that Anna had said that Sofia was raped and that Sofia wanted to report Julian. According to Sofia’s witnesses none except Seth, Sofia’s ex boyfriend talks of rape.

Anna’s story about the wrestling before the sex and the story about the deliberately destroyed condom is not believable. And the fact that Anna, eight days after the sex, says she thinks she still has the used condom in her possession is just another remarkable detail. Add to this that she says that it was very important for her that a condom should be used and that she is convinced that Julian destroyed it deliberately and she has made no effort what so ever to examine the condom.

And if as this wasn’t enough, we have Anna’s behavior as very strong indicator that she is making stories up and hiding things that she does not want the police to see.

What happened after the case got media attention?

When chief prosecutor Eva Finné dismisses the rape allegations on August 21  Anna Ardin is left all alone. The “revenge by proxy plan” has back fired. Instead of being able to hide behind Sofia, Anna is exposed as the one and only accuser of Julian Assange. It was not what she had planned. She has to do something and do something quick. It is too late to back down so she is left with no alternative than to go forward.

Anna contacts Claes Borgström and asks him to become complainants’ counsel for her and Sofia. It is a very good choice. Claes Borgström who lost a lot of his credibility in the famous Thomas Quick case realizes that he might regain some of his former glory. Claes Borgström jumps at the opportunity. If you want to know about the significance of Claes Borgström please click here.

Then Anna is very lucky. When Julian Assange realizes he is accused of being a rapist he starts talking about “dark forces” and he is doing everything he can to make the case look like it is WikiLeaks against ”evil USA and its puppet Sweden”. Media and bloggers worldwide are looking for conspiracies and other completely bizarre explanations. Nobody seems to be interested in the actual facts, the allegations from the two girls. Everybody is talking about something else.

When the case is re-opened by Superior Prosecutor Marianne Ny and Julian is not immediately interviewed, Julian gets very suspicious. He doesn’t trust the police and the prosecutors. When finally Marianne Ny wants to interview Julian after 21 days of waiting he does not want to show up. On September 27 he leaves Sweden to never return.

Julian was booked as a speaker on a seminar regarding Afghanistan on October 6 and was supposed to be a speaker at a demonstration on October 9. Julian chooses to break these commitments because he did not want to be questioned by police.

Since it looks like Julian is trying to avoid being questioned by the police the prosecutor finally issues an European Arrest Warrant, EAW, and Julian is arrested in London on December 7. From that time to case goes completely wild in all directions. Julian and his English defenses counsel supported by a number of celebrities goes on a media rampage trying to portray Sweden as a puppet to the US and the legal system as a new version of the legal system in the Soviet Union during Stalin’s reign. With the difference that now it is run by feminists. Mark Stephens even makes references to Marianne Ny as being like Stalin’s hangman Berija. Julian is in some paranoid state making remarks like “ Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism. The English defense team is also trying to portray Sweden as the 51st state in the US and that the reason Sweden wants Julian extradited for is just to be able to send Julian to Guantanamo to make Sarah Palin happy. The risk of being extradited to the US is actually higher when Julian is in the UK.

In a later article I will come back to the grave errors Julian and his defense team have made that has made the case more difficult. What is important to realize is that Julian’s criticism is so incorrect that even supporters of Julian and WikiLeaks start to think that Julian actually is guilty. The defense strategy might have worked at the Frontline Club in London but it was a disaster in Sweden. To make it even more ridiculous the defense team then started to argue that the media climate in Sweden is so negative to Julian Assange that it is likely that he will not get a fair trial.

I will confess and say yes, there are many things wrong with the legal system in Sweden. Julian has pointed at a few of the problems. In a later article I will describe the situation in more detail.

When Julian decides to avoid coming in for an interview and starts trying to defend himself in a bizarre way Anna Ardin’s luck is made. Her accusations are not at the center. Instead comic figures like Michael Moore proves to the world that he doesn’t have a clue of what the Assange case is about and that his knowledge of the Swedish legal system is about the same. To get an idea of Michael Moore’s insight please read this open letter to Mr Moore.

Conclusion

This extremely long article is an attempt of trying put the spotlight on the heart of the matter. What happened in Stockholm in August 2010 and what is it that the accusers really say. It is also an attempt to say do not listen to what Julian Assange is saying because he does not seem to understand what the case is about. He seems to be more interested as portraying himself as being hunted by almost every dark force on the planet.

The police and prosecutors have made an extremely poor investigation, see here. And the investigation is biased, see article. Police and prosecutor’s have spent time trying to find evidence that Julian is guilty of the alleged crimes without doing anything to hear his version of events. The police and prosecutors have broken the very important rule of making sure an investigation is objective. The suspect’s rights have to be considered.

There is no doubt that Anna Ardin is making false accusations. It is blatantly obvious. That the police and prosecutors have not discovered this already in August is proof of unimaginable incompetence. It also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Swedish authorities cannot investigate sexcrimes. If the police cannot discriminate between an obviously false accusation and true accusation there is no way real victims of sexcrimes will get justice.

Claes Borgström is acting as the complainants’ counsel. It must have been totally clear for him that Anna Ardin’s accusations are false. It cannot be the complainants counsel’s legal privilege to give support to false accusations.

This case would have ended very quickly if Julian Assange had acted correctly from the beginning. It is not a crime to be clumsy to “juggle” two females at the same time. But if Julian from the start would just have said that this is a private matter, it has nothing to do with WikiLeaks, there are some misunderstandings and I will deal with. Just a few well chosen words would have stopped the case in August. And if Julian would have gone for an interview he would have been able to walk out within two hours.

So what is there to do now?

To me it would make sense that Julian Assange would accuse Anna Ardin of false allegations and ask the police to start an investigation. Then he could ask to see what actions the police took around the 16-17 of September when I gave evidence that indicated that Anna Ardin’s story was fabricated.

Then it is time for Julian to get on a plane to Sweden and answer some questions. Or, if he chooses, he can remain silent. But that is not a clever strategy if he is accusing Anna Ardin of making false allegations.

The biggest obstacle in solving  this case is Julian Assange himself. In order to come to an end Julian has to acknowledge what some of us already know. That his defense up to now has been useless and that Julian’s analysis of the case has been incorrect from day one. It takes courage to admit that you are wrong. But it has one great upside. You may be right for the rest of your life.

A final remark. I don’t think that Sofia Wilén has had any intention hurt Julian Assange. She was worried sick of contracting HIV and she was ruthlessly exploited by Anna Ardin. So I am really sorry for Sofia. But I cannot stop to think that one reason that Sofia ended up in this mess is that we do not have simple and easy to understand sex laws. Hopefully this case will have one positive result. That in the future men and women in Sweden will know the difference between consensual sex and sex crime.

15 thoughts on “Sex, lies, no videotape and more lies. False accusations in the Assange case

  1. It is very foolish for the author to think that authorities in the USA do not have a serious interest in this case and that Assange has nothing to fear if he returns to Sweden.

  2. “He seems to be more interested as portraying himself as being hunted by almost every dark force on the planet.” Well, for obvious reasons, he probably is XD
    But that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the case at hand…

    Great piece of investigative journalism. This is really the kind of work the “quality media” is supposed to produce, sadly they seem preoccupied with covering the daily activities of celebrities and other equally “important” events -.-

  3. Great article. The only thing I would disagree with is that Julian Assange is desperately dodging being interviewed again. He stayed in Sweden for weeks after the women went to the police. Being an Australian, he would have expected to be interviewed again ASAP. If he had been trying to avoid another interview, he would have left immediately after the first one.

    His lawyer tried to organise an interview multiple times. He asked for permission before leaving the country, and later offered to come back, only to be told he couldn’t be interviewed on the date’s he was available. As far as I am aware, he is still happy to be interviewed in London, which may not be ideal, but considering his accusers were able to give their statements unrecorded/over the phone, seems fair.

    • Let’s agree on some issues. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, is violating some fundamental principles. In the law regulating Judicial Procedures (Rättegångsbalken) Chapter 23, §4 it states that the prosecutor (investigator) has to carry out the investigation in an objective manner. From this requirement of objectivity in the investigation follows that the investigator has to investigate alternative hypotheses that appear as reasonable even if the suspect himself did not put forward any other events and even if he admitted the crime. The investigator should be open to and explore all reasonable hypotheses. It also states that an investigation should be performed as swift as circumstances admit. It is obvious that no alternative hypothesis are investigated and that the prosecutor for no real reason waited 21 days to try to interview Julian.

      What did Julian’s lawyer Björn Hurtig do? On two occasions he has asked Marianne Ny to interview Julian. Marianne Ny has declined both offers. It is not until September 21 that Marianne Ny asks to interview Julian. This delay is in breach of Ch. 23 §4.

      Now let’s look at Julian. He remained in Sweden until September 27. He had committed himself to appear at a seminar on October 6 and to be a speaker at a demonstration on October 9. When Björn Hurtig tried to contact Julian on September 22 Julian could not be reached so he left a message. Julian choose to do nothing, avoided the issue. Julian then cancelled his appearance at the seminar and the demonstration. Avoiding being interviewed.

      Julian did not ask for permission to leave the country. Julian did not contact his lawyer prior to leaving. His lawyer asked on September 15 if Julian was under arrest or had any other restrictions, that is being restricted to leave the country.

      My view on this is very simple. The only way to avoid extradition is that the arrest warrant in the Swedish court is withdrawn. The Swedish arrest warrant is the basis for the European Arrest Warrant. Even if the extradition from the UK is stopped, which I doubt, Julian would have to go through the same procedure again if he goes to another European country. The case can only be solved in Sweden.

      It is evident that Julian does not take advice from his Swedish lawyer. Why that is I don’t know.

  4. Excellent article. The only thing that concerns me is that if the case is so obviously flawed, why hasn’t it been dropped (again)?

    • Mysterious Z,

      You know. I am just as puzzled as you are. Maybe the the people that are responsible are die hard vegetarians and hate “duck tests”. This case sure beats me.

      But there is one thing that you should know about Sweden that most people don’t know. We are the only country in the world that invented driving on the left side of the road with cars that were equipped with the steering-wheel to the left. And in a referendum in 1955 82,9% of the population thought that it was the way to go. On September 1967, against popular opinion, we finally got right hand drive.

      One day we will know why the case hasn’t been dropped a long time ago. And hopefully heads will roll.

  5. Great article. You should write a book about this case one day.

    Are you sure of your interpretation of Swedish law, though? You and Eva Finné say SW’s allegations are not rape. Marianne Ny and Claes Borgström say they are rape. The Swedish courts approved the arrest warrant, so presumably some judges think it’s rape too. Who is right?

    A further point about the now-infamous condom. The lack of DNA found on the condom suggests that it was never used for sex and in fact was taken fresh from the packet. I’m not an expert and so can’t verify the accuracy of this, but see here for details:

    http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml

    • Regarding the interpretation of Swedish law. The law says that sex with someone that is in a helpless state due to sleep etc is criminal. The issue is whether or not Sofia was in a helpless state. My interpretation is that she was not in a helpless state. And that any other interpretation is out of the question.

      If the interpretation is that Sofia was in a helpless state it will have enormous implications. That would mean that everybody in the nation would be regarded as being in a helpless state while sleeping and that all sexual touches/acts between a married couple while one partner is sleeping would be criminal. This interpretation is not possible even if some people like Claes Borgströma and maybe Marianne Ny wants to interpret the law this way.

      The condom. I say that Anna Ardin is making false accusations. She is making up the story about the condom. What DNA the condom contains is irrelevant. That is why I don’t write anything about DNA of the condom.

      • “The condom. I say that Anna Ardin is making false accusations. She is making up the story about the condom. What DNA the condom contains is irrelevant. That is why I don’t write anything about DNA of the condom.”

        But the lack of DNA supports your assertion that the accusation is false. Surely that is relevant?

  6. Pingback: Weird accusation and proof of lies FreeAssange.org « Free Julian Assange!

  7. *Read somewhere that since Sofia Wilen had not signed her ‘statement’. New evidence was required for Ny to proceed with the case. The same source suggested that Ardin could produce anything as ‘new evidence’ as this would suit the prosecution’s purpose. It was a while ago and I’m probably confused – but never mind.

    • If you read Craig Murray’s blog, the article on Irmeli Krans, you will in the comment section find that I commented and the blog exploded. Maybe I wasn’t so diplomatic after all. But after a while most seemed to understand that we don’t know if Sofia signed her statement but most likely she has. And it is not really a matter in a Swedish court. It is very different from how it is in the UK.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>