The Assange case starts when Julian does not answer his phone when a female he had sex with calls him. The female, Sofia Wilén, then calls Anna Ardin, another recent sex partner of Julian’s, which eventually leads to a police report. And the whole story gets started. When Julian’s lawyer tries to get hold of him, he continues not to answer his phone, which over time leads to a European Arrest Warrant, EAW, and finally the case ends up in England’s Supreme Court.
Of course, none of the people involved will ever admit that the case may be all about over-use of Caller ID. They’d rather talk about corrupt authorities, political interference, conspiracies, onward extradition to the U.S., CIA, Pentagon, State Feminism, lay jurors, Jewish media conspiracies, dark forces, openness and transparency versus secrecy, evil prosecutors, honey-traps, Karl Rove, Mutual Legal Assistance, proportionality, secret talks between Swedish and US authorities, etc.
Much of what has been written in the Assange case is based on fallacies, misconceptions and fictional information. In this article I will show that a source that Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Justice for Assange and WikiLeaks Central regard as credible, Rixstep, invents facts and writes bizarre articles based on these made up facts.
It is evident that the prosecutor twice has made agreements with Julian Assange’s lawyer Björn Hurtig on dates for interviews. On 28 September and 14 October. When Björn tried to get hold of Julian to ensure that he would attend, Julian made himself unavailable. Something that Julian’s lawyers have confirmed. Instead, Julian left Sweden on 27 September and flew to Berlin on flight SK 2679.
During the Afghanistan week, 4 to 9 October 2010, Julian was booked as a speaker since 15 August. He was to appear along with Pratap Chatterjee and Jesper Huor on 6 October at 6.30 pm at the ABF house on Sveavägen in Stockholm. The topic was “About the victims of war.” Since it was known that Julian Assange would be a speaker at the event media was present. Superior prosecutor Marianne Ny also knew about Julian’s participation during Afghanistan Week. She made arrangements for him to be interviewed on 6 October.
Julian never showed up at ABF-house on 6 October. The interrogation had to be cancelled. Neither did he appear at the demonstration October 9 where he was supposed to give a speech. To this day, Julian has not explained why didn’t show up for these events.
Peculiar news about Julian Assange’s computer
“Who stole Julian Assange’s computer?” is the headline of an article published 13 October 2010. According to the source Pratap Chatterjee Julian Assange’s computer was stolen from his back-pack when he flew from Stockholm to Berlin. Because of the loss Julian could not make it to Stockholm during Afghanistan Week. The article is written by Stefan Lindgren, vice president of the association Afghanistan Solidarity. The article insinuates that Swedish, British or US intelligence forces are behind the theft. There’s a reference to an article in Svenska Dagbladet. But there is nothing in Svenska Dagbladet about any computer theft.
When Stefan Lindgren published his article, 16 days have passed since the alleged theft had occurred. During these 16 days there is not one mentioning of Julian losing computers. Not by Julian or anyone else. Stefan Lindgren is first in the world to report this story.
At 12:42 pm 13 October, the Flashback forum noticed that “the persecution of Julian continues”:
The news is discussed on the forum. At this point most of the participants seem to be critical to the veracity of the story. The Flashback discussions are here.
“Lindgren is rather biased and insinuating. Chatterjee is not some objective type either. He has spent about all his life spreading his idea of how much evil Americans have made in the world.
In this specific case, Chatterjee alleged that Assange told him that his computer disappeared traveling in or out of a country. And then one begins to insinuate that it probably has to be the works of some intelligence agency. We have no idea what has happened or if it is even reported to the police.”
Rick “©®™” Downes cooks the information at Rixstep’s factory of deception
Stefan Lindgren’s article about the stolen computer is quickly noted by Rick “©®™” Downes. A translation is published 14 October at Rixstep.com. In a preface Rick “©®™” Downes writes:
“He cites an article published by SvD but the article doesn’t mention Assange or any computer theft.” “No other reference to a computer theft from the WikiLeaks founder can be found online at time of writing; Lindgren’s article cites no sources aside from Chatterjee (who does not in any way corroborate the story) and cites no links whatsoever.”
At this time there is no confirmation what so ever that a theft had occurred. A normally equipped person would not have spread this unconfirmed information. But Rick “©®™ ‘Downes is not normal. And he works at the deception factory Rixstep. Of course he publishes. But he doesn’t stop there. Rick “©®™” Downes then cooks the information. And out comes something completely new. A stolen computer out of a backpack is transformed into three missing laptops stolen from Julian’s checked luggage. In no time, Rick “©®™” Downes invents a story. A story that he hastily publishes on WikiLeaks Central without anybody reacting. Obviously nobody checks facts at WikiLeaks Central.
There is no doubt that Rick “©®™” Downes fabricated this story. If you are familiar with Rick “©®™” Downes’ writings on Rixstep you know that fabricating stories is his trade mark.
Is there anybody that trusts Rixstep’s fabricated story? Unfortunately yes. A large number of Julian Assange supporters believe this nonsense. And of course the famous disinformer Israel Shamir. The story fits well into Israel Shamir home cooked and twisted conspiracy theories. In the beginning of February 2011 he uses the story of the three stolen computers in his article, “Mother of all smears”:
Is it too conspiratorial of me to recognize a disturbing pattern? Could it be that three stolen laptops of Julian Assange found their last resting place at Leigh&Sweeney after a brief sojourn at Langley?
The fact that the story isn’t true doesn’t bother Israel Shamir. His other stories are not true either.
In March 2011 the Flashback community is at it again. This time the story is regarded true and the three missing computers are used as some kind of proof that the Swedish police is incompetent since they don’t investigate the loss of computers properly.
On 9 July 2011, a few days before the hearing in High Court, the black propaganda artist Rick “©®™ ‘Downes posts a long article with lots of made up facts. He uses the fictional theft to smear Thomas Bodström, former Minister of Justice. According to Rick “©®™” Downes it is obvious that Thomas Bodström’s friends are the evil minds behind the computer theft. After accusing superior prosecutor Marianne Ny of double-crossing Julian the black propaganda artist goes on:
It's at this point Julian Assange realises the game isn't as simple as he'd like to believe. This isn't just a matter of resolving a misunderstanding or settling a legal matter - there are sinister forces afoot. Starting now, Julian knows he's up against something more than anyone had reckoned with.
But Rick “©®™ ‘Downes is not very good liar. He lacks one important quality. Good memory. In his article the number of lost computers slipped his feeble mind. Three have now become two.
But his bags were stolen at the Arlanda airport near Upplands-Väsby outside the capital city. Julian's a careful guy and odds are his data was well protected, but he still lost two Apple laptops to spooks better trained than he. This upset his plans and ultimately meant he'd be detained longer than expected in London. Not much is said about this theft on Swedish soil. Julian hasn't said much either. But it's hard to imagine such an op being carried out without the assistance of Thomas Bodström's good friends. It's not known or proven Bodström was in fact involved; it's just nigh on impossible to make the pieces of the puzzle fit together without factoring him in. Once he's factored in, the pieces fit too perfectly. But at any rate: Julian arrives in Berlin two laptops short.
It is true that not much is said about this theft. Nothing is said by Julian. But it doesn’t bother Rick “©®™” Downes. Lack of facts is not a problem for a professional lier, it is an opportunity. If there aren’t any facts, just make them up. Truth doesn’t matter for Rick “©®™” Downes. What’s important is the smearing.
In early October of 2011 the issue of the lost computer reappear at the Flashback forum. Now everyone is convinced that the theft is for real. When someone suggests that the theft could have been propaganda invented by Julian he is ignored totally.
The truth starts to emerge
On 8 January 2012, the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi publishes a series of tweets that reveal what really happened in Berlin on 27 September 2010. The reason that Stefania publishes these tweets is to support the idea that Julian did not “flee” Sweden in order to avoid questioning.
Stefania tells us that on arrival Julian lost his luggage but his computer was secure. It was not stolen. From this we can deduct that Stefan Lindgren’s article is made up.
Why I am interested in the “stolen” computers now
In the end of February 2012, I found out that Rick “©®™” Downes is accusing Al Burke, the editor of Nordic News Network, for copyright infringement. Rick “©®™” Downes claims to be the owner of the copyright of the translation of the detention memorandum. With the stubbornness of a drunken litigioust Rick “©®™” Downes bombards Harald Ullman with mails and threats of legal action. As Rick “©®™” Downes’ behavior is completely insane I decided to have a quick look at the man himself.
Is Rick “©®™” Downes a professional liar? To answer that question let’s look at what the Urban Dictionary has to say:
A professional liar is someone who is able to make up a story and tell it in such a way with false supporting details to make listeners believe its true. A good listener however will be able to pick up that some part of that story does not correspond with other parts of it. However when these types of liars are caught in the act they rarely ever have support to back up there story. Most of these types of liars are very insecure about themselves so they make up lies to convince themselves that they are something when in reality they are nothing. Liars like this never admit they are lying because that is there way of life.
What is the truth about the lost computers?
We know for a fact that Julian Assange’s luggage was lost when he flew to Berlin on 27 September. What we don’t know yet is what it contained. I’ve asked Kristinn Hrafnsson and Julian Assange for a comment but I haven’t received one yet. Almost 18 months has passed since the alleged theft and still there is not one official comment.
On September 27 2010 at 5:20 pm Julian Assange left Sweden on SAS flight SK 2679 bound for Berlin. Around 7 pm he landed at Tegel Airport and was met by Marcel Rosenbach from Der Spiegel. On arrival Julian’s checked luggage was nowhere to be found. When the airport staff was questioned about tag SK 847 249 it was discovered the luggage had never been loaded at Arlanda. Marcel Rosenbach remembers that Julian’s luggage was lost but he cannot confirm any mentioning of lost computers.
Later in the evening of 27 Sep Julian met with the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi at the Best Western Hotel am Spittelmarkt. Julian mentioned his lost luggage. But nothing about missing computers. See Stefania Maurizis tweets about the event:
Stefania comments Julian’s lost luggage: “I tried 2dispel some paranoid abt the luggage: his laptop was still there, I could not believe the CIA more interested in his socks.” Julian responded: “I bring this laptop ALWAYS with me: it is not possible that get lost.”
Stefania’s tweets confirm that Julian had his laptop in his possession at arrival in Berlin. We can conclusively rule out that Julian’s personal computer was stolen from his rucksack as suggested by Stefan Lindgren’s article.
Björn Hurtig was in contact with Julian on 28 September. A call Stefania Maurizi over heard. Björn was told that Julian had lost his luggage when he flew to Berlin. Julian did not mention any computers lost with the luggage. If Julian had mentioned it Björn would have made a police report immediately. And he would have used the information in Julian’s defense. A mysterious loss of Julian’s computers could be an indication of foul play.
On October 26, 2010 Julian was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. The reason for the interview was that WikiLeaks was under siege. In the interview Julian had this to say about his lost luggage:
“When I left Sweden on the 27th of September, my—to a flight to Berlin on SAS, one of the world’s most—if not the world’s most reputable airline—my luggage disappeared. That was the—I was the only case in that plane.”
There is no mentioning of lost computers. If the theft was for real it is most likely that Julian would have mentioned the fact in the interview.
Julian is a cautious and safety conscious person. It doesn’t make sense that he would pack three laptops in his checked luggage. Luggage gets lost sometimes and there is a risk of damage in transit.
All air-lines have rules about what you are allowed in your checked baggage. In SAS we find the following text:
you must not include in your Checked Baggage fragile or perishable items or items having a special value, such as but not limited to: money, keys, prescribed medicines, glasses/sunglasses, bottles, cameras, jewellery, precious metals, computers, personal electronic devices, cellular telephones, musical instruments, negotiable papers, securities or other valuables, business documents, passports and other identification documents, or samples.
To put computers in checked baggage is not only stupid, it is against the rules too. This makes it even less likely that Julian did put computers in his checked baggage.
Julian has on many occasions stated that he is being monitored by numerous intelligence organizations. If three of his computers were lost in a mysterious incident at an airport, it is most likely that he would tell the world about it because it could be proof that he actually is being followed by dark forces.
A summary of facts:
- It is highly unlikely that Julian would pack computers in his checked luggage.
- It is against SAS rules to have computers in the checked luggage.
- If Julian lost three computers in a mysterious theft at the Arlanda airport, it is likely that he would comment on it.
- Marcel Rosenbach who met Julian at the airport in Berlin cannot confirm loss of any computers.
- Stefania Maurizi who met with Julian in the evening when he arrived in Berlin cannot confirm loss of any computers.
- Stefania Maurizi can confirm that Julian had his personal computer with him.
- Björn Hurtig was not told about any computers lost.
- There is no police report about Julian’s “lost/stolen computers”.
- Amy Goodman interviews Julian on 26 October. No mention of lost computers.
- In Jennifer Robinson’s brief to Canberra meeting of MP’s the lost luggage is mentioned, nothing about lost computers is mentioned.
- Stefan Lindgren’s article on an alleged theft is made up.
- Stefan Lindgren’s article is published 16 days after the alleged theft occurred.
- There is no confirmation from Julian that computer/s were lost flying from Stockholm.
- Rick “©®™ Downes publishes a story of three lost computers from Julian’s checked luggage without referring to one single source of information.
- The only people who are taking the theft seriously are Rick “©®™ ‘Downes, Israel Shamir and the Flashback community. None of these are known to be truthful.
The facts above does not indicate that Julian has lost any computers flying from Stockholm to Berlin. The story of the lost/stolen computers seem most likely to made up.
What does Stefan Lindgren say today about the lost computer?
When I researched the story of the stolen computer/s, I have put questions to Stefan Lindgren, who was the first to write about the alleged computer theft. His answers are very revealing. When asked what Julian’s explanation was for not showing up 6 October:
We never got a real explanation for why he did not show up, we did not dig into the matter really. His whole situation was under a lot of pressure at the time. No, we did not receive a message from Julian. I think no one knows more about this than himself. The theory that he would have canceled his talk with us because he would did not want to be questioned in Sweden I think this is pure speculation. He had, after all, remained in Sweden for a long time after the prosecutor decided to re-open the investigation ....
When asked why Stefan Lindgren is stated as the source of computer theft and from where he got his information, he answers:
My info came from a news agency. Among bloggers and social media one can find support for anything. Why I am regarded as the source is probably because somebody thought they needed a source.
No news agency has written about theft of Julian’s computer prior to Stefan Lindgren. The only “news agency” that has mentioned it is Stefan Lindgren’s own “news agency”, Nyhetsbanken. It is evident from Stefan Lindgren’s replies that the story is made up. We will not get closer to a full confession than this. But why did he make up the story? Your guess is as good as mine.
Some thoughts on Assange, WikiLeaks, Justice for Assange and WL Central
I have shown that the lies and fabricated stories are used among Julian Assange’s supporters. Stefan Lindgren made up a story that Julian Assange’s computer was stolen from his backpack on a flight between Stockholm and Berlin. Rick “©®™” Downes takes the story and twists it, three computers were lost and that they were in Julian’s checked luggage. Rick “©®™” Downes uses the fabricated story to to smear Thomas Bodström and accuse him of being the person behind the theft.
Stefan Lindgren and Rick “©®™” Downes are the ones who created the lies of the stolen computer/s. Then there’s Israel Shamir and the Flashback community that willingly spread the lies. All are declared supporters of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Why is it that people who say they support the idea of openness and transparency so willingly lies and creates fictitious stories?
And why is it that Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Justice for Assange and WikiLeaks Central rely on these people and call them credible sources? And frequently refers to them as good sources for information. Something I cannot understand.
Rick “©®™” Downes a credible source? His writings are a mix up of invented facts, delusions of Sweden and rabid tirades against State Feminism. I.e. poorly disguised hatred of women. His writings are similar to ultra right wing nationalists. Why Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Justice for Assange and WL Central want to associate with people like that is beyond me. But we live in a free world. You are allowed to make choises. And suffer the consequences. Among them lack of credibility.
It seems like Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and Justice for Assange are willing to use any source in desperate attempts to convince the world that Julian Assange is a victim of foul play.
It seems like Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and Justice for Assange are willing to use any source in desperate attempts to convince the world that Julian Assange is a victim of foul play. On the page about lay judges at Justice for Assange one can find articles by some qualified people like Sven Erik Alhem, Henrik Alexandersson, Christian Diesen and Beatrice Ask. Most of the articles are in Swedish. But there is one exception. An article by Tony Olsson. An article that doesn’t belong. Tony Olsson is Sweden’s most notorious criminal and a known nazi. Convicted to life in prison for a double police murder and bank robbery in 1999.
Why Justice for Assange picked Tony Olsson as a “resource” is not known. There is an obvious link to Rick “©®™” Downes. The choice proves beyond reasonable doubt that Justice for Assange does not have any understanding of the situation in Sweden. I guess thanks to Rixstep.
Much is said about the media climate in Sweden. It is alleged to be so hostile to Julian Assange that there is a risk of him not getting a fair trial. I am not of that opinion. If Julian really wanted to be treated better in media it would help if he did not surround himself with “credible sources” that lie and deceive. If Julian prefers to cooperate with Israel Shamir rather than with the Guardian and the New York Times it is his choice. But he must accept that he will be criticized for it.
Julian is in need of a new media strategy. And has been for a long time. When you are at the center of media attention, don’t lie. Because if you do it is likely that you will be found out. And then media will become hostile. Just be honest, open, transparent and tell the truth. If Julian seriously wants a new media strategy why not start now. With the full story on what happened in Berlin 27 September 2010. A comment is long overdue. It is 540 days since Julian’s luggage was lost. And still no comment. So time has come, we are all ears.