The Assange case: Rick Downes at Rixstep cooks information

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.

63 thoughts on “The Assange case: Rick Downes at Rixstep cooks information

  1. From Jen Robinson’s brief http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php?topic=8388.0 go look it up from some other source if you don’t like WL forum.

    “Julian telephoned Mr Hurtig from Berlin on 29 September to inform him that his luggage had gone missing on his Stockholm-Berlin flight and that it was now presumed to have been stolen since the airline had not been able to locate and return it. He called to instruct Mr Hurtig to take legal action. It was then he was informed of Ms Ny’s intention to interrogate him. Julian offered to return to Sweden on 9-10 October for interrogation. This date was rejected as being ‘too far away’.”

    Here we see
    1. Julian did ask his lawyer to institute legal action for the luggage
    2. Julian presumed the luggage stolen
    3. He offered to come back to Sweden on 9-10 October for interrogation
    4. This offer was refused.

    Compare this to your article.
    You state Marianne Ny wanted to interview JA on 6 October. For some reason, Julian tried to reschedule to only 3-4 days away, but this was rebuffed. Yet, you make a lot of noise about WHY didn’t Julian come back and insinuate it was to avoid interrogation.

    You state neither JA nor anyone close to him has said what the contents of the luggage is. That’s fine. You ASSUME he would have made a public announcement if it had computers in it. You suggest that JA never made a police report and that he would have, had computers gone missing. You were familiar with Jen Robinson’s briefing enough to know she didn’t mention computers, but failed to point out that she stated JA had instructed his lawyer to follow up the missing luggage. Obfuscate much?

    Try this thought: If all it contained was “socks” do you really think JA would have instructed his lawyer to take legal action? The lack of legal action is more a failing on the part of the lawyer than on JA.

    Better check your actions. You are playing the media game of obfuscation and strategic use of facts & insinuations at least as much as Rixstep.

    • Treisiroon,
      I do not understand on what facts you base your comments. But I sense that you get upset when I point out something that obviously contradicts your beliefs. I don’t think you read my article that well so I will repeat myself.

      Ms Robinson did not mention lost computers in her brief. We agree on that. Is it because she unaware of the fact that computers have been lost or is it because she wants to withhold that particular information?

      Ms Robinson states that JA instructed his lawyer to follow up the missing luggage. Fact. Mr Hurtig was never instructed to follow up the missing luggage. Mr Hurtig was not informed that the luggage contained computers. Mr Hurtig did not make a police report. Conclusion. Ms Robinson’s statement is not true. If Ms Robinson made the information up herself or if she was told something by JA we don’t know. Your guess is as good as mine.

      It is obvious that JA has avoided interrogation whether you agree or not. On two occasions, 28 Sep and 14 Oct, JA made himself unavailable. On 6 October he did not show up. On a number of occasions JA has been advised by his Swedish lawyer to come in for an interview. After JA left Sweden he was advised by his Swedish lawyer to return for an interview. JA has not taken his lawyer’s advice. On 12 October JA was warned that if he did not voluntarily come in for an interview an EAW was going to be issued. The reason an EAW was issued was because of JA’s refusal to come in for an interview.

      Now something more from Ms Robinson’s brief that I found, thanks to your comment. “During this period, we offered that Julian be interviewed via telephone or video-link from London on the condition that the Prosecutor provide him further information about the allegations and potential charges.” The offers made by JA’s English lawyers are all conditional offers. Now I finally understand why the prosecutors have refused to interview JA in England.

      “Try this thought: If all it contained was “socks” do you really think JA would have instructed his lawyer to take legal action?”

      Try this fact: JA never instructed his lawyer to take legal action.
      Then try this thought: If the luggage contained computers do you think JA in 540 days would have mentioned it to someone?

      From you comments I can conclude that you believe that JA has not avoided interviews. And that you disregard facts. Is it a wild guess that you think Rick Downes of Rixstep is a credible source?

      The truth will emerge from free discussion. But some people will need more time too see it.

      • Thanks for your response. I’ll start at the bottom and work my way up through your comments.

        1. From you comments I can conclude that you believe that JA has not avoided interviews. And that you disregard facts. Is it a wild guess that you think Rick Downes of Rixstep is a credible source?
        – I have reviewed much of the Rixstep site. I have watched some of the videos. I have talked with people who have interacted with him. I do not think the video clips I have seen are fabricated. I do have information that he intentionally slants translations of articles to favour his opinion. Therefore, I do think there is some information to be had from the site but that it has to be reviewed very critically. You mentioned in your article something about lies mixed with truth. I agree with that assessment. I agree that Rixstep is not a fully reliable source for that reason. I also agree that there is no reliable source of information regarding whether the missing luggage contained computers.

        2. Try this fact: JA never instructed his lawyer to take legal action.
        -This is an interesting and rather difficult claim. Did Julian Assange lie to Jen Robinson about this? Did Jen Robinson intentionally lie in her report? I certainly cannot know, and I am sceptical that you can, either.
        Am I correct in recalling that Björn Hurtig was caught out in British extradition court as having failed to inform his client that Marianne Ny requested a meeting with Assange (an sms was produced) and he failed to inform his client (Assange)? If my recollection is correct (and I am sorry that I don’t produce that reference for you), that leaves me with the impression that Hurtig may not be entirely 1. honest or 2. competent. Is there any way for either of us to know who is lying here?

        3. “During this period, we offered that Julian be interviewed via telephone or video-link from London on the condition that the Prosecutor provide him further information about the allegations and potential charges.”
        -Julian Assange has always made the point that he has recieved little information from the prosecution while, at the same time, the prosecution is leaking statements, interview transcripts, etc to the press. To me, attempts to find out from Prosecution what the hell is going on seem valid. This may not be the way it works in Sweden for questioning, but they did issue the arrest warrant-and Ny said questionning was preliminary-that she had the intention of prosecuting (note she said this without having interviewed him the second time). Can’t have it both ways-either there is an intent to prosecute (give Defense the information, then) or there isn’t (no arrest warrant should be issued for questioning).

        4. Mr Hurtig did not make a police report. Conclusion. Ms Robinson’s statement is not true.
        – See point 2 above

        5. Ms Robinson did not mention lost computers in her brief. We agree on that.
        – Yes, we agree on that. As to whether such computers ever existed, I have no idea and make no claim to know. I simply point out that your argument that they don’t exist is as specious as the claim that they do exist. Your argument: Jen didn’t mention computers exist, therefore it is further proof they didn’t. I turned it around and said: Jen said Julian instructed lawyer to follow up, therefore something valuable must have been there. Neither can be proven, both are specious.

        6. But I sense that you get upset when I point out something that obviously contradicts your beliefs.
        – Not really. I got annoyed that you used similar tactics as you in part criticised Rixstep for using to make your argument, namely cherry picked facts and insinuation. This is spin. I do not at all accuse you of lying, simply of choosing carefully what to report in order to bolster your argument. Perhaps you did not do this intentionally, but I think my earlier comment does adequately illustrate the problem.

        7.I don’t think you read my article that well so I will repeat myself.
        -I read your article quite thoroughly and more than once.

        8. I do not understand on what facts you base your comments.
        – Based simply on Jen’s report, that you also referenced in your article. Same source, but we got different things out of it, it seems.

        Ah, I missed a point:
        “It is obvious that JA has avoided interrogation whether you agree or not. On two occasions, 28 Sep and 14 Oct, JA made himself unavailable.”
        -yet he offered alternative times. It seems both sides in this case were either 1. beligerent or 2. very busy. There is certaily also criticism that Ny has engaged in questionable issues about this scheduling. Jen, for example, said that Julian tried to reschedule to 9-10 but Ny said no.

        I get the feeling I’ve offended you. I wonder if you are more offended by the tone of my first posting than the content. If so, I apologise for the abruptness of my writing. Commenting in this small frame is not a format that lends itself to flowery niceties. However, I do stand by the criticism presented, even if my tone caused you to “sense I was upset”.

        On the one hand, I appreciate your insight and work (as per some of your other articles on this site). On the other hand, it seems you mix your issue about Rixstep with Julian and Wikileaks and use many suppositions in your argument. Therein lies my criticism of this article.

        • Treisiroon,

          I will deal with all your points. But I take them one at a time in an order that suits me. OK?

          Your point 2.
          “Try this fact: JA never instructed his lawyer to take legal action.
          -This is an interesting and rather difficult claim. Did Julian Assange lie to Jen Robinson about this? Did Jen Robinson intentionally lie in her report? I certainly cannot know, and I am sceptical that you can, either.”

          What we do know is that JA did not ask his lawyer to take legal action. JA did not tell his lawyer that any computers were lost. There is no police report. JA mentioned that his luggage was lost. Ask Mr Hurtig and you will find out.

          Now to the second part. Did JA lie to Jen Robinson? Did Jen Robinson intentionally lie in her report? We don’t know. And it is not important. We do know that JA did not ask his lawyer to take legal action. It could very well be that Jen Robinson misinterpreted what JA said. Or that JA lied. Or that Jen did invent the story. I do not think that Jen did invent the story, but that is just my belief. Still, JA did not ask his lawyer to take legal action.

          And not to forget. If Jennifer Robinson was told that the luggage contained computers, why would she leave that information out in the brief to the MPs in Canberra? Most likely she wasn’t told. For the simple reason there were no computers in the lost luggage.

          “Am I correct in recalling that Björn Hurtig was caught out in British extradition court as having failed to inform his client that Marianne Ny requested a meeting with Assange (an sms was produced) and he failed to inform his client (Assange)? If my recollection is correct (and I am sorry that I don’t produce that reference for you), that leaves me with the impression that Hurtig may not be entirely 1. honest or 2. competent. Is there any way for either of us to know who is lying here?”

          No. You are wrong. Björn Hurtig was caught for not revealing in his written statement that Marianne Ny had contacted him on 21 September and arranged for an interview on 28 September. She sent him a few sms messages and he talked to her about the interview. Björn Hurtig tried to contact JA. But he was unavailable as Jennifer Robinson acknowledges in her brief. On 27 September Björn Hurtig contacted Marianne Ny and said that he could not get in contact with JA.
          From this it is evident that JA made himself unavailable for the interview 28 September.

          To find out who is lying you have to start out with the true facts. Otherwise it will speculation only. And we will not get any real knowledge from speculation.

        • Your point 3.
          ““During this period, we offered that Julian be interviewed via telephone or video-link from London on the condition that the Prosecutor provide him further information about the allegations and potential charges.”
          -Julian Assange has always made the point that he has received little information from the prosecution while, at the same time, the prosecution is leaking statements, interview transcripts, etc to the press. To me, attempts to find out from Prosecution what the hell is going on seem valid. This may not be the way it works in Sweden for questioning, but they did issue the arrest warrant-and Ny said questioning was preliminary-that she had the intention of prosecuting (note she said this without having interviewed him the second time). Can’t have it both ways-either there is an intent to prosecute (give Defense the information, then) or there isn’t (no arrest warrant should be issued for questioning).”

          JA is as a suspect not entitled to any information. It is not until he is charged that he is entitled to all the information there is in the case. JA’s point is completely irrelevant.

          The police and the prosecutors have not leaked any information except for once, on 20 August when the prosecutor in charge acknowledged that Julian was wanted for rape. All other information assessed by press is in accordance with the law, Offentlighetsprincipen (Freedom of Information Act). When the rape charges were dropped 21 August all the material in the investigation was accessible since it was in connection to a crime, molestation, that is not regarded as serious. When the case was re-opened 1 September all the material in the case was inaccessible since the crime was serious, rape.

          I have copies of the material that on application was given to the press 23 August. Most of what is relevant is blacked out. The material is absolutely useless to defense lawyers. If you want to I can send you the material and you can see for yourself.

          Swedish law. You cannot prosecute anyone without interviewing the person first. It is not until after an interview that a prosecutor can make a decision to go ahead with a prosecution. JA is now in a situation where he has not appeared for a first interview, the rape charge. It is against the law to prosecute him. He has to be interviewed first. The intention is to prosecute him. That is why he is sought for an interview. He was detained by three courts with the intent of a criminal prosecution. The EAW is based on the detention order from these courts.

          JA is a suspect, with no right to information. The prosecutors have the intention to prosecute him, that is why he is detained. But to do so JA has to be questioned first. It is not until after an interview that a decision can be made if he should be prosecuted. And if he is to be prosecuted he will have all the information.

          If I was the prosecutor in this case I would likely view the situation as if JA is trying to play games with me. And I would, after JA had refused to come in for an interview three times, most likely say arrest to idiot and bring him to me.

          JA’s refusal to come in for an interview is beyond me. For some unknown reason, and against the advice of his lawyer, he decided it was better to challenge an EAW. That is seriously stupid.

  2. What a load of bollocks. The author obviously doesn’t know what happened so he just pokes around looking for “holes” in the stories of those who do know.

    Let’s imagine Julian Assange lost his hat. Was his hat in his luggage? He could have been wearing it! Did he specifically mention his hat when talking about his lost luggage? No! Aha! And did Stefania’s tweets specifically mention the hat? No! Double aha!! Briliant logic!

    But since we are really going after Rick, let’s “have a quick look at the man himself”. And how will we do that? Oh, we will quote, um… the Urban Dictionary! LOL

    What. A. Load. Of. Bollocks.

    • Captain Nemo,

      Let’s imagine Captain Nemo lost his mind. Was it in his luggage? Had he ever used it! Had anyone noticed Captain Nemo’s mind? Did anyone mention that Captain Nemo had a mind? No! Aha! And did any tweets ever mention the existence of Captain Nemo’s mind? No. Double aha!! You twit! Triple aha!!! Captain Nemo is sitting on his mind!!!!

      The hole in your head you’re looking for is right between your ears.

      This an automatic message is from the Octopussy Conspiracy

  3. I’d like to note that Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark write in their book about WikiLeaks on page 268 that in the disappeared luggage were three computers with encrypted WikiLeaks material.
    But wether there were computers or not: that the bag completely disappeared would make anybody suspicious.

    Obviously Julian Assange has made mistakes but still I don’t get why
    a) the interrogation couldn’t be done in England and
    b) how every testimony including the condom examination got published. Can this be normal in Sweden? I can’t believe that.
    You have your issues with Rixstep, that’s clear, but I wouldn’t say he’s misogynist – at least not on twitter or in his writings – he’s anti-gender mainstreaming which is a different thing, although he combines is with lots of badmouthing. But if you read feminist blogs you’d maybe be surprised about the tone and discussions as well.

    • Perfectblack,

      I’ve seen the comments on page 268. Still I don’t have a confirmation that Marcel Rosenbach was told at the airport of the “missing computers”. I would be extremely surprised if anyone who had sensitive material put it in the checked luggage. People don’t put laptops in checked luggage. I still cannot understand that if the story of lost computers was true, how come Julian Assange in 541 days haven’t confirmed the story.

      I do not think Julian is guilty of the crimes he is accused. The police and the prosecutors have shown great incompetence in this case. Unfortunately that is common in sex cases. That is one reason I started my blog.

      Julian has made a number of mistakes in this case. Among them is he made himself unavailable three times for interviews. Avoiding the police is not very clever. It looks suspicious. Add to it the fact that Julian has never admitted that he has avoided interviews. He still maintains that he has been available while his lawyers admit that he was unavailable.

      It was not until yesterday that I understood why the prosecutor has said no to interviews in England. From Jennifer Robinson’s brief to MPs in Canberra March 2011: “During this period, we offered that Julian be interviewed via telephone or video-link from London on the condition that the Prosecutor provide him further information about the allegations and potential charges.”

      As a suspect you are not entitled to any material from the investigation. The English lawyers offered an interview in England on the condition that Julian would have the material from the investigation in advance. That offer had to be turned down. Julian is asking not only to be interviewed in England but also to have material in advance. With this information I can fully understand why the prosecutors have refused to interview Julian in England. As you can see, another mistake by Julian.

      Julian has been recommended by his Swedish lawyer to return to Sweden for an interview since the case is very weak. Julian has refused.

      Leaked information. The detention memorandum, with the full police interviews, is leaked from the English lawyers’ office. I know the source but I will not reveal it. The other material that is available is not leaked. It is handed out from the police according to Offentlighetsprincipen (Freedom of Information Act).

      The only “leak” in this case is when the prosecutor in charge admitted to questions by the Expressen reporters that Julian was arrested in absentia on 20 August.

      On Rixstep. How to label Rixstep is not the issue. What I do no like is when people lie to make an argument. Much of the information on Sweden vs Assange pages is not accurate. Some is based on Rixstep. My personal view is that both Rixstep, Marcello Ferrada de Noli and Israel Shamir are misogynists. More on them in a future article.

      • “The English lawyers offered an interview in England on the condition that Julian would have the material from the investigation in advance. That offer had to be turned down.”

        Seeing as Julian has been detained for over a year, the prosecutor has long been in a position where she can safely ignore any such conditions and arrange an interrogation on her own terms. So why does she prefer to drag this through the British courts? An extremely costly and protracted court battle benefits who exactly? Not the complainants, that’s for sure. So why does she do it?

        • Julian has been free on bail for over a year. And the prosecutor has ignored Julian’s conditions and arranged for an interview on her own terms. In Sweden.

          The complainants don’t benefit from this. True. And not the taxpayers. And not the real victims of sex crimes. There is only one person who believes he benefits. That is Julian. Otherwise he would not have fought the EAW so long and so hard. And he will probably fight a decision from the Supreme Court too. I don’t think Julian will give up until the European Court had a say on this.

  4. Göran,

    I am a bit surprised by your responses. It seems we look at the same material and come to different conclusions. As per my earlier criticism, I see you are still using the same quality of assumption & belief as fact that you actually criticise others for to support your argument.

    For example: You insist that Björn Hurtig cannot be wrong. Perhaps he is a pal of yours, I don’t know. By my reckoning, however, his word is no better than JA’s or Jen Robinson’s. Why should I believe Hurtig over Robinson in the case of instructing lawyer to follow up missing luggage? Especially after that court debacle I mention below.

    Björn Hurtig & the SMS: Yes, I remember it now, and my facts are not off so much as you imply. Björn’s argument in extradition court was based partly on the idea that Marianne Ny was not cooperative in finding time to interview JA and that JA had been given the go ahead to leave the country. There was quite some shock in court when it was shown via the SMS that Hurtig had scheduled a meeting with Ny for JA and failed to reveal this in court. As Jen said, JA had never been contacted. How, Göran, is this then the fault of JA and not the fault of Björn Hurtig? It was known at the time that JA was difficult to reach because of the incredible commotion going on that was his life at the time (including death threats). We can say that JA was playing hard-to-get but why should he be continuously available to these people after being told he can leave th country (on 15th Sept according to Jen’s brief)? Hurtig has even been suspected of intentionally misling the court. This has tarnished the reputation of JA’s defense.

    Swedish law vs. EU & other law: JA’s defense has made the point that there are numerous factors of Swedish law that are not in line with laws in other jurisdictions, namely UK and Australia and the EU. Criticisms include holding suspects in solitary confinement and discriminatory treatment of foreigners. JA’s defense has challenged on some of these points. I do not see why you so vehemently reject these challenges as unacceptable.

    “Challenging an EAW is seriously stupid.” I must say, you lost me right there. The EAW has numerous, known flaws and is known to be abused. I cannot fathom why you think JA or anyone else should meekly submit to it if they feel it is being abused. I find it very difficult to continue discussion with you after this statement, as it indicates a huge divergence in our outlook.

    I do not speculate on whether the defense has done right by JA or not. However, Björn Hurtig has said that if he could reveal what he knows, everyone would see how ridiculous this case is. Yet, the prosecution continues to persue. Yet, you say JA is playing games and, if you were prosecutor, you would demand him arrested and brought to you. It very much sounds to me like a power trip (both for Ny and for the theoretical Prosecutor Göran). In Sweden, it is the State who decides the charges, not the alleged victims. Therefore, the State is very much behind this whole charade. The State of Sweden is playing games at least as much as Assange ever was. The difference between the two is that the State has unlimited resources and a legal structure to destroy, or at least seriously disrupt, a man’s life.

    My impression is that you are an unwitting Gatekeeper and apologist for the State.

    p.s. I do not disagree with your assessment that victims of sexual assault have a hard time getting justice in Sweden. My big question is why are incredible resources being used to go after Assange rather than fix the very broken system? Rather than worrying about this ridiculous case, Sweden should be worried about 1. justice for victims of sexual violence and 2. justice for victims of false claims of sexual violence.

    • Treiseroon,

      We do not look at the same material. That is the reason we come to different conclusions.

      To try to make this matter clear. Stefan Lindgren reported that Julian’s computer was stolen from his backpack flying to Berlin. Stefania Maurizi reports that Julian had his personal computer on arrival in Berlin. Stefan Lindgren’s report is false.

      Rixstep uses Stefan Lindgren’s report to make up a story that three computers were stolen from Julian’s checked luggage. Rixstep is using a false report to make a new story up. There are no facts, no statements, no comments, nothing to back Rixstep’s story up. It has all the trademarks of a fabricated story.

      Jennifer Robinson does not mention any lost or stolen computers. Nothing of the kind. Jennifer Robinson mentions luggage. Julian has not in 541 days mentioned anything about stolen or lost computers. Still you assume that when Jennifer Robinson is talking about luggage she means computers. It is this assumption that your whole argument is based on. You have not checked with Jennifer Robinson if she knew that there were any computers in the luggage. It is this fact that you lack.

      I know that Björn Hurtig talked to Julian about lost luggage. Exactly as Jennifer Robinson says. I also know that there was no talk about lost computers in the luggage. That is the difference.

      I hope that this will make it clear.

      The February hearing. The serious matter was that Björn Hurtig did not mention in his written statement that Marianne Ny had contacted him on 21 Feb and made arrangements for an interview. That is evident from the transcripts and the ruling.

      The importance of this was that Julian’s and the English lawyers story was shown to be a lie. Julian’s story was that he had been available to the police all the time before he left and the prosecutors had not made any effort to interview. That story was proven false in court. That was significant.

      Björn Hurtig made several attempts to get in contact with Julian. Julian was unavailable. The reason Björn could not get into contact with Julian was because Julian was unavailable. You agree that Julian was difficult to get hold of, read unavailable.

      The EAW. I am not talking about EAWs in general. It is the EAW in this particular case. I think you will agree with me that it has been very difficult to challenge the EAW in this case. The Magistrates Court and the High Court rulings are proof of that. I do think that the Supreme Court will rule that Julian should be extradited.

      This case is ridiculous in very many ways. I agree with that. I’ve written extensively on that subject. It is in my view extremely weak. But what you have to remember is that two courts have ordered the detention of Julian and the Swedish Supreme Court ruled that they would not look into the case. That is something you have to consider.

      It sure looks like a power game from the prosecutors side. Knowing that Julian offered himself for interview in England conditionally looks to me that Julian is the serious player. What you have to understand is that in order to drop the case Julian has to be interviewed.

      If Julian thinks the case is ridiculous why not show up for an interview.

  5. Göran,
    1 more thing, since you insist JA would make it known if computers were stolen.

    Why would Julian Assange want it known that he managed to have stolen from him computers with sensitive Wikileaks data on it? If this happened, it’s a major fuck-up and looks terrible for Wikileaks security. Of course, Julian would have to make announcement after announcement about how it’s encrypted and nobody can bust it, etc. etc. Terrible circus, bad for WL credibility.

    And why would anyone check computers? Well, the weight limit for cabin luggage is 8kg on an inter-European SAS flight. I’m not saying he couldn’t fit 3+ computers on with that, but it’s tight.

    I’m also not saying that there were any computers to begin with. I’m just saying your argument is still totally speculation and specious. So Julian has his own reasons for what he does and doesn’t confide in you. Why would he?

    • Treisiroon,

      “Why would Julian Assange want it known that he managed to have stolen from him computers with sensitive Wikileaks data on it? If this happened, it’s a major fuck-up and looks terrible for Wikileaks security.”

      This is an interesting argument. Julian cannot use his phone or credit card because he is monitored. But he is supposedly so stupid that he packs three laptops in his checked luggage and the luggage gets lost. He does not mention this to the people he meets in Berlin. Nor does he mentions this to anybody because it looks like WikiLeaks is not serious about security as Daniel Domscheit-Berg has hinted.

      Then the story gets out on the Internet, based on a false report by Stefan Lindgren. And it gets published on WikiLeaks Central. And Rixstep is writing about in a number of articles. And the information is then published on Sweden vs Assange. And Julian hasn’t done anything about it for 525 days.

      Now it is even worse. Not only is it a major fuck-up in WikiLeaks security, it is also a major fuck-up in WikiLeaks information system. WikiLeaks own sources, WL Central and Sweden vs Assange are exposing major fuck-ups in WikiLeaks security and nobody can fix it.

      The easiest way to have dealt with the situation you described was to deny that any computers were lost. And that could have been done on 14 October 2010.

      Now it looks even less likely that there were any computers in the luggage. Julian has made some bad decisions. And who hasn’t. But I don’t think he would pack laptops in his luggage.

      Try another one

  6. Göran, It seems further attempts at discussion will require extensive repitition of arguments and points already made. This is clear from your response that you still thank I am insisting on the existence of computers in checked luggage when, in fact, I’ve simply used these examples to try to show that much of your argument is opinion-based and specious. I think we’ve both gotten as much out of this exchange as we can.

    • Treisiroon,

      I do not think that you insist on the existence of the computers in the checked luggage. I just think your argument is flawed, and I am simply pointing it out. I agree that your arguments are based on opinion and assumption. That does not mean mine are.

      Jennifer Robinson says nothing in her statement about computers. If you want to argue that there were computers in the checked luggage there is no support for that in Jennifer’s statement. The only thing Jennifer Robinson says in her statement is “He called to instruct Mr Hurtig to take legal action.”

      Let’s analyze that statement. What does it mean? If you call a lawyer and ask the lawyer to “take legal action” because your luggage is lost the lawyer will say that you, as the owner of the luggage, has to report it to the airline. That is the routine for lost luggage. SAS has a division that deals with lost luggage. Lost luggage is not reported to the police. Ask airlines and police and you will find out. So the statement “He called to instruct Mr Hurtig to take legal action.” does not have any real meaning in the context that you use it.

      So what is the information you get from Jennifer Robinson’s statement that is connected to loss of computers? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. If the luggage contained computers, and Jennifer Robinson knew about the loss of computers it is likely that she would have mentioned the computers. So they only thing we know actually is that Jennifer Robinson did not mention computers in the lost luggage, as I mentioned in my article. That does not rule out the possibility of computers. I am fully aware of that.

      Now a repeat. Björn Hurtig was not informed about any loss of computers. If Julian had mentioned loss of computers in the luggage Björn Hurtig then would have made a police report since it would have been much more than just lost luggage. Björn Hurtig would have thought that the loss of Julian’s computers would have been an indication of foul play. And Björn Hurtig would have used the loss of computers in his defense arguments. That means that you would have heard about the loss of computers from Björn Hurtig instead of the serial lier Rixstep.

      Julian has on a number of occasions mentioned foul play in the case against him. If his computers were lost in a mysterious event at Arlanda it would have been an indication of foul play. Björn Hurtig would have thought it was an indication of foul play. Still Julian is all quiet about it. It does not make sense.

      So far there is nothing to suggest that there were any computers lost except for Rixstep’s and Stefan Lindgren’s articles. And what I am saying is that they made the story up. There is simply no evidence of support there stories and they know about it.

      If you want to believe people that make stories up that is your choice. I am advising you not to.

  7. “There is only one person who believes he benefits. That is Julian.”

    If that is really the case, then why does the prosecutor play along? If I were in the complainants’ shoes, I would be livid!

    What’s the point of focusing on stupid issues like the psychology of Julian Assange, whilst totally missing this point? Julians motivations are not hard to guess. Whether you agree with them or not is inconsequential. Maybe he is being overly paranoid. So what? There is no mystery here. Nothing of public interest.

    On the other hand: what on earth is Marianne Ny’s reason for endangering the investigation at considerable inconvenience for all parties and great cost to the tax payer? A much more interesting question, don’t you agree?

    • Mattsson,

      Sorry. Forgot. Anna Ardin benefits too. And I think Claes Borgström benefits too. If his actions in this story would be fully investigated I don’t think that the outcome would be in his favour. I don’t think it is job as a plaintiffs’ lawyer to continue to make appeals on behalf of a plaintiff, Anna Ardin, that is obviously making false allegations. I don’t think it is criminal but it is most certainly not ethical.

      The investigation was more or less destroyed around 1 September when Marianne Ny did not arrest Julian and questioned him. I think you agree.

      The article about the lost computers is an effort to show how some “credible sources” lie and manufacture stories. And that these stories are embraced by Sweden versus Assange making the whole site Sweden versus Assange not credible. And that Julian Assange for some reason does not tell the whole truth.

  8. You put it as if only Julian Assange was to blame for his situation (house arrest and a tag and daily check at the police + curfew is not what I’d call free on bail) and claim it is “stupidity”. I must admit you probably have more information than I have and I can’t know what is normal in Sweden and what is not but from what I read (including your blog) it sure LOOKS like a sloppy and biased investigation with the aim of a conviction to me and probably to Julian Assange as well. Some of the mistakes by the police gathering evidence can’t be undone. And being innocent as even you believe him to be, he was afraid that in a he said/she said situation everyone would believe what “she said”, hence some maybe not so wise decisions. The trial by media and feminists shows that this fear is not without reason.

    • Shonai,

      The investigation is unprofessional. And mistakes have been made. I agree. Unfortunately this is not the only case. The effect of poor investigations is that real offenders walk free.

      It is obvious that Julian is afraid. Or as I would put it, he has chosen to be afraid. What you think of sex crime investigations and trial depends on who you talk to. I have pointed out that Julian has chosen not to take his Swedish lawyers advice. I do think that was stupid. Instead he took the advice from his English lawyers. So where Julian is today depends very on his own decisions.

      The case is extraordinary weak. That is my view. And that is his former lawyers view. But you have to answer the police questions in weak cases too. If you run away from weak cases and hope that they will go away is stupid too.

      Julian is free on bail with restrictions. A tag and daily check at the police + curfew. The reason for the restrictions is that Julian is not a UK citizen. He does not own any property. He does not have a normal job with a fixed address. He does not have a family in the UK. You can call it what you like. I think the proper law term is free on bail with restrictions. But I could be wrong.

      If you could show me examples of trial by media and feminists I maybe would agree with you.

      I don’t think Julian is guilty. But I think they way he has defended himself and what he has said in media about the case is really stupid. He has suffered and WikiLeaks has suffered as a consequence. I have seen Julian shoot himself in the foot over and over again. And I can still see him loading his gun and complain of pain in his feet. I just don’t get it.

      The issue with the computers is just another one. He could have sorted it out in September October 2010. But he hasn’t. Why? Why? Why?

  9. Couple problems with the “lost, stolen or strayed laptop(s)”:
    1. Short of a baggage handler willing to risk his/her job to score laptop(s), anyone recognizing the laptop(s) as JA’s would know they would be encripted and otherwise backed up (probably to server) so “intercepting” them would almost certainly be only an annoyance… and/or
    2. As Appelbaum and others have mentioned wrt “seized” devices, even if/when returned they must be considered compromised given the possible introduction of tracker or transponders or other government-installed “enhancements” — meaning they are a total loss once they have been confiscated at borders or “gone-missing” in baggage handling (decreasing the likelihood that JA would have checked them through as luggage).
    3. American police/intelligence do love to monkey-wrench things for the hell of it, the inconvenience or just the “kilroy was here” effect — so it’s not impossible they stole the laptop(s) just for spite, if laptop(s) went missing, which I have come to doubt.

    • Sunshine Superman,

      The link is this one http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/assange-lamnar-aterbud—igen/.You had it translated.

      The full story is this. Stefan Lindgren, one of the organizers, is asked on 9 October why Julian Assange did not show up for the seminar on the 6th and the demonstration on the 9th. His answer to the reporter of Expressen is that Julian is very busy.

      When I asked Stefan Lindgren if an explanation was given why Julian did not show up his reply was:
      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.

      Julian never contacted the organizers. The only contact with WikiLeaks was thru an unnamed connection. And the comment that Julian is busy is obviously Stefan Lindgren’s own belief.

  10. You’re correct. I went into Rixstep and realized he / Stefan Lindgren’s was my source … the Julian is back in Stockholm post, while un-date/time-stamped appeared to great relief that he was safe … His no-show an hour or two later across town, led to great anxiety that he had been “renditioned” or such. Finding him then a day later in London was again a great relief. Such an emotional roller-coaster.

    Rixstep I found was also the source of the “Ny intended to arrest Julian on arrival” theory — again no date/time stamp so very hard to tell when that theory was published but — the idea that JA had no knowledge of the scheduled meeting with Ny because he didn’t answer his lawyer’s calls — seems to have transformed his no-show from “too busy” into an evading-a-trap move of self-preservation .. so heroic.

    I think it destroyed the good faith assumptions underlying prior Ny/Assange negotiations.

    Why does Ny persist? I suspect simply because she cannot drop the matter until he is interviewed. There would be quite justified howls from many quarters and she likely would be seen as being derelict in carrying out the duties of her office.

    • You are correct that Rixstep is behind the theory of the “ambush”, something which is repeated on Sweden vs Assange. And I think you are correct in assuming that could have destroyed good faith assumptions regarding an interview.

      Rixstep does not sign his articles. And he does not date and time stamp his posts. But you can see from what date the article is by looking at the URL. This article http://rixstep.com/1/1/0/20110709,00.shtml is from 2011 July 9.

      Can you please provide me with a link to the article you mention.

      I too think the reason for Marianne Ny’s persistence is because she can’t close the investigation until Julian is questioned. Marianne Ny made a disastrous mistake by not interviewing Julian very early on. For some unknown reason she thought it was ok to collect statements from witnesses prior to interview the suspect. That beats common sense and police procedures. And she believed that Julian would be staying in Sweden for a long time since he had applied for a residence and work permit. She was wrong.

      • Actually, to amend, Rixstep did retroactively apply date stamps (in red) to his posts in the index last fall I think …. I had forgotten … (I had criticized him repeatedly in several forums for “conduct unbecoming a journalist” so I felt a small victory, though I have no idea if “I” made a difference here.) I remain unsure about “locking” of articles so that any editing or addendum, etc are clearly registered as such and appear outside the article “as originally published”

  11. 1) Why on earth does JA have to inform you what his stolen luggage contained? Is he in any way legally or morally obligated to do so? I doubt it. Nevertheless u seem quite puzzled and/or annoyed by it.

    2) BTW u urself stated that rixstep based his story on the article of another guy. Lets assume that rixstep thought the info about the stolen laptops was correct and therefore repeated it. Why does that prove that he lied if he wasn`t the one who originated the story?

    3) And about the prosecutor. U urself confirmed that Ny srewed up the investigation by not locking him up+interrogating him a second time while she had the chance. Instead she allowed him to leave Sweden only to issue a EAW shortly thereafter. BTW If Ny had reason to believe that JA was guilty of r.ape clearly she would and should have never let him cross Swedish borders!!!

    4) What kept her from agreeing to an interview at the Swedish embassy in London (which was offered WITHOUT conditions)? Certainly not Swedish law as she wrongfully claimed. Please tell us the FAR more worrying reason why a Swedish prosecutor would lie to an English court because Ny herself has REFUSED several times to explain that when asked. More then one judge seemed puzzled by her unexplained refusal of the MLA in this case. Ur explanation is…?

    5) U deny that the media climate in Sweden is hostile towards WL+JA and yet Expressen proves u wrong. And they aren`t the only (tabloid) newspaper that has focused on JA`s alleged character flaws+legal problems: ur beloved Guardian did THE SAME!!!!

    7) I find it strange that u would protect the identity of the leaker in Hurtig`s office when the disclosure of the case file by the Guardian violated both the rights of the women and JA because it contained parts that where orignally redacted .

    9) Last but not least I somehow remember a rumor that Ny would go for a “show” arrest infront of TV cameras during the sceduled seminar not unlike in the DSK case. Furthermore she stated that JA would be put incommunicado pretrial detention immedately after his return to Sweden making a continueed work for WL impossible. Considering that this was shortly before the release of the Iraq War Logs and Cablegate this would have meant nothing less then that JA would have taken the risks +fought off the attempts of former WL members to throw him out of his own organisation in vane without reaping the rewards by participating in the cablegate release.

    • Susi2,

      Replies to your questions.
      1. I’ve asked other questions and I have received replies. Julian can do whatever he likes. It is not my credibility at stake.

      2. From Rixstep’s article it is obvious that he does not think the information is true. But it does not stop there. After reading Stefan Lindgren’s article he makes up a story of three lost computers and providing no sources what so over. In my world that is lying.

      3. I am not defending superior prosecutor Marianne Ny’s actions.

      4. “What kept her from agreeing to an interview at the Swedish embassy in London (which was offered WITHOUT conditions)?” A source for that would be good.
      Julian has avoided interviews three times. That is the reason for the EAW.
      What judges do you refer to?
      A prosecutor has the right to conduct an investigation as he/she thinks is ok. MLA is an option. If a prosecutor does not want to use MLA she does not have to explain to anybody the reason why.
      If you have a problem with a prosecutor decision you can appeal the decision. You remember the appeal of Eva Finnés decision don’t you? Julian’s lawyers have not appealed as far as I know.

      5. I don’t think the media is hostile to Julian Assange. And I don’t think media writes about Julian’s alleged character. But more about his behavior. And his behavior is a bit odd. By the way, how come Sweden vs Assange regards one of Sweden’s most notorious criminal is regarded as good source of information? I can understand it makes sense since Sweden vs Assange uses Rixstep for information.

      6. ???

      7. There is no leak at Hurtig’s office. How come you think the leak 2is from Hurtig’s office?

      8. ???

      9. What you refer to is just a rumor. And who is behind that rumor by chance? The person that maybe thought the rumor was true. Because he made it up himself. Your friend Rick Downes at Rixstep.

      Wake up Susie2. Reality is not like the gospel.

  12. is this the one?
    assange back in stockholm: http://rixstep.com/1/20101005,00.shtml
    so, 10/05/2010

    Oddly last time I looked Israel Shamir also does not time/date stamp or apparently lock his essays so it’s hard to “follow the evolution” of an issue or story.

    I have wondered if (suspected) that Ny was and is under a gag wrt proceedings in the Assange negotiations, so months of Team Assange claiming that she had never contacted them — ever — may have been “difficult” and in addition WikiLeaks’ automatic re-tweeting of Rixsteps broadsides may well have seemed like Wikileak’s endorsement of his views. (Certainly appeared to be one to me.)

    • It is not the one. But your figuring out the date is correct.

      Shamir is more difficult to datestamp. If you tell me what article your thinking of I can perhaps help you.

      Julian’s English defense team has for some odd reason wanted to convince the world that Julian never was wanted for questioning. Their invented story crashed in the February hearing. And when it crashed, they missed what is really important. That the prosecutor waited for 21 days show any interest to interview him. I think the English defense team was incompetent.

      Rixsteps’s broadsides as re-tweeted by WikiLeaks gives the viewer the impression that WikiLeaks endorses the view of Rixstep. That is a problem for WikiLeaks that they seem totally unaware of. My father always told me if you hang around with morons people will think you are a moron too.

      Rixstep, Marcello Ferrada de Noli and Israel Shamir is a heavy burden for WikiLeaks. There is no gain. The earlier WikiLeaks distanced themselves from these people the better for WikiLeaks.

  13. Oops. Let me supply the missing numbers 6 and 8:

    6) Maybe the reason why JA avoids a return to Sweden despite the weakness of this case has something to do with the fact that SW courts have convicted men in sexual assault cases with little or no evidence based simply on a tearjerker story of the alleged victim?

    8) What makes u think that JA only had one laptop at the time he lost his luggage? Apart from that fact that ur obsession with such a minor point puzzles me quite considerably. Do u really think JA `s biggest problem at a time when he received death threats was to clarify ur confusion over a random story about his stolen suitcase?

    • Susi2,
      It’s ok with missing numbers.
      6. There are cases where Swedish courts have convicted men wrongfully. There are as far as I know no cases that are in any way remotely similar to the Assange case. It is actually the other way around. There are a number of cases, similar to the Assange case, where men that obviously have committed criminal offenses are acquitted.
      If you have any facts supporting your statement I am most interested in having a look.

      8. Julian has never commented on the story as far as I know. It is obvious that when Julian arrived in Berlin he had his laptop with him as Stefania Maurizi says in her tweets. This means that Stefan Lindgren’s article is not true.

      I understand that you think it is a minor point that sources that Julian and Sweden vs Assange regard as “credible sources” make up stories and invents facts. If you are ok with that, why do you criticize media for making up stories and invent facts? Truth is a minor point to you. Is that what you are saying?

      I don’t know what you are on about. I did not ask Julian any questions about his stolen suitcases when he received death threats in September and October of 2010. If you don’t know we are now in March 2012. It is in March 2012 that I asked him questions. Hello! We are in 2012 Dear.

  14. Göran,

    I still have one question regarding your post, and then I will leave this topic be.

    I am perplexed that you keep insisting that you know as fact that Björn Hurtig was not instructed by Julian Assange to follow up any missing luggage, although Jen Robinson asserts the opposite in her briefing to Canberra. You’ve offered no proof for this assertion.

    How do you know what transpired between Björn Hurtig and Julian Assange in regard to missing luggage? Has Björn Hurtig made a public announcement saying Julian Assange did not ask him to follow up on his lost luggage that he presumed stolen?
    Has he told you personally that that is the case?
    Has he said this in court?

    Unless he had Julian Assange’s permission to discuss this matter, it seems he would be in violation of attorney-client privilege. On the other hand, if this has been discussed legally somewhere, perhaps you have a reference you could provide.

    If none of the above scenarios apply, I cannot see how you can possibly know whether what Julian Assange instructed his attorney to do or not do.

    Thanks for your clarification of this matter.

    • Dear Treiseroon,

      I understand that what I say is contrary to what you believe.

      I have looked into this matter for a long time and interviewed a number of people. I don’t make stories up like Rixstep and others. I am a boring fact type of guy. I like to be right about things even though it means to contradict what most people tend to believe.

      But before I tell you how I know of this I want you do to some work on your own. Contact Jennifer Robinson and ask her what she was told about contents in the luggage. That cannot be that difficult. And when you know, please let me know and I will tell you everything.

      I am doing more investigations into this matter. The reason is the silence from Julian Assange. And I have an eerie feeling that what I am about to find out will rock your boat a lot more than I have so far.

      So check with Jennifer. And we’ll be in touch.

      • Göran,

        Why on earth do you think Jennifer Robinson, an attorney, would talk to me, an absolutely random person, about her former client’s case (she is now an advisor and attorney to WL but not on JA’s personal case in Sweden)? Your “condition” before answering my question is ridiculous.

        The question I proposed to you should not be so difficult to answer. May I remind you that you are writing a public blog and making public claims and accusations. You are very much expecting others to take your word for it for your case and the facts you present. I am unable to do so. If you have some information that will “rock my world” I’m ready to hear it.

        Your response was entirely unsatisfactory and I am tempted to say, In rather coarser terms, “either put up or shut up”.

        • Treisiroon,

          I don’t know why you have such a low opinion of yourself. Of course Jennifer Robinson is interested in talking to you and sorting things out. I think Jennifer Robinson is an open and interested human being even though I think there are a number of factual errors in her brief to the MPs in Canberra. I don’t think you are “an absolutely random person” even though you are trying to tell me you are. You can do a lot more than you think you can do. Just do it. If you have any problems, please tell me.

          I have offered you a long list of circumstances that all indicate that there were no computers lost. You are telling me that you don’t believe me and your “proof” is Jennifer Robinson’s brief to the MPs in Canberra. I am just asking you to check that out. And all you can do is say that you are an insignificant and “an absolutely random person”. I don’t think you are. I think you are exceptional. You do more than most people do. You don’t think that what I write is correct so spend time in front of your computer and tell me so. I like that. And so will Jennifer Robinson. And there is more. I don’t think Jennifer Robinson is aware of the importance of “the computer issue”. If you contact her she will benefit too.

          Why do you think I know anything about this case? Is it because I think that I am “an absolutely random person”? I might be that I am “an absolutely random person”. but the thought has never occurred to me. You are special and important to me. Because you disagree with me. So check with Jennifer Robinson now. She has been waiting for you for a long time.

  15. There is another point which puzzlers me. Namely that during the extradition hearing the prosecutor admitted that she intends to put JA on trial ….maybe because it is illegal to issue an EAW for questioning alone? This means that she CANNOT back down now (not that she ever wanted to since she would have never reopened the case had she not thought that there was enough evidence to justify a trial).

    It seems-just in my opinion-that the decision for a trial has already been made and nothing JA may say during a future police interview will have ANY influence on it. If that is the case then I wonder a) if it is wise to agree to an interrogation and b) why the prosecutor hasn`t taken the offer of interviewing him in the UK+using any possible contradictions of his statements+the evidence against him.

    Do u seriously believe that the prosecutor would close the case after the police interview after all the troubles she went through? Do u believe that there is ANYTHING he could say that might convince her to do so? I don`t…

    • Susi2,

      I think you get things mixed up. On a large scale.

      I don’t think the prosecutor has admitted that Julian would be put on trial. I have never seen anything that backs that up.

      The idea behind the EAW is “for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution”. That means that Julian has to be questioned in order for the prosecutor to be able to make up her mind if Julian should be prosecuted. In Sweden it is illegal to prosecute someone without that the person is given an opportunity to give his version of events.

      Of course a prosecutor can back down after an interview. Just because you are a suspect does not mean that you will be prosecuted. In this case it is most unlikely the case will go to court unless Julian shoots himself in the foot again, as he has done on a number of occasions.

      “It seems-just in my opinion-that the decision for a trial has already been made” You are plain wrong.

      “Do u seriously believe that the prosecutor would close the case after the police interview after all the troubles she went through?”
      Dear Susi2. A prosecutor does not make a decision whether to prosecute a person on how much effort it has been to interview a suspect. If so Julian would have been charged a long time ago. The decision is based on if she believes that she can win the case.

      I understand that you are concerned about this case. So am I. But I think that your understanding of the case is based on information that is not accurate.

      Julian has been recommended to come in for an interview by his Swedish lawyer Björn Hurtig. I think that Björn Hurtig is well qualified to understand that it is in Julian’s best interest to come in for an interview. Julian has not yet taken the advice. Maybe the Supreme Court will force him to listen.

  16. U couldn`t be more wrong! See point 140 :”…the purpose of the request for extradition MUST be to place him on trial”. http://www.scribd.com/doc/71271943/Julian-Assange-Judgment-2-Nov-2011

    U see a trial is unavoidable. The only possible option could be to drop the allegations of AA due to the numerous contradictions btw her statements+actions and the possibilty that she could be liable in case she manipulated evidence. Of course such a decision would have to be made during a preliminary hearing.

    • Susi2,

      Just read point 153. You may disagree with me. And the High Court. And God knows who. But it is a fact that the Magistrates Court and the High Court has decided that Julian should be extradited to Sweden.

      It is my view that the Supreme Court will rule that a prosecutor can be regarded as a judicial authority. You may disagree with that too. If that is the decision Julian will be extradited no matter what your view is. Julian most likely will appeal to the European Court. And they will decide not to take the case.

      You may disagree with that too. But I don’t know if that will make a difference.

  17. Göran,
    Do your own footwork- or is WL & Jen ignoring you at this stage? I am not the one writing a blog here (although it’s beginning to feel like it). I am sure Jen is an open and wonderful person. I also am fairly certain she respects and honours the privacy of her clients and her professional ethics enough not to discuss the details of their cases with strangers.

    I’ve not said I don’t believe you or that I do believe a particular version, simply that you have to support your statements with evidence. This has been my point throughout this entire exchange. We can only debate if we can agree on facts and we cannot agree on facts if we cannot analyse the evidence and determine whether and why we believe it and whether we agree.

    I still await that answer about how you are privy to Hurtig & Assange’s conversation.

    Thank you for the motivational self-esteem speech, perhaps you could go on the circuit.

    • Treisiroon,

      I understand that the matter is not that important for you to check it out for your self. And I notice that you ASSUME that Jennifer Robinson is not willing to talk to you about Julian’s lost luggage. May I remind you that Jennifer Robinson mentioned Julian’s lost luggage to the MPs of Canberra. And since she did so means that she is discussing details of the case with total strangers. I understand that you regard yourself of less value than MPs of Australia. Any MP of Australia could ask Jennifer Robinson a question. But you can’t.

      “I’ve not said I don’t believe you or that I do believe a particular version, simply that you have to support your statements with evidence.” I note this line with amusement. I understand that it is perfectly ok for you to believe writings on Rixstep that offers no evidence whatsoever about loss of computers. And to contradict a statement based on no sources you ask for sources in order for you believe it. I don’t get it. What kind of religion are you into? WikiLeakism? Assangeism? Or I like my own believeism?

      I have proved to you that none of the people Julian met in Berlin can confirm any loss of computers. There is no police report of lost computers. Julian has never said anything about loss of any computers. Julian’s lawyer have not been told about any loss of computers. Jennifer Robinson has not mentioned any loss of computers. Stefan Lindgren’s article of theft of computer is proved to be false. Rixstep’s article on loss of computers lacks sources, evidence. And it is not enough for you?

      I rest my case.

      • Göran,
        Indeed, you rest your case without answering the simple question of how you know what transpired between Björn Hurtig and Julian Assange in a private conversation that you have no (apparent) reason to be privy to.

        Then, because I won’t do your bidding, I have too little interest in the case.

        I have only asked you to clarify your arguments and provide proof to your assertions. You either cannot or will not on provide evidence to support your assertions on several points. In order to try to obfuscate and derail this attempt for clarification, you turn to hyperbole, spin, and “intentional misunderstanding” of my text.

        I, too, rest my case.

        .

        • Treisiroon,

          I asked you to do some work of your own. To find facts that support your theory. You cannot do that you say. For a number of reasons. And you say that you are interested in finding the truth. Your unwillingness to find the truth is disturbing.

          What I will do is to look for some more information. And I will come back to you.

  18. Point 153 does NOT contradict what I wrote in my last post. It simply says that he can only be charged AFTER the last interrogation in Sweden while he would have been charged 1 year ago if the accusers were British citizens.

    PS: I take it as fact that I proved u wrong when it comes the unavoidability of a trial. The EAW DEMADS that a trial is the sought and takes place….unless the judge at the preliminary hearing decides to drop certain accusations because he deems the evidence too weak. There is no way around that.

    PPS: I haven`t said one single word wether I agree or disagree with the HC and the SC decision.and I have no idea why u accuse me of something I have never mentioned that is entirely based on YOUR assumption. Please stick to the facts and refer to what people actually said/wrote and not what u ASSUME they might think.

    Thanx

    • Susi2,

      You proved yourself wrong.“The EAW DEMANDS that a trial is the sought and takes place….unless the judge at the preliminary hearing decides to drop certain accusations because he deems the evidence too weak.” That means that a trial is not demanded.

      The nationality of the accusers is not important. It is what country the crime took place. If the accusers were British citizens and the crime occurred in Sweden the same rules would apply. If the crime would have occurred in England, English laws apply, no matter the nationality.

      I wrote: “You may disagree with me. And the High Court. And God knows who.”
      And your comment is: “PPS: I haven`t said one single word wether I agree or disagree with the HC and the SC decision.and I have no idea why u accuse me of something I have never mentioned that is entirely based on YOUR assumption. Please stick to the facts and refer to what people actually said/wrote and not what u ASSUME they might think.”

      I assume your recommendation is for yourself.

  19. “You proved yourself wrong.“The EAW DEMANDS that a trial is the sought and takes place….unless the judge at the preliminary hearing decides to drop certain accusations because he deems the evidence too weak.” That means that a trial is not demanded.”

    No this does NOT mean that there won`t be a trial. I said CERTAIN accusations may (or may not) be dropped NOT that ALL of them will be. One single accusation that is turned into a charge is enough to justify a trial. I guess u know which one I mean or do u?

    I would bet a month wage on the fact that BOTH the judge and the prosecutor will move heaven and earth to ensure this case goes to trial. If u listened to PM Reinfeldt u would know that obviously even the most inflientual Swedish politicans support a crackdown on the suspect in order to “defend” Swedish women. Its Sweden`s “honor” that Reinfeldt and his buddies seem to see at stake.

    • Susi2,

      I do not know which accusation you mean. And I don’t know where you get your information.

      OK. So you are betting a month wage that both the judge and the prosecutor will move heaven and earth to ensure this case goes to court? What judge are you referring to?

      I don’t know how familiar you are with the Swedish language or Swedish legal system. And I don’t think it is a matter of “defending” Swedish women. Or that PM Reinfeldt has any influence of the case. Are you wearing your tin foil hat or what’s up?

  20. 1) I meant SW`s accusation
    2) I was talking about the judge at the prelimnary hearing (there will be one or won`t there)?
    3) I was referring to what Reinfeldt said about this case. I think ur incredibly naive if u think that politicians have zero influence on high profile cases. At the very least they (and the media) can influence public opinion (and possibly that of the lay judges) through their remarks.
    4) Its really time that u start being a bit more polite when dealing with people whose opinion differs from ur own. Ur WORSE then rixstepnews in this regard.

    • Susi2,

      1. OK. You mean SW’s accusation. That is not the important one in my opinion. That one will not stick.
      2. There have been no preliminary hearing. Just a detention hearing. And the first court, Tingsrätt, there was one judge. And in the appeals court, Svea Hovrätt, there were three judges. Which one are you referring to?
      2.5. None of the judges in the detention hearings will most likely not be involved in the case if the case would go to court.
      3. Politicians and public opinion have very limited influence on cases. That does not mean that there is no influence. If we stay with this case.
      What is the politicians view of this case? And what is the public opinion?
      And from where do you get your facts on this?
      My view is that Julian Assange is innocent of what he is accused of. And I think most politicians and the public agrees with that.
      My view is that Julian Assange have been a fool not to take his Swedish lawyers advice to come in for a interview. I think most politicians and the public agrees with that too.
      Most of what the English lawyers have said about this case is misrepresentation of facts. I am fed up with the commonly repeated statement that Julian has been available for interviews. I know that is not true. I think you know that too.
      4. I note your comment.

      Now for what the article was about. What is your opinion of the computers. How many computers do you think Julia lost. 0, 1, 2, 3 or any number you choose? And what is your reasons for your answer?

      And how much money was one month of you salary?

  21. BTW How is that example: “He broke the law” said Obama-the commander in chief-about Bradley Manning. How was that again with politicians having zero influence on high profile cases?

    • Susi2,

      I think it is evident that Bradley Manning broke the law. That does not mean he will be found guilty in a military court. That Obama has said, “He broke the law”, does not mean that Obama’s statement influences the court to make another decision that they would have made without his comment.

      Are you of the opinion that Bradley Manning was entitled to post the cables to WikiLeaks and that it is perfectly ok to do so?

  22. Regarding the number of laptops that were lost-if-any-I could NOT care less. And again its impolite to ask what somebody earns.

    PS>Who decides which of the allegations r turned into charges?The prosecutor?

    • The prosecutor decides if allegations are turned into charges. There is no judge involved.

      Anything more you would like to know about the Swedish legal system?

  23. Then all hope is lost. Ny was the one Borgström turned to when he wanted to reopen the case. So much for ur naive believe that there wont be a trial…ridiculous under these circumstances.

    • When Claes Borgström appealed Eva Finné’s decision he turned to Eva Finné, the prosecutor that had made the decision. Since she refused to change her decision the appeal then was passed on to the next level of seniority, the superior prosecutor Marianne Ny.

  24. FCS thats what I said. So no independent judge will determine which allegations if any r turned into charges. Once he is charged there will be a trial. So how do u justify ur believe that a trial is unlikely?

  25. Pingback: Julian Assange and Rick Downes unveiled again | Samtycke.nu in English

  26. I was very interested in Wikileaks back in 2010. I heard that 3 computers went missing, I think the first time I heard it was in september 2010. I don´t have any reasons to support any of these theories, but that´s what I heard.

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>