Checking Naomi Wolf’s 8 big problems in the Assange case and coming up empty

The Age of Information,
Has turned out to be the Age of Ignorance.
                 Mark Crispin Miller

Professor Mark Crispin Miller has been kind to post my rebuttal of Naomi Wolf’s claims on his blog, News from Underground. RESPECT.

Recently I noticed an article posted on Mark Crispin Miller’s blog, “News from Underground.” The article, written by Naomi Wolf, is called “Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the ‘Case’ Against Assange.” I have followed the Assange case from the beginning. I’ve made discoveries of deleted tweets, poor police work and other irregularities. Because of my findings I was asked to be a witness for the defense in the extradition hearings on the 7th and 8th of February 2011. There are problems in the Assange case, but none of Naomi Wolf’s claims are actually real problems. In fact, Naomi Wolf’s so-called problems are misconceptions and fictitious conspiracy theories.

In order to form an opinion we have to do some work. Make studies and find facts. Use criteria to draw conclusions. It is the sum of a number of conclusions that forms an opinion. If we do not base our opinion on facts, our opinion is nothing more than a point of view. It has no merit. There are many points of view in the Assange case and lots of disinformation, outright lies and conspiracy theories.

In Naomi Wolf’s article there are no references to sources. There is no mentioning of the underlying facts upon which she bases her opinion. As if her opinion is not to be questioned. It makes me wonder what research she did do prior to writing the article.

According to Naomi Wolf:

“Their transcript of the complaints against Assange is strikingly unlike the dozens of such transcripts that I have read throughout the years as an advocate for victims of sex crimes. Specifically, there are eight ways in which this transcript is unusual.”

For some time I’ve been trying to find information that supports Naomi Wolf’s point of view. So far I have not been able to find anything.

Checking Naomi Wolf’s 8 big problems and coming up empty

I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case. New details from the Swedish police make this quite clear. Their transcript of the complaints against Assange is strikingly unlike the dozens of such transcripts that I have read throughout the years as an advocate for victims of sex crimes.

Specifically, there are eight ways in which this transcript is unusual.

All the police documents in this case are in Swedish. Naomi Wolf is, as far as I know, not fluent in Swedish. Her perception of the case depends on the translation. In the original documents in Swedish I haven’t found anything that supports Naomi Wolf’s interpretation. Therefore I ask Naomi Wolf to reveal the translation she has that supports her views.

 1) Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.

Although determination of police actions from the contents of police interviews, transcripts, is very difficult if not impossible, it does not prevent Naomi Wolf from having an opinion:

“The Assange transcripts, in contrast to any typical sex crime report, are a set of transcripts in which neither of the women has indicated a lack of consent. (There is one point at which Miss W asserts she was asleep – in which case it would indeed have been illegal to have sex with her – but her deleted tweets show that she was not asleep, and subsequent discussion indicates consent.)”

From the interview it is evident that Miss W claims she was asleep when Julian Assange initiated intercourse with her,  an action that in most countries is regarded as rape. The sex was also unprotected.

Naomi Wolf is obviously confused when she states that Miss W’s “deleted tweets show that she was not asleep”. There is nothing in the investigation that indicates that Miss W tweeted, much less deleted any tweets.

Miss A, the second accuser, has deleted tweets. But the tweets contain nothing about  being asleep or not. I know this personally since I was the one that discovered the deleted tweets.

2) Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.

“The transcripts seem to indicate that the police processed the two accusers’ complaints together.”

“Thus the dual testimonies taken in this case are utterly atypical and against all Western and especially Swedish rape law practice and policy.”

There is absolutely nothing in the original police documents that indicates that the two women were interviewed together or that the two women were “processed” together. On the contrary police reports show the two women were interviewed separately and gave their statements separately. If there is anything in Naomi Wolf’s transcripts that indicate the two women were interviewed together I would like to see it.

A memorandum from the police officer in charge, Linda Wassgren, states that the two women were interviewed separately before any complaints were registered on 20th August 2010. “Jag valde då givetvis att samtala med kvinnorna var för sig och bad dem detaljerat att berätta om vad de varit med om.” (I chose the course of talking with the women individually and asked them to tell me in detail about what they have been through.)

In Sven-Erik Alhem’s expert testimony for the extradition hearing on the 7th and 8th of February there is a comment in paragraph 15: “they appear to have interviewed both complainants together”. Sven-Erik Alhem was given incorrect information by Julian Assange’s lawyers, something that was noted by Judge Riddle.

3) Police never take testimony from former boyfriends.

The police interview anybody they reasonably believe has information about a sex crime. That includes all possible witnesses: husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, stepfathers, stepmothers, brothers, sisters, friends, work mates, girlfriends, boyfriends etc. What will be used in court is another matter. There is a great difference between what evidence is admissible in a US court and a Swedish court.

“There’s a rape shield law in Sweden (as there is throughout Europe) that prevents anyone not involved in the case to say anything to the police, whether it be positive or negative, about the prior sexual habits of the complainant.”

There is no rape shield law in Sweden. Maybe Naomi Wolf can clarify what she thinks is the Swedish rape shield law.

4) Prosecutors never let two alleged victims have the same lawyer.

Naomi Wolf is apparently unaware of the how the Swedish legal system works. Since 1988, alleged victims of sex crimes and other serious crimes are offered a “målsägarbiträde”. The actual decision to appoint a “målsägarbiträde” is made by the courts. The prosecutor is not involved in that decision.

The function of the “målsägarbiträde” is to provide support and assistance to the injured party and defend his/her interests in the case. It is also the duty of the “målsägarbiträde” to look after the economical interests of the injured party.

So why would the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, allow such a thing [allowing the two women have the same “målsägarbiträde”] in this case? Perhaps — bearing in mind the threat that Assange will be extradited to the US once he is in Sweden — because she does not expect to have a trial, let alone have to try to win one.

The prosecutor does not decide who is the “målsägarbiträde” for a victim. There is nothing extraordinary about two victims having the same “målsägarbiträde”. Naomi Wolf is ill informed. She is better at formulating groundless conspiracy theories.

5) A lawyer never typically takes on two alleged rape victims as clients.

It is obvious that Naomi Wolf cannot tell the difference between a lawyer and a “målsägarbiträde”.

“No attorney–and certainly no high-powered attorney– would want to represent two women claiming to have been victimized by the same man, for the reasons above: the second woman’s testimony could be weaker than the other one’s, thus lessening the lawyer’s chances of success.”

From Naomi Wolf’s statement it is evident that she is not aware of how a rape case is tried in Sweden. There is a fundamental difference between being a lawyer in a case and being a “målsägarbiträde”. The latter’s job is to support and to help the victim tell the police all important details in the preliminary investigation. The “målsägarbiträde” is not an active part in the trial. It is the prosecutor that acts in a Swedish court on behalf of a sex crime victim. It is the prosecutor’s responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty.

It is common that one “målsägarbiträde” can have two or more persons that are victimized by the same offender. It is also common that two or more persons who were victimized by the same offender have the same prosecutor and that the cases are tried together.

6) A rape victim never uses a corporate attorney.

A rape victim does not want a corporate attorney to act as a “målsägarbiträde”. The “målsägarbiträde” in the Assange case is not a corporate attorney.

“Given that a law firm such as this one charges about four hundred euros an hour, and a typical rape case takes eight months to a year to get through the courts – given that legal advice will cost tens of thousands of euros, which young women victims usually do not have access to – it is reasonable to ask: who is paying the legal bills?”

The “målsägarbiträde” for the two women is Claes Borgström. He is not a corporate attorney. He is a Criminal lawyer, a Public Defender. It is easy to see if one bothers to look at the lawyer’s web site. He specializes  in Criminal cases, Public Defending, Counsel (målsägarbiträde), Employment Law, Discrimination Law, Business Law, Contract Law and Tort. Information about Claes Borgström is available on the Internet. Just google “Claes Borgström law”.

Naomi Wolf depicts the two women’s “målsägarbiträde”, Claes Borgström, as an expensive corporate attorney who charges 400 Euros an hour. She wants us to believe that the two women’s “legal advice will cost tens of thousands of euros , which young women victims usually do not have access to – it is reasonable to ask: who is paying the legal bills?”  It is apparent that Naomi Wolf wants us to accept as true that there is some mysterious well-off dark force footing the bill.

None of this is true. There is no expensive corporate attorney involved. Claes Borgström is a public defender/criminal lawyer. The “målsägarbiträde” is paid by the Swedish state at a standard rate of approximately 130 Euros per hour.

7) A rape victim is never encouraged to make any kind of contact with her assailant and she may never use police to compel her alleged assailant to take medical tests.

“The Police do not act as medical mediators for STD testing, since rapists are dangerous and vindictive.”

“A victim is NEVER advised to manage, even with police guidance, any further communication with her assailant that is not through formal judicial channels.”

There is nothing in the original police reports that indicate that the women were advised to contact the alleged assailant about anything. If there is anything in Naomi Wolf’s translations indicating this is the case I ask Naomi Wolf to show it.

Julian Assange’s lawyers have in vain tried to tell a story that the two women went to the police to investigate the possibility of forcing Julian Assange to take an HIV-test. And then, since the Swedish sex laws are written by fanatical state-feminists, a feminist prosecutor realized a sex crime had been committed and decided to chase Julian Assange around the world against the wishes of the two women.

It is true that one of the women talked about HIV-tests prior to going to the police. It is true that both women talked to Julian Assange prior to going to the police. But I can’t find any information in the original documents that the women contacted Julian Assange after the alleged crimes were reported.

What we want to know is what happened at the police station. We want facts. We don’t want hearsay. To find out what happened at the police station on 20 August 2010 we have to look at the memorandum by Linda Wassgren. She states rightfully that the two women talked from very early on about the crime rape and that both women were victims. In her memorandum there is no mentioning of forcing Julian Assange to take an HIV-test.

Naomi Wolf claims to have  “23 years of reporting on global rape law, and my five years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters”. It is beyond me how she can claim “rapists are dangerous and vindictive.” Anybody with remote experience of rapists knows there are all kinds. Some even have characteristics similar to Julian Assange. This is not a suggestion that Julian Assange is a rapist or is guilty of the crimes he is accused of.

8) Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active investigation because they face punishment for doing so.

“The full transcripts of the women’s complaints have been leaked to the US media.”

“It seems quite likely that the Assange documents were leaked by the police or prosecutors because they got a signal from higher-ups that they could do so with impunity.”

To make one thing very clear from the beginning: as far as I know, no documents have been “leaked” from the police or the prosecutors. Not one single document.

The only confirmed leak is the “Detention Memorandum”. The 100 page file containing interviews with Julian Assange, the two women and a number of witnesses. This leak originates from the office of Julian Assange’s lawyer as one can easily tell by the first page. I know who uploaded the file to the Internet, information that I intend to keep to myself. The person has no connection to the police or the prosecutors or the accused or the accusers.

If there are no leaks from the police and the prosecutors, why are official documents in the hands of the media? It all has to do with the Swedish law Offentlighets- och Sekretesslagen (2009:400), a law similar to Freedom of Information Act. The law simply states that all documents in government and public institutions are public unless they contain information that, if revealed, would cause harm. It includes police documents. Anybody can apply to see a specific document. The government must release the document unless it decides that the document or parts of the document should be classified.

In the Assange case the media asked for the police files around 21st August 2010. The files were released with details edited out some days later. Details that were regarded sensitive to the ongoing investigation. In the released files there are some documents that explain the police department’s reasoning behind editing out some sections. I have condensed the file that was released to the media to include only the police department’s decision and the first interview with Miss W.

Julian Assange’s lawyers have complained on numerous occasions that the media were given more information than they were: a statement that is utterly false. If one compares Miss W’s interview in the Detention Memorandum with the one that was handed out to the media it is evident that the lawyers were given much more information.

According to Offentlighets- och Sekretesslagen (2009:400) anybody can apply to get information from the police department. It is also a fact that anybody who applied to get the same information as media received in late August 2010 would get it. A letter from the Australian High Commission on 20th December 2010 confirms this. “If the Embassy so wishes, it is possible to get the file which has been released to the media.” Julian Assange’s lawyers never applied to get the file.

Preparing for my witness statement for the February hearing, I was asked by Assange’s lawyers on  the 21st January 2011 at 17:42 to send a copy of the files that were released to the media. I sent the file 12 hours and 2 minutes later.

We have to remember that the police and the prosecutors have made mistakes revealing the fact that Julian Assange was wanted for rape. I wouldn’t call it a leak. It is an unauthorized confirmation. In the eventing of 20th August 2010 a number of media organizations were informed that Julian Assange was wanted by the police for rape and molestation. These organizations tried to confirm the information by calling the prosecutors’ office. The only organization that was successful was the tabloid Expressen. They called the prosecutor in charge, Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, and after Expressen revealed all the details of the case finally the prosecutor confirmed that Julian Assange was wanted. It was this confirmation that was the mistake. The prosecutor did not reveal any details of the case.

Who informed the media organizations about Julian Assange’s arrest? Nobody knows. But my view, which could be wrong, it is just as likely that someone close to Miss A informed media as it is that someone in the police and prosecutors office did it. Until we know, we have to accept that we don’t know.

9) Karl Rove is an advisor to the Swedish government in its prosecution of Julian Assange

In the first paragraph of her article Naomi Wolf states:

Now that Andrew Kreig, of the Justice Integrity Project, has confirmed Karl Rove’s role as an advisor to the Swedish government in its prosecution of Julian Assange on sexual misconduct charges, it is important that we note the many glaring aberrations in the handling of Assange’s case by the authorities in Sweden.

As it is with most of Naomi Wolf’s claims this one also has no foundation.There is absolutely nothing to support her claim. Just innuendo. In reality it is like this: in 2008 Roland Poirier Martinsson invited Karl Rove to the Almedalen week, an annual event in Visby Gotland which is an important meeting place for everyone involved in Swedish politics. Karl Rove gave some interviews and argued that Sweden should adopt a pro-active Internet policy, advice that he passed on to the Swedish government (dominated by the Moderate party). Proof that there is nothing sinister going on is that we can find information of Karl Rove’s clients on his web page. One client is “the Moderate Party of Sweden”. If Karl Rove was involved in some behind the scenes dirty tricks with the present Swedish government to get Julian Assange illegally to the US, do you think he would publish this information on his website? I don’t think so.

The alleged connection between the Swedish government and Karl Rove has created great interest on the Internet. It’s been repeated over and over again. But it is simply not true. I will deal with this issue in great detail in a later post.

Facts about extraditions from Sweden to the US

Julian Assange is scared that he will be extradited from Sweden to the US. There is nothing in the history of Swedish extraditions to the US that warrants Julian Assange’s great fear. Many well known and respected people have commented on Sweden’s track record for extraditions to the US. Geoffrey Robertson QC, part of Julian Assange’s legal team in the extradition hearing in February 2011 states:

“Sweden has a deplorable record and this is quite – it’s been condemned by a number of European judicial authorities for what is called “rendition” to the CIA without going through a proper legal process.”

What is the truth? In the last 50 years not one person has been extradited to the US for espionage or military crimes. Sweden has granted residence permits to more than 430 deserters from US military forces. Not one person has been extradited to the US. Not one.

In 1992 the US asked for the extradition of a CIA defector, Edward Lee Howard. Sweden refused to extradite him since we do not extradite people who are accused of political crimes. Espionage is regarded as a political crime.

What is of interest is that the Prime Minister at the time of the refusal was Carl Bildt. The same Carl Bildt that Julian Assange labels his arch enemy and a long time US Embassy informant and bed-fellow with Karl Rove.

DID Julian Assange flee Sweden in order to avoid interrogation?

Julian Assange’s lawyers claim that Julian did not flee Sweden to avoid interrogation. From the judgment in Magistrates’ Court one can read:

I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source, that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21st – 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. I have heard no evidence that he was readily contactable.

There is a document called Agreed statement of Facts and Issues. In it one can find information that Julian Assange has avoided police interviews on three separate occasions. 28 September, 6 October and 14 October. When the prosecutor on 12th October was informed that Julian Assange would not show up on 14 October she indicated her intention to issue an EAW if he did not attend for an interview.

Julian Assange and his lawyers claim that he has been available for interviews. A claim that is not true according Judge Riddle and Jennifer Robinson: “It is important to note here that Julian was, at that time, difficult to contact.”

The prosecutor allowed Julian Assange to leave Sweden

When the preliminary investigation was re-opened on 1st September Julian Assange was suspected of rape and other sex crimes. On the 15th September Björn Hurtig, Julian Assange’s Swedish lawyer, was told that Julian Assange was not under arrest and had no restrictions on his travel. That message could be interpreted as if Julian Assange wanted to flee Sweden to avoid interviews he could do so and he would not be stopped. The message was not that Julian Assange was cleared of suspicion and that he was a free man.

Why wasn’t Julian Assange arrested? It seems like Julian Assange gave his lawyer and the prosecutor an impression that he would come in for an interview to clear his name. During the extradition hearing Björn Hurtig said that he was given the impression that Julian Assange was willing to come back to Sweden for an interview.

Experts opinion of the case

From the judgment in Magistrates’ Court:

Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. … The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem. Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.

Many articles about the Julian Assange case cite Brita Sundberg-Weitman’s and Sven-Erik Alhem’s stated opinions. What one has to remember is that their opinions are not about what really happened in the case.

Conclusion

There are many legal myths about the Assange case. Naomi Wolf invents some in her article. Most of the documents in this case are in Swedish. I haven’t found anything in the original Swedish documents that support Naomi Wolf’s views. I therefore assume there are errors in translation. I hope that Naomi Wolf is interested in getting an accurate picture of the case. If so I am happy to help to make sure that she gets all relevant information.

There are problems in the Assange case. Mistakes have been made by the police and the prosecutors: something that unfortunately isn’t uncommon in sex crime investigations. There is nothing that suggests outside political influence. Most mistakes can be attributed to incompetence.

In my view the most remarkable thing about the case is Julian Assange’s own comments and his lack of appropriate crisis management. Paul Ronge, one of Sweden’s most experienced Public Relations experts, puts it very well in his interesting article “So I advised Assange – and he did just the opposite”:

“I think the truth is that Assange from the very beginning of this process has done everything absolutely wrong.”

 

35 thoughts on “Checking Naomi Wolf’s 8 big problems in the Assange case and coming up empty

  1. *I’ve read that the retired prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem is very critical of prosecutor Marianne Ny because she issued an EAW instead of us Mutual Legal Assistance.

  2. This article is an insult to the reader intelligence.

    This is not journalism and not even opinion, this is junk mixed with lies and more junk.

     It is obvious to anyone with a brain that the Assange case is a setup and that articles like yours are here to push public opinion: we are tired of the corrupt media and administration. If you want to read some analysis on the issue try australian abc four corners Assange Sex and Lies or read something from Glenn Greenwald. 

  3. *Naomi Wolfe’s ignorance of  Swedish laws is incredible. The false claims are even worse. I’m glad you’re exposing her untruths because she is very influential and shouldn’t be allowed to get away with such a poor piece of journalism.

  4. How much veracity should we ascribe to the complainants? That’s not really our business, is it? It is, in fact, the business of a court. If Mr Assange believes that the complainants cannot be taken seriously, he should have no fear of going to trial.

    • You are absolutely right. It is a matter for the courts. If Mr Assange believes he is innocent he has nothing to fear. If he was serious about not being extradited to the US he would have come here two years ago to clear his name.

      • The issue is not whether he has anything to fear regarding a just process and trial for the rape charges. He is not guilty and will glady go to trial for that, and furthermore has said that we would be happy to meet with prosecutors and have the trial in the embassy. The issue is a demonstrated track record of unjust extraditions to the US by Sweden. If there was an official legally binding statement that Sweden wouldnt extradite him to the US, he would be there same day to face the rape charges in trial.

        • I are you serious. A trial at the Equadorian embassy in London?

          Please support your claim that Sweden’s track record of extraditions to the US with just one example for the last 50 years. Just one!!!

  5. *Just the fact that the UK was ready to invade the Ecuador Embassy shows how much outside Political influence is involved in this case.
    When a crime takes place, just look around to see who benefited the most from it to find the guilty party.
    Or should we just accept how convenient for the US that Assange would commit a crime that could very well facility his deportation.
    And even if no deportation takes place and Assange is clear of any accusation in Sweden, the amount of Fear that this has created in the minds of the world’s population is not an accident.
    This whole process has a purpose in the eyes of the US gov, they are sending a clear message against anyone who may try to oppose them.

    • I am sorry. “Just the fact that the UK was ready to invade the Ecuador Embassy shows how much outside Political influence is involved in this case.” This is not a fact.

      If you would have followed the case you would know that you are making things up. The UK informed Ecuador of all the relevant laws. If the UK would end diplomatic relations to Ecuador the Embassy would be closed. And if that would happen Julian Assange would not be protected. I can understand that you believe that is an invasion. Even if you believe the sky is green it does not change the color of the sky.

  6. *Regarding leaks, could you just clarify how Expressen may have got the details of Assange’s police interview on August 30th 2010, was that information available in the public domain at that time?

    • First of all. There are no leaks. Everything that has come out of the Police Department has been lawfully released by the police.

      According to Offentlighets- och Sekretesslagen (Freedom of Information Act) all documents in government are regarded as public documents. That means that an individual or organization can apply to see a particular document. The government must release the document. If the government does not release the document you can take the government to court. If the government believes that the document contains parts that should be classified the document will be edited.

      I have shown parts of the file that was released to the media on 23 August. As you can see sensitive parts of the interview with Miss W are edited out. Her name and adress and delicate parts of her statement.

      Regarding the interview with Julian Assange on 30 August. It was in the public domain that an interview would take place on 30 August. What Expressen did was apply to see that document. It was released to Expressen on 1 or 2 September. Sensitive parts were edited out. What Expressen published was on 2 September was just the non sensitive parts of the interview. I you want to apply to see documents you can.

      What is apparent from the interview with Julian Assange is that he has no clue about Swedish law, Offentlighets- och Sekretesslagen. To me that is remarkable since Julian Assange applied for a residence and work permit in Sweden on 18 August. His intention was to get a Utgivningsbevis for WikiLeaks. Get protection under Swedish laws.

    • You are correct. Anybody that would apply would get the information. Julian Assange and his lawyers make very many incorrect claims. The number is so great that I have started to write about it. I do not think it is good defence to misrepresent facts that are very easily checked.

      One thing you have to bear in mind. The crime Julian Assange was questioned about was Ofredande, Molestation (when somebody annoys you). It is not regarded as a serious crime in Sweden. Sexual Molestation is something very different. So most of the contents would most likely have been regarded as non-sensitive.

  7. **Göran Rudling is as usuall incorrect in most of what he writes. He is correct though that Naomi is wrong on some of her ‘facts’. However, Göran is wrong in his corrections, and it’s well known that he delibaratetly missunderstands facts, he insert sentences that are taken out of context, he claims untrue facts [but by mixing up with some true he think he gets away with it] and he has some sort of agenda to discredit Assange [even though I don’t understand his motives ]. As an example, Whether the second accusers was asleep or not is impossible for anyone apart from the involved to know, it is clear though that she has stated “half asleep” in communications with her friends. It is also clear that, before she was “half awake” she went to the store to buy breakfast, eat breakfast , undress, have consensual sex, XXX Half Awake unprotected sex XXX,  dressed and prepare to leave and finally to drive Assange on her bike to the  railwaystation. Few (apart from Göran) would believe that she in this short timeperiod had sufficient time to really fall asleep and adding that she without doubt at different occassions herself has claimed “half asleep” makes it very hard to think anything different.

    http://undermattan.com/2012/08/27/assange-handlingar-fran-domstolar-och-annat/ 

    Göran is right that Assange was hard to get in touch with during his last days in Sweden [21-27/9]. However, the 20th of September he was informed that he was free to leave Sweden. He had no reason to believe anything different. Also, the prosecutor first denied him to be questioned between 10th and 15th of October, claiming it was to late [so the prosecutor could not wait two more weeks after Assange had waited 5 weeks for her without any action at all]. Instead of agreeing on a date that wasn’t to invasive for Assange [remember, most people (except Göran) needs to work for a living and cant’t wait for eternity to get questioned] the prosecutor instead tried to arrest Assange infront of invited [by someone, mabe the prosecutor???] press. After all very odd procedures[even in a Swedish perspective] and the fact that she[the prosecutor] wanted to humiliate him by a public arrest with invited media in the front row made him decide that he no longer wanted to play the game on the premises of the unprofessional prosecutor whom by all means tried to make his life miserable. 

    It is also of importance to know that the very same prosecutor in February (just a few months after the EAW on Assange) were presented with a case where the suspect that fled to London most likely had infected a Swedish woman with HIV. A much more severe accussation and a lot stronger evidence (and with a risk to infect more people with dangerous behaviour in the future). Her decision??? No surprises here, she did not issue an EAW in this case.  Göran Rudling has not managed to present any similar case where an EAW has been issued from Sweden. However, he compare Assange to another case where the suspect is a pedophile (but in this case it was not even a Swedish case). Anyone that have a doubt of Görans Agenda should think a bit about why he tries to associate Assange with a Pedophile!!! [this is in one of the recent articles in swedish]

    • Dear Guapo,

      At least you got some facts right. “He is correct though that Naomi is wrong on some of her ‘facts’.” ” Göran is right that Assange was hard to get in touch with during his last days in Sweden [21-27/9]”
      I would appreciate if you could point out if there is one thing wrong in my article about Naomi Wolf 8 big problems instead of just writing general nonsense.

      Whether the second accuser was asleep or not is not an issue in the Assange extradition case. It is a matter for the Swedish courts.

      Now to some of your claims.
      “However, the 20th of September he was informed that he was free to leave Sweden.” Can you please supply me with facts supporting this claim. Firstly you got the date wrong. Secondly Julian has never been informed “that he was free to leave Sweden”. He has been informed that he was not under arrest and that he had no restrictions traveling. He has never ever been cleared of suspicion.

      “[the prosecutor] wanted to humiliate him by a public arrest with invited media in the front row”. Please show facts that support your claim. Please do not cite any drivel from Rixstep (Rick Downes).
      In the document AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ISSUES we can read in paragraph 20:
      “At around the same time [5-8 October], the prosecutor stated that, notwithstanding the extant arrest warrant, that the Appellant was ‘not a wanted man’ and would be able to attend an interview ‘discreetly’.”

      Please note that the Assange defense team AGREES this to be a fact.

      “Assange had waited 5 weeks for her [the prosecutor] without any action at all”
      . This is another zombie fact and it been dealt with on a number of occasions. Your ignorance is monumental. Page 10 in the Judge Riddle’s decision:
      “Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.”

      Please Guapo, do some elementary fact checks before you use your keyboard.

      • It is more than a little annoying that you so clearly support the posts that support your opinion and diminish those that don’t.  In the interest of more than a one-sided ‘argument’ you need to address the formatting issues on this site.  It does not allow me, for instance, to ‘reply’ to your ‘reply’ to any one of this individuals who have challenged your article.

        Supporter of Feminism and Freedom of the Press

        • I am very sorry to hear that. I will look into ASAP. Give me ten minutes.
          I think it is fixed. Nested comments, 5 levels deep. Would that please you?

  8. *"From the interview it is evident that Miss W claims she was asleep when Julian Assange initiated intercourse with her,  an action that in most countries is regarded as rape. The sex was also unprotected."

    According to her interview, she woke up, said not “Stop” but “What are you wearing?” and even though he responded “You” – meaning no condom – she allowed him to continue to climax.

    "There is absolutely nothing in the original police documents that indicates that the two women were interviewed together or that the two women were “processed” together"

    They arrived about 2PM. AA later says that she thinks that it was her confirming a condom issue during the initial informal conversations that sparked the ‘rape’ investigation.

    It is not until 2 hours later in the police station that SW is interviewed on her own.

    "A memorandum from the police officer in charge, Linda Wassgren, states that the two women were interviewed separately before any complaints were registered on 20th August 2010. “Jag valde då givetvis att samtala med kvinnorna var för sig och bad dem detaljerat att berätta om vad de varit med om.” (I chose the course of talking with the women individually and asked them to tell me in detail about what they have been through.)"

    Yes. She chose that option after talking to both of them together.

    "Naomi Wolf is apparently unaware of the how the Swedish legal system works. Since 1988, alleged victims of sex crimes and other serious crimes are offered a “målsägarbiträde”. The actual decision to appoint a “målsägarbiträde” is made by the courts. The prosecutor is not involved in that decision."

    At the time that the lawyer made representations, the only ongoing investigation was into a possible physical molestation of AA. I’m not clear what court might have appointed him as “målsägarbiträde” to both women under those circumstances.

    "Julian Assange’s lawyers have in vain tried to tell a story that the two women went to the police to investigate the possibility of forcing Julian Assange to take an HIV-test."

    Perhaps you should read the full memo by Linda Wassgren that you link above

    ———

    Vid 14 tiden samma dag inkom tvö kvinnor till stationen som ville prata och få lite råd om två tidigare händelser och de var lite osäkra på hur de nu skulle gå vidare.
    At 14:00 that day two women came to the station who wanted to talk and get some advice on two previous events and they were a little unsure of how they would now go ahead.
    ———

    That’s what the person on reception, who logs people in and records their purpose wrote.

    They didn’t come in to report a crime. They came in to ask for advice.

    As in “A person hit me over the head and stole my handbag. Do you think that it is possible to convince them to wipe the blood off my head and give my handbag back?” – “What? You say that this is some sort of crime? Oh my goodness! Who would have guessed?”

    • Let’s try to get this straight.
      Linda Wassgren is the female officer that took the two womens complaints. She interviewed the two women separately. It is not until the complaints are recorded that a decision was made to make a full investigation. Standard police practice. The two women were interrogated separately again after the investigation was started. On 20 August there were two interviews and one interrogation. AA was interrogated over the phone the following day.

      Regarding the Memo.
      Vid 14 tiden samma dag inkom två kvinnor till stationen som ville prata och få lite råd om två tidigare händelser och de var lite osäkra på hur de nu skulle gå vidare. Inledelsevis så nämndes brottet våldtäkt och att båda kvinnorna skulle varit utsatta.
      At 14:00 that day two women came to the station who wanted to talk and get some advice on two previous events and they were a little unsure of how they would now go ahead. Starting off the crime of rape was mentioned and that both women should have been victimized.

      There is no mentioning of STD-tests. There is mentioning of forcing Julian to take a test. Both women obviously reported a crime.

      Stockholms Tingsrätt appointed Claes Borgström. I think the official decision was on 25 August.

      Whether SW was asleep, half asleep, awake, unconcious is a matter for the Swedish courts. Julian is an detained, probable cause. The only way to get rid of the EAW is to appear in Sweden. It does not matter if you and I think he is innocent. It is the courts that decide.

  9. Pingback: Washed-up nobody continues to perpetuate rape culture « Another angry woman

  10. “A memorandum from the police officer in charge, Linda Wassgren,
    states that the two women were interviewed separately before any
    complaints were registered on 20th August 2010.”

    The arrest warrant issued at 17:00.

    SW’s interview did not terminate until the news of the warrant was given to her – at 18:40 – at which stage she became hysterical – and the interview had to be terminated – without the record being read back to her for approval.

    AA was not formally interviewed until the following day.

    Thank you for your absolutely misinformed blog.

    Or not.

    I could go on and on through the detail……

    I’ve been trying not to do my own blog post about his train wreck and all the idiots who are waffling – but crap like this convinces me that I’ll have to finish a work in progress that just makes me grumpy.

  11. *Now see what you made me do :(  .. or alternatively :)

    Above I wrote “At the time that the lawyer made representations, the only ongoing investigation was into a possible physical molestation of SW”

    That should have been “possibly physical molestation of AA”

  12. *Reason to argue about sleep/not sleep is that you argue the accussations are crimes in England and other countries. Since a court in no other country than (perhaps) Sweden would draw that conclusion it’s clear that it’s not a crime in other countries. [Otherwise you could clame whatever you like without substance]

    Is it your opinion that a suspect should be indefinitely available at any time regardless of the influence that would have on that persons life. If he had stayed a year, two years, five years … in sweden to wait to be interrogated, would that in your opinion be enough???

    Regarding the prosecutors SMS to Hurtig. Important messages that could cause prosecution was not an allowed way for correspondance between the prosecutor and the  defender (since they would not be registered properly). Further, “The week commencing 11th October 2010 was later rejected as being too far away.” (prosecutors decision at some time later than  30th September 2010). Thus, after all time she had wasted she now claims about  a week is inacceptable to wait??? This is all according to your document ‘agreed facts…’. That she wanted todo a public humiliating arrest in between is also something I’m sure you know about. That is the day when Hurtig were asked to wait late at his office (7th of Oct???).

    It’s an understatement that the prosecutor has done everything in her power to interfere as much as possible with Assange life. Just from the document you yourself links to it’s clear who is the major obstructor in the process.

    Is it in your opinion consistent with fairness that the prosecutor have the opinion that “Not convicted offenders” should be locked in even though there is no hope of a conviction? I.e. is it in accordance with fairness that the prosecutor and not the court decides if someone is guilty and thus makes up an own punishment decided outside the courts. That the prosecutor issues an EAW for Assange but not for a person suspected of transferring HIV does not really make sense.  The only thing that is consistent in this case is that each decision that is taken from the legal authorities (prosecutor, police …) is very far out in a normal distribution. One or a couple of strange decisions can allways happen, but when the abnormal becomes normal something is fishy.

    There have been alot of attention to legal processess in Greece involving Swedes. In those cases both swedish politicians as well as your idol Mårten Schults have been very critical to Greece and many have been arguing that the swedes should not be forced to go to Greece. This is the moral quadruple that is characteristic of Sweden nowdays.

    Instead of investing in equipment and personel to be able to investigate crimes that can be proved (like recording interviews with suspects and accussers and other witnesses)  the prosecutor wastes what will likely be several billions of Skr in the end (including missing contracts for swedish industry in Southamerica). 

    • Either you are blind or just plain stupid or maybe both. Two UK courts have decided that the crimes Julian is accused of are crimes in the UK. They are crimes in most jurisdictions. End of story.

      Julian Assange’s lawyers do not agree that the prosecutor wanted to make an humiliating arrest. Agreed facts and issues.

      It is a fact that Julian himself has done as much as he could to make his own life very difficult by not taking advice from his Swedish lawyer.

      Get into your head that Julian Assange is häktad på sannolika skäl, detained probable cause. It is not decisions by police or prosecutors. Three Swedish courts have ruled.

  13. *Has Assange actually been charged by Swedish authorities in relation to these matters? Or is his extradition sought for the purpose of questioning him? If,as I understand, the motive for the extradition is to question Assange, why do the Swedish prosecutors not fly to England to conduct such questioning? 

    • The EAW states that Julian Assange is requested to be “arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution” He is not sought for the purpose of questioning.

    • No, it is just a trick to get Assange to Sweden have him delivered to Dobermann service, a branch of Gorilla Service Ltd for an chartered flight to Guantanamo without stopping in Ecuador. Evil things are going to happen and I sooooooooooo scared.

  14. Pingback: Naomi Wolf says sorry… sort of | Edinburgh Eye

  15. Pingback: The Assange case: Naomi Wolf errs on facts and basic geography | Samtycke.nu in English

  16.  “So most of the contents would most likely have been regarded as non-sensitive”

     Yes, the part that Expressen scanned and reproduced was fairly innocuous.  However,   amongst other observations, they surmised that the allegation must have been about unprotected sex as it was Expressen ‘sources’ that revealed that Assange was accused of deliberately damaging the condom.

    It would be interesting to look at the whole of Assange’s  redacted interview that was released,  to see how much of what the  Expressen adumbrated could be achieved only with the benefit of their additional sources. Indeed, you may have already done so?

    • Dear Parallax,

      I might sound like a very negative person but my view is there is nothing to find in the Assange police interview that was released to Expressen. The “Assangsistas” think that everything that is done by the Swedish authorities is proof of some “conspiracy”.

      Look at the issue from another end. You now know that the info was released by the authorities under the Swedish Freedom of Information Act. Look at what Julian and his lawyers claim about this. Do they accurately depict the event? Are they trying to imply something? What are they implying? What do they think they can gain by it?

      Am I killing your investigative spirit now?

  17. “Am I killing your investigative spirit now?”

    Not at all,  just wondering how much additional info the Expressen needed  from their sources.

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>