Jennifer Robinson: 57 varieties of “truth”

Jennifer Robinson, Julian Assange’s legal advisor, wrote a brief to Canberra Members of Parliament in early March 2011. The idea was to give “some insights into the Julian Assange case”.The brief is overflowing with errors. Fiftyseven of them. 57 varieties of truth. Before I go into detail, a short introduction.

In July this year I was contacted by journalists behind Four Corners, Australian ABC’s investigative program. They wanted some information about the Assange case. I noted they were not particularly interested in facts showing that there was something seriously wrong with Julian Assange’s defence.

But they were very nice and warm people and I must say I took a liking to them. So when they asked if I would help along with some pictures I immediately said yes .

When the program, Sex Lies and Julian Assange, aired on July 23 I saw Jennifer Robinson look straight into the camera without batting an eye and in a sweet voice say:

“You only need to look at the way that Red Notices are used around the world. Red Notices are normally the preserve of terrorists and dictators. The president of Syria does not have a Red Notice alert. Gaddafi in Libya, at the same time Julian’s arrest warrant was issued, was not subject to a Red Notice but an Orange Notice. It was an incredibly… it was incredibly unusual that a red notice would be sought for an allegation of this kind.

She completely knocked me out. Not for being good looking which she is, but for what she said. She revealed a monumental ignorance of Interpol Notices implying that even the Interpol are in on some conspiracy against Julian Assange. I could not believe my ears. And she is supposed to be a Human Rights lawyer.

I then remembered Jennifer wrote a brief to Canberra MPs in March 2011, about a week after the verdict in the first extradition hearing. Reading through the brief again there were so many errors I had to count them all. I noticed fifty seven errors, 57. Some repeats.

If you are interested int the 4 Corner’s documentary Sex, lies and Julian Assange it is here. If you want to know what is really true, here is a fact sheet about some of the errors.

Brief to Canberra MPs re Julian Assange

Jennifer’s brief is roughly eight pages long. To write about all of the 57 errors would make this post too long. So I am just commenting on the more serious errors. For clarity I shortened Jennifer’s text in each paragraph and entered my comments below. I know there’s a lot left out. Maybe I have to write a second post to deal with the rest.

There is one thing about Jennifer’s brief that is really interesting. In it for the first time the English legal team admits they’ve had conditions for Julian Assange being interviewed. The legal team wanted the complete case file in advance. The team must have been aware that on 15 September Julian Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, was denied the case files since it was regarded it was detrimental to the ongoing investigation.

1. I am writing to you to provide a briefing for the meeting of members of Federal Parliament on Wednesday 2 March 2011 regarding the case against Julian Assange. This briefing note sets out the time line of events and the human rights concerns that we have raised in relation to Julian’s case in Sweden.

2. He is currently electronically tagged and held under virtual house arrest, having spent nine days in solitary confinement in a London prison for a crime that he has not been charged with and in relation to allegations that he emphatically denies.

Julian was at the time the brief was written free on bail, with a curfew, electronic tag and having to report to a police station daily. House arrest? Of course not.

Why did Julian spend nine days in a jail? Because when asked for his address during the  bail hearings he gave an astonished Judge Riddle a postal box address in Australia. Judge Riddle didn’t appreciate the prank and Julian had go to jail.

Julian is charged with serious sex crimes and has been so since 4:11 pm on 20 August 2010. If he denies the allegations, the only place that is of interest to do so is in Sweden. In a police interview and maybe in a court. If you don’t know yet that Julian is considered charged read this for a full explanation.

3. It is mutually concerning that an Australian citizen like Julian has been treated in ways which would not accord with the standards of Australian law or indeed international law. As I set out in this note, if he is extradited to Sweden, he will be held incommunicado, in solitary confinement, and without bail for several months and then tried in secret on allegations which are weak and which would not constitute a crime in Australia or in the UK.

If Julian’s legal team seriously believed Julian’s treatment was not in accord with international law how come they did not argue that in the extradition hearings?

For the February hearing the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny supplied the Magistrates’ Court with a written statement. In it she describes what would happen to Julian if  extradited. She clearly stated it is incorrect to presume that Julian Assange would be held in pre-trial detention. He would have no restrictions unless he interferes with the investigation, destroys evidence or influences witnesses. Far from incommunicado.

Julian would of course not be held for months and he would not be tried in secret. Secret trials don’t exist in Sweden. Part of the evidence in a sex case may be heard behind closed doors to protect privacy. The trial and the verdict is always public.

Why is Jennifer mentioning that Julian would be held incommunicado? She must be aware that in the ruling in Stockholm’s Tingsrätt on 18 November 2010 the prosecutor was not allowed to impose restrictions on Julian Assange.

The allegations against Julian constitute crimes in England according to Judge Riddle’s verdict on 24 February 2011. The ruling was just a week before Jennifer wrote her brief.

In a more recent statement by the Prosecutors Office, Julian will be put in jail because he is regarded a flight risk. There will be no restrictions just as the court ruled.

 5. Julian had traveled to Sweden in August last year [2010] for the purposes of giving public lectures about his work on Afghanistan and in order to seek protection for WikiLeaks from the strong free speech and publication protections under Swedish law in advance of the Iraq War Logs, the publication of Iraq war military reports, and “Cablegate”, the publication of US diplomatic cables.

It is correct that Julian came to Sweden to seek protection for WikiLeaks. In an effort to do so he applied for residence and work permits on 18 August. Evidently he liked Sweden at the time. The choice of Sweden would give WikiLeaks a better shot at fulfilling the then 39-year old Australian’s self-proclaimed mission to make the world more transparent.

A short time after Julian was accused of sex crimes Julian’s view of Sweden changed dramatically. Sweden was regarded as a banana republic with a corrupt legal system. “The Saudi Arabia of feminism”. A country that is most willing to extradite Julian to the US.

6. Julian first learned of the allegations when he read it in the papers.

According to the police interviews in the Detention Memorandum (“Häktningspromemoria), leaked by Julian’s legal team, Julian knew very well that he would be reported to the police prior to the women going to the police. It seems he didn’t pay attention.

7. Julian volunteered himself for interview on 30 August 2010 in relation to this ongoing investigation. Julian sought an undertaking from the police that his testimony would not be provided to the press. This undertaking was violated: his police interview turned up in the tabloid Expressen the very next day.

Nothing was ever leaked to Expressen or any other media. Parts of Julian’s interview was released to the media according to the Swedish version of the Freedom of Information Act,  Offentlighets- och Sekretesslagen (2009:400). 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 it should be classified.

No police officer in Sweden can prevent Swedish citizens, or anybody else for that matter, having access to government documents according to the Freedom of Information Act. The officer pointed out by Jennifer is Mats Gehlin. He did not leak anything as he promised Julian. Julian’s interview was lawfully released to the media. A release of an official police document contains a few pages specifying the law involved as can be seen here.

Expressen applied for the interview on 31 August, received the redacted version the day after and published it on 2 September.

8. The Prosecutor, Ms Ny, granted the appeal on 1 September 2010 and the rape investigation was re-instituted. Julian was not informed of this appeal or provided the opportunity to make any submissions.

Jennifer’s wording implies that there is something not right in the appeals process. Brita Sundberg-Weitman’s expert witness statement says something very different:

Concerns have been raised by Mr Assange’s lawyers in London regarding the fact that this appeal process was undertaken without notifying Mr Assange or his Swedish lawyer or giving him the opportunity to participate or make submissions. However, I confirm that this is permitted as a matter of Swedish law and that no complaint can be raised that this process is an abuse of process, no matter how oppressive to the defendant.

It is noteworthy that Jennifer wrote Brita Sundberg-Weitman’s statement on 27 January 2011, about a month prior to the Jennifer’s brief. Jennifer must have known that there is nothing in the appeals process that is unlawful or abuse of process. For some reason she decides to leave it out.

9. It is noteworthy that Mr Hurtig had applied for disclosure of the police file in September and November 2010. Both requests for disclosure were denied by the Prosecutor, Ms Ny, despite the fact that some of this material had already been provided to the press. We were only alerted to this on 21 January 2010, some four months later, when this same material was disclosed by the Prosecutor to Mr Hurtig and passed to us. It is noteworthy that Mr Hurtig had applied for disclosure of the police file in September and November 2010. Both requests for disclosure were denied by the Prosecutor, Ms Ny, despite the fact that some of this material had already been provided to the press.

For some reason Jennifer does not mention that on 15 December she received a statement from Mr Hurtig saying “There is no requirement under Swedish law to provide the full case file, but it can be requested, and I have requested it in writing an orally.”

In the English criminal procedure the police/prosecutors are not required to disclose the case files until a suspect has entered a not guilty plea and a decision to indict is made. Just as in Sweden.

If the English legal team wanted the material that was provided to the press they could have applied for it. They choose not to. The reason is that the material released under the Freedom of Information Act is redacted and of no real use to a defence lawyer.

It is not correct that the prosecutor on 21 January 2011 disclosed material to Mr Hurtig who then passed it to the legal team. The reason I know is that I was asked by Jennifer for the material on 21 January and I sent it to her on 5:48 am on 22 January 2011.

10. Julian remained in Sweden for approximately 5 weeks to answer the allegations against him.

What is most interesting with this particular sentence is that Judge Riddle in his ruling on 24 February 2011 regarded Mr Hurtig an unreliable witness for stating that Julian remained in Sweden for 5 weeks to answer the allegations against him and the prosecutor did not make any effort to interview him. From Judge Riddle’s ruling:

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.

It is important to note that Julian left Sweden on 27 September without making one phone call to his lawyer to check if it was okay to leave. It is a bit far fetched to say that Julian left with permission and in good faith.

11. An interview was finally proposed on 22 September (more than three weeks after Ms Ny had begun the investigation) for 28 September. Mr Hurtig was unable to contact Julian to communicate this request. It is important to note here that Julian was, at that time, difficult to contact. . . . He did not flee the country to avoid interrogation, as has been suggested by the Prosecution.

On 21 September it was agreed that Julian should come in for an interview on 23 September. Since Julian was uncontactable a new date was agreed, 28 September. Julian was uncontactable between 21 and 27 September so this interview had to be canceled too.

Judge Riddle puts it like this in his ruling 24 February 2011:

“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.

It is not necessary for me to determine for current purposes whether Mr Assange deliberately fled the country to avoid further proceedings. That has not been specifically alleged. What is clear however is that he has not made himself available for interview in Sweden.

12. 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’.

Julian left for Berlin in the afternoon of the 27th of September. In the morning of 28 September he called Björn Hurtig. The call was overheard by the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi. The reason, according to Julian, that he didn’t call his lawyer between 21-27 September was that he feared for his life. As soon as Julian arrived in Berlin he stopped fearing for his life. It looks like Julian’s luggage was more important to him than his own life. Hard to believe.

According to Björn Hurtig Julian did not instruct him to take legal action. It makes sense. Lost luggage is normally reported at the airport of arrival by the passenger himself. It is not a matter for a defence lawyer.

On 30 September Björn Hurtig informed the prosecutor that Julian was willing to come in for an interview on 10 or 14 October. These dates were not rejected by the prosecutors.

The prosecutors knew that Julian was scheduled for a seminar on 6 October and a demonstration on 9 October. On 5 October Björn Hurtig was asked to bring Julian in for an interview on 6 October. Since Julian did not show for the seminar or the demonstration the planned interviews had to be cancelled. Julian did not show up for an interview on the 10th or the 14th. In fact he chose to stay away from Sweden.

13. During this period [October and November], 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 legal team knows that Mr Mr Hurtig had applied for disclosure of the police file in September and had been denied. Why is the legal team asking for full disclosure of the police file, including the exculpatory evidence such as the text messages, as a condition for offering Julian for an interview? They must know for certain that the prosecutor will deny their application. Why is it that it is only in this brief the legal teams admits having tough conditions for an interview? Why did they not tell the media in October and November 2010 that they had conditions for interviews? Were they just playing a game to make it look like the prosecutor denies all their so called offers of cooperations?

14. This is significant: throughout this period Julian had continually indicated his willingness to cooperate with the authorities by offering alternative means of interview to the Swedish and by reporting his presence in the UK to the local police. The widely reported suggestion he was in hiding from justice is simply false.

During this period Julian was asked by his Swedish lawyer to return to Sweden for an interview. He refused. It is obvious Julian was staying away from Sweden and justice.

15. After our voluntary offers of cooperation were rejected, the arrest warrant in Sweden was granted on 18 November 2010. Ms Ny, the Prosecutor, sought an arrest order to have Julian held incommunicado pending potential trial.

From the previous paragraph it is evident that the legal team wasn’t serious in their “voluntary offers of cooperation“. They must have been firmly convinced that their offers would be denied. For some reason they never told the public the real reason for the prosecutors refusal.

On 18 November 2010 a warrant for Julian’s arrest was granted by Stockholms Tingsrätt. The ruling reads: “Åklagaren får inte tillstånd att meddela beslut om restriktioner”. (The prosecutor is not allowed to impose restrictions.)

16. Just before the hearing on 18 November Mr Hurtig was, for the first time, provided a description of the allegations against Julian and provided copies of parts of the police file. At that time he was also shown more than 100 text messages between the two complainants and their friends, which contained important evidence about the allegations and the women’s motives. For example, the second complainant had been texting her friends in between sexual encounters with Julian over the course of the evening in question and states that she was “half-asleep” at the relevant time at which the arrest warrant asserts she was “asleep”: a very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case. Further, the women speak of getting “revenge”, making money from the allegations and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to the press. However, the prosecutor refused to allow Mr Hurtig to take copies or to even take notes from this important evidence.

This paragraph contains a number of errors. The full allegations against Julian were presented to him on 1st September at the same time as Sweden and the rest of the world. Leif Silbersky, Julian’s first lawyer, informed him, in a language he understood, of all the charges. When Julian heard them he reacted with anger. “He was angry and disappointed with how Swedish justice system works”, according to Leif Silbersky. The same day WikiLeaks in a tweet informed their supporters that the investigation was re-opened.

Mr Hurtig was informed of all the charges against Julian when he took over as his court appointed public defender on 8 September. Anybody that was interested could from 1 September 2010 on the prosecuters web-site view the charges. The press release and the actual decision is easy to find.

On 15 November Mr Hurtig was given an almost complete case-file for the detention hearing 18 November. Mr Hurtig was also given the opportunity to examine exculpatory evidence, some 100 text messages between the two complainants and their friends. Judging from Mr Hurtig’s reaction the text messages are not that important.

Jennifer mentions a text that according to her contains “a very important factual error in the warrant which undermines the entire case.” A quick examination reveals that Jennifer refers to a text that was sent long before the alleged rape took place. Jennifer is not aware that the factual circumstances she talks about totally undermines her conclusion.

Jennifer also mentions texts containing a plan to seek revenge. In an interview with one of the witnesses, Marie Thorn, the texts are very well explained. It was a way of giving verbal support to Ms S. My interpretation is that Marie’s statement is honest and that the texts are innocent and in no way undermines the case.

17. Mr Hurtig has made numerous requests for further disclosure under Swedish Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 23.18), but these have been denied. In correspondence with the Australian Embassy in Stockholm, Ms Ny justifies her position in refusing to disclose this important material on the grounds that Julian has not yet been charged.

As mentioned previously, Mr Hurtig explained to the legal team on 14 December “There is no requirement under Swedish law to provide the full case file”. The prosecutor’s reason given to the Australian Embassy for not releasing the case file was “Jag gör bedömningen att det skulle vara till men för den pågående utredningen i ärendet.” (I am of the opinion that it would be detrimental to the ongoing investigation into the matter.)

Julian is to be considered charged but he is not indicted yet. When he is indicted he will get the full case file with all the exculpatory evidence.

18. Despite Mr Hurtig’s requests, Ms Ny had consistently refused to inform Julian regarding the specific charges to be brought against him before he was interviewed: interview by ambush is the preferred Swedish method. We had requested a specific description of the charges and the evidence in English as a condition precedent to Julian returning to Sweden to be interviewed. This, again, was refused. The first document Julian received from the prosecutor in English was the translation of the EAW provided by the English police at Kentish Town Police station in London when Julian voluntarily met with police to answer the warrant on 7 December 2010. This was the first time he had been informed in writing of the specific allegations and potential charges against him in English. I was with Julian at the police station and witnessed his shock and surprise at reading the allegations as described in the warrant.

Julian was informed of all the allegations against him in a language he understood as early as 1 September as mentioned earlier. The conditions the legal team set up for Julian’s return to Sweden were impossible for the prosecutor to meet. Not only should he receive the complete case file with all the exculpatory evidence, it should be in English as well. Something he will be entitled to when he is indicted.

On 15 November Mr Hurtig received most of the case-file. On 23 November he faxed the case-file to the English legal team. If Julian was seriously interested in the charges against him, if he had forgotten them since 1 September, he could easily have picked up the phone and talked to his lawyer Björn Hurtig. He did not. Instead he chose to to act surprised in Kentish Town Police Station, hoping that Jennifer could convince Canberra MPs it was for real.

19. It is noteworthy that the both the EAW and the Interpol red notice were issued for Julian by Sweden just before WikiLeaks began to publish Cablegate with their media partners and were executed just days after publication began. Had Julian returned to Sweden in October or November, we know (confirmed by the findings of the judge in London on 24 February 2011) that he would have been held incommunicado in prison pending trial and we may not have seen the release of Cablegate. Furthermore, his Swedish counsel, Mr Hurtig noted at the time that it was highly irregular for an international arrest warrant to be sought in relation to allegations of this kind.

The timing of the Interpol Red Notice and the EAW had nothing to do with the publishing of Cablegate. If Julian had been cooperative and listened to Mr Hurtig’s advice this matter would most likely be over and done with in early October as deputy prosecutor Erika Lenjefors told Mr Hurtig. As early as 12 October Julian was warned that if he did not show up for an interview an arrest warrant would be sought and an Interpol Red Notice would be issued. Julian ignored the warning.

It is not likely that Julian would be held incommunicado if he had returned to Sweden of free will. “Agreed facts and Issues” states that in 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’.”

Judge Riddle did not find that Julian would be held incommunicado if he returned to Sweden.

In the ruling at the detention hearing 18 November the prosecutor was not allowed to impose restrictions.

Issuing an Interpol Red Notice to arrest a suspected sex offender is common. Red Notices are for to seek the location and arrest of a person wanted by a judicial jurisdiction with a view to his/her extradition. It is not just for dictators and terrorist as Jennifer claims in the Four Corners documentary.

20. The Swedish prosecutor has failed to disclose any materials to Julian in English (the language he understands), which is her obligation under the European Convention of Human Rights.

There is no obligation for the prosecutor to disclose materials to Julian in any language prior to indictment. If Julian is indicted, there is an obligation under the European Convention of Human Rights to disclose materials to Julian in a language he understands. Julian is not indicted yet.

23.  Ms Ny’s own deputy, Prosecutor Erika Lejnefors, had told Mr Hurtig in November that the case would likely be dropped because it was so weak.

It is correct that prosecutor Erika Lejnefors told Mr Hurtig that if Julian just would come in for an interview the case might be dropped. Why Julian refused to come in for an interview is extremely difficult to understand.

24. Further, Julian has suffered immense adverse prejudicial media coverage in Sweden, fueled both by the disclosure of police material to the press by the Prosecution and by the highly prejudicial media statements of the lawyer of the two complainants and funded by the Swedish government, Mr Borgstrom. Mr Borgstrom has called Julian a ‘coward’ for not returning to Sweden and has alleged that his refusal to return is indicative of his guilt.

All the material that is supplied to the press is lawfully released according to the Freedom of Information Act. There isn’t “immense adverse prejudicial media coverage in Sweden”. It is true that the media coverage is not as favorable as Jennifer’s brief is.

28. In summary, our concerns regarding the case in Sweden to date include:

  • the unlawful and prejudicial disclosures by police and the prosecution regarding ongoing criminal investigations;

There are no unlawful disclosures by the police and the prosecutors. All disclosures are in line with the Freedom of Information Act.

  • the failure to disclose details of the allegations and the evidence in English;

Julian is entitled to full disclosure of the allegations and the evidence as soon as he is indicted.

  •  the breaches of police procedures in the investigation of the allegations;

As far as I know there are no breaches in police procedures. I am critical to the way this investigation has been conducted. Unfortunately this is not the only investigation that is poorly conducted.

37. Second, demands must be made of the Swedish authorities to ensure that, if Julian returns to Sweden, that his human rights will be protected. These include:

  • A guarantee be provided that he will not be extradited to the United States, but instead will be allowed to travel back to Australia.
  • In considering the risk of extradition to the US from Sweden, it must be recalled that Sweden has a history of complying with US requests to hand over persons.

It is not possible for the Swedish government to issue a guarantee that Julian will not be extradited to the US. Such a guarantee would short circuit the court system and would be unconstitutional.

Sweden does not have a history of extraditing people to the US for military or political crimes. In fact in the last 50 years not one person has been extradited. As late as in 1992 a CIA defector, Edward Lee Howard, was not extradited to the US from Sweden.

57 varieties of “truth”

Henry J. Heinz was an amazing character.  At age nine he started selling his first product, bottled horseradish made from his mother’s own recipe. In 1869 he started the Company, packaging and selling foodstuffs on a small scale. Although ketchup is the most famous Heinz product today it didn’t come along until seven years later in 1876.

But what about the 57 varieties? While riding a train in New York City in 1896, Henry Heinz saw a sign advertising 21 styles of shoes, which he thought was clever. Although Heinz was manufacturing more than 60 products at the time, Henry thought 57 was a lucky number. So, he began using the slogan “57 Varieties” in all his advertising to make people realize that he had lots of products. Today the company has more than 5,700 products around the globe, but still uses the magic number of “57.”

Jennifer Robinson is Julian Assange’s legal advisor, a function she’s had since October 2010. Originally from Australia, educated in Oxford, now the legal Legal Director for the Bertha Foundation in London. But what does an intelligent, witty, nice-to-have-a-drink-with Human Rights lawyer have to do with ketchup? Nothing really. It’s the 57 varieties that is the connection. In the brief to the Canberra meeting of MPs regarding Julian Assange in March 2011 I noted that there were 57 varieties of truths.

In 1896 Henry J. Heinz noted that 57 varieties is a large number of products. Today I note that 57 varieties of “truth” in one brief is a very large number. I am sure that Henry J. worked very hard to create his 57 varieties just as Jennifer did to create hers. But I just cannot understand why she did it. Doesn’t she know that the truth will come out sooner or later?

34 thoughts on “Jennifer Robinson: 57 varieties of “truth”

  1. *In the couple of weeks leading up to JA’s departure from Sweden on 27 September, JA seems not be have been concerned about arrest. If he had been he would have left Sweden earlier and not have done so through an airport, as he finally did. 

    Why JA did not contact his lawyer, and take up the opportunity of an interview with Prosecutor Ny, is hard to explain on rational grounds. 

    Equally, it is hard to find a legitimate reason why Prosecutor Ny has never offered to interview JA in London, on the condition that JA imposes no conditions on the interview.

    • It is very difficult to explain Julian Assange’s behavior on rational grounds. I agree with you. It seems like he is very badly advised by his English legal team.

      Julian was charged around 4:11 pm 20 August. Prosecutor Ny has after an investigation arrested Julian without a warrant on 27 September (“anhålla”) and on 18 November asked a court for an arrest warrant (“häkta”). On 27 September he was arrested suspected on reasonable grounds (“skäligen misstänkt”). On 18 November he was arrested on probable cause (“på sannolika skäl”). It is important to note that in England and Sweden you cannot be arrested (and held) without a charge.

      Julian and his legal team have been and still are of the opinion that Julian is not charged yet. That he is just a suspect. How they come to this ridiculous position is beyond me.

      In fact the case is at a very late stage. The prosecutor wants Julian to enter a plea. If I understand English criminal procedure this takes place in a court of law where the suspect is present. In order to explain the situation let’s look at an example.

      Let us just assume that Julian had committed the crime in England and had fled to Sweden, everything else just the same. The English prosecutor had conducted the investigation and wanted Julian to enter a plea. If anybody would suggest that an English court should convene in the Ecuadorian Embassy in Stockholm to let Julian enter a plea everybody would immediately understand that it is not possible. It is out of the question.

      I agree that the prosecutor Marianne Ny does not explain herself very well. She is not the only one. I have been in contact with the Prosecutor General (“Riksåklagaren”) and he is just as bad in explaining the Swedish Criminal Procedure so it is understood by people with a common law background. The Prosecutor General says he does not think it is important to explain the law since the English Judges has made the right decisions. I don’t agree with him.

  2. *Very strange indeed. If JA has already been charged with the offences, then that would suggest that the prosecution believes it now has sufficient evidence to prove the allegations in a court. Any interview with JA by the prosecution would be superfluous (except for self-incrimination); and he would be well advised to say nothing, if one were ever to take place. Also, there now seems no impediment to his Swedish lawyers being shown all the evidence and witness statements. From the Swedish point of view the only difficulty remains to get their hands on him, so they can start the trial.

    If this is all true, it is very different from what is said in the English language press – whether it be “for” or “against” Julian Assange.

    Looking at the evidence about this case, most of which seems to be already in the public domain, I find it impossible to believe that a non-biased court could ever prove beyond reasonable doubt that JA was guilty of the offences. And that is why I have tended to believe that prosecution is malicious and promoted for ulterior motives.

    • I agree that what I say is different from what most English language press say. I am fully aware that what I say implies that a lot of “legal experts” are in the wrong.

      Julian is charged with the crimes and has been so for a while. Two English courts have ruled that Julian is charged, otherwise he could not have been extradited. The only thing strange to me is Julian and his legal team’s stubborn resistance to accept facts. They still argue that Julian is not charged. That is really stupid and it will not help him in any way.

      Two Swedish courts have ruled that the evidence was sufficient to issue a warrant for his arrest as early as in November 2010. If there is malicious prosecution or prosecution for ulterior motives two courts are in on it. To me that is not probable.

      As I wrote previously the case is just very close to an indictment. Julian will be asked to enter a plea. That is why it is not correct to say that the prosecutor just wants to interview him. That is the reason Julian has to be in Sweden. During this “final interview” when Julian will be asked to make a plea he can of course remain silent. That would be really stupid because it means that he would has to go to court and defend himself.

      From what I have seen I don’t think it is a strong case but I haven’t seen everything. Since it is not a strong case Julian’s behavior is even more stupid.

      • The issue of “being charged” is clearly causing confusion. Let’s throw out the term and look at it like this: a suspect is accused of a crime, so the prosecution investigates. There may come a point at which the prosecution believes it has sufficient evidence to take the case to court for trial. Has Mrs Ny reached that point? For me that is the key point at issue.


        “Two Swedish courts have ruled that the evidence was sufficient to issue a warrant for his arrest as early as in November 2010.”

        The legal rules and procedures governing the possible arrest and detention of a suspect during the investigating phase are not factors determining whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.


        “Two English courts have ruled that Julian is charged, otherwise he could not have been extradited”

        The decisions of the British courts on whether to permit extradition has no bearing on Swedish criminal procedure.


        “During this “final interview” when Julian will be asked to make a plea he can of course remain silent. That would be really stupid because it means that he would has to go to court and defend himself.”

        Of course a legal code may specify anything regarding this. Nevertheless, interviews during the investigation phase can be helpful for either or both parties. However, once the prosecution has decided it has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, an interview with the prosecution can be of no assistance to the accused.


        “If there is malicious prosecution or prosecution for ulterior motives two courts are in on it. To me that is not probable.”

        The matters dealt with so far by the courts concern JA’s arrest only. My assumption is that Swedish courts are not corrupt, though their personnel, like people everywhere, have their prejudices. Even so, I believe it probable that the Swedish judiciary would throw this case out.

        The key question is why is Prosecutor Ny so keen to promote this case? She seems to me to have done everything she can to make it run. One view (and I don’t know whether it is true or not) is that she is a feminist version of Andrej Vyshinsky. Another is that she is “being helped” by Swedish intelligence agencies.


        JA’s decision to avoid coming to Sweden is due to the possibility of his onward extradition to the US. That is not to say that there isn’t also an element of irrational self-pride in his decisions.

        • Most of what you argue is totally beside the point. The term charged is not difficult to understand. The only people having problems are supporters of Julian Assange. Most of them seem to be of the opinion that there is some conspiracy at hand.

          The Stockholm’s Tingsrätt and Svea Hovrätt have decided that it is correct to issue a warrant for Julian Assange’s arrest after having heard the prosecutor and viewed the evidence of Julian Assange’s alleged criminal behavior. The courts have decided there is enough evidence to make a full investigation of Julian Assange. You write “The matters dealt with so far by the courts concern JA’s arrest only.” What is dealt with by the courts is if Julian Assange’s alleged criminal behavior is serious enough to issue an arrest warrant. The answer is yes.

          The case is near the end. Julian Assange is going to be interviewed and asked to enter a plea. Depending on the interview and the plea the prosecutor will make a decision if the case should go to court.

          Julian Assange’s behaves as if he is trying to avoid prosecution in Sweden. Onward extradition to the US is not a possibility. IF Bradley Manning was in Sweden when the US discovered the leaking of documents Bradley Manning would most likely not have been extradited.

          Think about this for a moment. Julian Assange’s lawyers claim that Julian Assange have been held without charge for 18 months. This claim can only be true or false. If the claim is true then it is extraordinary that Julian Assange’s legal team have done nothing about it except talk about it. The claim is false as are most of Julian Assange’s legal team’s claims. There are 57 errors in Jennifer Robinson’s brief to Canberra members of parliament.

      • That makes your presentation of events even more wrong. Fact is that there was just ONE active charge until the other three had been confrimed by a court.

        • I don’t know what is wrong with you. You know nothing about the Swedish Criminal Procedure, you know little about the Assange case and you appear to be a very prejudiced person. Your latest comment isn’t even logical.

          What you say is that a charge in Sweden has to be confirmed by a court. If so, can you please show me when the “ONE active charge” was confirmed by a court.

          I have in earlier posts shown that in Sweden there is no formal equivalent to the English term charge. That is why Professor Wong uses the term considered “charged”. “There is no doubt that – at the latest – a person will be considered ‘charged’ when he or she is suspected of crime on reasonable grounds.”

          In Sweden there is a formal decision when a preliminary investigation is initiated. A preliminary investigation cannot be initiated unless a person is at least suspected of a crime on reasonable grounds. On 1 September 2010 the preliminary investigation against Julian Assange was re-opened. At that time he was charged with more crimes than three.

          I understand that it is important for you to comment even though your comments almost all the time show your ignorance. Please read Professor Wong’s paper on the Swedish Criminal Procedure and try to understand the legal system before you comment.

          • Being as insulting as always Göran. Why doesn`t that surprise me?

            BTW the one charge I referred to was molestation (AA). The investigation into the other three was reopened by Ny. and appealed by JA`s lawyer..

            PS: Your personal opinion beyond your witness statement about the deleted tweets-is of no relevance to any1 involed. You are just citing +interpreting court decisons which is not your job. THEY are what counts until the allegations themselves are dealt with + not just extr.matters.

          • Julian Assange’s lawyer did not appeal the decision to reopen the preliminary investigation. Please, get the facts straight.

  3. *It appears the writer is being wilfully ignorant or is lying as he accuses Ms Robinson of doing. It is incorrect that Julian Assange has been charged…according to the writer, apparently it is not just his legal team that has this wrong it must also the Govt. of Ecuador as they have said the same thing. I don’t think we can take anything Ms Ny says seriously, she has been found lying before, she said Sweden could not interview Mr Assange outside Sweden, that is a lie, she knows it, the world knows it. False evidence has been given to the Swedish Police by AA, the ‘torn condom’, it has been forensically tested, that is on the public record and has been for quite some time. The test came back negative, to both Mr Assange and AA’s DNA, this means there is no case and fraud has been committed. SW has never signed a statement, but lets just gloss this over for the sake of this article. The EAW is for questioning, there are no charges, that is why he is wanted for questioning, understand?

    • It does not matter what Julian Assange, his legal team, the Government of Ecuador or you think about the case.

      The Magistrates and the High Court have ruled that Julian Assange is to be regarded as charged with crimes. The EAW was issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution. That is the reason that the courts ruled it was ok to extradite him. If the EAW was issued for questioning Julian could not be extradited. End of story.

  4. (This is in response to Göran Rudling’s reply to Gail Malone; the design of this website does not allow me to reply directly below.)

    How convenient that you mention the Magistrate and High Court, but not the Supreme Court.

    “Ms Rose has raised a further point which has validity. Para 83 of the
    judgment refers to offences of which Mr Assange “stands charged”. This
    is not accurate as charges have not yet been brought against Mr Assange.
    The judgment will be corrected to read “offences in respect of which
    his extradition is sought”.”

    Mr Assange has not been charged. Stop pursuing this ridiculous argument that he has.

    • Dear X,

      The problem is fixed. It was a problem with a HTML-editor. If you want to repost your comment it will appear in the correct position.

      Thanks a lot for alerting me to the problem.


    • Dear X,

      Firstly, I do agree with the Supreme Court. You don’t. The Supreme Court agrees with the High Court that Julian Assange is charged and therefore the ruling that Julian should be extradited is correct. If Julian was not charged with a crime (being an accused person) he could not have been extradited. Extradition is not allowed for merely questioning. See Lord Steyn in Re Ismael (1999):

      “It is common ground that mere suspicion that an individual has committed offences is insufficient to place him in the category of accused persons. It is also common ground that it is not enough that he is in the traditional phrase wanted by the police to help them with their enquiries. Something more is required….”

      “In England a prosecution may also be commenced if a custody officer decides that there is sufficient evidence to charge an arrested person and then proceeds to charge him…. Despite the fact that the prosecuting authorities and the court are not involved at that stage, the charging of an arrested person marks the beginning of a prosecution and the suspect becomes an accused person. And that is so even if the police continue to investigate afterwards.”

      “For my part I am satisfied that the Divisional Court in this case posed the right test by addressing the broad question whether the competent authorities in the foreign jurisdiction had taken a step which can fairly be described as the commencement of a prosecution.”

      Now to the term “stands charged” that you refer to. Stands charged means to stand charged with a crime in a court of law, being indicted. Since we know that Julian Assange is not indicted yet, the Supreme Court had to correct the sentence. The correction does of course not mean that Julian Assange is not an accused person, charged with crimes.

      Please do understand that Julian Assange is considered charged. Otherwise he could not have been extradited. You, Julian Assange and his legal team are plainly wrong.

  5. Hi Goran,
    I much appreciated your AA revelations and early reports about the missing DNA on the torn condom, but heard that you had the Swedish police protocols concerning the Assange case in your possession for some time before the Rixstep translations, and kept them hidden. (“Bloggers had copies but arrogantly kept the information to their Smeagol selves.”

    If this is true (and Smeagol is you), how did you procure this documentation and why not disclose it immediately? It certainly would have helped with preparations for the High Court case.

    • Dear Cathy Vogan,

      You ask a very important question. I will answer fully. Firstly let me reply this way. Of course it is not true since the originator of the story is Rick Downes of Rixstep. He is a serial liar and well known story teller.

      Secondly. I received the redacted versions of interviews with AA and SW at 19:31 9 December 2010. There is nothing in the redacted versions that is of interest to a defence lawyer. Here is a copy of the redacted version of AA’s interview. As you can see there is no information there. The only thing that is of interest is that the interview is a summary (konceptförhör), that it is not recorded and there are very few facts on circumstances from the time of the alleged crime. Nothing about the crayfish party, nothing from the meeting on 15 August 2010 etc. On 14 December 2010 I posted an article and I revealed all the conclusions that could be drawn from the redacted versions. I was first to report that the interviews were not recorded.

      At the time I was firstly contacted by Julian Assange’s lawyers, 23:50 12 December 2010, they were busy preparing for the bail hearings. They did not ask for the redacted version of the interviews since they had since 23 November 2010 the complete Detention Memorandum. I also know for a fact that the lawyers at that time were not interested in changing anything in their defence strategy. I know it since I was very critical to the strategy since I was convinced they were going to lose the case.

      When I was preparing for my witness statement in the middle/end January 2011 I asked for copies of the Detention Memorandum. The lawyers refused to disclose it to me. On 21 January 17:43 2011 Jennifer Robinson asked me “I am most interested in seeing the file that was leaked to the press that you have to see what is different.” At 05:44 22 January 2011 I sent the redacted files to her. Jennifer is not telling the truth in her brief to Canberra MPs. The redacted files were not given to Mr Hurtig by the prosecutor on 21 January 2011. I was the person that supplied the files to the legal team.

      I am interested in finding out the truth of this matter. That is the reason I wrote about the deleted tweets. I have noted that Julian Assange, his legal team, Rick Downes, John Pilger, Craig Murray and loads of other people are extremely liberal with the truth and that they are doing everything they can to misrepresent facts. Since I am interested in the truth I have to report what the legal team is involved in, influencing people with false information. Because of my writings I am branded as some kind of “anti-Assange” person and I am personally attacked. Nobody is challenging the facts.

      If there is anything more you want to ask about feel free to ask any question. I will reply to the best of my knowledge.

      In summary.

  6. Do u seriously think that this extradition case was winnable? Considering that his lawyers used various strategies:a broad approach, focusing on the allegations+on an aspect of law yet nothing worked.

  7. And after more than 2 years the investigation is incomplete? Still no indictment? Lets face facts – If the case was not weak as water, Assange would be indicted after all this time, or at the very least interviewed and indicted. It seems the Police and prosecutor in Sweden are incompetent or this case is indeed politically motivated after all.

  8. Hi Goran,
    Much appreciated that you also reported the initial interviews with AA and SW were not recorded. It’s hard to believe there was no recording equipment available for both women, especially since AA’s interview was not done during that first visit. Having initially given your support to the women, and done your best to mediate, I fully understand your shock at the discovery of AA’s submission of false evidence. I agree with you that the case is now very weak, especially since SW didn’t sign her statement, which she claims was “railroading” her into confirming a portrayal of rape.

    How is AA likely to be punished for her actions? I have gathered that Swedish justice takes a stern view on this kind of behaviour, yet she seems nonchalant, and since the lab report was issued in Oct 2010, I’m wondering why it had no apparent impact on Prosecutor NY’s investigation, or was even mentioned by the msm for almost two years. Do you have any idea why your article of March 5th 2012 ( ) was completely ignored, except by a few insignificant bloggers such as myself ( ), Rixstep, Christine Assange, the Wikileaks’ defence team and a small pocket of the social media? You wrote extensively about the lack of chromosomal DNA from either party on the so-called ripped condom, and I agree that your previous analysis of AA’s police interview already showed without a doubt that the condom was “fabricated evidence”.

    It seemed reasonable for you to state the following, and I was baffled as to why nothing changed, even at a level of internal inquiry:

    “What is important is that this case proves that the Swedish police and Swedish prosecutors are unable to distinguish between a real and a false accusation… For me it is very obvious that one of the women who accuses Julian Assange of sexual assault, Anna Ardin, is making up her accusations. Or in other words, she accuses Julian Assange of committing criminal acts that she knows he is not guilty of.”

    It must be frustrating to do such rigorous investigation and have it fall on deaf ears. So what’s happened? You seem to have done a complete turn-around. Is that getting you more attention?

    Goran you have made an unusually groundless statement about Rixstep’s Rick Bent being a serial liar, but your recent explanation of “to be considered as charged” contradicts what you wrote back in December 2010:

    “Julian doesn’t seem to understand he’s under arrest. He’s not been charged. The police only want to question him so they can decide if he’s to be charged”.

    You also contradict yourself or mislead at other times in your 57 varieties of truth article – many times I might add – but I would like to highlight what I consider to be the most important:

    You say that you find it hard to believe that Julian Assange would fear for his life during the week of the 21-27th of September; before he handed over the Afghan War Diaries to the German press on September 28th – as documented by your extracts from Stephanie Maurizi. I’m not sure that anyone would find that fair comment, but you attempt to support its credibility by saying: “As soon as Julian arrived in Berlin he stopped fearing for his life.”.

    You stated earlier that he arrived in Berlin the day before, September 27th, and Maurizi reports that he made the call regarding his lost or stolen luggage the moment the documents were signed over on September 28th. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Assange may have been fearing for his life for one day after his arrival in Berlin; notably, until after he unloaded the Afghan War Diaries.

    If I had been Maurizi on that day, I would have feared for my life until I got the material to print. As for Assange, it is highly reasonable that he would suspend all telecommunications during the days leading up to the hand-over, and therefore be unaware of any appointments that had been made for him during that period.

    I guess what you’re saying is that, in his shoes, you would have been more concerned about your luggage, and that Judge Riddle’s equally myopic “I do not know why” [Assange went off the map before delivering the material] somehow supports your “hard to believe” conclusions.

    What is truly hard to believe, is that you would attempt to cite general principles about Swedish police and court procedures, when you know that those exceptions you cited will permit the court to be as secretive as it wishes. What is undeniable is that in this case, prison IS a restriction that was specified by Procecutor Ny (due to apparent flight risk); and what is regrettable, despite your stamp of approval, is that police disclosures to the media DID cause harm.

    You hardly mentioned the “person unknown”, who initially told the media that it would be worth lodging a FOI request, but of course who that was is irrelevant. What is apparent in this perfectly legal process you describe, is the potential for unjustified smear, especially if someone wants the accusations to be broadcast, or the accused’s name is newsworthy. Perhaps you might like to explain what constitutes “harm”, the only impediment you mention, especially for Julian, whom you’ve already claimed is innocent in relation to AA’s fabrications.

    I understand, from reading through your early communications with Wikileaks, that you thought the situation could be massaged socially, but surely by January 2011, it was time to give up on that myopic theory. What may have seemed to you like fancy or egoism on Julian’s part – that the US were after him – later turned out to be supported by overwhelming fact. Besides the unchecked foul play from AA, which YOU largely uncovered, we discovered the Wikileaks Grand Jury; now active for 787 days and “unprecedented in scale and nature”. We also learned, via Stratfor, of the sealed indictment, which curiously enough, requires Assange’s incarceration, to be opened. With your inordinate ability to put two and two together, you must have understood how Ny’s hell-bent attempts to get him into prison would do nicely to slit that envelope. We have seen Ecuador grant asylum in the face of political persecution, and begin to face the consequences; and Assange finally declared an ENEMY OF THE STATE, whatever that means besides hatred and vengeful name-calling… Why, oh why Goran, do you not smell the rat when you so successfully sniffed out its tail?

    Cablegate, the Stratfor emails, the Spy Files and the Afghan War Diaries may seem insignificant to you, compared to being nice to a woman who submits false evidence to get you arrested, or attending to your lost luggage in a timely manner, but you Goran, have decided to ignore the bigger picture.

    It is shameful that you abandon your earlier diligence with a paltry:
    “Unfortunately this is not the only investigation that is poorly conducted”
    Stay on track, and realize that the investigation is the core issue; not what people say about it; even Jennifer Robinson.

    • Dear Cathy,

      I will make a full reply to your comment. For now, just a short comment. I don’t understand why Julian Assange’s lawyers need to make statements that are not true. Mark Stephens, Jennifer Robinson and Per E. Samuelsson have in this case made numerous statements that must be considered lies. Do you think it is ok that Julian Assange’s legal advisor Jennifer Robinson misrepresent facts when she is “informing” Australian MPs?

    • Dear Cathy Vogan,

      When I started to look into the Assange case I wanted to find out the truth. I still do. My interest in the case is that justice is done.

      I don’t know who you are, your background or what your interest in the case is. From your latest comment and article on it sure looks like you create and spread false information. I don’t think you do this knowingly like so many other Assange supporters. But I think it is correct to say that you are unknowingly in the “Assange deception complex”. Let me explain.

      You write: ” You seem to have done a complete turn-around. Is that getting you more attention?

      For you to make a statement like the one above it is obvious that you haven’t read my blog. It is mostly in Swedish so you are excused. In December 2010 I wrote a handful of articles that were highly critical of Julian Assange and his English legal team. Just two quotes:
      “I can also see that Julian Assange’s lawyers are misrepresenting the facts in what seems to be a disinformation campaign.”
      “It is also evident that Julian Assange is lying, or at least grossly is misrepresenting the facts, regarding what has happened.”

      You go on: …… your recent explanation of “to be considered as charged” contradicts what you wrote back in December 2010:
      “Julian doesn’t seem to understand he’s under arrest. He’s not been charged. The police only want to question him so they can decide if he’s to be charged”.

      Let us examine this. I have checked my blog for December 2010. I haven’t found these words in English anywhere. In a post in Swedish on 17 December I wrote:
      ”Julian verkar inte heller förstå att varför han nu är arresterad. Han är inte åtalad. Polisen vill bara förhöra honom för att kunna bedöma om Julian ska åtalas.”

      I am fluent in Swedish and ok in English. Your translation is incorrect. Below is my translation:
      “Julian does not seem to understand why he now is under arrest. He is not indicted. The police just want to question him in order to assess whether Julian should be indicted.”

      You have eliminated a “why” and a “now” and changed “indicted” into “charged”. You post your translation and claim that I have actually written it. Then you go on to accuse me of making a “complete turn-around” and that I in my writings today I contradict what I wrote in December 2010. All based on false information. Before you are finished you insinuate that I have done all this to get “more attention”.

      What you have done is just what the average Assange supporter does regularly. Pick up something, twist it a bit and then present it as a fact. No verification whatsoever. Please note that I don’t think you do this knowingly like Jennifer Robinson and Rick Downes of Rixstep. But the effect is just the same. False information and false claims.

      I assume you are not fluent in Swedish. That’s why I would like to know who pointed these sentences out to you and who made the translation? And I would like to know what you did to verify that the translation was correct?

      Can you now see that you are unknowingly in the “Assange deception complex”? Please tell me what you are going to do about it. I am all ears.

      Being uncontactable
      The official explanation why Julian Assange was uncontactable between 21 and 27 September 2010 is that Julian feared for his life. He was so afraid he could not make one phone call to his lawyer. Not even from a borrowed phone. He was so afraid he could not ask a friend to check with his lawyer. I don’t think this is the truth.

      At first instance after Julian fled Sweden, in the morning of 28 September, he was contactable again. He called his lawyer. Apparently he had stopped fearing for his life. The official explanation again: Julian wanted to talk to his lawyer about lost luggage. I don’t think this is the truth.

      Now let’s look at your explanation. You write:
      “It is therefore reasonable to assume that Assange may have been fearing for his life for one day after his arrival in Berlin; notably, until after he unloaded the Afghan War Diaries.
      If I had been Maurizi on that day, I would have feared for my life until I got the material to print. As for Assange, it is highly reasonable that he would suspend all telecommunications during the days leading up to the hand-over, and therefore be unaware of any appointments that had been made for him during that period.”

      You think it is “reasonable” that Julian feared for his life since he was in possession of the Afghan War Diaries and as soon as he had “unloaded” the files to Stefania Maurizi he stopped fearing for his life. You think your explanation is “reasonable” because you had feared for your life if you were in possession of the Afghan War Diaries before you had the opportunity to get “the material to print.”

      You totally ignore the fact that the Afghan War Diaries were published in some of the world’s most influential papers some 60 days earlier than 28 September and the material was in most of the world’s media in July and August. You ignore the fact that Julian was still in possession of much more sensitive unpublished material, Iraq War Logs and Cablegate files.

      Excuse me Cathy Vogan. Your explanation is even more ridiculous than the “official explanation”. You invented your explanation out of extremely thin air (vacuum actually) and you are trying to convince us it is “reasonable”. I am very sorry. You and I have very different ideas of what is “reasonable”.

      Julian Assange’s behavior (being uncontactble for seven days while in Sweden and as soon as he left Sweden being contactable again) is to me proof that he was not willing to be interviewed and fled the country. It is also a very strong indication that Julian and his legal team are not telling the truth.

      The facts of the case and other issues
      Please understand that the facts of the case are only of importance in Sweden. Talking about condoms, false accusations, lack of DNA, revenge, half or full asleep, tweets and God knows what is absolutely meaningless unless it is in a police interview with Julian in Sweden or in a Swedish court. It does not matter what you and I or anybody else think about the case. The police and the prosecutors have more information than we do. They think there is enough evidence to indict Julian and they are supported by two Swedish courts. I have not seen one shred of evidence that there is political influence or any foul play.

      You mention that the investigation of leaked files that ended up in WikiLeaks’ possession is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. I think that is perfectly all right. The leak is the greatest leak of classified information in the history of the United States. If the US didn’t investigate it aggressively I would have been extremely surprised.

      Is there any evidence that Julian Assange will be extradited from Sweden to the US? It seems like you think so. Let’s look at what one of his close supporters, Vaughan Smith, says about it in an interview 9 October 2012 with Mary Gearin in ABC’s AM program. AM is Australia’s most informative morning current affairs program according to ABC.

      MARY GEARIN: So just to clarify what happened in that meeting, the five supporters went to him and essentially raised the question of whether or not he would be prepared to leave?

      VAUGHAN SMITH: Yes, we absolutely asked that, and he explained that he was unable to leave because he had evidence that pointed to the fact that leaving the embassy would lead him to, you know, get sent to the United States of America, and…

      MARY GEARIN: What is that evidence?

      VAUGHAN SMITH: Well, that’s quite a difficult question. Essentially, you can approach it a different way. Nobody will give him any assurances, any assurances that he won’t be sent there.

      Every single time I have flown I have asked the Airline for assurances that the plane wouldn’t drop out of the sky. They have always told me it is extremely unlikely but they couldn’t guarantee it wouldn’t happen. That has been good enough for me. I assume it is not good enough for Julian.

      For the last 50 years not one single person has been extradited from Sweden to the US charged with a political or a military crime. Not one. There have been more than 400 cases. In August of 1992 Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, a CIA agent that had defected. The Prime Minister at the time was Carl Bildt. The same Carl Bildt that is accused of being a US Embassy informant and an arch enemy to WikiLeaks. Sweden’s track record of extraditions to the US shows that it is extremely unlikely that Julian would be extradited.

      Krister Thelin is Sweden’s leading expert on extraditions. He is of the opinion that it is extremely unlikely that Julian would be extradited to the US.

      End thoughts
      Very many Assange supporters make claims that are false and they misrepresent facts on a regular basis. They are totally unaware of it. They think they are right and that anybody that shows facts that proves that Julian Assange and his legal team are into a disinformation campaign of some kind is an infidel. Telling the truth about Julian Assange is blasphemy. There is no doubt there is an fundamentalist Assange cult. And there is an “Assange deception complex”.

      Not everybody can translate from Swedish to English and get it right. But it is not that difficult to get it right if you want to. The easiest thing is to contact the original author of the text you want to translate. You can also use Google’s translation service. In my version “åtalad” is translated into indicted. Why you Cathy Vogan make misleading translations I don’t know. I am very interested in hearing your explanation.

      In your comment you write: ”You also contradict yourself or mislead at other times in your 57 varieties of truth article – many times I might add”

      I know you think there are errors in my article about Jennifer Robinson’s 57 varieties of truth. So far you have not shown one. Nada. Zilch. Noll. You are most welcome to write a rebuttal. I will publish it on my blog. So far nobody has pointed out any errors in my article.

      You write ”Stay on track, and realize that the investigation is the core issue; not what people say about it; even Jennifer Robinson..

      I disagree with you. The core issue is the truth. And to find the truth you have to make sure that all facts are verified. If you don’t verify facts you end up in spreading false information. And that is something I refuse to do. I leave that to Jennifer Robinson, Rick Downes and Assange supporters.

  9. You are stating the following above:
    “It is not correct that the prosecutor on 21 January 2011 disclosed material to Mr Hurtig who then passed it to the legal team. The reason I know is that I was asked by Jennifer for the material on 21 January and I sent it to her on 5:48 am on 22 January 2011”.

    Why would a witness in an ongoing investigation be allowed to have the secret investigation in his hand ?
    Why is not Rudlings statement in this investigation, when he states to be a witness.

    “It is not likely that Julian would be held incommunicado if he had returned to Sweden of free will. “Agreed facts and Issues” states that in 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’.”

    He was arrested in his abscence 27/9-2010 at 14:15, this arrest was never cancelled, and there is no evidence that Ny in any way had promised to remove this arrest. The quote of – an interview ‘discreetly” is pure balony as Ny all the time thought that Hurtig didn´t know about the “secret arrest” that was issued.

    The leaked investigation has timestamp on the fax to FSI London as by 23 november 2010 11:30CET
    The leaked investigation went on internet 30 january at 21:11CET
    It is know that the leaked documents was hibernating for 6-7 days on the original adobesite in England.

    This does not match your quote that his legal team leaked the secret investigation, but it matches the upcoming trial in London in feb 2011, what evidence do you have to support that his team was leaking the docs.

    • When I read your comment it is evident that you don’t understand the written texts. Then you go on to make claims that you cannot back up by facts. In order to make you understand I will repeat myself.

      As I wrote in a comment I received the redacted versions of the two accusers interview at 19:31 on 9 December 2010. My files were the files originally disclosed to Aftonbladet on 23 August 2010. The material was public in the sense that anybody that applied to see it could get a copy. At 5:44 on 22 January 2011 I sent this material to Jennifer Robinson because she had asked for it some 12 hours prior.

      There was nothing secret about the material as I hope you will finally understand. The material is also useless to defence lawyers since it is heavily redacted. The legal team had the full Detention Memorandum from 23 November 2010. You are making completely pointless arguments.

      Regarding the arrest you are wrong in many ways. Firstly the arrest was known to Björn Hurtig on the 30th of September according to his own witness statement. As seen from Stefania Maurizi’s tweets regarding her meeting with Julian Assange in Berlin on 28 September Björn Hurtig knew of the arrest on 28 September. Marianne Ny is of the opinion that Björn Hurtig knew already on the 27th. The arrest was of course not secret to Julian Assange’s defence lawyer.

      From Björn Hurtig’s witness statement paragraph 15: “However, on 30 September I was assured by Erika that inside of this he did not risk being taken into custody.” Björn Hurtig was well aware of the fact that Julian was not going to be arrested.

      Björn Hurtig’s own witness statemen contradicts you. You are very ill informed. On top of that you have a tendency to make things up from extremely thin air.

      I know for a fact that the Detention Memorandum (“Häktningspromemorian”) is leaked from the English legal team, Mark Stephens’ Office. I know who posted the link to the Detention Memorandum on Flashback. I know who posted it on the Adobe site. And I know from whom the Detention Memorandum originates. It is from staff at Mark Stephens’ Office. I will not reveal my sources because she/he who is responsible does not want me to.

      You claim that the Detention Memorandum hibernated on the Adobe site for 6-7 days on the site in England. Can you support your claim with facts or is this just another of your baseless claims?

      I have seen you claim that Anna Ardin’s tweets were “discovered” by Flashback. Can you please show where on Flashback the tweets can be read. Or is this just one more of your claims that you cannot support by facts?

    • Dearest duqu,

      I am not twisting anything. It is a simple matter of your comprehension.

      There are no dates for the “secret investigation”. It is only in your mind. The peanut under your tin foil hat.

      You have no idea who leaked the Detention Memorandum. Unfortunately that is not the only thing you don’t know anything about.

      You claim that Flashback discovered the deleted tweets. Still there is not one link that confirms that. It doesn’t matter what you write.

  10. Notwithstanding the legal niceties – 57 or otherwise – the whole case against Julian is ridiculous and brings the Swedish legal system into contempt. This would appear to indicating that the system is administered by “Apparatchiks” and we know what they did to Mother Russsia!

Leave a Reply

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