|Home » Industry Watch » The Technological » Hall of Monkeys
Brown paper bags and cold sweat.
Back in February the writer Hanne Kjöller was contacted by someone from Flashback. She was writing nonsense like KO. She was asked if she was familiar with any of the facts in the case of Julian Assange.
Kjöller's answer was direct: 'no I am not and I don't care'.
The Swedish feminist media mafiosi, whipped into a frenzy by Claes Borgström and Anna Ardin, have chosen to condemn Julian Assange without bothering to acquaint themselves with the facts in the case. They've spit on that strange cornerstone of jurisprudence known as presumption of innocence.
Flashbacker MoLoK revealed the following back in April of this year.
'I was made privy to the following correspondence from February.'
I read your editorial http://www.dn.se/ledare/signerat/trasig-eller-forstord this morning and I'm wondering if you have a theory why the condom can't be bound by DNA to either of the people who've been in contact with it?
OK. Then I guess you don't have a theory about that.
But have you thought about why AA deleted her tweets and blog posts but still wanted to be JA's press secretary after the alleged assault?
Nope. I wasn't aware of that at all.
For anyone with even a limited knowledge of the case, the matter of the deleted blog posts and tweets is key.
You're evidently ignorant or you've chosen to selectively ignore parts of the story.
You say 'time will tell us what happened' but time doesn't seem to have helped you, does it? It's obvious you can't be certain what happened when you've not bothered to familiarise yourself with the case!
And to admit you weren't aware that AA agreed to be JA's press secretary after the alleged assault makes this even more embarrassing for you.
No cordial sendoff this time. Sorry. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm sitting on a stool in the corner, a brown paper bag over my head, boo-hoo, in a cold sweat from the shame.
But why can't you read about the case instead of playing the fool?
Take a good look at the criminal lab report. Can you honestly say you don't have second thoughts about the allegations after having read it?
Shouldn't a condom that's been used for hours have traces of DNA? How old were the condoms? What was their expiry date? What size were they?
Were the people at that particular lab the right people to carry out an experiment into how condoms can break?
And you don't think it's worth mentioning that the constable who interviewed the one claimant is the political colleague and personal friend of the other claimant?
The fact that the claimants are interviewed 'conceptually' and the neutral and 'Assange witnesses' are taped - you think that's OK too? And if not, then why so silent, Kjöller?
Have you wondered about what SW would have needed time for, from the moment her nearest ICA food store opened at 08:00 that morning, until the alleged assault took place only one hour later?
You had an open unguarded goal to criticise the Swedish judicial system, but you're too scared to kick the ball in until your colleagues and friends are standing there next to you, protecting you.
Take the paper bag off your head. Become the person you always wanted to be.
But no reply. Nothing smart-arse to write back that time.
The Swedish feminist media mafiosi haven't studied the Assange case - not even in an attempt to answer and dismiss the questions. They very simply believe they have no need to know the facts as they've already decided which side to stand on. Hanne Kjöller didn't get to the police documents until five weeks after they were made available in her own language, three weeks after they were made available in English at this site. And to keep firmly in mind: the machinations of Claes Borgström, termed 'contempt of court' in most countries, 'show trial' by Mark Stephens, would net Borgström a prison sentence in almost any country other than Sweden. Coming off the 'success' of the Toblerone and Thomas Quick affairs, that's about par for the course for Borgström.
Hanne Kjöller's article, published 22 February 2011, might seem pretty much OK as it stands: she and her fellow feminist mafiosi are more interested in the theoretical aspects of the case - is it OK to inject one's bodily fluids in another without that other's consent? That might be an interesting topic for discussion but it's not a judicial matter.
For the judicial system is supposed to take another approach.
- Upon receipt of an accusation:
- The accused have next to give their version; and:
- It is the prosecutor's duty to interpret the events to the benefit of the accused - probably why Eva Finné dismissed the charges against Assange as the first person to actually read the testimony. And her words were unequivocal: she didn't say there's no way to prove a crime had been committed - she said point blank no crime had been committed. Period.
That's the type of 'tricky shit' Hanne Kjöller and her feminist friends aren't too keen on getting into.
Hanne Kjöller was born Hanne Kjellström in 1965. She's worked most of her career for the Bonnier publishing empire.