|Home » Industry Watch » Assange in Sweden: The Police Protocol (Translated)
The Assange Police Protocol: Translator's Note
The truth will out, the truth wins out.
The truth will out, the truth wins out.
30,000 words in five days. Translators normally manage about 2,000 words per day. This feat was by no means a world record but it was difficult and a lot of hard work.
The roughest parts were the transcripts. Transcripts are the next best thing to being there - to having a video recording. The task of the transcriber is to record every non-word, sound, and pause in addition to the actual content, this to as accurately as possible convey the attitude and reactions of the interviewee.
Good translations normally never attempt a 'word for word' approach. It's not only words that differ in different languages - it's the ideas and concepts as well. The goal of a translator is otherwise to get the idea across rather than produce stilted language no one really grasps. But the translations of the transcripts necessarily took another approach: reproduce all the commas, full stops, ellipses, and even the strange constructs as found in the originals.
There's only one way to study these documents: as a whole and with the working assumption everyone is telling the truth. Save for several deliberate attempts by Anna Ardin to obfuscate the truth, this approach seems to work.
The 'case' (if one dare call it that) hovers on two incidents. One takes place in Enköping in the morning. The two people involved have a simple exchange of two lines each before going at it again for what likely is the fifth time in a long sleepless night. The girl's just come back to bed after being out early and shopping, the two of them make love again, and start dozing off to sleep.
Suddenly the one starts all over again. The girl senses the man is about to penetrate her.
'What are you wearing?'
'I'm wearing you.'
'I hope you don't have HIV.'
'No of course not.'
And that's it. They weren't well acquainted, the one may have conveyed a desire to always use protection, but it's impossible she would have also conveyed (or spoken outright) about her near phobia about it. Most importantly, the resumption of sex immediately after that simple exchange can in no way indicate to the man that the girl had any objections to continuing - she in fact did continue herself.
Perpetration has to assume overriding someone else's wishes. There is nothing at all here approaching that.
The other incident takes place earlier chronologically. It's the story of a very clumsy act of love between a man hard put in a situation where his contract has been broken by the other party and a woman who really wanted to claim a trophy. 'I'm so chuffed I got the world's coolest guy into my flat and into my bed.' The girl in question has been described as a lesbian; many of her interests revolve around lesbianism; her friends demonstrated misandry at the crayfish party; certainly any heterosexual activities with this woman would have been strange at the very least.
The 'ado' about being pinned down was obviously a total non-event. As soon as the man noticed the strange behaviour of the girl, he stopped and asked her point blank what she was doing. Aggressors don't do this.
The girl explained she was reaching for a condom. 'OK then' was the man's reply in so many words and he let her get the condom which was then used for the continuation. As for the rest of that story, mysteriously popping prophylactics etc - this with one which may well have gone well beyond its expiry date judging from the person who kept it on hand - belongs only in the world of science fiction.
The truth will out, the truth wins out. There is no case here. Which makes it all the more evident another agenda might be at work. The way investigator Irmeli Krans objected to hunting Assange and calling the incidents 'rape' when no testimony at all had yet been obtained, the fright of Sofia Wilén when she found out what was going on, the way Krans was locked out of the computer database - these all point to something sinister. How can you charge someone with a crime when you don't yet have any data at all to back it up?
And of course it all must inevitably boil down to the classic 'he said/she said' stalemate. Because the first and most sacrosanct rule of jurisprudence is, has always been, and must always remain 'presumption of innocence' together with 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt'. The Swedish courts, under considerable pressure from the rabid feminist lobby, have to rule in cases where no witnesses or forensic evidence can be found. The infamous Thomas Quick cases, some eight in number, where Sweden's most reviled attorney did nothing for his client for seven years, were based on testimony from the perpetrator himself - a known pathological liar. And yet they're being overturned now anyway, one by one. The cases in August 2010 are not the same at all - they're strictly 'he said/she said', there is no forensic evidence, there is nothing tangible even hinting at a crime, and yet it's pursued anyway. That bad smell isn't from Denmark.
The truth will out, the truth wins out. Let no journalist ever again speculate into what the protocols say. Six months of digging and the people at Flashback have the actual documents. The sleaze printed by rags such as the Daily Mail, Sweden's Aftonbladet and Expressen, and perhaps above all the toxic Nick Davies of the Guardian, can stand no more.
Yet more: these documents are an indictment of the 'news organisations' who've printed deliberate inaccuracies all along or even worse: refused to print anything at all. Nick Davies' account of the protocols was maliciously skewed; both Aftonbladet and Expressen had copies early on and printed nothing. Bloggers such as this one had copies but arrogantly kept the information to their Smeagol selves.
There'd have been no case and consequently no media hysteria if the truth had come out from the beginning. Tabloids had an interest in only publishing 'juicy details' and not exposing the truth (and thereby killing the entire story). Those opposed to WikiLeaks had similar interests. Keep the truth hidden and the agendas can continue.
That won't work anymore. The documents are here. Good reading.
I'm so sick of it all. Will it never end? At any rate I want to say the other girl's just as much to blame.
- Anna Ardin
Apparently Swedish laws are unique. If you have a penis you're half a rapist before you even get through customs.
- Scott Adams
If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade. If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point.
- Björn Hurtig
I can tell you that the Swedish prosecution still hasn't provided copies of those SMS texts that have been referred to. Those texts are some of the most powerful exculpatory evidence. In Australia prosecutors have a very grave duty to disclose such evidence to courts when seeking the grave exercise of a court's power against an individual. Yet in Sweden in this case, in the first hearings to obtain an arrest warrant, those texts were not submitted to the Swedish court, which is highly improper.
- James Catlin
The prosecutor could achieve this broadening of the law during Assange's trial so he can be convicted of a crime that didn't exist at the time he allegedly committed it. She would need to. There is no precedent for this. The Swedes are making it up as they go along.
- James Catlin
Julian Assange will surely learn that considering what WikiLeaks has published, he's got a few enemies in the Pentagon, the CIA, and the White House. Sweden began an investigation into rape which was later dismissed. Assange was even denied residence in Sweden. One can only speculate to what extent the security agencies of the US were involved. And considering the obvious interest of the US to silence WikiLeaks, is it likely Assange will have an accident of the 'Boston brakes' kind in the coming years? Or will he be snared with compromising information of the 'honey trap' kind?
- 'Drozd' at Flashback 23 October 2010
The truth will out, the truth wins out. Let no journalist ever again speculate into what the protocols say. Six months of digging and the people at Flashback have the actual documents. The sleaze printed by rags such as the Daily Mail, Sweden's Aftonbladet and Expressen, and perhaps above all the toxic Nick Davies of the Guardian, can stand no more. Yet more: these documents are an indictment of the 'news organisations' who've printed deliberate inaccuracies all along or even worse: refused to print anything at all. Nick Davies' account of the protocols was maliciously skewed; both Aftonbladet and Expressen had copies early on and printed nothing. Bloggers had copies but arrogantly kept the information to their Smeagol selves.
- The Assange Police Protocol: Translator's Note
Industry Watch: Assange & Davies Again
Red Hat Diaries: Assange in Sweden: The Catalyst
Industry Watch: Assange: The Hornets Nest
Hall of Monkeys: Three Women II: The Sex War
Sunday Times: Accuser snapped me in the nude
Red Hat Diaries: How to Rape Julian Assange Twice