Rixstep
	`About \| ACP \| Buy \| Industry Watch \| Learning Curve \| News \| Products \| Search \| Substack`

Home » Industry Watch

'Something has to explain...'

'Anyone got an alternative theory?'

Get It

Try It

I see that Flashback want to do some more digging about Marie Thorne's witness statement that SW had been contacted by an American paper and stood to 'make a lot of money'. This article doesn't predate Thorne's testimony but I wondered if it might provide a starting point for Flashback's research: AOL News 2/12/2010 article claims they reached 'the 2nd woman by mobile today': http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/02/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/ It's definitely SW they are referring to, and according to them she does give a 'no comment'. ********* If anyone from Flashback does read this, can I put in a request please for something I'd like to see more discussion about? It's the issue of the 'piece' of condom with male DNA on it retrieved from Wilén, which was 'found under the bed' (whether by the police visiting her home or by her, I don't know). This detail is given by Mats Gehlin on his notes on the forensic report, together with a remark that Wilén had reported hearing a 'noise like pulling on a balloon' in the dark. Now, I have previously suggested that this sounds to me awfully like Wilén claiming that a condom was deliberately damaged by Assange (same as Ardin's story) but nobody seems to agree with me. Why? Can someone please offer me an alternative interpretation for these strange notes by Mats Gehlin? Because I simply cannot understand why no one sees this as I do... Something has to explain why only a piece of condom from Wilén ended up getting forensically analysed. Something has to explain why Mats Gehlin was so convinced he had a double rape on his hands that he disobeyed Eva Finné's orders and submitted Wilén's condom fragment along with Ardin's fake one (and labeled her docket rape too). Something has to explain how two stories which don't sound all that much alike in the two women's separate witness statements (half-asleep condomless sex vs deliberately torn condom during wide-awake sex) could be, in Ardin's words, 'two women with the same story'. And how Ardin's filling in of one sentence - 'I think Sofia is telling the truth, the same thing happened to me' - turned their visit into a formal complaint that the police interpreted as double rape. Something has to explain why Klara Kops went bananas and 'everyone agreed it was rape' and they issued a warrant before the formal interviews - ie based on what both women spoke to Wassgren about (and which is redacted from her memo to Eva Finné). 'Rape was mentioned from the beginning' sounds like Wilén to me. She was the lead figure; it's her story that Ardin chips in with a sentence that changes everything. I think Wilén told Wassgren that she thought Assange had deliberately damaged a condom (but she wasn't sure because it was dark... she heard a noise like someone pulling a balloon... 'Look, I found this under the bed where he was'...) Anyone got an alternative theory on the meaning of Gehlin's notes on the forensic report?