Assange Affair: The Return of 'OOIOO'

Are appearances as they seem?

Get It Try It

STOCKHOLM/NEW YORK (Rixstep) — 'OOIOO' - or more often 'ooioo' in lower case: who is it? The name's been suggested by a female Flashback contributor to be ASCII art for a man caught between two women.

Another theory is it's a takeoff on the pronunciation for the letter 'W' as in 'Wilén'.

Whatever: the holder of that account at Flashback, an intermittent contributor who's previously claimed to have information more 'inside' than anyone else, was back in the middle of the night to unleash a fury of an attack.

02:21 5 June 2013

The following was posted at Flashback at 02:21 on the morning of Wednesday 5 June 2013. It was removed - actually redacted to a single '+' character - at 02:45, the author 'ooioo' evidently thinking better of it.



But luck wasn't with 'ooioo' that morning. For sometime between 02:21 and 02:45 when the contents of the post were replaced by a single '+', forum member TheFatController began a reply, quoting the entire post by 'ooioo'.



TFC's post came at 03:13, meaning he had the reply window open for at least 28 minutes. During which time 'ooioo' attempted to remove the post.

So why the commotion? There are two reasons. The first of which is the contents of the post itself.

A rush translation follows, with the text paragraphed for easier reading.

You who out AA and SW in this thread are too much. You should be ashamed. You should look in the mirror and see what you've done to these two women. You write about their families, link to pictures of their homes and the homes of their families, you publish entire family trees with names and birth dates, you've defamed and violated them on a daily basis for almost three years.

You unsympathetic shits.

You hide behind anonymous names in a forum registered in the US and can therefore keep on with your aggravated defamation, violations, and threats as they aren't subject to Swedish legislation. How do you think this constant hatred directed at AA and SW has affected their lives? How would you like the same thing to happen to you? Your mothers outed with photos, addresses, places of work? To be called all sorts of defamatory things that a woman can be called? Who do you think you are?

This is a criminal case and not a public debate. This is a police investigation and it's not your business or the business of anyone close to you.

Because of you, people from all corners of the globe have threatened and hated AA and SW and their families. Are you proud that you've contributed to people receiving death threats for reporting sex crimes to the police? What you write is not just Internet chat - it has real world consequences in the daily lives of real people, and if you understood this and understood your part in the hell AA and SW are going through because of you, I actually believe you'd regret having written about them. And if that's not the case, then you are totally heartless. You should be ashamed.

A word to the forum moderators: why do you permit these continual violations of forum rules regarding the outing of private individuals, their personal data, threats, and violations?

The second reason for the commotion is that 'ooioo' is believed to be Sofia Wilén or someone so close to her that they almost share the same skin.

A Few Words

A few words about the above post before letting the Flashbackers take over.

• Flashback is today based in NYC to allow comments to be posted without prior approval. Comments are reviewed by an extensive collection of moderators, each assigned separate topics. The name of the game is freedom of speech, but there are very strict rules about how free speech is used. The Flashback thread on Julian Assange, today world-famous, is one of the threads needing the least moderation, as the people congregating there are very conscious and observant of the rules. There are no transgressions to speak of, as 'ooioo' hinted in the above post.
• The original (Swedish) language of the above post was riddled with grammatical errors, indicating the post was written in a rush and possibly in an agitated emotional state.
• There are no outstanding violations in the Julian Assange thread. They would have been taken care of long ago in such case, and as stated, there are very few to begin with, and certainly not from the 'regulars'.

With that, the floor can be turned over to the Flashbackers themselves.

TheFatController

TheFatController was the first to reply, at 03:13, and as seen above, had been in the process of posting a reply since at least 02:45, when 'ooioo' removed the original post.

This isn't a criminal case. We're looking at systemic abuse that's been allowed to continue year in and year out. And it's not the women at fault, it's not Julian Assange either, and it's certainly not the writers on this forum either. You have every reason to be upset, but you're not helping anyone, certainly not the women, by repeating the lies that have been poisoning Swedish media.

The next reply takes place exactly five hours later, by longbow4y.

Yeah hi there ooioo,

Because you've previously claimed to be exceptionally well informed but at the same time continued to make a number of egregiously false statements, maybe you should start asking who's pulling the strings. For real.

For example:

Quote:
Post by ooioo
You prefer thinking of this as a conspiracy, it's more fun that way? As I already said, the idea that AA or SW would have planned on contacting Expressen before they contacted the police, or have leaked to Expressen - that's a complete falsehood.

Quote:
Post by ooioo
They've never spoken with Expressen.

Quote:
Post by ooioo
I don't know who leaked to Expressen but I know it wasn't AA or SW.

Quote:
Post by ooioo
Neither AA nor SW wanted anything leaked to Expressen, and they didn't cause it to happen either. That's the way it is. You can believe that or you can continue with your conspiracy theories. Try finding out who it was in the police department that leaked.

So it was someone in the police department that leaked. Have you never asked yourself why?

And you insinuate of the investigation that the complainants never filed reports but that the crimes were crimes against the state.

Quote:
Post by ooioo
If what AA and SW told the police concerns crimes against the state, why should they let Julian get away with it? You're presuming he's innocent.

And already 2 December 2010 you posted one of Marianne Ny's pat replies:

Quote:
Post by ooioo
The case now registered as rape has never been registered as sexual molestation. Borgström in his appeal wanted one accusation of sexual molestation of AA registered as rape, but Marianne Ny was against it. Regarding the fact that JA had not been questioned, Marianne Ny has stated that the normal procedure is to leave questioning of the accused to the end, right before a decision on prosecution is made. It's the prosecutor and not JA who decides when it's time for him to be questioned.

Yet at the same time, you claim it's the prosecutor who's running the show:

Quote:
Post by worldcitizen
If this is correct, and it's not at all unlikely, then it's the prosecution authority running the show, not the women?

Quote:
Post by ooioo
Bingo.

In other words: the women only told their stories and that started the entire chain of events. Do you also believe in Father Xmas?

Don't forget that Finné closed the SW part immediately. She couldn't close the part with AA because she didn't have AA's testimony at the time she made her decision.

Quote:
Post by flashback979
The Daily Mail article is based on the interrogation of SW which they managed to get out before the case was reopened. During the time between Finné closing it and M Ny reopening it, all you had to do was requisition the SW interrogation.

Quote:
Post by ooioo
Yes this is true. But they must have worked from a really bad translation because their article is ripe with errors.

Quote:
Post by ooioo
The incidence of violence or threats is not a requisite for classification as rape. The idea SW went out and bought breakfast after the alleged rape - you must have got that from the Daily Mail tabloid article? They're not a reliable source.

So whose agenda is it? And at the behest of what interests? You seem to know.

MyfairLady's in at 09:37.

I can tell you this case deeply affects me and my family! That you describe Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén as 'real' people in a way that excludes Julian Assange and his family is downright revolting. The possible criminals in this case are precisely the falsely accusing women, and you confirm this clearly in your nocturnal outburst. We can thank TheFatController with an h/t for picking up your post before you removed it, but this post of yours was a real eye-opener for me, as I just like longbow4y went through your earlier posts, something I recommend for all forum members. I also realise duqu has a clearer picture of AA than I've had.

PS. My mother takes responsibility for her actions, and that's how she raised me, and I have no need to remain anonymous in the long term, and that holds for a lot more people than you realise. What makes it possible for you to trumpet out your naivety and your coldheartedness and your complete incapability to appreciate the consequences of your actions is the fact that you too are posting anonymously in a forum where everyone enjoys freedom of expression, even to post idiotic things you've clumsily slipped out.

Why Panic?

The question's been asked why Sofia Wilén (or someone in her skin) should suddenly panic. Wilén went underground nearly three years ago, wiped from the face of the earth, up in smoke, her web presence professionally scrubbed in a way that baffles even the best of the experts. She's said not a word and has appeared nowhere save an obscure Vimeo page and in comment fields on sites belonging to ex-boyfriend Seth Benson.

Recent news that Claes Borgström lost one of his famous clients was interpreted worldwide to mean Anna Ardin had moved on. This was later found to be incorrect: it was Wilén who'd moved on, to the redoubtable Massi Fritz, who recently came out with a 'press release' that broke all records in overflow brio and unethical and factual twists and turns.

There are several independent research projects underway to correctly detail what actually happened in August 2010 in Stockholm, there have been extensive comments at, for example, Craig Murray's blog, and it's really no secret that several researchers have independently discovered that Sofia Wilén is far from the innocent neurotic 'wallflower' she's pretended to be.

Possibly it was the egregious outburst from Massi Fritz that really opened people's eyes: here was a innocent girl who only wanted to test for STDs, who'd broken down upon hearing her idol and lover was hounded on the streets of Stockholm, who told people she had been 'railroaded' by the authorities and Ardin, who'd personally promised Assange that everything would work out and that they could meet the following day - a picture of abused innocence as never before.

And now she was demanding Ecuador toss Julian out of the embassy, and accusing him of only staying there not for fear of rendition to the US but to avoid a charge she didn't want leveled against him, the sentence for which, should he be found guilty, he's already served.

It didn't make sense, it was totally out of character, and it opened a lot of people's eyes.

Sofia Wilén wasn't who she'd appeared to be.

Back to Flashback

But back to Flashback - and the dozen and a half posts by 'ooioo' prior to the other night. Most of them date back almost three years in time. The 'ooioo' account was registered first in September 2010, and was used primarily a few months later when Julian Assange spent time in Wandsworth.

2010-12-02, 18:37

Quote:
They sought advice together, having collaborated and irrevocably tainted each other's evidence beforehand. Their SMS texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen beforehand in order to maximise the damage to Assange.

To save you consternation, I can tell you with certainty that the above is a complete lie.

2010-12-02, 19:05

Quote:
Post by deckardrottningen
In such case you're either AA or SW, for otherwise there's no way to know with certainty what they said to each other when they went to the police station.

You prefer the conspiracy angle, it's more fun like that? As I stated previously: the idea that AA and SW would have made plans to contact Expressen before speaking with the police or before leaking to Expressen - that's a complete lie.

2010-12-02, 19:14

They've never spoken to Expressen.

2010-12-02, 19:19

I don't know who leaked to Expressen, but I know it wasn't AA or SW.

2010-12-02, 19:27

Quote:
Post by deckardrottningen
A remarkable statement. What you're saying can be interpreted to mean that you know that a third person, unknown to you, leaked. This person can have been asked to leak by either AA or SW.

AA and SW didn't want anything leaking to Expressen, and they weren't a part of the leak. That's the way it is. You can believe it or you can muddle on with your conspiracy theories. Find out instead who in the police department leaked.

2010-12-02, 19:59

Quote:
Post by worldcitizen
So why hasn't SW ended this process by going to the media or in here at Flashback to tell her story?

If what AA and SW told the police turns out to be stories constituting crimes against the state, why should they let Julian get away with it? You're presuming he's innocent.

2010-12-02, 20:55

Quote:
Post by hoppsann
If you know so much then you can explain how SW could feel raped without being threatened or being afraid, and then go out and buy breakfast and paid for his train ticket? No normal woman would do that.

If she doesn't feel raped then can you explain why she retained Borgström to pursue the case?

Threats and violence are not a requirement for rape. The idea SW went out and bought breakfast after the 'assault' is something you likely got from the Daily Mail tabloid. That's not a reliable source of information.

See Also
Red Hat Diaries: A Perfect Spy