|Home » Industry Watch (» The Technological » Hall of Monkeys » Heroes Banquet)
'It is a fact'
High times and frivolities from Flashback.
STOCKHOLM (Rixstep) — The Flashback forum's resident troll got out early.
'This is the basic thing in a criminal investigation. Matching DNA is not enough to find one guilty of a crime. There can have been several legitimate reasons for your being at the scene. Rape is perhaps a special case due to current legislation as it can be a case of consensual sex where the supposed 'victim' is lying for one or more different reasons.'
Forum member 'guaponi' had this to say about the troll.
'Psychopaths lie and manipulate. You're the psychopath in this forum. An extreme psychopath. Most trolls give up after a while when confronted with irrefutable evidence, but you? You disappear for a while, dodge the questions tossed at you, and then return to heave up all the earlier bile all over again. You disgust me.'
What's the troll up to now, on this first day of 2016? Who knows, who cares; but forum member 'Out of the Blue' takes over in grand fashion, reminding us all of how murky and dirty the Assange case really is.
Happy New Year.
'It is a fact'
This case isn't only about the opposites of 'truth' and 'lie', but even about 'interpretations'. The 'conceptual interrogation' of Sofia Wilén by Anna Ardin's friend Irmeli Krans is an example of such an 'interpretation'. The descriptions of the alleged crimes by Marianne Ny are further examples. The 'necessary changes' (made by Borgström) are further examples.
There are troubling facts in this case.
Linda Wassgren's report on the initial conversations is flaky. The strangest thing about the report is that it was not shared with the defence attorneys - they weren't even told of its existence! 'Rape' was 'mentioned' - but by who? And why? And in what context? Did Sofia even claim she'd been raped? Or are we to trust Borgström when he claims that Swedish women cannot possibly know if they've actually been raped, because they are not legal experts?
Most 'facts' in this case are concerned with the bizarre circumstances surrounding it. It is a fact that the Brits spent millions surrounding the Ecuador embassy. It is a fact that one of the official 'witnesses', Anna Ardin's friend Kajsa Borgnäs, lied to the police about her financial situation when she was apprehended for shoplifting. It is a fact that Anna Ardin looked euphorically happy when she was photographed with Julian Assange on Sunday 15 August 2010, the day before he went off with Sofia, two days after she later alleged he'd molested her! It is a fact that Sofia's brother believed her temperament was influenced by the HIV-antiviral medicine she'd been taking. It is a fact that Sofia and her girlfriend talked about revenge against Assange, about telling a story to the tabloid Expressen. It is a fact that Assange lost his job at Aftonbladet because of the case. It is a fact that the prosecutor on duty corroborated details of the case to a tabloid journalist. It is a fact that said prosecutor was in breach of office in so doing. It is a fact that Anna Ardin had her infamous 'Seven Steps to Revenge' published at her website.
But is it a fact that Sofia lied about being raped? She blames the police and says they made the accusations. Anna Ardin wants to deflect blame, saying that 'the other girl was just as much to blame'. And Linda Wassgren deflects blame by saying that those present at the police station were 'in agreement' - this despite the fact that Irmeli Krans definitely did not agree.
The troll again.
But witnesses and victims can often lie. And this is true in all categories of criminal investigations. It's the job of the police to weigh the different accounts and assess believability, etc.
[No it is not. 'Hearsay' is not acceptable as 'evidence'. This holds in almost all judiciaries worldwide.]
Back to 'Out of the Blue'.
Perhaps one should keep that in mind - how witnesses and victims often lie - before starting a witch hunt and suggesting a hunted person give up his asylum? How believable are the reports that Sofia was actually raped? My guess is that a lot of this 'believability' depends on the testimony of Anna Ardin, who was coincidentally found to have fabricated evidence.
And after Marianne Ny's enterprising effort to delay due process for five years, Anna Ardin has now been reduced to a mere witness, which might be what Marianne Ny's been planning all along. For Anna Ardin can no longer give testimony in her own case (which has now been prescribed) but only in the matter of Sofia Wilén.
What did Sofia and Julian get up to? They had sex four times that night, after lots of foreplay? And this took place in only eight hours? Oh what a night!
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