|Home » Industry Watch (» The Technological » Hall of Monkeys » Heroes Banquet)
What lies within.
GOTHENBURG/LONDON (Rixstep) — Now that we've seen the massive murderous Clinton machine outsmarted by outsider Donald Trump, with the indispensable assistance of something exotic called 'truth', courtesy WikiLeaks, it's time to look further into what happens on Monday 14 November, and not in Oakland or Portland but in London, England, USA.
For it's there and then, on Monday 2016-11-14, in the early hours of yet another British workweek, that two representatives of Sweden's egregious judicial system will descend on '3 Hans Crescent' in Knightsbridge, site of the embassy of the Republic of Ecuador, where Julian Assange will be waiting for them.
It Happened in 2010
Julian will be accompanied by his own legal counsel, which might include Thomas Olsson and Per E Samuelson, along with Baltasar Garzón, and perhaps with a representative of the embassy, and a representative of WikiLeaks.
The conversation will not include the Swedes, but will take place between Julian and a prosecutor from Ecuador who's been assigned the role of asking the questions Marianne Ny prepared.
This chitchat is a long time coming, and Julian's had to fight tooth and claw to make it happen.
'FUP' is an acronym used by the Swedish judicial system. It stands for 'FörUndersökningsProtokoll', roughly 'documents for a preliminary investigation'. The complete police documents in the Assange case, as of 18 November 2010, when Marianne Ny petitioned the Stockholm district court for an arrest warrant, are available at the following URL.
As circumstance would have it, it was also this translation used by the British courts.
That's a lot of material to plough through - 30,000 words - so let's cut to the chase and highlight the salient part of a legal struggle now over six years old.
To the 'testimony' of one Sofia Wilén.
Even this is wordy, with descriptions of Canada geese and whatnot, but it is this document that prosecutor Eve Finné read at her summer cottage on the morning and afternoon of Saturday, 21 August 2010.
Once Finné had read the document, she told the media (at 16:48 the same day) that she was quashing the warrant which a relatively inexperienced prosecutor had issued the previous evening. (That warrant had caused worldwide pandemonium.)
There are a lot of curious circumstances surrounding this 'testimony', but let's again try to 'cut to the chase'. To make it easier to follow along, let's use an 'archive' copy.
And let's skip immediately to a section called 'The Assault'. It's this section which is the cornerstone of the six-year controversy.
They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he'd put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn't be bothered telling him again. She'd been nagging about condoms all night long. She's never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn't say when he'd done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards.
That's it. They had sex, she wondered if he was using a condom again, he said 'no', she didn't stop him. That might sound a bit unfortunate, but she didn't get pregnant, she didn't get HIV, she did have a phobia for germs and bacteria, and they'd already had 'safe sex' several times that night. Both were extremely exhausted, at least Julian who, when they arrived at her flat that evening, almost immediately fell asleep. No indication is given to why Julian didn't use a condom that last time. Perhaps they didn't have any more condoms? It's not known.
Sofia could have told Julian 'no goddammit not without a condom' and pushed him out. She didn't. She claims they'd discussed condoms earlier, but more is not known. What is known is that Sofia could have just pulled away from Julian, but did not.
Prosecutor Eva Finné, considered the sharpest prosecutor in the capital, read that passage and then told the media:
'I don't doubt the testimony of the woman, but that doesn't constitute a crime.'
That's it. (The other part of the original case involved a possible misdemeanour, but also a possible charge against the other girl for submitting false evidence, but its statute of limitations has already expired.) That's the reason for the embassy standoff, with the London Metropolitan Police spending tens of millions of pounds sterling surrounding the embassy to make sure Julian doesn't do a runner. (To where is another matter.)
That's the reason the extradition case went all the way to the British Supreme Court, at what astronomical expense has not been calculated.
That's the reason the UK Foreign Office worked with the police in an attempt to storm the embassy and forcibly extract Julian Assange.
Any suggestion that this case is not just about unprotected sex is ludicrous and not to be taken seriously.