|Home » Industry Watch (» The Technological » Hall of Monkeys » Heroes Banquet)
Assange, Irmeli, The Dark Side
Swedish feminist pot stirred to provide cover?
DUCKBURG (Rixstep) — Anna Ardin escorted Sofia Wilén to the Klara police station on Friday 20 August 2010 (or was it the other way around). There they met with Ardin's friend Irmeli Krans who took down Sofia's 'story'.
Now that the dust's settled, Flashbackers trenterx and outoftheblue look closer at what happened.
trenterx & outoftheblue
First up is forum librarian trenterx, who often collates and shares data.
His comments are followed by forum theoretician outoftheblue.
I think there are a number of oddities with Sofia Wilén's testimony.
1) Why didn't Irmeli have access to DurTvå? She was blocked on 26 August. Maybe somebody else realised she was biased because she was friends with Ardin. Supporting the theory is the statement from the police board a day earlier that Irmeli's been taken off the case.
2) Where did those 'necessary modifications' come from? According to Claes Borgström's invoice for Wilén, he discussed the matter with Wilén on 24 August. We also have his mail traffic with police chief Mats Gehlin, with an attachment to the message, which most likely is Wilén's revised testimony with the 'necessary modifications'. So those modifications come from Borgström's discussion with Wilén, along with comments from Gehlin. These changes are obviously done without consulting Irmeli. And Wilén's signature is still missing!
3) In the original version, which Eva Finné read, there is no header called 'The Assault'. According to analysis by Flashback member Glugg, the earlier header was 'Rape'. One can wonder why they changed that. The best I can think of is that Sofia, when she met Borgström on 24 August, stressed that she didn't want that word used. This will in any case mesh with her SMS message from 21 August where she blames the police for 'railroading' her.
4) So even three months afterwards, Sofia will not undersign the document, despite the changes made. What happened on the other eight occasions she was questioned by the police? We can only guess.
Perhaps Irmeli was blocked because of her association with Ardin. The prosecution authority didn't even open a preliminary investigation.
So Gehlin wanted Irmeli to put her name - and only her name - on the document, this despite her not being involved in the final version. She was instructed by Gehlin to paste in the new version he'd sent her. Another occasion when Irmela is made responsible is when the incident is classified as 'rape'. I remember her complaining that she wasn't even consulted at that time. Yet her name is amongst those listed on the final page of the document.
This is a strange situation, where those who are really responsible are hiding behind Irmeli, who is used as a 'useful idiot'. Perhaps those lurking in the shadows didn't want to be known? Is it because of the accusations of bias that she inserts so many 'saving notes'? And this at the same time she embarrasses herself on Facebook and shows how biased she really is? But there was no formal investigation.
Perhaps the goal was to make it look like the case was being run by Swedish feminists, preferably women. If the objective was to hide the people really behind it all, such as those threatened with exposure through coming WikiLeaks releases, then it was perfect to have at hand an upset woman, a friend to one of the complainants, someone who gave the case a strong feminist hue, this despite it now being obvious that there were actually other forces in play.
Perhaps they saw a biased Irmeli, what with her feminist stunts against Assange on Facebook, as effectively responsible for both the complaints being filed as well as for the evidence being manipulated. All this in order to hide the typically male power brokers who wanted to destroy WikiLeaks.
The 'talk about it' project was designed to keep the topic 'close to Assange', and using 'thank you Anna' as its working title - an effort to make it all look like a bunch of incensed Swedish feminists rather than the powerful men WikiLeaks was stomping on. Later revealed to be a faked grassroots project, the establishment still applauded and awarded.
MARIANNE NY had the perfect profile. To distract from the powerful forces in the shadows that wanted to crush WikiLeaks.
So it was made to appear to be about feminism, and so it doesn't matter that Irmeli comes across as biased. For this wasn't an ordinary criminal case anyway, but a matter of political persecution, as the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded.
The feminists were 'useful idiots', placed there to draw attention away from the systematic attack not on Assange but on WikiLeaks. Having Irmeli there in the picture works wonderfully. And because she didn't want to implicate her friend Anna Ardin, she plays along and protests against developments, always at the wrong time.
Nobody expects the Swedish inquisition.
So is Julian Assange still alive?