Agreed Facts?

Are they really?

Get It Try It

So we're sitting here watching the hot summer weather approach and thinking about what this year still has to bring. We've been reading the 'agreed facts' in the Assange versus Sweden case and wondering like everyone else how this is going to turn out. It's been over two months since the UKSC hearing and the judges reportedly took some time off from work for quality leisure. What will they rule?

This case isn't only about Julian Assange any longer. It's about the safety of everyone living in the EU with a shabby extradition law hanging over them. People getting shuffled off to other countries for stealing chickens and not paying parking fines. And all at an incredible cost to the taxpayers. And why?

Because the countries of the EU wanted to help the poor US in an hour of need. To fight the terrorists. As if chicken thieves are potential terrorists.

The law is a mess and the people who pushed it through in such haste know it. The Irish supreme court recently ruled in a case similar to Assange's and said 'no way' to an extradition. Will the esteemed legal minds of the UKSC say the same?

But back to the 'agreed facts'. Several insights seem to want to pop out at the reader.



Let's start right at the beginning. Point 1.

1.

'On 13th August 2010, the Appellant entered Sweden as a visitor.'

Uh no. Right from the get-go they get something wrong and even agree on it. Julian arrived in Stockholm 11 August, two days earlier. Evidently Donald Boström had Anna Ardin's keys as she was away on Gotland. Donald and Julian went to the Beirut Café on Engelbrektsgatan for dinner with a number of people. They're here.



Julian said he didn't use Anna's flat until the day after.

Then we move onto the case itself, deftly skirting past the tumult of the following weekend for the most part. And now we're at the point where a trusted prosecutor - Eva Finné - comes in to sort out the mess.

'... she having made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape (against SW)'

True. But what Eva said - and this is rarely quoted correctly in the hostile old media - is that 'no crime was committed'. Not just that rape wasn't committed but no crime at all.

Moving onto point 8.

8.

'The preliminary investigation continued in respect of... whether the conduct alleged by SW could constitute some lesser offence...'

This is news to most people. Eva Finné summarily dismissed the SW case the same afternoon. It is known however that chief inspector Mats Gehlin didn't want to give up - he was contacted by Claes Borgström who'd been contacted by a panicky Anna Ardin and he sent SW's testimony to Borgström who purportedly 'doctored' it to make it easier to get the case reopened.

Point 9.

9.

'On 25th (sometimes erroneously referred to as 23rd) August 2010, the Chief Prosecutor determined that... the conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed.'

But so many things had happened by then that are not mentioned in this 'nice' version - things that make one suspect foul political forces are afoot.

And it was not closed. CB was already in contact with MG, MG had already got IK to reinsert SW's testimony after sending it to CB for 'doctoring', and it was added to the system the day after EW finished her job.

Now to point 11.

11.

'Meanwhile, on 27th August 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealed the Chief Prosecutor's decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Göteborg.'

What synchronisation. Finné is off the case by the end of business 25 August, Irmeli Krans comes into work 26 August, and Mats Gehlin has her reinsert a doctored testimony in the computer system - and the following day Claes Borgström comes out of the woodwork. CB will make a number of outrageous statements in the coming days, mostly about how he knows more about the law than the girls, and he will also imply he knows more than Stockholm's chief prosecutor. One feels a definite tilt in the case from this point onwards.

And soon people begin to remember who CB is, how he got caught with his fingers in the till in the Quick case, and how he's hoping for a cabinet position if his party can win the election in a month, this despite having most of the Swedish literati and several members of the judicial system asking for his head on the proverbial silver platter. This is when the foul smell is no longer coming from Denmark.

Point 13. 14-15 September. Julian's now been holding up for three weeks, keen to get the matter dealt with.

13.

'On 14th September 2010, the Appellant's counsel enquired in writing as to whether the Appellant was permitted to leave Sweden. On 15th September 2010, the prosecutor informed the Appellant's counsel that he was free to leave Sweden... She advised him that investigations were ongoing.'

OK. So that's clear. Three weeks and no word. Every rule book in the world says interview all parties as soon as possible. But Marianne Ny doesn't work that way. And now she gives the go-ahead to leave. So Julian can be about his business of crushing bastards. Big meetings planned as we all know today in retrospect. But MN points out the case isn't closed.

This brings us to an interesting quandary. For a mere six days after giving her approval and after saying again she had no interest in interviewing Assange yet, she has a complete about-face and wants him back by yesterday. Point 14.

14.

'On 21st September 2010, the prosecutor contacted the Appellant's counsel by text message to ask whether the Appellant could be made available for an interrogation on 28th September 2010. The date was provisionally agreed.'

So superficially that doesn't seem so bad. 28 September. One week from the call. Petra Ornstein is interviewed on 7 and 8 September by telephone (for all of 45 minutes all told). Hanna Rosquist the same day, again on the telephone, as was Kajsa Borgnäs, again by telephone. SW's colleague from work Katarina Svensson came into the police station 13 September. Her interview took all of 16 minutes. Then Donald Boström and Johannes Wahlström pop in for extensive interviews 20 September. Is this what Marianne Ny was waiting for? There's more substance to the testimony of the latter two, very little substance with the others. Is this why Marianne Ny said it was OK to leave on 15 September but then changed her mind six days later?

Point 15. The plot thickens.

15.

'On 27th September 2010, the Appellant's counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested.'

Wow. So MN told JA to leave if he wanted, got back to BH six days later as she'd had a bit of a change of heart, JA is on the move as always (and MN didn't know - that's why JA stuck around) and the day before MN requested a meet with him she issues another arrest warrant?

There are very crucial parts of the story missing here.

1. Julian finally got his things in order twelve days after being told it was OK to leave. He would take the early evening direct flight from Stockholm to Berlin where he would meet with Kristinn and representatives of the German and Italian media. He had to check in at approximately 16:30 to get on the flight. He checked in one bag, purportedly with three laptop computers inside. The airline was Lufthansa. The bag was never seen again. Julian stated his was pretty much the only bag checked in for the flight.

2. But already at 14:15 in the afternoon Marianne Ny had issued a new arrest warrant for Julian. This is known because a member of the Flashback forum got that information directly from the office of Marianne Ny.

3. An arrest warrant of that caliber would automatically have resulted in an 'APB' (all points bulletin') to all police units, ports of call, airports. Yet nothing was reported and Swedish authorities made no attempt to keep Julian from leaving (or even inform him he was again under arrest).

4. Yet it appears that authorities on location at the Arlanda airport were aware of Julian's movements and on hand behind the scenes at the Lufthansa counter to nab his bag when he checked in. The likelihood a single bag could go missing is very slim. And the bag has never been found. Auric Goldfinger understood situations like that.

Point 16.

16.

Point 16 is missing. Just missing. It's not there. Is that by 'agreement'? Point 17.

17.

'On 30th September 2010, the Appellant's counsel was advised of the existence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27th September 2010. The Appellant offered to return to Sweden for interview on Sunday 10th October or on any date in the week commencing 11th October 2010. The Sunday was rejected as inappropriate. The week commencing 11th October 2010 was later rejected as being too far away.'

This shows a tangible willingness on part of 'Appellant' to cooperate, something the Swedish MSM want to sidestep. And one has to wonder about Marianne Ny. If she's used to getting people to dance to her snapping fingers. At least she didn't specify a time of day such as 'between 14:15 and 14:20 on the afternoon of...' She told him he could leave - did she expect him after that to stick around? Camp out on the street in front of her office?

Point 18. Here is a serious point of contention. Something that's been argued at this site and also Sweden versus Assange but not mentioned so much elsewhere. It's basically an underhanded admission that something underhanded was going on.

18.

'The Respondent believed that the Appellant was attending a lecture in Stockholm on 4th October 2010. Plans were made to detain him then but that information proved inaccurate.'

The information proved inaccurate? What happened was Julian needed more time when he finally got to London to recover from the state-sponsored theft at the Swedish airport and so had to cancel his engagement at the Social Democrats' ABF-huset.

Except Marianne Ny hadn't known that. And she'd sent out a posse of cops and press photographers and reporters to catch him when he arrived and get pictures of him being led away in handcuffs - just like Niklas Svensson wanted to do on the night of 20 August and totally against Ny's earlier promise to Hurtig that the matter would be handled 'discreetly'.

But Ny hadn't been told Julian canceled. So they were all there on Sveavägen en masse waiting for a followup to what Expressen since admitted was their biggest scoop in history.

Assange canceled his engagement here after being warned what Marianne Ny was up to. Ny put her failure off as 'inaccurate information'.

Someone in the audience was Julian's friend. More correctly: a lot of people in the audience were Julian's friends, but at least one of them knew how to contact him and warn him.

And it is now - not before but precisely now - that Julian Assange realises Marianne Ny is playing with a rum deck. That all is not as it appears. And from now on, anytime anyone wonders why Julian Assange balks at returning to Sweden, one need only look to the above event.

Point 19.

19.

'Therefore, on 5th and 8th October 2010, the prosecutor again contacted the Appellant's counsel to discuss possible appointments for interview.'

Can she make up her mind? He was just under arrest! And now she's talking about doing things civilly again? Why? Because she was foiled in her dirty trickery? It makes no sense.

Point 20.

20.

'At around the same time, the prosecutor stated that, notwithstanding the extant arrest warrant, that the Appellant was 'not a wanted man' and would be able to attend an interview 'discreetly'.'

What? He's under arrest but he's not wanted? Here's that 'discreet' again. About as discreet as Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito in LA Confidential. Marianne Ny can clearly not be trusted, either in word or action.

Point 21.

21.

'On 12th October 2010, the Appellant's counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor indicated her intention to issue an EAW if the Appellant did not attend for interview.'

Oh so we're back to bad cop again? First it's 'discreet', then it's an ambush that fails, so go back to discreet - but notice the date: this is the week Julian suggested they meet. What Marianne has to count on at this point is Julian's realisation that she can't be trusted, that she's been lying to him. Caught in a lie, she takes off the sheep mask and bares her fangs.

Point 22.

22.

'Statements issued by the Respondent throughout September, October and November confirmed that the investigation was ongoing and that no decision had been taken to charge or prosecute. Investigations were being undertaken and witnesses were interviewed.'

A decision to prosecute is needed to apply for an EAW. And Marianne Ny stated unequivocally on numerous occasions that she hadn't reached a decision. Oops. She didn't clarify things further, but if she'd had her eyes on an EAW then she should have behaved more intelligently. Then again we know how badly she screwed up that EAW application. So maybe we were just witnessing the best of Marianne Ny.

'On 12th November 2010, the Appellant's counsel invited the prosecution to propose dates for interview and offered, in the alternative, a telephone or video-link interview, or to provide a statement in writing, or to attend an interview in person at the Australian Embassy, all of which are permissible in Sweden, all of which were declined; the prosecutor insisting that the Appellant be interviewed in person in Sweden.'

Here we go again. And yet from very reliable sources we know that the decision to proceed with an EAW was taken long before this. According to these sources, almost everyone in the Swedish parliament (riksdagen) was aware of the plan and even of its date: Thursday 18 November 2010.

Point 24.

24.

'The prosecutor decided that it was inappropriate to take the same steps under the Mutual Legal Assistance treaty.'

On what grounds? Rule of law means no one - not even Marianne Ny - is above the law.

Point 25.

25.

'On 18th November 2010, the prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court for a detention order in absentia upon the prosecutor's assertion of reasonable suspicion of the commission of...'

As predicted, as was known by half of Stockholm (and who knows who else). And this is the second warrant. What happened to the first warrant? Up in smoke? Had an expiry date? Why were the details of the first one never published at the Respondent's website? Why have all details prior to November 2010 - and in particular September 2010 - been removed?

The smell isn't coming from Denmark. Sorry, Will.

Point 29.

29.

'The prosecutor's written submissions to the Svea Court of Appeal on 24th November 2010 confirmed that she was ...requesting the arrest of Assange in order to enable implementation of the preliminary investigation.'

So it's not an arrest warrant per se? Which is it? Is this some sort of prerogative? To change one's official story to suit the weather? As one bends the rules of criminal investigation?

Marianne Ny offered one date for interrogation - one - and refused all others. Then she tries to make it look like 'Appellant' is uncooperative. She discusses further dates with counsel for the 'Appellant' after she's already set the process in motion for the EAW.

This after attempting unsuccessfully to ambush the 'Appellant' in downtown Stockholm in the beginning of October. At a time when she was still playing 'nice' and had told 'Appellant' he could leave the country if he wanted, she wasn't going to interview him, and so forth.

The UKSC ruling can go either way. With significant consequences for everyone in Europe, not just Julian Assange. But don't let anyone say this case is on the 'up and up'. And don't let anyone say this case isn't purely political.

On that surely everyone is agreed.

See Also
Agreed Facts Assange Case (PDF)

Industry Watch: Assange's MBP Stolen?
Industry Watch: Assange Back in Stockholm
Industry Watch: The Silence of the Swedish Lambs
Hall of Monkeys: That Double Crossing Marianne Ny