Rixstep
	`About \| ACP \| Buy \| Industry Watch \| Learning Curve \| News \| Products \| Search \| Substack`

Home » Industry Watch

Assange Affair: Trenter's Timeline

Through the past more clearly.

Get It

Try It

FLASHBACK (Rixstep) — The policy of 'no stone left unturned', so bastardised and blasphemed by Marianne Ny, seems in full swing at Flashback, and a good thing it is too. The latest to join in is the super-analytical 'trenterx' who's trying to assemble a timeline for the crucial 21 August 2010 in the case of Julian Assange in Sweden.

Saturday 21 August 2010 is of course the fateful day when at 05:00 all hell broke loose and only a few hours later the name of Julian Assange, together with another four-letter word, was all over the web with over 5,000,000 hits on Google.

This because 1) Swedes have no idea what 'presumption of innocence' is - they go by gut feelings; 2) the prosecutor on duty broke her oath of office (and the law) in speaking to the media; and 3) Expressen were as per usual ready to break their own code of ethics to get what they now admit is the biggest scoop in their sordid history.

So yes, scratch one innocent - one individual who, by all that is honoured in our societies, must be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. But that the travesty of justice - some would say more like a 'circus of injustice' - that's surrounded the WikiLeaks leader since that fateful day should have its origins in rather petty plans of vengeance is something not everybody is aware they can consider.

Flashback member 'lillalinnea' asked a question recently about that Saturday.

How long did it take after Finné closed the preliminary investigation until they picked up the condom?

All of which might confuse the casual reader, so perhaps Trenter's complete reply (which has been nominated to the official Flashback documents on the case) may be of help. [Note that Trenter's interpretation of events is slightly different from that of espressino. See here. Ed.]

Things happened fast. It took about an hour and a half.

A few milestones for Saturday 21 August 2010 when all the world could read about Assange's 'double rape'.

08:00

The case is moved from Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand to Eva Finné.
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/aklagaren-som-anholl-assange-jag-angrar-det-inte/

A decision to remove MHK is made by prosecutor-general Anders Perklev. The selection of Eva Finné is most likely a joint decision by Perklev and Mats Åhlund. I suspect the entire manoeuvre was discussed in the inner circles of the government.
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/darfor-drojer-julian-assange-utredningen/

10:12

Police protocols and other documentation are sent by messenger to Eva Finné who is spending the weekend in her summer cottage. (This is my interpretation of MHK's censored diary entry here.)

11:31-12:20

Sara Wennerblom interrogates Anna Ardin over the phone. The crime is classified as 'rape or alternatively sexual molestation'. The interrogation is recorded in summary form (konceptförhör) so we don't get to see exactly what Ardin said. It should have been sent by messenger to Eva Finné immediately, or at least read to her over the phone.

Sometime after 12:30

Aftonbladet interview Anna Ardin who poses as spokesperson for both girls. (The interview can have taken place in the morning but I doubt it - Ardin was at a party the night before.)

Approximately 16:00

Aftonbladet publish their interview with Anna Ardin. It's no longer possible to get the exact time of publication.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

But Expressen stir around in the piece and publish it themselves at 16:40 and attribute to Aftonbladet.
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/kvinnan-anklagelserna-forstas-inte-iscensatta-av-pentagon-eller-nagon-annan/

So Aftonbladet would have published at approximately 16:00.

Right before 16:30

Eva Finné speaks to MHK on the phone, tells MHK of her decision to rescind the warrant and drop that part of the case.

Approximately 16:30

Eva Finné rescinds the Assange arrest warrant. This happens at approximately 16:30 according to both Expressen and Swedish state radio. The part of the case that remains, that of Anna Ardin, is now classified as 'molestation' (not as sexual molestation).

The air goes out of the proverbial balloon.
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/anhallan-mot-assange-havd/ (published 17:16)
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=3938233 (published 17:19)

Somewhere in this thread we have the precise time when Finné rescinds the warrant and a direct link to her decision.

18:12

Sara Wennerblom picks up two items in Anna Ardin's flat. One of the items is the infamous 'torn condom' totally lacking genomic DNA.
https://www.flashback.org/sp39178390

2010-08-21 18:12 Sara Wennerholm gör 2 beslag hos AA. Beslag 1 med text 'Togs fram ... Fabrikat: ... Färg:' (2010-0201-BG20840-1 = ?), beslag 2 med text '... efter förfrågan från polis. Anteckningar:' (2010-0201-BG20840-2 = kondomen, skickas till SKL sen)

So! Our prosecutor-general takes over early in the morning to get rid of MHK who was found to have behaved poorly. Finné rescinds the arrest warrant. But everything that happens after that is about getting the other part of the case - the 'rape' part - reopened again.

And they succeeded.

Food for Thought: Seven Days of Self-Inflicted Uncertainty

See the previous piece 'Anna Ardin's 'We' Complex' first if necessary. Then ask yourself this.

√ You have a girl feels jilted and who's now taken an unsuspecting acquaintance to the police in order to use her to exact revenge on the 'lover' she was once so proud of. She plans to support the other person by giving a bit of testimony of her own. Nothing significant - just a few words. She has to accompany the other person to make sure things go right. She's worked in an official capacity with the police in similar situations, so she very definitely knows the score. She mentions 'STDs' to the officer on duty, fully aware that if she can get the officer to smell 'rape', her plan should succeed, she's off the hook, and it's no longer she or the other person filing charges, what with 'rape' (as robbery and other crimes in Sweden) being a 'crime against the state'.

√ But something goes wrong (as it almost always does). Her own testimony is not received as supportive of the other person but as a case unto itself. Worse: her case won't be about 'rape' and will therefore be registered in her name.

√ Unaware at the time of how the story will unfold, she leaves the other person at the police, confident that as it's her personal friend conducting the interrogation, everything will go well. And so she goes off partying, with a friend who was with her at that bash she organised a week earlier, a friend with whom she boasted of her conquest, suggesting her friend try to bed the 'world's coolest guy' too - the guy she's now attempting to exact revenge on for bedding the other girl (currently in interrogation with her friend in the police).

√ But right before noon the following day she receives a phone call from the police and is now asked to explain her side of the story - and as a separate case.

√ She paints a picture of what happened, interjecting drama to make the whole thing more 'moving', and yet when asked point blank about a particular aspect, replies:

'In answer to a question Anna says she didn't look closer at the condom, if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it.'

√ So we have a girl who is outright accusing someone of deliberately breaking a condom (for what reason isn't revealed, 'as if') and yet this person who thinks the matter is serious enough to contact the police admits that for the past week she hasn't made a single effort to inspect the condom to see if it's really broken????

And we're supposed to believe that?

The NYPD would have had Anna Ardin out on her vengeful and politically correct backside within minutes.

Claes Borgström must have told her what she needed to do to get the 'rape' part of the case reopened. That's typical Claes Borgström - he tells his clients something on the order of 'OK we can't actually do this of course... BUT IF WE COULD...' I have observed this before!
- MyfairLady