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

Home » Learning Curve

Assange Case: A Sequence of Events

The official explanation doesn't wash, doesn't even rinse.

Get It

Try It

STOCKHOLM/LONDON (Rixstep) — There have been so many versions of the Stockholm tale of 20 August 2010 that it's not funny. The currently accepted meme is that two girls went into the 'Klara Kops' police station where Irmeli Krans was expected, and that they had absolutely no intention of filing a complaint against Julian Assange. They only wanted to find out if their police could 'coerce' Assange into taking an HIV test.

This is something Sofia Wilén might have been lured into, but certainly not Anna Ardin, who not only published her '7 Steps to Revenge' at her site but also acted as a liaison between the police and her 'sisters' at university to help them file complaints.

Irmeli wasn't to come on duty for another two hours. The two girls supposedly hung out in the cramped waiting room of the station until she arrived. One other police officer did speak with the girls as well, although the exact time of this conversation is not known and no notes or other recordings were made. (And yet it was this conversation which led to Julian Assange being stalked on the streets as a 'serial rapist'.)

It's also known that Irmeli Krans, good friend of Anna Ardin, conducted the interrogation of Sofia Wilén. This interrogation began over two hours after the girls arrived. The time of this interrogation is noted in the police records.

It's also known that, contrary to all accepted police procedure, Anna Ardin was allowed to be present during Sofia's questioning to offer tidbits of testimony of herself - another thing that's not permitted. As per the ruling in this case:

http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2012/03/hovr-friar-sjukgymnast-fran-sexuellt-ofredande

A Swedish high court threw out a lower court verdict precisely for this reason.

But it was today at 14:15 that Flashback member 'O.s.a.' asked the question that's waited all this time.

En tanke slog mig:

Två kvinnor går till polisen för att undersöka om de kan tvinga en person till att ta ett HIV-test. Staten (polis/åklagare) kommer först fram till att det nog är våldtäkt m.m. och drar igång en förundersökning samt anhåller den namngivne i sin frånvaro. En ny åklagare lägger ner alltihopa med ett konstaterande att brott ej begåtts. Då begär målsägarna, som bara ville tvinga fram ett HIV-test, överprövning av nedläggningsbeslutet.

Hallå!!! Hur fanken resonerar man då? (Den frågan kanske kommer vid en eventuell rättegång?)

A thought occurred to me.

Two women go to the police to see if they can force someone to take an HIV test. The police deduce that this is a case of rape (and other things) and start a preliminary investigation, and issue an arrest warrant in absentia. A new prosecutor throws it all out and says no crime has been committed. And then the 'complainants', who only wanted information about forcing an HIV test, appeal to have the case dismissal reviewed.

Hello!!! How are they thinking? (This matter will perhaps be taken up if there's ever a trial?)

The plot thickens. For once Sofia leaves the police station, so does Anna Ardin, meeting up with her friend Kajsa Borgnäs to go to a party to celebrate. Yet the following day Ardin gets a phone call from the same police station. They want to know what Ardin meant when she said something similar happened to her.

Ardin weaves her story. And somewhere in that story she leads the police to believe she just might have a used condom still lying around from a week earlier.

But the police tell her they'll be right around to pick it up! Ardin has to move fast. We know today, thanks to the report from the state crime lab, that the condom Ardin submitted was bogus: it totally lacked genomic DNA. It was ripped but it was not used for sex. False evidence.

Some time later that same day Anna Ardin hears, as all the rest of the country hears, that the major complaints against Julian Assange have been dropped on the grounds that no crime was committed. Ardin evidently went into panic mode. Submit a bogus condom to the police? What was she thinking?

Ardin contacts her old party colleague Claes Borgström, he of the Quick scandal, and sets up a time to meet.

On the Record

Claes Borgström has gone on the record, in one of his few 'faux pas' in the show trial he's conducted, to explain that Ardin didn't even know one could reopen a preliminary investigation that a prosecutor had already closed - meaning of course that she didn't contact Borgström to get the case reopened, but must have had something else in mind. Such as 'please help me because I might be in deep shit!'

Borgström got the case reopened. The two girls Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin had no intention of filing a complaint against Julian Assange; yet when the police processed a complaint ('crime against the state') and the prosecutor then dismissed it ('no crime has been committed') they agreed to have the case reopened.

Why would they do that if they expressly had no intention to file a complaint in the first place?

The primary complaint was filed by the Swedish state and not by either Wilén or Ardin. This is something Ardin knew and could count on. But she didn't count on the police also processing complaints for lesser accusations which are not filed by the state but by Ardin herself. Ardin was in the thick of it. The police had the bogus condom. Should the condom be sent to a crime lab, then soon everyone would know the truth. Ardin understood she'd really screwed up.

Borgström gave Ardin a possible way out - keep on bluffing and up the ante.