Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Stefan Lindskog speech in Adelaide

The speech appears to be a "stick and carrot" approach to pressure Assange into going to Sweden for questioning.

  • Lindskog misrepresented the statements of SW, AA and others in order to make the molestation allegations appear more well-founded than actual
  • He projected an air that extradition to the US would not be possible
    - for legal reasons to do with possible charges put by the US
    - because e.g. helicopter gunships killing innocent people "in entertainment" is a crime, and that leaking a crime by a state should never be a crime
    .. but he avoided the possiblility of an extraditable charge framed so as to avoid political/espionage issues
  • He asserted that an interview in London would be "wrong", but gave no legal reason. --- Well, he couldn't. There isn't one.

Misrepresentations

He said that all of his information on the matter came from publicly-accessible leaked information on the Internet.
That being so, he must surely have read the police protocols (interviews) of SW, AA and others. Anyone making assertions about the merits of the case and who has not read those statements is demonstrably an idiot.

One

Lindskog asserted that SW went to the police station in order to make a complaint, with AA going along in support.
This is not so.
The police woman (Linda Wassgren)  in reception described the beginning of the visit as
At 14:00 that day two women came to the station who wanted to talk and get some advice on two previous events and they were a little unsure of how they would now go ahead.
Donald Boström is clear that he ended up as an unwilling intermediary between the women and Assange. SW wanted Assange to get a HIV test. She and AA were going to the police to try to oblige him to if he refused. Boström is also taken aback due to the warm relations that he had observed between AA and Assange in the days after the alleged condom incident.

SW became very upset on hearing (before her formal interview had concluded) that an arrest warrant had been issued for Assange. She became so upset that it was not possible to complete the interview or for to sign off on the interview up to that point.

The protocol for SW's friend MT
MT wanted also to say that, when SW visited the hospital and the police, it did not turn out as SW wanted. She only wanted Julian to get tested. She felt that she had been run over by the police and others."
 All of the indications, from SW, MT, Boström and Wassgren are that SW did not go to the police to make a complaint.

Two

Lindskog asserted that Assange initially refused to use a condom with AA and that "AA & Assange more or less had a physical fight over use of a condom"

This is a gross misrepresentation.
It is clear from AA's protocol that the question of a condom did not arise until they were both naked in her bed and she then resisted penetration.

After a moment, Assange asked Anna what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him that she wanted him to wear a condom before he came in her. At  that, Assange released Anna’s arms and put on a condom that Anna fetched for him.
That seems very clear. When Assange sensed a problem, he asked her. She does not report saying anything to object. She says she just squeezed her legs together. He had to ask her. Only then did she specify a condom to be worn. He agreed. She fetched one. He wore it. Consensual bonking resumed.
She actually had to fetch a condom - as opposed to jamming one she already had in her hand into his face.

It is worth noting that in her interview with the Expressen newspaper next day, AA is quoted
She wants to correct inaccuracies in that morning's Expressen
She considers herself abused but not raped.
It is not true that they were afraid to sign statements through fear of Assange. He is not violent. She does not feel threatened by him
In both cases it was consensual sex that became abuse

Three

Lindskog asserted that "AA did not realise that a crime was in question until it was explained to her by police office at police station".
Firstly... If they had gone to the police in order to make a complaint, why does anyone have to explain to them that a crime was in question? Does Lindskog not simply provide further weight to the position that they had no intention of making allegations?
It is possible that someone tried to explain to a very upset SW why they had issued an arrest warrant for Assange. AA had departed at that stage apparently/possibly and would only be formally interviewed on the following day - by telephone call.

Certainly the lawyer Claes Borgström appears to think that some silly women need to have things explained to them
"They didn't know, actually, how they should handle the situation. We know that many women ... are not quite sure: was this a crime or not? It is in the neighbourhood, but on what side of the border is it?" The police officer who heard their story was legally obliged to contact a prosecutor, who judged it was a rape allegation, Bergström said.

Four

Lindskog asserted that "Afterwards AA discovered that the condom was broken .."
This is a misleading semantic dance.
During her interview, she offered that she might still have the condom in question and would check it.
To my question Anna replies she did not look closely at the condom in order to see if it was broken in the way that she suspected; but she believes that she still has the condom at home and will check to see.
This was eight days after the alleged breaking of the condom. Over a week after the night, she first gets around to examining the condom that is apparently central to the allegation.
She did produce a broken condom, but this had no traces of DNA that would indicate that it had ever been used during intercourse.

Five

Lindskog asserted that the interviews with the women were conducted properly and recorded.
This is false.
It would be important that such interviews be recorded. Preferably they should be recorded on video in order to pick up expressions and body language so as to capture the emotional and physical state of a victim. The manner of the questioning that led to the points recorded in the summary would also be enlightening. Heaven forbid that any leading questions would be asked.

SW's interview was not recorded.
The police protcol standard headings for SW include "In person, not recorded".
 Apparently a working dictaphone could not be located in a central Stockholm police station. There is a written summary of her interview. SW never read or approved it. That summary was amended three days later.
It is not clear if AA was present at the formal interview of SW. This was conducted by AA's friend Irmeli Krans. Certainly AA and SW were interviewed together when they first arrived into the police station.
Donald Boström's statement records AA telling him that she interjected while SW was telling her story.

AA's interview was conducted over the telephone.
The police protcol standard headings for AA include "Per telephone, not recorded"
As with SW's interview, only a written summary is available. It was read back to, and approved by,  AA however.



Lindskog appears to have a clear agenda here.
He is using his position and the venue to project what appears to be a calm dispassionate lawerly picture of the basic issues.
He abuses this, grossly misrepresenting the contents of the protocols that he must surely have read.
This seems to be a blatant misinformation stunt - aimed at turning 'reasonable' public opinion to believe Assange to be more culpable than even a biased reading of the womens' statements would make him.

He also indicated that an interview under MLA in London is "wrong" - but in no way attempts to explain why. Certainly there does not appear to be any legal impediment.
Even the Swedish Prosecution Authority is at a loss to explain the need for Assenge to be interviewed in Sweden other than 'Prosecutor Ny says so - because of unspecified "circumstances within the investigation".



The LiveStream broadcast was cut before the Q&A session.
h/t to @Tuigen who was at the event and noted Lindskog answering "Why they didn't send someone to interview Assange by now, I don't know"


In his prepared speech he had described an interview in London as "wrong" - so there is a mixed message.
Perhaps when faced with the actual atmosphere of the Q&A, he realised that such an assertion would be questioned. He evades what is implicitly a question about his own assertion of "wrong" by employing a misdirection.
That is very dishonest. The speech itself would get the headlines and the quotes. The Q&A would get less attention - both by virtue of being more difficult to digest easily and as a result of the LiveStream being cut.


Given his blatant dishonesty regarding the events leading up to the allegations and his rather two-faced position on a London interview of Assange under a perfectly normal MLA procedure, it seems clear that he is not to be trusted.
Anything he might have to say on the possibility/probability of sending Assange to the US - as either straight extradited, loaned temporarily, or as a witness in e.g. the Manning case - should therefore not be trusted.



Lindskog's spin is very simple

He had invented additional evidence to support a belief that the allegations against Assange are serious and well-founded.
He makes noises that might lead people to believe that it would be impossible to extradite Assange to the US from Sweden.
He asserts some undefined "wrong" in the prosecutor interviewing Assange under MLA in London.
He mentions the millions of Sterling Pounds being expended on laying seige to Assange at the embassy.
The "deliverable" that he wants people to take away is a thought that Assange is being completely unreasonable - because he simply wishes to avoid a prison sentence for his depredations on women, with the fuss about extradition just being a smokescreen.

You want to trust him, yes?

 He comes with gifts. He says things about states not being trustworthy. He says that leaks that reveal crimes such as the Collateral Murder video are in the public good and should not be crimes.
C'mon! The man's a rebel. A firebrand.
Also he seems cuddly and plausible.
Not a politician (*haawwk-spit*).
He's chairman of the Supreme Court of Sweden, but he gives off a whiff of revolutionary fervor.
He's just the right sort of image that could seduce concerned 'respectable' people away from a path that would end with them breaking bread with hippies, hackers, criminals and enemies of all-that-is-good.

He mentions Manning favorably, and hopes that he will have a fair trial. Yet in this same speech, he prujudices an Assange trial by misrepresenting the evidence against him and inventing inculpatory 'evidence'. This is an absolute disgrace. He really is either a fool or a villain.

Personally, I sense a whiff of surströmming off the man. This fish died some time ago and an attempt has been made to preserve him by encasing him in a suit.
The can might look interesting, but do not open it! - Not even when standing up-wind outdoors.




A kinder interpretation of Lindskog's speech would be that....
.... he is a careless dupe who does not check available direct sources. He prefers to obtain information on which to base an internationally high-profile speech on gossip obtained from the chattering classes over a good dinner.
Yes. That is the kinder  interpretation, but it seems a stretch to afford him that.

On a positive note:

Lindskog did say that the EWA was issued "to enforce the Swedish police requirement to interview" Assange.
That is indeed what they wish to do. Assange has never been interviewed in relation to EWA 1,3 and 4.
There is a Preliniary Investigation in progress. (More on that at the botttom of the main posting below.)



 He did note that the case was largely about condoms. Yes



Looking at the Twitterati and various media site, it is apparent that many people bought Lindskog's poisoned sugar pills.
In "Lindskog's Spin Gives Birth"  I look at some of this and look to what would happen if Assange decided to go to Sweden.




In "Sex With Layers - Sweden and Assange" on the Assange case and why lawyers - while being possibly or not good sex partners in the actual act - are probably not a good proposition for negotiating an intimate or sexual act - even if married to them.





Monday, September 10, 2012

Sex With Lawyers - Assange and Sweden



A few weeks ago, I started to type a response to a comment on a blog. The blog was one of those concerning itself with the train wreck that is the whole Assange extradition thing. The particular topic was the semantic dancing regarding the need to interview Julian Assange in Sweden.
I stopped because
  •     it was too much the product of  anger, making me more incoherent than usual
  •     it was getting overly long for a comment, as the thing had to be put in context.
What began as a draft of the aborted comment slowly took on a life of its own as I continued to follow the various pissing contests that are ongoing about the whole Assange thing.  So here’s the comment.
I should add that my anger had absolutely nothing to do with the Assange business per se. What always presses one of my buttons is seeing bloody lawyers wittering on in a surreal spiritual vacuum.


For me, at any rate, the most reasonable thing to do is look for source documents.
The record of the initial interviews with the two women has been up in plain sight on the Net for some time.
When I read those and then read the terms of the European Arrest Warrant, it is clear to me that the EAW – and therefore the underlying Swedish investigation - is for the most part a significant misrepresentation of the women’s stories and intentions.

There is a story of  Claes Borgström, on being asked why SW did not realise that what happened could be construed as rape, answering "Because she is not a lawyer".
Borgström comes up again on this topic in http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/05/julian-assange-reveal-everything
What of the charge that Bergström himself has political motivations, and persuaded the two women to appeal against the prosecutor's dismissal when they had not initially wanted to allege rape? "They didn't know, actually, how they should handle the situation. We know that many women ... are not quite sure: was this a crime or not? It is in the neighbourhood, but on what side of the border is it?" The police officer who heard their story was legally obliged to contact a prosecutor, who judged it was a rape allegation, Bergström said.

Did his clients fully support the move to proceed against Assange? "Yes, yes. They do. At the same time, maybe, if they had known from the very beginning what would happen, maybe they would not have gone to the police at all. I don't know."
His answer does not seem to be a resounding “Yes” regarding the women supporting the move.
It’s clear from the interview protocol for SW that she was extremely upset on being informed that an arrest warrant for Assange had been issued while she was being interviewed..
He’s also not quite accurate on who in the Swedish system first called rape, as can be seen by the statement (below) of Linda Wassgren , the officer in Reception who first talked to the women and decided that crimes were involved.


All over the world women are being raped and abused. They do not need to be lawyers to realise that this could not only ‘be construed’ to be abuse – but is actual abuse.
I think of such women, and then read the police interviews of the two Swedish women. I look at the circus going on, and I call bullcrap.


Will no one think about the women?

No. Most people involved in or commenting on this don’t actually give a flying f*ck about the women – as real humans. The women are simply silent cardboard cutouts with the word “Victim” stencilled on them. Their consent is not considered necessary for this – paradoxically because someone else is intent on affirming a right to consent on the part of women.

In particular, SW has been grossly abused.
This can be seen in her reaction to news of the initial arrest warrant, and in the statement of her friend MT
http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police-marie-en.pdf
"MT wanted also to say that, when SW visited the hospital and the police, it did not turn out as SW wanted. She only wanted Julian to get tested. She felt that she had been run over by the police and others."

The two women have no voice in the matter.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website makes this principle in the Swedish process clear.
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Decision-to-prosecute/Duty-to-prosecute/
Duty to prosecute
In the case of most crimes, the prosecutor has what is known as an absolute duty to prosecute. This means that the prosecutor is obliged to initiate a prosecution if he or she considers there to be sufficient evidence to prove that a crime has been committed and that a certain person has committed it.
This in turn means that not even the victim of the offence can decide what is to happen in connection with the investigations. In other words, there is nothing on the lines of “withdrawing the charges”. The prosecutor must make sure that the crime is investigated, irrespective of the feelings or wishes of those involved.
The reason for this is that society has an interest in ensuring that the perpetrators of the crime are also tried for it. Exceptions are made for certain offences where it may be felt that the interests of the general public in instigating legal proceedings are not strong enough. Examples of such offences are defamation, breach of domiciliary peace and crimes of unlawful appropriation, or stealing, within the family (i.e. theft etc.).
 As Claes Borgström is quoted above
The police officer who heard their story was legally obliged to contact a prosecutor,
The women did not go to the police station to report a crime.
The woman in reception considered that their stories described crimes.
Having decided that crimes were in question, she was legally obliged to initiate proceedings, regardless of  the intentions of the women.
The machine started up. The consent of the women to this is explicitly not considered. They became 'victims' for the state and of the state.



I see people hyperventilating about rape in this affair and I can bet that they have never taken the trouble to search for source information that is trivially discoverable.
I see people screaming about "two rape victims" - although only one rape charge - for the lowest level of the 3 Swedish levels of rape - is in question - and although the 'victim' SW did not actually complain of a rape.

Three levels of Rape??
C'mon. We all know the mantra that those accused of rape apology have to recite in order to cleanse their souls - "Rape is rape".
No. In Sweden, there are three shades of grey.


On this page I share some thoughts on:
  • Rape and Abuse
  • What happened between Assange and two women, by their own description
  • What the Swedish State did about that
  • The terms of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) v. the Interviews of the women
  • Sex with lawyers
  • The UK to Sweden thing


I do this from the point of view of a “reasonable person” looking at the situation as a whole. This would be a very different to examining sub-events out of context.


Rape!

It is a small word with a huge emotional payload.
Rape is a trigger word.
Anyone suggesting that there might be varying degrees of offensiveness faces a firestorm of abuse until they appear in sackcloth and ashes and recant. They can only be absolved if they recite "Rape is rape".
Did you know that in Sweden, they have three grades of rape with separate definitions and penalty ranges?
Whatever else about the Swedes, they certainly have put formal thought into the problem.


A definition from WikiPedia – bless it.:
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.
The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as a person who is unconscious or incapacitated.

United Nations:
Sexual intercourse without valid consent

World Health Organization:
Physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object.


I could add another thought to the mix.
"Treating someone like a piece of meat (in a sexual context)."

Most of us know someone who has been or is being sexually abused. We might or might not be aware of their state.
I can think of four women of my acquaintance/friendship who have suffered at the hands of a partner.
One in particular said something that has stuck in my mind ever since.
She described her sex life as “He handles me like I’m just a piece of meat”. Her bed, with him in it, must have been the loneliest and most desolate place imaginable. It was a betrayal and a complete denial of her humanity.
She was not simply complaining about ‘bad sex’. The guy was a control freak. When I first met the couple, it took less than 30 minutes of observing him interact before all sorts of serious alarm bells were going off in my mind. He was one of those “street angels” – people who try to put up a charming public face, but are just plain twisted inside. She met him when she was young and innocent.
It is easy for an outsider to say what such women should do. We might think that it is fairly straightforward, but we are not the ones who have to deal with the push back if the woman begins to assert herself.
From the inside of such a relationship things are far more complex.  A woman can feel pressured by families - by a sense of failure or shame – by economics. It is not simply a matter of stating a position and walking out if matters are not resolved.
In the case of the woman I mention, she came to understand that she had friends who were ready to take herself and her child in if she found that she could not make things work.
So one night she arrived into my house with her young son. She called her husband to say that she had had enough. The outcome was that the woman had decided to stop being a victim. She took control of her own life – and had friends around to facilitate that. She organised the legal side, a home, work, the lot. She felt empowered.

I get the distinct feeling that if the conduct of the Assange case were the norm, then any intervention by authorities in the case of my friend above would be hamfisted and overbearing. What the woman thought of this and how that would affect her personal development and life would be completely irrelevant. She and her child would merely be ‘victims’. They would likely remain as victims.
The heavy hand of the law should be the last resort - not the first. The law tramples in like a bull.

Assuming that the Swedish authorities end up interviewing Assange again and actually believe that they have cases that are provable beyond reasonable doubt, there will be a trial.
Such trials are held in secret. There will be a professional judge and three 'lay judges' who are appointed by political parties. "Three party hacks" is the Swedish equivalent of "Jury of peers".
Nevertheless, the fact of a trial will focus attention on what the women actually reported.
The text used in the EAW will be irrelevant, as will be any matters discussed in the UK courts. The question of where  Assange could have been interviewed is gone. The question of extradition to anywhere is irrelevant.
All that will matter is the actual testimony and any physical evidence.


The cases are not as simple as many commentators assert them to be.
All the drama and misinformation is a great disservice to women. It trivialises the experience of women who are actually coerced physically or psychologically and suffer real abuse and rape.
It is handing ammunition to misogynists.


Rape Apologists

I’m obviously a



Another one would be Eva Finné  – Chief Prosecutor in Stockholm.
She’s a rape apologist too apparently. Read more below.




So what happened?


"Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues in the matter of Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom"

This has a nice reassuring ring to it. If it is a record of what contending parties actually agree on, it might be a reliable source of summary information.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

Some extracts that give a summary:

On 13th August 2010, the Appellant entered Sweden as a visitor.
During his visit he had sexual intercourse with two women [AA and SW].
After AA and SW spoke to each other and realised that they had both had intercourse with the Appellant during the currency of his visit in circumstances where respectively they had or might have been or become unprotected against disease or pregnancy, SW wanted theAppellant to get tested for disease.
On 20th August 2010 SW went to the police to seek advice. AA accompanied her for support.
The police treated their visit as the filing of formal reports for rape of SW and molestation of AA.
A preliminary investigation was commenced and both women were interviewed (SW on 20th August, and AA on 21st August).
At the conclusion of those interviews, on 21st August 2010, the case was taken over by the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm (Eva Finne). Having assessed the evidence, she cancelled the arrest warrant against theAppellant; she having made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape (against SW).
    On 25th August 2010, the Chief Prosecutor determined that
    i. The conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all and that file would be closed
    ii. The preliminary investigation into the conduct alleged by AA would continue (on suspicion of the offence of ‘molestation’only).
On 30th August 2010, the Appellant, who had voluntarily remained in Sweden to cooperate with the investigation, attended for police interview in respect of the ongoing Preliminary Investigation in respect of AA’s report. He answered all questions asked of him.


That seems to be a fair summary of what might be called Phase.I of the affair – up to the point just before which investigations were reopened and expanded.

For the sake of clarity, the only investigation still ongoing at that stage was one of Molestation of AA – which was an allegation that Assange had deliberately broken a condom during consensual sex.
Given that Assange will deny this in his interview on August 30th, one has to wonder if that investigation would also have been discontinued then.
There were no witnesses to the events in either case. There was a possibility that a condom produced by AA might throw some light, but forensic analysis could only say that there was no indication of deliberate damage. Also - very remakably - analysis found no trace of anyone's DNA on the condom.



From the beginning


This is all about three people. The story does not reflect well on any of them.
It's a story that would get a reasonable adult rolling up a magazine and whacking all three over the head.

The detail can be read in the Police Interview Protocols recorded in August 2010
A copy is at: http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
Anywhere I refer to something in the “protocols” in this page, I am talking about the content of that file.

Anyone voicing an opinion on the case should be asked if they have at least read the protocols. If they have not read them, they should be told to kindly S.T.F.U. as they simply have no idea what they are talking about.


This is the record of interviews with the three main characters and some others.
There is something quite important to bear in mind when reading these.

In the case of the two women, the protocols are summaries drawn up by the interviewer.
Rather strangely, neither interview was recorded.
Also rather strangely, while SW’s interview is conducted in the police station, AA’s interview is conducted on the following day – over a telephone call – as well as being unrecorded.
There is no record of tone, emotion, body language for either.
There is no record of the sort of questioning and answering that led to the way in which matters are described in the summary.
It can probably be assumed that the questioning and summaries were designed to elicit information indicating that offences had been committed. It should follow that the summaries would be a ‘worst case’ description of events. They would not be natural narration.
SW’s protocol is a summary of an interview that took 2 hours 20 minutes. The text covering her story over that time fills just 5 pages.

The protocols linked above are also translations, which might also add to a feeling of strangeness, but this is minor. No technicalities are discussed.

Assange’s protocol is a transcript of a recorded interview.
The protocols for the two women do need to be read in full. Despite any problems that might be introduced by the way the summaries were developed, they do give some picture of people as humans.

I have edited the extracts that I quote so as to substitute initials for the names of the women. This is really window-dressing only. Their identities have been freely available on the Net for a long time and are discoverable trivially.

The bare bones of AA's own story to police by extracts and summary:
"AA says that she worked on preparing a seminar that was to take place on 14 August, at which Julian Assange had been invited to speak.
Since AA would be out of town during 11–14 August, she lent her flat to Assange.
But AA returned early to Stockholm on Friday, 13 August, because she had a lot to do for the seminar. AA and Assange had never previously met in person, only professionally via e-mail and telephone"

The pair went out for a meal. No alcohol was consumed. They went back to the apartment. Drank tea.

"While they sat and drank tea, Assange began caressing her leg. To my question AA replies that Assange had not made any physical approach toward her earlier that evening, except now which AA initially welcomed.”
However, it felt “unpleasant right from the start”, because Assange was rough and impatient.
According to AA, “everything went so fast”. He tore off her clothes and in the process pulled at and broke her necklace. AA tried to put some clothes back on, because it all went so fast and she felt uncomfortable; but Assange immediately took them off again. AA states that in fact she felt that she no longer wanted to go any further, but that it was too late to tell Assange to stop, as she had “gone along this far”.
She thought she “had only herself to blame”. She therefore allowed Assange to remove all of her clothes."

AA had condoms somewhere. She felt that Assange was holding her so as to prevent her reaching them. He notices a resistance and asks her what is wrong. She says that he must wear a condom. He stops and she fetches a condom, which he wears. She checks that he continues to wear it, but suspects that he did something deliberately at one stage to damage the condom.

AA states she had previously heard from various sources that Assange “chases every woman who crosses his path”. Given Assange's reputation, AA felt that it was very important to use a condom the time they had sex.

Although Assange will remain in the apartment until August 19th, AA says that they never have sex again. They share a bed but are seldom in it together due to her routine and his working all night on his computer. He does make sexual advances every day, but she rejects them.
An advance described on August 18th she objects strongly to, so she slept on a mattress on the floor. The following night, she stayed with a friend. Assange moves out.



The bare bones of SW's own story to police by extracts and summary:

SW developed a deep interest in Assange. She discovers that he is to speak at an event  in Stockholm. AA is the contact on the related website. She contacts AA asking to attend. She turns up at the event and injects herself into the group. She's pushy to meet Assange. She runs some errands. She joins in the party for lunch. Later there is some heavy petting between her and Assange in a cinema.

Over the following two days she attempts to contact Assange to meet again. They end up in her apartment on the evening of the 16th.

They had hours of foreplay, then Assange abruptly goes to sleep. He wakens. They have a lot of sex.
He agrees to use a condom for this.

Breakfast, and then...
They sat on the bed and talked, and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only over the head of his penis; but she let it be. They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said to him: “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night long. She has never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her; he did not say when he did, but he did it. A lot ran out of her afterward.
She's concerned about STDs.
He also said that he had taken a HIV test three months earlier and that he had had sex with one girl afterwards, but that girl had also taken a HIV test and was not infected.

The story is then taken up in the protocol for AA
“To my question AA replies that she knew about SW, because she had been in contact with AA before the above-mentioned seminar and was in the audience at the presentation. According to AA, SW had purchased electrical cables for Assange, and had joined AA and Assange for lunch after the seminar. AA noticed that Assange had flirted with SW during lunch and understood that they subsequently had begun some sort of relationship, because Assange had rung to SW later in the evening during the crayfish party at AA’s place.”

“Yesterday,  (( Which would be August 19th )) AA received an e-mail message from SW who wondered how she could contact Assange, as she had something important to tell him. AA understood immediately what it was about; she contacted SW who then related what had happened to her — that she and Assange had had sex, that he did not want to use a condom, etc. SW wanted to take this further to the police and AA decided to follow along, primarily as support.”


Friday August 20th, 2010


According the "Agreed Facts" in the UK court proceedings, the reason for going to the police was to get advice on whether or not Assange could be compelled to submit to an STD test.
“SW wanted theAppellant to get tested for disease.
On 20th August 2010 SW went to the police to seek advice. AA accompanied her for support.”


AA apparently chose the particular station because an investigator there, Irmeli Krans, was a friend of hers.
When they enter, the story can be taken up by a memo written two days afterwards by the person sitting behind Reception - Linda Wassgren
An image of the document is here: http://www.samtycke.nu/doc/police_pm_p29.pdf

My extracts and translations from that:

Fredagen den 20 augusti 2010 tjänstgjorde jag tillfålligt I receptionen pa Klara näpo AArs arbetar jag I yttre tjänst pa samma station
-
On Friday 20th August 2010 I served temporarily in reception of Klara Napo. Otherwise, I work in the main office on the same station

Wassgren is an investigator, based in that station, but was filling in on Reception that day.

Vid 14 tiden samma dag inkom tvö kvinnor till stationen som ville prata och få lite råd om två tidigare händelser och de var lite osäkra på hur de nu skulle gå vidare.
-
At 14:00 that day two women came to the station who wanted to talk and get some advice on two previous events and they were a little unsure of how they would now go ahead.

This is definitely not “Two women came in to report rape(s)”

Inledningsvis så nämndes brottet våldtäkt och att båda kvinnorna skulle varit utsatta. Jag valde då givetvis att samtala med kvinnorna var för sig och bad dem berätta detaljerat om vad de varit med om.
-
Initially, mentioned/cited crime of rape and that both women would have been exposed. I chose the course of conversing with the women individually and asked them to tell us in detail about what they have been through.

This “mention of rape” is quite ambiguous. It does not indicate who raised the idea or how. Nevertheless this seems to be the basis of some people claiming that the women arrived to report rape(s)
In doing so, they ignore the paragraph immediately above it in Wassgren's memo, and also ignore what will be said in the “Agreed Facts and Issues” in the UK Court.
They also ignore what Claes Borgström said in answer to a question about the women's support for a prosecution. "They didn't know, actually, how they should handle the situation......" (top of page)
They also ignore something remarkable that happens later and which suddenly aborts the formal interview of SW.
They also ignore the words of SW's friend MT. "(SW) felt that she had been run over by the police and others."


The timeline of events in the police station isn’t perfectly clear.
The two women arrive at 14:00
There is a gap of  just over 2 hours before Irmeli Krans will begin a formal interview of SW.
In that time, Wassgren talks with both of them for some time before deciding to converse with each of them separately. It is clear that both women were interviewed together initially. See Boström's protocol for AA's description to him of her being present at SW's interview and interjecting.

In her memo, Wassgren has only brief details of any conversation. Even with the redactions, it seems clear that they refer to SW only:
I samtalet med den ena kvinnan ……. framkom att hon och ….. träffadesforsta gangen lördagen den 14 augusti vid en föreläsning där ….. var inbjuden som föreläsare, de umgicks sedan större delen av lördagen.
Måndagen den 16 augusti ska de tillsammans ha  umgåtts och sedan åkt hem till ….. lägenhet, och ….. beskrev det som att de på kvällen hade ett ……………  och hon fick känslan av att  …….  var mycket tydlig med att om XXXXX det sa hon till …………. och det verkade som at ………. ha det.
De beslutade sedan tillsammans att …………………………………… vaknade sedan på morgonen av att hon kände hur …………..  I henne, hon blev genast , …………… I situationen och var ………………… och hon uttryckte det som att hon kände sig ………………
Dagan efter …………………………… kontaktade hon ……. (den andra kvinnan) och tillsammans gick den sedan till polisen.

In conversation with one woman revealed that she ….. and ….. met first time on Saturday 14 August at a lecture where ….. was invited as a lecturer, the socialised then most of Saturday.
Monday, August 16, they have spent time together, and then gone home to ….. flat, and ….. described it as the evening had a …………… and she got the feeling that ……….. was very clear that, if ……… it she said to …….. and seemed at ……….. it.
They then decided together that ……………………………………….. then woke in the morning that she felt ……………………… in her, she was immediately, …………. the situation and was ………….. and she expressed that she felt ………….
The day after she contacted ………(the other woman) and together they went on then to the police.

According to her memo, Wassgren was also in conversation with others

Jag, Linda Wassgren, ringde några samtal bla till familjevåld och stationbefälet på Norrmalms polisstation för att rådgöra om hur vi skulle gå vidare och jag kontaktade sedan jouråklagare Maria Heljebo-Kjellstrand som beslöt att anhålla ………I sin franvåro.
Alla som jag pratade med var rörande överens om att det rörde sig om våldtäkt.
-
I, Linda Wassgren, made few calls to family violence among others and station officers on Norrmalms police station for advice on how we should proceed and I then contacted the on-call prosecutor Maria Heljebo-Kjellstrand who decided to arrest …… in absentia.
Everyone I talked to was agreed that it was rape.

Again, this does not sound like the women came to complain of rape(s).
It does not even seem to be a clear-cut rape case for Wassgren at this point.
One might think that police investigator might be trained in how to proceed in the case of a rape complaint. Instead, she rings around for advice and seems to conduct a form of telephonic voting on the question.
It is only after these discussions that she rings the Duty Prosecutor Maria Heljebo-Kjellstrand, who issues an arrest warrant for Assange. This was apparently about 17:00
All of this has happened without the women being formally interviewed or making statements.


In the meantime, SW is being interviewed by Imrili Krans. The interview had begun at 16:21
About 18:40 or just before, someone goes in and informs SW and Kranz that an arrest warrant has been issued for Assange and the police are searching for him.
This is described in the SW protocol by Krans:

In the course of the interview, SW and I were informed that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. After that, SW had difficulty concentrating, as a result of which Imade the judgement that it was best to terminate the interview.
But SW did mention that Assange was angry at her. There was not enough time to obtain any further information about why he was angry at her or how this was expressed. Nor did we have time to discuss what had happened afterwards. The interview was neither read back to SW nor read by her for approval; but SW was informed that she could do so at a later date.

The interview terminated abruptly because SW became highly emotional on being told that an arrest warrant had been issued.
This could have been due to
  • A) SW becoming wildly and tremendously elated that the b*stard who raped her was going to get what was coming to him. "Yesssssss! Yesssssss!"
or
  • B) SW thinking something like "Oh sweet f**k. He's going to be so pissed at me. What  is happening?"

Whatever the cause of her emotion, it was so strong that the interview had to be terminated. It was not even possible to read back the record of the interview to her - which would be a normal part of the procedure.
This is another indication that she had not gone to the police station to complain of rape or abuse.
Even a very stupid person will have some idea that reports of offences to the police generally end up with people getting arrested.

If anyone would be expected to assert that SW or AA had cried rape, it would the lawyer Claes Borgström. His paternalistic comments that I noted at the top of the page assert abuse was cried by ‘someone who knew better than some women’. "They didn't know, actually, how they should handle the situation. We know that many women ... are not quite sure: was this a crime or not?"

In the meantime, all Hell is getting ready to break loose.
Someone leaked the news of the arrest warrant and the allegations to a reporter of the Expressen newspaper. This is the Swedish equivalent of the News Of The World.
The newspaper gets confirmation from the Prosecutor’s office that a warrant has indeed been issued for Assange and that there is an accusation of rape. This is completely against the law.
Phone lines melt. Nets are worked. Denials and dirty tricks. Everyone is talking about it. The main characters are under huge pressures.
Twitter and blogs are exploding.


Saturday 21st August, 2010


Expressen prints the story
The leaking of the emotional termination of SW's interview is probably the source of a story that SW and AA were afraid of Assange and would not sign statements. A US plot mentioned. It's all such fun and great for circulation.


During that day AA is formally interviewed by investigator Sara Wennerblom – by telephone. It is not recorded.
I don’t see a record of how long that call took, but the summary protocol amounts to two and half pages.
Unlike SW’s summary, this one is read back to AA and she approves it.
Whether or not the line of questioning or the answers given are influenced by the sh*t storm that is breaking is unknown.


Sometime in the afternoon of the same day (21st), AA gives an interview to Aftonbladet
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

She says that
She wants to correct inaccuracies in that morning's Expressen
She considers herself abused but not raped.
It is not true that they were afraid to sign statements through fear of Assange. He is not violent. She does not feel threatened by him
In both cases it was consensual sex that became abuse
She says that SW wanted to report rape, and that she accompanied her to support her
It is not orchestrated by the Pentagon or anyone - she dismisses all the conspiracy theories that are flooding the Web
It is a case of a man with a warped view of womanhood and a problem with taking 'no' for an answer.


It is curious that the article has AA asserting that SW wanted to report rape. The word “våldtäkt” seems clear.
Everything from the day before indicates that SW was actually concerned with the question of a STD test. Her reaction to the news of the arrest warrant implies that a rape allegation was definitely not intended.

The Protocol for Donald Boström has an interesting section in this regard. He reports AA describing to him the events between SW and Assange in a way that is absolutely at odds with SW’s story to police.
Boström is also very confused by the conflict between AA’s story and the warm relations that he had observed between Assange and AA in the days following the alleged crimes. Something really does not add up in his mind.
If there was an ulterior motive, as opposed to simply helping SW in exploring what pressure could be put on Assange to get an early STD test, then it backfired badly.
The next event leaves AA as the only victim involved in any criminal investigation of Assange. Because of the leaking, her name is up in lights.

On the same day, August 21st, the case is reviewed by Eva Finné  – Chief Prosecutor in Stockholm
She withdraws the arrest warrant. "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." (SW)
The investigation into the allegation of molestation (AA) will continue, but this is not serious enough to justify an arrest warrant.
That announcement was a brief statement. It will be August 25th before she issues a formal decision:

There are two complaints made from two different women in the case. The complaint number one was originally classified as rape and complaint number 2 as molestation.

Complaint number 1     K246314-10
The information from interrogation with the complainant, is as already reported, of such, that there is no longer a suspicion of rape. This does not mean that I do not trust her information. I have studied the content of the interrogation, to decide whether there is a suspicion of another crime, in first hand molestation or sexual molestation, but I find in my analysis that this is not the case. Therefore the preliminary investigation is closed concerning this complaint as there is not suspicion of crime.

Complaint number 2    K246336-10
Suspicion about molestation remains. I will instruct the investigator to interrogate the suspect.
Investigating #2 would be reasonable given that AA said that she might still have a condom that had been broken.
Finné seems to consider that #1 was entirely consensual sex.




I've seen this assertion in a number of places that the women went to the police station to complain of rape.
The only indication of that is AA's saying so in later interviews to media.
The counter-indications very much outweigh that. In particular SW's feeling "run over" by the police is pretty telling.
Claes Borgström's comments indicate that someone had to explain to the women that crimes were involved. One might expect him to be asserting rather that they went to complain - without the benefit of such guidance.






While on that topic, here is something else from the interview Protocol of  Donald Boström

But that is the background, and that is why I knew what was going to happen — because then AA said: “SW has asked me to go to the police with her, and I have decided to follow along and support her in this. But we are not planning to file charges against Julian; we just want to go there and tell our stories.”
And then I wondered: Is it possible to tell one’s story without it becoming a formal compl…. Yes, technicalities like that; but I did not pursue them in detail. In any event, that is what she said.
So she went there together with SW; and we rang a few times back and forth.
We sent some SMS messages to each other about this. And I also called Julian a few times. They wanted Julian to test himself for HIV, otherwise they were going to file a complaint against him. That's how they put it. They did not want to speak with Julian, themselves. But Julian had spoken with SW, he said, and he believed that things had been blown out of proportion. But I told Julian, “The young women want you to take an HIV test; and if you do, they will not file a complaint. But if you do not, they will file a complaint.” So I just passed that on; I was the messenger.…
Then AA rang again and said, “Now we have been to the police and SW told her story; and as I was sitting there, I filled in with one sentence.” This is exactly wordfor-word, as I recall what she said. Aha, I said, and what was that sentence? Well, the sentence was: ”I think SW is telling the truth because I experienced something similar”, said AA. And then she told me that part about the condom, so that's why I thought that it was true.
I don't know anything about police technicalities, but then AA said: “Because all of a sudden we were two women with a statement about the same man, it became [a matter for investigation] and thus  became a formal complaint, even though we had not filed a complaint.” And so it became a complaint.
Preumably, all these calls and texts between Boström and AA, as well as those between AA and SW are in evidence.
If Boström is to be believed, then the root of all of this is SW wanting Assange to reassure her via an early STD test, with AA along simply to support her. Linda Wassgren took a different view and the rest is hystria.(sic)








This stage is a good one at which to compare the stories of the women with the terms of the EAW.
It is also the stage at which Eva Finné made a final decision in the case of SW, even before Assange is interviewed,
It is difficult to imagine what further core evidence there might be to add to what existed for SW at that stage. There are no witnesses in the bedrooms.

That’s pretty much it for Phase I of this business.
At the August 30, the only official investigation ongoing is one of whether Assange intentionally destroyed a condom in the case of AA.




Now look at the EAW,  item by item, compared to the stories of the women


EAW.1 - Unlawful coercion
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.


From AA’s Protocol:
In answer to my question, AA replies that neither she nor Assange had taken any alcohol during the evening. While they sat and drank tea, Assange began caressing her leg. To my question AA replies that Assange had not made any physical approach toward her earlier that evening, except now which AA initially welcomed. However, it felt “unpleasant right from the start”, because Assange was rough and impatient.
According to AA, “everything went so fast”. He tore off her clothes and in the process pulled at and broke her necklace. AA tried to put some clothes back on, because it all went so fast and she felt uncomfortable; but Assange immediately took them off again. AA states that in fact she felt that she no longer wanted to go any further, but that it was too late to tell Assange to stop, as she had “gone along this far”.
She thought she “had only herself to blame”. She therefore allowed Assange to remove all of her clothes.
This next bit is what EAW.1 describes
Then they lay down on the bed, AA on her back and Assange on top of her. AA sensed that Assange wanted to insert his penis in her vagina right away, which she did not want because he was not wearing a condom. She therefore tried to twist her hips to the side and squeeze her legs together in order to prevent penetration. AA tried several times to reach for a condom, but Assange stopped her from doing so by holding her arms and prying open her legs while trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. AA says that eventually she was on the verge of tears because she was held fast and could not get a condom, and felt that ‘this can end badly’. To my question AA replies that Assange must have known that AA was trying to reach for a condom, and that he therefore held her arms to prevent her from doing so.
This is next bit follows directly in AA's protocol. For some strange reason, the creator of the EAW was unaware of the existence of the protocol (i.e. the police interview), or they deliberately ignored it, then converting the Missionary Position into unlawful coercion.
After a moment, Assange asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. AA then told him that she wanted him to wear a condom before he came in her. At that, Assange released AA’s arms and put on a condom that AA fetched for him.


It seems clear that people who I have seen to write “He pinned her down and raped her!!!” are working purely from the text of the EAW. They might be forgiving for misunderstanding, as the EAW is very disingenuous in the circumstances.

I’m a firm believer in “No means No”. That’s an absolute.
The catch is…somebody has to say no.
It is clear that the lead up is consensual. She knows that by reputation Assange would – as a friend of mine puts it – “get up on a gust of wind”. She returns a day early to a one-room apartment with one bed. She welcomes his advances.
She then considers that she is dealing with someone who isn’t going to get anyone’s vote as a sensitive lover.
They end up in The Missionary Position. This involves what can be described as the male restricting the movement of the female preparatory to inserting his penis in the female’s vagina.
This seems to be what Assange is engaged in. It sounds like he’s not doing it with great sensitivity, but that’s what he’s doing.
Her problem with this is that she does not want the sex to be unprotected. She does not say so.
She simply moves her body to make it difficult for him to insert his penis. People sometimes do this in consensual play, so this is not necessarily a ‘No’.
Assange finally realises that something is up, so he asks her what she is doing.
AA then told him that she wanted him to wear a condom before he came in her. At that, Assange released AA’s arms and put on a condom that AA fetched for him.”

What have we got? Remember that this is AA's description of the moments that EAW.1 covers.
  1. Missionary Position without great finesse
  2. A request that a condom be worn.
  3. Suspension of Missionary Position
  4. A condom is then fetched and worn.
  5. Resumption of Rumpy Bumpy
It seems clear from AA’s story that Assange stopped the moment that she raised an objection.
In all of the statements, this is the only time that either woman reports making a direct objection to an action that was about to take place immediately. Assange stopped immediately. It seems that No is actually interpreted and acted on as No by him.
The dramatic text of the EAW is clearly a misrepresentation of the situation.
Either that or the Missionary Position is actually illegal.

What about this reaching for a condom?
She thinks that he “must have known” that she was reaching for a condom. Why would he have known this? She does not report any prior discussion of condoms. If everything happened so fast, it is perhaps unlikely that she has a condom ready and on view beside the bed. She says that he put on the condom that she fetched for him.
If she had to fetch/get a condom, and had never mentioned condoms before, then it is difficult to say how Assange “must have known” that she wanted him to use one.
What is very clear from AA's own statement is that the moment that she stipulated that he should wear one, he agreed and did so.

AA's story is clear.
Although she felt uncomfortable, she said nothing. Assange had to ask her what was wrong. She told him. He stopped with the missionary. She being no longer restricted went and fetched a condom. He wore the condom. They continued consensual sex.
This became Unlawful Coercion in the EAW. Anybody with a brain should be able to see the problem here.
It is highly unlikely that this would actually stand up. Enter the misogynists who will highlight it as 'crazy feminist nonsense'.

Note AA's comments in her Aftonbladet interviews
-He is not violent. She does not feel threatened by him




EAW.2 - Sexual molestation
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

This refers to the alleged breaking of the condom.

From AA’s Protocol:
After a short while, AA notes that Assange withdraws from her and begins to adjust
the condom. Judging from the sound, according to AA, it seemed that Assange
removed the condom. He entered her again and continued the copulation. AA once
again handled his penis and, as before, felt the rim of the condom at the base of the
penis; she therefore let him continue.
Shortly thereafter, Assange ejaculated inside her and then withdrew. When Assange
removed the condom from his penis, AA saw that it did not contain any semen.
When AA began to move her body she noticed that something “ran” out of her
vagina. AA understood rather quickly that it must be Assange's semen. She pointed
this out to Assange, but he denied it and replied that it was only her own wetness.
AA is convinced that when he withdrew from her the first time, Assange deliberately
broke the condom at its tip and then continued copulating to ejaculation.

If he actually did that, then it’s a biggie. To do such a thing would be really evil and twisted.
  1. To me, this is actually the worst thing that he is alleged to have done.
    Correction:  "the worst thing described by either woman". This is as distinct from the worst thing that the text of the EAW alleges. There are significant differences between that the women describe and what the EAW alleges.
  2. The determination that this is lesser offence “Molestation” rather than something more serious on the level of “Rape” is interesting. I’ll come back to both of these after looking that the situation with SW.


There are difficulties here though.
AA says that she is convinced that Assange damaged the condom. But she never actually checked at the time or even later. The interview was on the 21st. The incident happened on the 13th/14th . She has had seven days in which to examine the condom. I would most certainly have checked it, but obviously I can’t speak for everyone else.

To my question AA replies she did not look closely at the condom in order to see if it was broken in the way that she suspected; but she believes that she still has the condom at home and will check to see. She also states that the bed sheets used on this occasion are still lying unwashed in her hamper.

Semen on bed sheets happens even where condoms are involved. Condoms do break – particularly if the sex is enthusiastic. Take one off carelessly and you can get a mess. Some amount is going to get on the sheets anyway, if a recently ejaculated penis is flopping about. Then you have to avoid cold damp patches.
The condom could be vital evidence.
Unfortunately, forensic anaysis could not find any DNA to indicate the condom had actually been used for its normal purpose.


EAW.3 - Sexual molestation
On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

AA’s Protocol
AA states that she and Assange did not have sex again after the above-mentioned event. However, Assange continued residing with her until yesterday (Friday, 20 August). According to AA, Assange made sexual advances to her every day after the evening when they had sex, for example by touching her breasts. AA had rejected Assange on every such occasion, which Assange had accepted. On one occasion (on Wednesday, 18 August) he had suddenly removed all the clothes from his lower body, and then rubbed his lower body and erect penis against AA. AA states that she felt this was strange and unpleasant behaviour, and had therefore moved down to a mattress on the floor and slept there instead of on the bed with Assange. The following night, AA stayed with a friend because she did not want to be with or near Assange due to his strange behaviour. She had also said after Wednesday 18 August that she no longer wanted Assange to reside at her flat, which he did not act upon until Friday
[yesterday], when he took his things and returned her key.


The best that could be said for Assange  in this story is that at least he accepts ‘No’ on every occasion.  But once(?) a day as they share a bed he tries his luck again. That would be sexual touching for which he had no reasonable expectation of consent after the first refusal - regardless of the bed-sharing.
She is getting into the bed beside him of her own free will. Sharing a bed with her might be driving him mad, but No means No.
If there is an offence here, it's more "Not being really, really adult about everything" rather than a matter for criminal prosecution given all of the circumstances.


It is very odd that she would continue to share her bed with someone that according to the Prosecution had already perpetrated EAW.1 and EAW.2 on her.
It is very odd that when another at the crayfish party ( organised at her aparement building by AA the day after EAW.1 & EAW.2) offered accomodation to Assange, that AA said Assange could continue to stay with her.





Eva Finné’s review of the above


When she reviewed the case, all she had to go on was AA’s Protocol.
It seems clear from Assange’s subsequent interview (below) that the only issue was that of a broken condom.
If the situations (1) and (3) above gave her any pause, they don’t seem to have been taken into account in the same way that Marianne Ny does.

At the time of her review of the AA case, Eva Finné had nothing from Assange’s side. She also had nothing on the condom except for a note that it might become available.
Her continuing the inquiry based on the broken condom allegation is perfectly reasonable.
AA thinks that she still had the condom. Forensic investigation might show evidence of damage.
Assange also has to be questioned for his version of events.



Then......

A condom is produced by AA on the 25th. It has a tear in the tip. It goes to the forensic laboratory.
The laboratory reports that the tear can not be explained by other than wear.
Page 77 onwards in
http://wlcentral.org/sites/default/files/AssangeSexAllegations%20FUP%5B1%5D.pdf
That’s in Swedish and technical. Perhaps a dependable summary could be taken from the UK High Court Judgement
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71282275/Assange-High-Court-Judgement-2-November-2011
Page 24 (94)
"The evidence in the file showed that the condom was examined by the Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Science. The conclusion of the expert was that there was nothing to indicate that a tool had been used, but that the damage to the condom was created by the wear and tear of the condom"
Additionally the condom may have been washed, as there is no trace of the type of DNA that would indicate that it has been near any naughty bits. It's not really evidence of anything much.



Assange was interviewed on August 30th.,2010
The interview was solely concerned with AA – since this was the only ongoing inquiry at the time.

The protocol is a transcript of a recorded interview.
The Molestation involved is described to him as he breaking the condom intentionally.
He denies this.

MG: I can try…. The molestation would be in that you destroyed the condom.
JA: O.K.
MG: And that you would have done so intentionally.
JA: Yes. So in other words there are several condoms?
MG: Yes, in this context — no, in this context it has to do with one condom on one
occasion.
JA: O.K., so it's one incident...
GK: One condom.
JA: Between the 13th and the 14th when you say that I have intentionally destroyed a condom during copulation.
LS: Correct. What is your response to that?
JA: It is not true.


MG: What sort of sexual relationship was it; were there several occasions?
JA: Yes.
MG: Was a condom used on any of those occasions?
JA: On the first occasion; and we had sex several times on the 13th and the 14th. And afterwards, on the other days as well, we also had a sexual relationship.
MG: The subsequent sexual relations, did they also involve copulation?
JA: No, it was more… we touched each other.


He appears to say that the one condom was used more than once.
This is worth noting as it could have a relationship to the result of a forensic examination of a condom produced by AA on August 25th. Assange would have had no indication of the tests or the result at the time of the interview.

MG: So we're talking about one time when copulation was involved?
JA: Yes, we had intercourse on the 13th and the 14th.
MG: And that was once, or was it several times?
JA: Several times.
MG: And so the first time was with a condom?
JA: Yes.
MG: And who was it that wanted to use a condom?
JA: I'm not sure.
MG: And why was a condom not used with the subsequent acts of copulation?
JA: It was used with the subsequent acts of copulation.
MG: O.K. I misunderstood. So you had intercourse, and then only with a condom?
JA: Yes, that is correct.

His description of their relationship after the first night is as being sexual but without actual intercourse.
MG: How was your sexual relation after that night?
JA: It was still quite warm. On one occasion after that, AA had two orgasms. We slept in the same bed.
MG: And if have understood you correctly, you did not have sexual intercourse then?
JA: That is correct.
MG: And nothing happened during the time you resided with her after the first night?
JA: No there was no sexual intercourse; that's correct. But other sexual activities, yes.
MG: Were you ever rejected by AA?
JA: In what way?
MG: That she rejected a sexual advance from you?
JA: Yes, sometimes but in no way that was significant. No, nothing that would in any
way be unusual.




At the time that Marianne Ny extended the AA Molestation case to include all events between AA and Assange, the interview record and the forensics would have been available to her.
The situation was clearly a “he said, she said” with no forensic or independent witness evidence to assist either way.

I suspect that for Eva Finné, that would have meant the end of the investigation.



(1), (2) and (3) of the EAW refer to AA.
Now for SW.




EAW.4 - Rape

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."


From SW’s Protocol
….(After describing a significant amount of consensual sex, and an agreement to use a condom)….
They had sex again and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only over the head of his penis; but she let it be. They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said to him: “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night long. She has never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her; he did not say when he did, but he did it. A lot ran out of her afterward.



Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné’s review of the above

She saw no crime.
Perhaps her thinking was that although SW had indicated that a condom should to be used, she consented to unprotected sex in the event - in a context of ongoing consenual sex.
SW’s reaction to being told that he was not wearing a condom was “You better not have HIV”. That is certainly not “No” or “Stop”. At that stage, it was consent to continue – on the basis that he did not have a STD.
To qualify as the particular category ( the lowest of three categories) of rape in Swedish law that underlies the EAW, some form of coercion would have to be apparent – and this does not seem to be present.

SW reports that Assange believed that he did not have an STD, as he explained to her later.
“He also said that he had taken a HIV test three months earlier and that he had had sex with one girl afterwards, but that girl had also taken a HIV test and was not infected.”

One might point to parts of SW’s protocol such as:
'she sent SMS messages to her friends, he was lying next to her snoring'.
'he asked her why she was smiling, she did not like the undertone in his voice'.
'he put his hands on her hips and pushed her demonstratively onto the bed as if he were a real man'.

The first might indicate an oppressive/dismissive atmosphere.
The second might indicate a threatening behaviour.
The third might indicate a threat of violence.
All might be construed as being coercive.

The odd thing is that words that are in bold above might have been added to the protocol on August 26th.
Whatever was added to the protocol on August 26th would not have been seen by Eva Finné when she gave her opinion on the 21st and when she formalised that on the 25th.
Even if she had seen them, it is perhaps doubtful that this would have affected her decision. It remains a purely “he-said-she-said” situation.


August 26th?
There is a note at the bottom of the SW protocol

Note on date and time of document
On Friday, 20 August 2010. I conducted an interview with SW in connection with case #0201-K246314-10 at Klara Police Station. The interview commenced at 4:21 p.m. and was terminated at 6:40 p.m. The interview [protocol] was thereafter written with the word-processing program in the DurTvå computer system.
The interview was to be copyedited on my next workday, Monday the 23rd of August 2010. That was not possible because I was denied access to the interview I had conducted.
After an exchange of e-mails, I was directed by supervisor Mats Gehlin to instead create and sign a new interview in DurTvå, which was done on 26 August with the necessary changes. Unfortunately, the date and time of that document conforms with the time that the changes were made, as that is done automatically by the DurTvå system.



A diversion into conspiracy

(Before we come to the sex and lawyers bit)

A SW Protocol “with the necessary changes”?
Some clever clogs did an exercise with a copy of the redacted version of the original SW protocol and the full version of the amended one.
That exercise is mentioned in http://rixstep.com/1/20110831,00.shtml
The exercise apparently shows that the text that I have in bold above was added on the 26th.
It is not clear where any amendments came from. It certainly seems to have been Krans' intention to review and sign the Protocol on Monday 23rd. The bolded sections might seem odd for her to have simply missed while entering the details of the interview on the 20th. - particularly as the effect of those specific additions is to introduce a possibility of a case for coercion. This would be in the light of her having recorded very mundane incidents like "They walked off across the grass, passing cows and Canada geese"


There is a conspiracy theory to go with this.
Claes Borgström became formally involved as representing the two women as early as the 24th, and possibly earlier via AA who knew him well. It is he who will pressure Marianne Ny to take up the cases.
Apparently Mats Gehlin’s diary shows a copy of the original version of SW’s Protocol being sent to Borgström and then something coming back.

For a purely internal Swedish conspiracy theory try
http://swedishsexbook.com/2012/08/31/how-the-assange-scandal-saved-the-swedish-social-democrats/



As an alternative, I see people pointing to the friendship between AA and Krans. If AA were trying to talk up 'rape' in the case of SW, this is not necessarily a deep and dark plot. It could just as well be panic at being dragged into a blaze of publicity - and as the only remaining 'victim'. She had accompanied SW as support, and now she becomes the focus for everything.

There are records of text messages between the two women. These could as easily refer to ways of persuading Assange to take an early STD test as it could be something else. No doubt they will be leaked if a trial gets under way.

Right now, this aspect of the case is largely invisible.
Everyone has been distracted by the drama of all the UK court action, the eventual trip to the Ecuadorian Embassy, Diplomatic Crisis and the will-they-won’t-they regarding extradition to the US.

If it comes to a trial in Sweden, then the primary focus will be on the actual cases and the process that led to them.
It is very doubtful that the US would make any move to extradite or ‘borrow’ Assange until the Swedish ‘rape’ situation has been milked dry for propaganda value.
A trial and a string of appeals would keep Assange banged in custody and very restricted in communication for some time. That and the black propaganda value would be very attractive to them.

The downside for the Swedes will be that there will not be much to talk about except the whole prosecution process.
Swedish mainstream media is apparently not renowned for investigative journalism of the type that might upset the good order of things. Look up the term “Duckpond” in relation to Swedish Media.
A number of independent Swedes seem to be busy digging into matters.
I think that the Swedish laws on openness would give the US Administration a total fit of the vapours
See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_legislation#Sweden
There might also be people looking at things that they are not supposed to be looking at.
Combine that with some noses out of joint on the inside and we might be in for a dirt-fest.
Whatever dirt might be in there is certain to be highlighted around the world, even if  the Swedish MSM might choose to ignore it.


For hard core Swedish conspiracy talk about this and  events following do some searching for “Rixstep” and “Flashback” in connection with the case.
Please don't take this mention as an endorsement of whatever you find. I am just saying that it is out there.

You will find stories about quite incestuous connections between prosecutors, lawyers and some others – all with an agenda. It’s purely Swedish politics. It doesn’t particularly need any “foreign hands”.

The beginnings seem more like pure accident, with opportunists then climbing on board. The mission of the women seems to have been a personal issue. Linda Wassgren (the State) neither requests or considers their consent for any of this.

It is realistic to say that immediately the story broke on August 20th, any US diplomat/spook that was not murmuring to their Swedish counterparts within minutes should be dismissed from their post.

It would not be a wild conspiracy theory to say that. It's simply the way the world is..
When Eva Finné informally discontinued the SW rape investigation on the 21st, there would have been a flood of US accents saying "Ah well. That's a pity."
Again, that wouldn't be to be paranoid. Anyone with a brain would know that this would be natural.
Given the certainty of that happening, it says something for somebody's integrity that Finné still makes her informal decision an official one on the 25th.

End of diversion into conspiracy







Before I go near what happens with Marianne Ny taking up the inquiries
– a bit about lawyers and sex.



EAW.1 - Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s
arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body
weight preventing her from moving or shifting.


This really is blatant misrepresentation.
It is put up there in first place in order to give an air that all this raping and molesting involved Assange attacking and holding them down.
This sort of black propaganda works. I’ve seen more than one person asserting “He pinned her down and raped her!!!!”
It’s what lawyers do when they talk up a case. Baseless assertions are all very well, but judicious use of half-truths is great.

It is quite clear from AA’s protocol that he was not pinning her down to have his way against her will.
What he is doing is an enthusiastic Missionary Position. As soon as he realises that something is wrong, he stops and asks her. She had said nothing. He had to ask. She tells him that she wants him to wear a condom. He says OK. She gets a condom and he puts it on. Then consensual sex is resumed.

EAW.1 is the Missionary Position
The Missionary Position is Unlawful Coercion. Many learned legal brains in fancy dress have examined the position (as it were) , and have determined that it is illegal.
Consider yourself warned. You use this position at your peril if you are the one on top.




EAW.2 - Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner
designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her
knowledge.


This question is the one that has me saying that most people are missing the central issue for women in all of this.
There probably are people who want condoms to be used as they have some sort of rubber fetish. I think that the vast majority of ‘ordinary’ people use them to try to avoid pregnancy and/or infection. It can be also be that although pregnancy is avoided by other means (or timing) and infection is not believed to be an issue, the depositing of semen is felt to be too personal in the particular circumstances.

Taking the protocols at face value, the matter that gives rise to grievance is that of the condoms.
Everything happened in a context where the actual sex and intercourse was clearly consensual.

To me it seems screamingly obvious that what is alleged about deliberately breaking the condom in AA’s case should be a huge offence. It should be way up there on the same sort of transgression level as major rape. To import the language of EAW.3 and 4, this would be absolutely “designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.”
SW at least had a conversation and made a decision, but AA would have been deliberately deceived.
The relative seriousness with which the events are treated seems upside down to me.

The central human issue that gave rise to the cases being brought is the use of condoms within a context of consensual sex..
Yet, ‘everybody’ is hyperventilating about rape.

It’s the Condom, Stupid!





EAW.4 - Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping,
Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting
that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

This is another misrepresentation.
The EAW is clearly worded to mislead . It implies that she was unconscious throughout. - as in drugged, dead-drunk, comatose, etc


It is clear from SW’s protocol that she woke up to find that Assange had penetrated to some extent.
She is aware enough to inquire if he is wearing a condom. He answers no. She permits him to continue, saying that he better not have HIV. He continues and eventually ejaculates.

I feel pity for lawyers and those that they have sex with.
EAW.4 holds that she was asleep when sexual intercourse was “consummated”.
So… a lawyer gets his penis in a bit – or a guy gets his penis a bit into a female lawyer:
Then the lawyer party says “Yay! That’s it. It doesn’t really get any better. It’s consummated. Successful conclusion! All done. How about a nice cup of tea?”

For most people, “Consummated” means – ‘brought to a successful conclusion’. Generally this involves climaxes – preferably for both parties.
Whatever lawyers are at ease with EAW.4 must have a less ambitious definition.

EAW.4 (continued)
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her.

SW says that she indicated that it was OK provided that he didn’t have HIV, then this doesn’t really apply – unless a significant level of coercion can be shown. He only consummated unprotected sex with her after she had indicated that he could do so.

EAW.4 (continued)
The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity. (para 3)

This is not necessarily true.
I have seen arguments to the effect that although SW reports a conversation and making a conscious decision to allow him to continue on the basis that he didn’t have HIV, she was not actually awake – or awake enough the properly make that decision.
That sort of argument works both ways.
If Assange begins to wake and finds beside him the warm body that has been cheerfuly bonking with him for hours, he could well have resumed the bonking while not being awake enough to remember that he’s meant to be wearing a condom. If the ‘not-really-awake’ thing is to be trotted out for SW, then it has to be trotted out for Assange as well. To do otherwise would betray biased thinking.


Sleep-sexing


I really think that we have to accept that SW was awake. That sort of thing does tend to wake one up – particularly if there is a concern about condoms. Trust me.


Now children!
Mummies and Daddies sometimes play …. eh….wrestling. And sometimes the Daddy’s wee-wee-man gets inside the Mummy’s wee-wee-hole.
Yes! It is disgusting and icky, but that sort of thing can happen when someone with a sticky-out bit wrestles with someone who has a sticky-in bit.
Does it hurt?
Well not really, because after a bit of wrestling Mummy’s body make slippery stuff so that accidents are not too uncomfortable. It’s what the Americans call “Intelligent Design”.

What happened is that SW woke up because there was a woodpecker banging on the door.

What EAW.4 is suggesting is that SW was unconscious throughout.
Somebody might describe this as “Legitimate Necrophilia”.  I certainly wouldn’t dream of coining such a phrase. I’ve seen what happens when people do.


EAW.4 is designed to appeal to the people that I have seen asserting “He raped her while she was asleep!!!”
‘Asleep’ is the same as ‘Unconcious’, which is the same as ‘Drugged’ or ‘Dead Drunk’ – which brings us into the same emotional territory as spiking a girl’s drink or assaulting her if she gets blotto at a party.




I mention Louise Mensch here for no other reason than she came up with a phrase that had Twitterati giggling.
In http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9490212/George-Galloway-Todd-Akin-and-other-male-politicians-still-getting-it-wrong-on-rape.html
… comes the line "Sexual consent is not football; you can’t buy a season ticket".


This is to completely miss the real point in the cases of Assange and the two women.
To continue the football analogy, the issue is not one of getting past the turnstiles. The issue is one of dress code.

Yup. Here’s your season ticket. Come in. Jump up and down. Wave and cheer. Do that Mexican thing we like so much. You can even join the team in the shower room afterwards.
Just one thing. You have to wear a hat.

If we apply the analogy to these cases then:
For AA, the allegation is that Assange effectively removed his hat during a match.
For SW, the allegation is that Assange jumped the turnstiles while not wearing a hat. However, the turnstile attendant decided to allow him to go up the gangway and enjoy a match - the only condition being that he wasn’t carrying the plague.

The really weird thing is that the Football Association seem to consider that a flagrant and duplicitous removal of a hat during the course of a match is a less serious offence than jumping the turnstiles - even while in possession of a season ticket. The greater seriousness of the latter seems to be related to an assumption that Assange must have intimidated the turnstile keeper into allowing him to proceed bare-headed into the match.

What happens if there really isn’t a season ticket?


This really is a serious question – even if the way I will explain it might be mistaken for humour.
It is actually a valid question.

If there is never a season ticket, then it’s a global rule. It's not a la carte.
It applies to YOU as well, every time, forever – not just to other people.

Guys!

You are with this woman. Let’s call her Louise.
You could have been married to her for years – or you could have met her yesterday. It’s doesn’t matter.

You have an evening of passion, followed by a night of passion.
Next morning, you have more passion.
They you both drift off to sleep.

You wake up.
You’re feeling frisky.
There she is – gorgeous and naked – the woman who has been happily bonking with you for hours.

You want to reinitiate the bonking.
STOP!!!!

She is asleep – as in “incapable of valid consent, such as a person who is unconscious or incapacitated”.

So wake her up then.
Yes but how?

You can’t shake her. That could be construed as violence and coercion.
You can’t sort of poke at her (with your hand I mean). That’s an assault.
You can’t snuggle up to her
You can’t do any stroking  - of anywhere , never mind any naughty bits. That’s getting sexual.
Don’t even think of running your fingers lightly up her thigh and maybe just past near you know what and maybe up to the side of her breast. That’s absolutely sexual assault.

You think that maybe on one of those strokes as your fingers are drifting past you know what, that one of them might just kinda slip in there for a second? Don’t even think about it. That’s rape.
“Physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object.” See? Finger comes under “other body parts”

You could try clearing your throat loudly – or coughing.
You might consider getting out of bed and coming back with a cup of tea or coffee for her – and doing that very noisily.
Your problem there might be that you got a massive erection that is painful, and at this stage you are curled up in a foetal position.
You could try ringing her!
Or maybe text her - but very careful about the content. Keep it very neutral. "Hi there" or something. Innocent text messages are ok. Sex messages/massages are not.

When she eventually wakes up and asks you why you are rolled up in a ball and banging your had on the bedpost, you still have to be very careful.
You can’t just go into lovemaking mode. You have to negotiate. Plus – you have to negotiate carefully.
Any suggestion of bonking being in the program of events simply because you had been bonking earlier should be avoided. Such could be construed as coercion – trying to make her feel guilty - forcing her to submit to your depredations.
One might imagine John Cleese in this situation. It’s all frightfully amusing. “Don’t talk about the war”.

Additionally, you can’t be sure that she’s really fully awake. If she’s only half awake, she is probably asleep for legal purposes. You have to hold back, even if it appears that she has started begging.


If there is no season ticket, then I’ve been raped quite a number of times – and very nice it was too,
I have also perpetrated quite a number of assaults of varying seriousness.
So far I’ve been lucky. The victims have not complained.


It’s not actually funny though. This is the legal situation. There is no season ticket. It’s not a la carte. The law treats everyone equally.

This is what happens when lawyers and police come barging into the human condition – particularly when they barge into the bedroom.


Sex with lawyers? Is it possible?

Yes, some sort of sex is probably possible, but I really meant great or even good sex.

There you are, just getting in the mood for some fun, and you ask:
“Oh! Do you have protection?”
And they say:
“Hell Yeah!”
And they pull out a wad of contracts.

Fearsomely complicated contracts.
You can’t just tick the ‘Terms and Condition Read’ box and sign.
If you sign up for the full intercourse option and the foreplay turns out to be bad, you could still be stuck with having to go through the whole thing or face a breach of contract action.
Stopping to negotiate and sign at every change of action would be a real passion-killer – that is unless both parties were aroused by contracts. Lawyers probably have a lot of fun in bed, but “It’s fun Jim, but not as we know it.”
The contracts would have to cover all imaginable positions, duration, actions, etc. It’s not enough to have some simple ‘get-out’ clause – like staying ‘Stop’.
I don't think that I want to know what sort of contracts they might have for threesomes and more. 

What if one party is uncomfortable with something but doesn’t call a halt because they feel coerced as they have let things get so far? This is a serious question. It seems to arise in the protocols of both Swedish women.
Safe Sex means sticking absolutely within the bounds of a list of permitted activities that are formally pre-approved by both parties. We're talking in writing here, or else we end up in a 'he-said-she-said' situation.
Lord be with the days when people had domestic servants. They would be able to act as witnesses to agreements.


Some more things about sex with lawyers - safe sex suggestions

Missionary Position is out!  Yup. We know. That's clear. UK courts have ruled it as Illegal Coercion.

But.... it gets worse
Any position used must allow both parties to see the other person's face.
No spooning. No doggie or similar.
Oral is also off the menu.

The reason is that the other party might become unwilling but not say anything.
You have to be able to detect this. The only answer is to use positions in which the facial expressions are visible at all times. - Or have mirrors. I see a developing market in mirrors.
Lawyers probably have mirrors on walls and ceilings of bedrooms.
They probably have video cameras behind the mirrors. One never knows when one would have to prove something in court.
If you really want oral then perhaps one of those little ones that dentists use would be advisable in order to get a proper view of their face.

No. Sorry. You can't do it in the dark - for very obvious reasons. You have to be constantly looking for the slightest sign of negative feedback.
Thinking about that last bit, it goes to show that there can be good in everything. Think positive. Sex with total awareness of the partner. A problem might be that the other self-preservation factors might limit the occasions on which this skill might be developed.

Breathalysers -  You're going to need them too. If there is any suggestion that the other party in not fully in their proper faculties, you could be construed as taking advantage.
Be careful that while introducing the thing that you don't use the word 'blow'. This could be construed as coercion. Use 'inflate'.

It might be wise to get confirmation that all is ok at regular intervals. Caution should be exercised in this as certain forms of wording and/or tone could be construed as intimidatory.


Motivated Reasoning

I've had a few exchanges with people on this topic of the technical interpretation of selective snapshots in time.
When I point to EAW.1 as being a worst possible technical interpretation of what was clearly, in the context, an enthusiastic Missionary Position, they insist that time during which AA felt restricted actually is an assault/coercion, because that short segment taken out of context can be shoehorned into a definition of an offence.
When I invite them to apply the exact same logic to things like snuggling up to a sleeping/sleepy 'Louise' they are unwilling to take up the challenge.
Clearly, their reasoning is affected by bias. It's "motivated reasoning".
A lawyer will use corrupted logic to argue a case. That is what they do. In an adversarial system, they generate the worst possible interpretation of the actions of the other side. They are biased - unfair and unbalanced - in favour of whoever is paying them that day.
Anyone other than a lawyer pleading a case does not have that excuse.


Cause and effect


The trigger for all of this drama appears to be a concern on the part of SW that she might have been exposed to infection.
That sort of fear can become all-consuming. It needs attending to.
When people have sex, their responsibility to each other is physical and emotional. The responsibility does not end when they get out of bed.

There is a section in the protocol of Donald Boström that mentions this strong desire for a test.

But that is the background, and that is why I knew what was going to happen  because then AA said: “SW has asked me to go to the police with her, and I have decided to follow along and support her in this. But we are not planning to file charges against Julian; we just want to go there and tell our stories.” And then I wondered: Is it possible to tell one’s story without it becoming a formal compl…. Yes, technicalities like that; but I did not pursue them in detail. In any event, that is what she said.
So she went there together with SW; and we rang a few times back and forth. We sent some SMS messages to each other about this. And I also called Julian a few times. They wanted Julian to test himself for HIV, otherwise they were going to file a complaint against him. That's how they put it. They did not want to speak with Julian, themselves. But Julian had spoken with SW, he said, and he believed that things had been blown out of proportion. But I told Julian, “The young women want you to take an HIV test; and if you do, they will not file a complaint. But if you do not, they will file a complaint.” So I just passed that on; I was the messenger.…

Then AA rang again and said, “Now we have been to the police and SW told her story; and as I was sitting there, I filled in with one sentence.” This is exactly word-for-word, as I recall what she said. Aha, I said, and what was that sentence? Well, the sentence was: ”I think SW is telling the truth because I experienced something similar”, said AA. And then she told me that part about the condom, so that's why I thought that it was true.
I don't know anything about police technicalities, but then AA said: “Because all of a sudden we were two women with a statement about the same man, it became [a matter for investigation] and thus became a formal complaint, even though we had not filed a complaint.” And so it became a complaint.



Assange’s police interview on August 30th was solely to do with the allegation of breaking the condom in AA’s case – as that was the only ongoing investigation at the time.
As they are winding up:

MG: Any follow-up questions? O.K. then, is there anything you want to say before we terminate the interview?
JA: Yes.
MG: Go ahead.

JA: I was contacted by a mutual friend of AA and me on Friday, the 20th. It was a woman named SW who was at the hospital. She said something about DNA and the police — and I was very upset to hear that. No one alleged anything. It would be a long story if I were to go into that. It does not seem relevant.
MG: OK so we hereby conclude the interview.
JA: We can always continue if it is needed. But the main thing is that I and other people, we heard a bunch of unbelievable lies, and heard that I was to meet SW on Saturday afternoon to discuss the matter. AA had no accusations, and no one had any intention of going to the police and so on. That is how I expected things to remain until I heard the news in Expressen.



SW reports that at some stage Assange had indicated  “He also said that he had taken a HIV test three months earlier and that he had had sex with one girl afterwards, but that girl had also taken a HIV test and was not infected.”


Here is a thought.

If Assange had acted more strongly to respond to SW’s concern – if he had assured her that he would take a test as immediately as possible – none of this would ever have happened. No police visit. No drama.

It might be that Assange could end his days growing older in an attic in London
– like a picture of Dorian Grey.

The root cause would be a failure to sufficiently reassure SW that he would act urgently to end her fear.

It’s Karma gone rogue.









New investigation – leading to a European Arrest Warrant

The details have been covered all over the place. I’m not going to go into a blow-by-blow in that swamp.
Göran Rudling has a detailed overview at http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/03/the-assange-case-information-jesus-on-the-cross-or-just-fingers-crossed/
He also has very detailed analysis of all the available statements.


The UK Court Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues has a chronology.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

But - In summary
August 27th, 2010 - A lawyer representing the interests of the two women pressures for the investigations to be reopened.
Note that the status of is not that of a lawyer retained by the women.
His role is that of  "målsägarbiträde"- a person appointed by a court to look after the interests of 'victims'.
He is not part of the prosecution team. At the same time one has to wonder if such a person has a vested interest in the victims being victims. No victims no income for the job.

September 1st, 2010 - Marianne Ny takes up the cases. The rape investigation is reopened. The molestation investigation is to be extended to cover all matters.



So back on August 20th, an arrest warrant was issued immediately and based only on some informal conversations.
Seriously!
Two women came to a police station looking for advice. This was in connection with a person with whom they were having consensual sex.
Wassgren spoke to both of them together. She appears to have no formal record of this other than the memo she wrote 2 days later. This appears to mention SW only.
She rang around to discuss the matter and eventually rang the duty Prosecutor, who issued an arrest warrant.
At the time of the issuing of the arrest warrant, neither woman had been formally interviewed. SW's interview was still in progress. AA was not interviewed until the following day - and that was by telephone.
Neither interview was recorded. All that exists is a summary drawn up by the interviewer.

In effect, an arrest warrant was issued based on gossip. Had the police found Assange at the time, he would have been banged up incommunicado until such time as the system got around to it.




Senior Prosecutor Finné ruled that there was no crime in the case of SW, and on an assumption that a broken condom can be produced, some less serious business to interview Assange about in the case of AA. Now, Ny determines that this is a serious rape case plus molestation plus more stuff to be determined, so we issue an arrest warrant – right?
Seems not.

C’mon! C'mon! These are really serious allegations. The whole world is talking about them.
A week or so ago we issued an arrest warrant based in informal chats only. 
At the very least, we haul the suspect in for an interview ASAP – right?
Seems not.

We at least make sure that he can’t leave the country – say by asking for his passport – right?
Seems not.

Assange eventually leaves Sweden on September 27th  - 26 days after the rape investigation was reopened by Ny.
He ends up in the UK.
It’s no secret where he is. If he’s going to be organising press conferences etc. for things like the release of the Iraq War Logs, It’s quite difficult to do that without advertising where he’ll be.
You want to know where he is? Look it up in the Interwebz!

Ny wants him back in Sweden to be interviewed.
An offer to return on October 10th 2010, or any day in the week following was rejected as being too far into the future.
Having done nothing much during 27 days of September, Ny wanted him back immediately, and set about a process that has Assange living in the Embassy of Ecuador in London two years later.
That’s quite impressive.
It is said that the costs in the UK exceed STG£1,000,000 - with a daily cost of STG£11,000 to keep watch on the Ecuadorean Embassy.
You can say one thing for Ny. She's got a hell of a hard neck.
The option to use Mutual Legal Assistance to progess the investigation has always been open to her. Sweden has used this before. Assange seems to have been ready to cooperate at all times. Direct offers have been made, latterly from the Ecuadorian government. She refuses to use it, but even the Swedish Prosecution Authority are unaware of the reasons why - other than some undefined "circumstances within the inquiry",



Next step in the Swedish process is a set of interviews

Yes. Really.
The next step is not an indictment and trial.
There seems to be a huge semantic dance going on, with various legal brains being trotted out.
He faces charges / No he doesn't / Yes he does / Probable Cause /  On and on..
My translation of Swedish words and law into English words and law is more correct than yours / No it isn't / Yes it is / On and on..

It's all a ridiculous waste of time and energy at this stage.
Extradition of Assange from UK to Sweden has been cleared by all levels of UK courts. Fresh out of appeals. That shop is closed.
Note that none of this was based on the merits of the accusations in the EAW. It was based on the letter of them - which is why the UK courts come out apparently outlawing the Missionary Position.
If a British bobby gets his hand on Assange's collar, he's off on the next plane. Bon Voyage!

What happens then?
Ignoring the matter of how his movements in Sweden would be 'limited' during the ongoing investigations, Prosecutor Marianne Ny has clearly described the process on her website.
 
Without going into the details about the work of the investigation, it can be mentioned that there is a need, during interviews with Mr Assange, to be able to present, and question him about, the evidence that has emerged in the investigation to date. When continuing the investigation there is also a need to be able to carry out supplementary interviews, as required, with Mr Assange and the other persons involved.
 If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange.....
She says that she want to interview Assange.
She says that arising out of that interview, she may need to go back to re-interview those that she has already interviewed.
She says that arising out of those interviews, she may need to go back to re-interview Assange.
Rinse and repeat for whatever number of times.
When the interviews are all complete to her satisfaction, she will then decide whether or not to indict Assange for a trial.
Note that Assange has already been questioned on August 30th 2010, but this was in connection with the Molestation allegation for AA (EAW.2). This was the only investigation still in progress at the time as Eva Finné had decided that no crime was in question in the case of SW.
Assange has not yet been questioned in relation to SW (EAW.4) or to two new allegations in the case of AA (EAW.1 and EAW.3).

Note also that 'the allegations' are alleged by the prosecution.
AA brought SW to the police station to support her in her queries about obliging Assange to get a HIV test ASAP. AA had no other mission than that. It was purely SW that had the issue.
The allegations in the EAW are the result of the police choosing to interpret the story as describing crimes - even though that was not the mission of the women. The women are not "complainants".
This is something that seems to be totally lost on many people.


That is where it is in the Swedish process.
I have no idea what the benefit might be in putting a legal English description on the current stage of the process at this point.

In a submission to the UK courts, Ny made the position re interviews and indictment very clear
“10. Once the interrogation is complete. it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter.”
She said that her view at the time was that he should be indicted.
But..
She then said that an indictment would be *subject to any matters said by him*

It is crystal clear. Assange being indicted or not is subject to any matters said by him.
Ny wants him for interview(s).



Why does Ny refuse to interview Assange in the UK?

She could have used Mutual Legal Assistance.
She still could.

Why does she insist that Assange must be interviewed in Sweden?


OFFICIAL:  Karin Rosander, Director of Communications for the Swedish Prosecution Authority
http://audioboo.fm/boos/928311-swedish-prosecution-authority-on-julian-assange-case-the-world-at-one-bbc-radio-4

KR: The prosecutor has stated that according to circumstances in the investigation her opinion is that it's necessary that he is present in Sweden, and she hasn't stated exactly what circumstances, but that's her statement.

MK: But isn't it the case that Swedish prosecutors have gone abroad to question defendants in serious cases at other times?
KR: Yes that's true. It has happened. And it's for the individual. It's for the prosecutor to decide which measures to take. So it's all about what the prosecutor decides to do.

MK: But what you're saying is there are circumstances in this case that make it very different. It's hard to understand what they might be.
KR: Yeah. And the prosecutor hasn't stated exactly what kind of circumstance - what circumstances - but that's her decision.

MK: Would it be possible to reach some kind of agreement with Julian Assange that he wouldn't be extradited to United States, because that's what he says he's frightened of if he were to agree to travel to Sweden?
KR: Well that's not exactly for the prosecutor to decide because that's a decision that has to be made by the Swedish government.

MK: Wouldn't it be possible to interview him by video link, by some kind of video phone?
KR: The prosecutor has stated that it's necessary for him being present in Sweden. And that's all she can say at the moment.

MK: One other form of compromise that has been suggested is that he would be interviewed in the Swedish embassy, so technically on Swedish soil.
KR: Yeah. But that doesn't really change it because the prosecutor's opinion is that it's necessary he is actually present in Sweden, according to the circumstances within this investigation.

MK: Given what's at stake here - it's now become a great international question now hasn't it, with Ecuador, the UK, and Sweden all being involved - shouldn't the Swedish prosecutor spell out more clearly her reasons for taking this stand?
KR: No. Her decision is that at this stage of the investigation she does not want to specify.

MK: So how is the deadlock going to be resolved then?
KR: I have no idea really.
There you have it - from the Swedish Prosecution Authority. Karin Rosander is not one of the office cleaners leaking information. She spoke as  Director of Communications for the Swedish Prosecution Authority.
There is no legal reason that the interview has to be conducted in Sweden.
The preliminary investigation has been on hold for two years, with drama under a world spotlight culminating in diplomatic uproar and threats of an embassy invasion.
The Swedish Prosecution Authority can't think of any reason for the interview to be conducted in Sweden other than 'because Marianne Ny says so'.
They have "no idea really" as to how the situation regarding the interview might be resolved.





There were problems with early attempts at an EAW.
The purpose was first described as that of obtaining an interview.
An interview was precisely what she wanted, but that’s not good enough for an EAW.

It had to be talked up.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website outlines her position
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK1/

The prosecutor’s assessment is that, for the purpose of the investigation, Mr Assange needs to be available in Sweden during the preliminary investigation. Without going into the details about the work of the investigation, it can be mentioned that there is a need, during interviews with Mr Assange, to be able to present, and question him about, the evidence that has emerged in the investigation to date. When continuing the investigation there is also a need to be able to carry out supplementary interviews, as required, with Mr Assange and the other persons involved.

Note the "supplementary interviews, as required, with Mr Assange and the other persons involved."
This means that either
  • She does not feel that she has a solid case. She will interview Assange. She then reviews and double-checks against his answers. She may interview again, and continue investigating before making a decision on indicting.
OR
  • It's rubbish and she is trying to "talk up" a need to interview in Sweden rather than in the UK.

"If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange, his personal presence is required in Sweden so that a trial can be held and any sentence enforced."

She wants to question Assange about “the evidence that has emerged in the investigation to date” - where "to date" is over 2 years ago. Given the circumstances, it would be stunning if anything new has come up.
The action took place in private between Assange and each woman separately. There are no independent witnesses in the bedrooms. It’s “He said – she said”.
Forensic examination of the condom did not appear to be of any use.
She has the protocol from Assange’s interview  of August 30th , 2010 regarding AA.
Does she expect a new interview to be any different?
Does she expect an interview concerning SW to be any different?

She could conduct an interview in person in the UK or via video.
“there is also a need to be able to carry out supplementary interviews, as required, with Mr Assange and the other persons involved.”
As in:
Assange is interviewed. Based on that interview, Ny determines that she needs supplementary interviews.
Ny to AA/SW “Mr Assange says that did not happen when you were alone together in the privacy of your bedroom.”
AA/SW to Ny: “Yes it did.”
Ny then gets another interview with Assange.
Ny to Assange: “AA/SW says it did.”
Assange to Ny: “No it didn’t.”
Ny goes back to AA/SW. “He says it didn’t.”
AA/SW to Ny: “Yes it did.”
…….. etc.

Ny did nothing much for over three weeks after initiating the investigations on September 1st, 2010.
Assange freely left Sweden on September 27th
Ny then gets off her butt and wants everything to happen by yesterday.
October 11th is way too far off in the future.
Assuming that there was actually a need for such a round of interviews, what delay would be introduced by Assange being in the UK?  Are we talking days or weeks?
We certainly are not talking two years and counting, which is where we are now.


The next bit in her justification is so ridiculous that even a slow child could see the problems

Under Swedish law the defendant must be present in person at the trial in cases involving this type of crime. If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange, his personal presence is required in Sweden so that a trial can be held and any sentence enforced. The court’s detention order means that Mr Assange has been detained to ensure this.
Just read that again. Big letters just in case anyone didn't notice:

Ny says: If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange

Once more for the people at the back

Ny says: If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange


What she is saying that she wants to interview Assange so that she can decide if there is "sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange".
She want to question him - to get his side of the story - before she can decide if she can prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.
Having questioned him, she expects to re-interview other people and technical experts.
That's why she got the EAW - to do that questioning in Sweden.
That's why the first application for an EAW was rejected - because she stated the true purpose of the request.

Ny originally claimed that she was not legally permitted to interview Assange abroad. She has withdrawn that assertion now.
What remains is her assertion that Assange must be present in person at any trial.


Yes indeed.
It’s really handy to have the accused IF there is a trial.
IF there is a trial and IF the accused is found guilty it’s really handy to have them available for imprisonment.

What Ny is saying the she needs to have Assange just in case there is a trial.
It is by no means certain that there will actually be a trial, since she says that she foresees a need for a series of interviews to be undertaken before she can decide if a indictment is justifiable.

By her logic, she should have sent Assange an orange jump suit, on the basis that he would need one IF there was a trial and IF that resulted in imprisonment.



BUT
The interview thing is not really all that simple. It’s really, really, really complicated.
We poor simple souls can’t see that, but luckily we have legal minds blogging to explain it all in double-speak

>> Assange isn’t wanted for questioning. He’s wanted for arrest.<<
Okay. Why do they want to arrest him?
>> So that they can question him in Sweden<<
So they want him for questioning.

>> He’s not wanted for mere interviewing. It’s for interrogation.<<
Wut? They are going to shine a light in his face while they interview him? 
It’s an interview. (Pointing at Ny’s website) She says interview. She says not even a slam-dunk pretend ‘interview’. She clearly says she might have to check stuff out after the interview before she can decide if there is to be an indictment. Like lots of interviews – with back and forth to Assange.

>> Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.<<
Same as above. Ny want to interview him - and maybe others as a result and then maybe him again - before she can decide if an indictment is really justifiable.
......Unless of course he is already guilty until possibly put on trial and even then possibly found not guilty.

>> You don’t understand the Swedish system<<
Oh yes we do. We also recognise bullcrap when we see it.

>> Probable cause<<
Yes. There are 'He-said-she-said' allegations. We know.

>> It’s all simply Due Process<<
Yeah great.
Not so long ago, the UK had the Twitter Joke Trial and the Porn Trial.
In each of those, we had a Prosecution Service gone rogue. CPS behaving like Fenton In The Park.
We were not hearing “It’s simply Due Process”. We were hearing “This is a disgrace. These cases should never have been brought.”

>> Will nobody think about the women?<<
No. I told you – way up at the top of the page.
Nobody (much), starting with the Swedish state, actually gives a flying f**k about the women. Their consent to being dragged into this circus – that theoretically is all about consent - is not relevant. They are just ‘victims’.
No doubt they would like the situation to be resolved in whatever way. The arrest of Assange was not their mission. Their mission was SW wanting Assange to have a HIV test. 






So interview him already

Do the “No I didn’t – Yes he did - No I didn’t – Yes he did - No I didn’t – Yes he did” thing as many times as you want.
Then indict him regardless.
But at least – after two years and counting - get the interview(s) out of the way. Are you not in a hurry or something? Will nobody think about the women?



Would Assange be indicted after the interview process?


Can you imagine?
Two years of drama and massively expensive court action in the UK
Diplomatic uproar as an embassy is threatened with invasion.

The interview:
Ny: Hello Mr Assange. Nice to talk to you at last.
Assange: Hej för dig!
Ny: Did you do it?
Assange: I din’ do it guv.
Ny: They say you did
Assange. Didn’t didn’t didn’t
Ny: We were rather hoping that you would admit everything and more. Given that you say that you didn’t, and we can’t actually prove anything, that’s the end of the matter
Assange: That's bonzer. G'day and Hej-Hej.
Ny: I’ll tell my boss. He might be a bit upset, but hey – sh*t happens.

I have a distinct feeling that Assange would be indicted after some indeterminate period of confinement.
This would not be due to the weight of evidence. It would be sheer unwillingness on the part of Ny to take responsibility for the years of circus. She would pass the buck to a court.