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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


  1. I am deeply suspicious of Herr Lindskogs visit and speech. Reading these published excerpts he said:
    "it SHOULD never be a crime"
    "the extradition treaty MAY see the courts rule against it" (speaking as if the Treaty is fact!)
    "PROBABLY not classified under swedish Law"
    (he is a Judge - doesn't he know?)
    "extradition would LIKELY not go ahead"

    I would not risk a $10 bet on a horse that should, may, probably, likely, win a race.

    and as for the supposedly well-read Bobby Carr saying "sheer fantasy" I am paralysed with horror that someone so naive should have his exalted position in our government.

    I hope I get a chance to vote 1 Assange

  2. So, this is just one big rope-a-dope? A plan from the beginning, a decoy to trick Julian into going to Sweden - where, of course - he'll be sent to the US, without a trial, to face the death penalty?

    Do you really think that this Stefan guy, who's spent an entire life building a reputation and career, would put that on the line, say everything he said about believing in the work of Wikileaks and the good it has done in the world, only to have a super-secret behind-closed-doors extradition in the middle of the night.

    Assange "haters" don't think he's OBL . Yeah, maybe you can pull up quotes from late 2010, when the Tea Party had a giant boner over winning a mid-term election and thought they could lay on extra special Crazy Sauce TM because they thought Obama was born in Nigeria - but guess what? A month later Gabby Giffords got shot and they cooled off on all of that. Then they lost the next election. You guys pull quotes from one time, blow them out of proportion and think that that is the way everyone thinks. I doubt one Assange "supporter" knows who the Rev. Moon is, but they can all say that the Washington Post ran the headline Assassinate Assange! (even though it was crazy Rev. Moon's Washington Times, a much different and stupider paper - check justice4assange on this, his links even say Post and then lead you to a Times article - obfuscate much?).

    Oh yeah, so back to Stefan - whatever he said was just a trick, if you live in a conspiracy world.

  3. "Do you really think that this Stefan guy, who's spent an entire life building a reputation and career, would ...."

    What you do is
    1. Read the police protocol/statements of the women and others
    2. Read/listen to Lindskog's version of what he says he read on the Internet (He says he doesn't know what happened, but he read stuff somewhere)

    As I point out above, the leaked police protocols are freely available on the Net.
    He could possibly have obtained all of his information from somewhere like How To Care for 20 Cats while being crazy . com
    An intelligent person would have looked for sources more immeiate to the question. One might expect that anyone in the legal field - and certainly a senior judge - would look for sources that were preferably first-hand.

    If he didn't read the protocols, then he is grossly incompetent.
    If he did read the protocols and still came out with what he did, then he is grossly dishonest.

    Either way..."Do you really think that this Stefan guy, who's spent an entire life building a reputation and career, would put that on the line,.."
    It does seem amazing, but the clear objective evidence of the police protocols compared to what he said on the matter in his speech is that he either a fool or a villain.

    Either way, nothing he says on the matter can be trusted.