This article was described by English lawyer and New Statesman blogger Peter Ede as “outstanding stuff“. He later added that it “takes the 4 Corners show apart point by point“.

The “4 Corners” show titled “Sex, Lies and Julian Assange” made by Andrew Fowler for ABC Australia has serious problems with inaccuracies and omissions. Many thanks to Göran Rudling for providing most of the detailed fact-checking on this one – but as ever we verified by digging out (and linking to) the primary sources below.

Though we have not used the names of the women involved in the case, some of the linked sources do and the ABC show does repeatedly.

A video summary of some of the below findings can be viewed here:

Assange’s Swedish Residency and work permit application
The question of consent
STD tests?
Free to leave Sweden?
Arrest ordered
Red Notice
Back Doors
Detained without charge?
Are rape victims allowed to smile?
“Lawyer” vs “målsägarbiträde”
Unsigned statement?
Leaks – real and otherwise
Appealing a decision
Returning to Sweden?
Asylum from Sweden
Sweden and espionage extraditions
US allegations of espionage
Extradition, deportation, and rendition
Rick Falkvinge
ABC Response

06:20 – 07:30 Assange’s Swedish Residency and work permit application

It’s interesting to note that in this segment, 4 Corners comment a lot on the servers being used by Wikileaks, but make no mention of the other purpose of Assange’s trip to Sweden: to apply for residency and a work permit – which he did on 18th August.  The request was refused in October, by which time Assange had left Sweden and refused to return for questioning.  Swedish residency would have been very helpful to Assange, because it would have granted him protection under Sweden’s very open-minded laws on whistleblowers: whistleblowing is positively encouraged, and it is actually illegal for a journalist to reveal a source without permission in Sweden- see section 2.3.6.

10:07 The question of consent

4 Corners state that the question of consent is about whether a condom was used. In fact, the question is whether the woman was asleep at the time: both her being asleep and the lack of condom (for which there was a clear lack of consent) are the actual allegations.

According to Fowler himself, this was an “editorial decision”.

An editorial decision which just happened to remove a substantial part of the most serious allegation.  We encourage the reader to look at that whole exchange of tweets, and we have screencapped it here and here - just in case. Perhaps Mr Fowler had not read the High Court Summary of the case – but we can’t understand why this would be so.  It is only four pages long, and is surely the sort of thing that a journalist would pick up first.  On page three the summary points to paragraph 124 of the full judgment, and quotes it:

“The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. …… it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complaint alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom”

Fowler also stated:


Which we find to be a very odd reading of the very clearly phrased paragraph from the High Court.  We invite Mr Fowler to explain in more detail the reasons for his “editorial decision”, and what his understanding of that paragraph is – and why.

10:50 Charges?

Per Samuelson claims that neither woman filed charges. In fact, both women made complaints according to a memo by Linda Wassgrens on Aug 22.  Charges, as anyone who has followed the case could tell you, can’t happen until after Assange is interviewed in Sweden – which is why he has not yet been charged, despite criminal proceedings having begun (see top of page 4 of the High Court summary). Remember that the next time you hear Mr Assange remind everyone that he “hasn’t even been charged with anything”.  He hasn’t been charged only because he can’t be charged until he returns to Sweden according to the (different) Swedish process. But he has reached the equivalent stage in the process as if he had been charged under English law.  See the High Court Summary, Ground 3.

@SlingTrebuchet (in the comments) has pointed out that one of the women spoke to a newspaper on 21st August and another report is made on 22nd August. In both articles the woman is reported as saying that both women felt assaulted and went to the police to report that. However, this is testimony directly from one of the plaintiffs and cannot be considered neutral.

10:59 STD tests

Fowler claims that the women tried to get the police to force Assange to take an STD test.  This is not mentioned in the memo by Linda Wassgrens describing events at the police station. The source of this rumour appears to be the Detention Memo which was supplied to Assange’s solicitors and then leaked (see below).  It is not a claim made by either of the two women, the police, or the prosecutor: but rather by Assange and two other people who were interviewed.

We don’t think that anyone disputes that both women wanted STD tests; nor does anyone contest that they tried to get Assange to take one. However, we can find no evidence to suggest that the police were asked to enforce this.

We wonder whether Fowler has a more reliable source than the suspect and two other people – or if he is taking witness statements at face value?  But isn’t the whole point of the 4 Corners show about the dangers of taking witness statements at face value? Odd.

12:30 Free to leave Sweden?

Samuelson claims that Assange’s former lawyer (Bjorn Hurtig) gave Assange a message that he was not wanted for interview and was free to leave Sweden. But the exact message from the prosecutor was that “no force measures are in place” to prevent Assange from leaving Sweden, and that the officer dealing with the case was ill so an interview could not be conducted at that point.

At no point did the prosecutor indicate that Assange was not under suspicion or would not be requested to attend an interview. In fact, the prosecutor was asking for an interview by September 21st at the latest – according to Mr Hurtig’s amended evidence.

Originally, Hurtig claimed (page 7):

a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given… leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him

but in court (page 8):

Hurtig confirmed.. his proof of evidence is wrong…

He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message [still on his mobile phone] from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”.

Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

13:39 Arrest ordered

The prosecutor ordered Assange’s arrest on 27th September at 14:15, after Hurtig informed her that he had been unable to contact Assange since the interview (due on the 28th) had been arranged on the 21st.  Assange left Sweden the same day as his arrest was ordered, on the 17:20 flight to Berlin. Was he aware that a week earlier his lawyer had arranged an interview for the next day, or that his arrest had been ordered? Nobody is quite sure, and Hurtig himself even claims not to be able to remember:

He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest)…

He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th
September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day…

He added “I can’t say if I told Ms Ny that Julian Assange had no intention of coming back to Sweden”. He agrees that at least at first he was giving the impression that Mr Assange was willing to come back…

In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th.

(Magistrates court findings, page 8)

14:00 Red Notice

Fowler claims that the Swedish prosecution “upped the ante” by issuing a Red Notice.  As we have seen, it was in fact Assange who upped the ante by being unavailable to his lawyer for at least a week, then leaving Sweden the day that his arrest was ordered and refusing to return.  When a valid arrest warrant has been issued in the EU but the suspect has gone abroad, a red notice is standard procedure for many jurisdictions.  A Red Notice, far from being reserved for “Terrorists and Dictators” as Jen Robinson states, is merely a notice sent by Interpol that an individual is wanted for arrest. Some countries treat them as automatic arrest warrants: others do not.

An Interpol report from 2007 states that red notices for sex crimes are by no means unusual, and that fraud is in fact the most common reason.  Indeed, one has even been issued for drink driving, and here is a red notice for a man wanted for making voyeur videos of college students - not a nice thing to do, but a less serious allegation than rape and sexual assault.  Terrorists and (fleeing) dictators get an Orange Notice from Interpol to warn of the danger they may present and a red notice when they are actively sought for arrest – according to Interpol.

We invite Jen Robinson to clarify for us if she indeed believes that a Red Notice is as she appears to state in the 4 Corners show.

17:15 Back doors

Fowler speculates that extradition to Sweden would be a “back door” to onward extradition to the USA for espionage  - using the standard procedure of “Temporary Surrender”, which bypasses nothing at all (see article 18).  The English Crown Prosecution Service also have a summary at the bottom of this page.  Temporary Surrender is a standard EU process, so the English version will be similar to the Swedish.  But in any case, Sweden does not extradite for military or political crimes according to Swedish legal expert Mark Klamberg – and Sweden classifies espionage as a political crime.

So as far as we can tell: Fowler thinks that a standard process may be used to take Assange to the USA (then return him so that extradition hearings can begin) in order for the Swedish courts to reject a totally invalid request that explicitly falls outside the US extradition treaty with Sweden, for an offense that Sweden has repeatedly refused to extradite for. But any Temporary Surrender request would itself be rejected out of hand if it was for an act which Sweden do not consider to be extraditable.

Again, we would very much appreciate a clarification from Mr Fowler on what he intended to say here.

18:18 Detained without charge?

Assange (talking from the Ecuadorian Embassy) says that if he returns to Sweden, he would be detained without charge.  We have already covered at what point charges are laid –  and that Assange has already reached that stage in the Swedish process.  Pretrial detention is indeed standard for a suspect who is believed to be a flight risk (and not just in Sweden).  But in Sweden, pre-trial detention is a fairly standard practise for most suspects of serious crimes – though the detention must be reviewed after three and a half days (not four, as Samuelson states elsewhere in the show).  But given Mr Assange’s current location on Ecuadorian territory, there are probably reasonable grounds to suspect that he does indeed represent somewhat of a flight risk if he ever does return to Sweden.

It is worth noting that before he fled Sweden, the prosecutor had stated that he could attend an interview “discretely” (Supreme Court agreed facts, item 20 – no online link available to the court site, but scribd has what claims to be a copy).

22:50 Are rape victims allowed to smile?

Per Samuelson appears to state that there is some sort of standard formula that rape victims should follow after being raped.  The English Crown Prosecution Service beg to differ, as do all rape victim support groups.  It is also worth noting that Samuelson is talking about the woman who has not made an allegation of rape.

23:15 “Lawyer” vs “målsägarbiträde”

The caption given to Claes Borgstorm is “Lawyer for [REDACTED] & [REDACTED].” As Goran Rudling has pointed out elsewhere, this is not the case.  While Borgstrom is a qualified and practising lawyer, his role in this case is one of “målsägarbiträde” to the two women.  There is no easy English translation, but a good approximation is “assistant”.  While Borgstrom happens to be a lawyer, that is not a requirement: a målsägarbiträde could be a police officer,  or even a member of the public with insight into the processes.  He was appointed by the court (and is paid by the state for his work on the case). Rudling’s explanation is very clear – his role is to:

provide support and assistance to the injured party and defend his/her interests in the case. It is also the duty of the “målsägarbiträde” to look after the economical interests of the injured party.

To call him the “lawyer” for the two complainants could give quite the wrong impression to an English-speaking audience who are unfamiliar with the role of “målsägarbiträde”.  A closer English equivalent would be “counsellor to” or “advisor to”.  We wonder why 4 Corners chose “lawyer” instead?

27:05 Unsigned statement?

Fowler claims that one woman refused to sign her statement.  The statement was indeed not signed immediately – but this could be because they did not wish to keep the woman waiting around while the paperwork was completed.  There is nothing in the police record (or anywhere else that we are aware) to suggest that she refused to sign… it’s another of those persistent rumours that one hears but cannot find an origin for.  Again, we assume that Mr Fowler has accounted for the dangers in taking witness statements at face value, so we presume that he has something official on this. We would very much like to see it.

It is worth noting that in Sweden a signature is not required until trial. Statements can remain unsigned for a while after they are first taken.

28:15 Leaks – real and otherwise

Contrary to what Fowler states, there were no documents leaked by the authorities to the tabloids. Somebody (who remains unknown) gave the media the full details.  Rudling believes that at least three media organisations were given the details.  The Expressen called the original prosecutor with the full details already to hand, and she confirmed that Assange had been arrested in absentia.  She should not have done this.  The media then applied for the police statements under the Swedish equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act, and the police were obliged to release (redacted) copies.

But unredacted copies were leaked later.  From the leaked material, it appears that these were copies of documents that were given to Assange’s legal team – note the fax appears to be from Bjorn Hurtig to Jennifer Robinson. Mr Hurtig even notes on the front page:

Please notice that the documents are legally priviliged information for Mr Julian Assange and nobody else.

These documents were sent by fax from one lawyer to another and clearly marked as priviliged.  Yet here they are: leaked. 4 Corners appear to have missed the real leak and instead supposed another one which never actually existed.

28:57 Appealing a decision

Fowler states that the case being re-opened was a “strange twist”.  In Sweden, a case decision can be appealed.  If the original prosecutor stands by their first decision, the appeal is then heard by the next most senior prosecutor.  This is known as ”överprövning av åklagarbeslut”, and the (absolutely standard) process is documented here.  From that government page, we can see that in 2010, 12% of all appeals were successful.

Eva Finné made the decision to drop the rape charge. It was appealed by Borgström on 27th Aug. Finné stuck to her decision. Finné was the highest ranked at City Åklagarkammare, so it went to next level: Utvecklingscentrum in Gothenburg. Marianne Ny overruled Finne’s decision.

So this is by no means unheard of.  We can only assume that – despite his research – Fowler didn’t manage to uncover this aspect of the standard Swedish legal processes, or that 12% of all appeals in the same year as Assange’s had the same “strange twist”. We find this surprising, since he must surely have been specifically looking into this process: and the statistic is documented on the same government web page that describes the process itself.

30:20 Returning to Sweden?

Fowler claims that Assange offered to “return within a month”. He was actually due to return anyway. This is even acknowledged on the highly biased rixstep.com website (which contains the now infamous attack article which the official Wikieaks twitter feed linked topossible trigger warning if you click through to that – you can see selected quotes from the article here).

The Rixstep site says:

Julian Assange was due to return to Sweden in less than a week as part of a conference on Afghanistan. He was to hold a talk on 6 October together with Pratap Chatterjee and Jesper Huor.

So it appears that Assange was scheduled to give a talk on 6th October in Sweden. The prosecutor arranged for him to be questioned there. From Hurtig’s evidence (page 7, Magistrates court findings):

[Hurtig] gives details about a proposal to hold an interrogation on 6th October, which he believes was because the police thought his client would be in Sweden then giving a lecture. That information was leaked to him.

It is not clear if Hurtig meant that the information was leaked to himself from the authorities, or to Assange by somebody.  In any event, Assange never arrived to give the talk that Rixstep claims he was due to give.

The warrant has now been examined by six courts: the Swedish court that issued it, the Swedish Court of Appeal of Svay, the Swedish Supreme Court, the English Magistrate’s Court, the English High Court, and the English Supreme Court.

Every single one of those courts has examined the warrant and found that it is valid.

We note that two years on, Assange has not yet returned to Sweden, but rather he has fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy. We consider that six courts and an asylum claim are a rather odd way of returning to Sweden within a month.

31:44 Asylum from Sweden

Assange states he could not claim asylum once in Sweden.  Yet Sweden can and does offer asylum from the USA: several hundred former US military personnel are currently resident in Sweden precisely because they deserted the US military.  Sweden does not extradite for political or military crimes.  Even Edward Lee Howard (who was detained by the Swedish authorities for an expired visa) was allowed to depart quite freely to the destination of his choice upon his release even though the USA had requested his extradition.  More on this later.

However, Assange’s meaning could be ambiguous.  If he means that whilst detained in Sweden he would be unable to apply for asylum from Sweden, then that is indeed the case.  But he has always maintained that he will happily return to Sweden if he is not then given to the USA for espionage – which Sweden cannot do.

We remain puzzled on this one.

32:00 Sweden and espionage extraditions

Jen Robinson says that the Assange legal team fear that the US will apply for extradition from Sweden.  Presumably for espionage –  which, as we have seen, Sweden does not extradite for.  She fears that Assange may not be able to return to Australia: a country which does extradite for espionage, and would be a much more likely bet for any US attempt.  For the outside observer, it looks very much as if the safest place for Mr Assange to be if the USA issued a warrant would in fact be Sweden.

33:42 US allegations of espionage

4 Corners have obtained Grand Jury evidence which mentions “national defense”.  Which is espionage.  Which Sweden doesn’t extradite for. Swedish expert in international law Mark Klamberg is very clear on this.  Did 4 Corners check to see if Sweden could actually extradite for espionage, before basing their entire show on that assumption? We find it difficult to believe that they did, as all the Swedish legal experts (and case histories) seem to be in agreement on this.

Edward Lee Howard was wanted by the USA for espionage after he deserted from the CIA and gave the Soviets classified information – reportedly leading to at least one death. The Swedes had arrested him due to an expired visa.  The USA requested an extradition, which Sweden refused on the grounds that it was for espionage, and Howard returned to Moscow where he lived out the rest of his life in peace.

Who was the Swedish Prime Minister at that time?  It was one Carl Bildt: the very same man that some people are claiming is a US puppet, willing to help extradite for espionage at the drop of a hat.

43:20 Extradition, deportation, and rendition

Fowler claims that Sweden has acted illegally in past extraditions. There is no dispute that Sweden acted illegally in deporting the two Egyptian men – but that was a deportation to their home country. It was not an extradition, and followed a different process.  The courts were not involved, for one thing.

This deportation caused quite a scandal in Sweden, and rendition flights were stopped altogether in 2006 when the Swedish military boarded such a flight to prevent it.  This caused a diplomatic row between the USA and their (according to the 4 Corners show) lapdog partner Sweden.  Sweden refused to back down and halted the flights.  We know all this because the details were leaked in December 2010:  by Wikileaks.

43:27 Rick Falkvinge

We’re not quite sure what Rick Falkvinge is doing on this show at all. He is the founder of the niche “Pirate party” in Sweden, which polled 0.65% of the vote in 2010 (well below the 4% required to win representation in Parliament).  Falkvinge quit the leadership of his own party a few months after making controversial remarks about child pornography.  It is quite ironic to see the founder of a party that has “personal privacy” as a core value speaking on a show which names the women in the case. We wonder if he knew this was going to happen, and what his views on it are? If anyone can let us know, we’d be fascinated.

Update: many thanks to Rick Falkvinge himself for clarifying his position on the naming of the women by tweets from his account (links are to the tweets).

I was not aware they would be named on television. I don’t think it’s appropriate to name neither accuser nor defendant of still-open case. It could be argued that their names are common knowledge, and perhaps AU’s traditions are diff than SE’s.

Perhaps I should clarify. I was not, to my memory, directly informed that they would. In hindsight, I could have deduced if somebody had asked me the question. “Could I have realized?” Yes, but I didn’t. “Was I aware?” So, no.

Rick Falkvinge makes another appearance at the end, to share his opinion of international politics.  We are still unsure why 4 Corners think that Falkvinge is qualified to speak on this at all.  According to Falkvinge, Sweden is a US lapdog who jump at the behest of the USA.  Perhaps he is unaware of  Edward Lee Howard, the several hundred US military deserters and the Swedish military intervention over rendition flights?

At 43:50, Falkvinge seems to be under the impression that the two Egyptian deportees were Swedish citizens.  But some quick research showed us that neither was a Swedish citizen: the two Egyptian men were in fact two Egyptian men.

Update: Thanks again to Rick Falkvinge for clarifying via twitter:

I am not aware of the case you mentioned. I was shocked to learn SE had _ever_ performed rendition assistance to US.

Update 2: Mr Falkvinge gave us some further comments:

If a connection is implied, I’d like to make absolutely clear there isn’t any. I have specified my… five reasons for stepping down clearly here: http://t.co/KAgFhtvs.  The statements you refer to were part of my job duties – responding to media about policy.


There are numerous errors of fact in this broadcast.  Some are surprisingly basic.

Several observers have commented that the evidence against Mr Assange does not seem terribly strong, and that he may not even be charged once the Swedish prosecutor has managed to conduct the interview that was first arranged for 28th Setpember 2010.

We have now seen  the actual facts, including the real risk of extradition to the USA from Sweden for espionage.  So while we strongly believe that it is the job of the court to examine the evidence, we do have to ask: if the evidence really is as weak as the 4 Corners show suggests, then why is Mr Assange still avoiding facing the allegations in Sweden?

To conclude: as entertainment, we think that the 4 Corners show certainly delivered. But we can’t really, in good conscience, call it a “documentary”. We wouldn’t call it “accurate”, and we are hesitant to use the word “researched” at all:  though clearly some background information had been gathered prior to the show, much of it seems to have evaded even the most cursory background check.

ABC response

We contacted ABC some time ago (when this article first went live) and asked them to comment. Kieran Doyle of the Audience and Consumer Affairs department replied on 28th September 2012, stating that ABC Australia are unable either to view our webpage or to follow the links that we provided:

if you wish to submit a complaint to the ABC, you must send that complaint directly to the ABC, not direct the ABC to go and have a look at your complaint on another platform.

We had submitted the link to this webpage directly to ABC using their standard complaints channels.

Mr Doyle has requested a submission in plain text. This has been sent. We look forward to Mr Doyle’s reply.

39 Responses to 4corners

  1. Colin M says:

    And after more than 2 years the investigation is incomplete? Still no indictment? Still no charge? It seems the Police in Sweden are incompetent or this is politically motivated after all.

    • Objectiviser says:

      In Sweden, the “prelmininary investigation” lasts all the time up until indictment. That can’t happen without an interview.. so, yes, without Assange returning, the process is stalled awaiting the final interview.

  2. Blather says:

    Yes, one interview and it may come back to haunt her. She had already met W one week earlier, Assange was violent to her according to the later allegation and initially ”seeking advice’ is here expressed as, ‘the other woman wanted to report rape.’
    My guess is the headline means ‘It was abuse’ referring to A’s complaint.

    None of her quotes made it easier for her not to later challenge Finne’s decision or for Claes having to field awkward questions.

  3. Blather says:

    No question that the article was published after the allegation was dropped. However, hat I am suggesting is this:
    On the morning of the 21st, the internet and press are rife with speculation and A decides to clarify some of it. She addresses that they were not afraid of Assange, he wasn’t violent, the other woman wanted to report rape and A supported her with her story, they had never met before etc. Then A dismisses the conspiracy stories about the Pentagon or anyone else being behind it and finishes with, it all happened because Assange has a warped view of women and won’t take no for an answer.

    I think what Aftonbladet could have done is taken this interview which was given before Finne later in the afternoon dismissed the rape allegation. Not letting later developments get in the way of an exclusive interview with A, they have just woven it it in to the current developments.

    Nothing directly attributed to A seem to address an allegation that has been dropped but rather to confirm that they are indeed all very valid. In this assumption, A is even more out on a limb, not only does she later become the only alleged victim but what she has told the press certainly doesn’t correspond with Finne’s final assessment. Only one is ‘ofrende’ left standing and it is not even a sexual one, all very embarrassing for A.
    Anyway, just another theory but I would be interested to see the any record of the exact time that the interview was given.

    • Sling Trebuchet says:

      True. The bulk of the second article is a recycling of the first. It adds a mentions Finné’s decision, but it has nothing directly quoting AA that might be post-Finné.

      The presentation is ambiguous.
      Big headline: “It was an_outrage/abuse
      It mentions that AA gave an interview to Aftonbladet “yesterday”.
      It mentions Finné decision to dismiss the rape allegation as being “yesterday afternoon”.

      Looking at the detail, there was only one interview.

  4. Blather says:

    “The second story is mostly a recycling of text from the first one. What is added is a Outrage!!! that the SW invistigation is being dropped.”

    I missed that one as well.
    Do you mean:
    ”Det var ett övergrepp” ?

    I think that övergrepp” refers to the allegation, as in ‘molestation’ or ‘harassment’

    • Sling Trebuchet says:

      “övergrepp” would be abuse or outrage
      Perhaps my choice of “Outrage” for the story headline was influenced Imrile Krans’ Facebook outburst after Eva Finné made her informal August 21st opinion official on the 25th.
      The Aftonbladet story on the 21st follows on the informal ruling which left AA as the only focus for investigations. Considering that she went along with SW purely in support, this is a huge reversal for her.
      It is clear that the story follows Finné’s decision as it refers to it (see below).

      The allegation is Molestation = Ofredande
      You get three relevant terms in one neat package from that story.

      Han misstänktes först ha våldtagit den ena, misstankar som på lördagseftermiddagen drogs tillbaka av chefsåklagare Eva Finné, men han misstänks fortfarande för ofredande av den andra kvinnan.
      Anser sig utsatt för sexövergrepp

      He was suspected of rape (våldtagit) of one woman(SW), which was withdrawn on Saturday afternoon by Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné , but he is still suspected of molestation (ofredande) of the other woman(AA).
      She (AA) considers herself the victim of sexual abuse (sexövergrepp).

  5. Blather says:

    Sorry, the correct link for the ‘non violent’ interview where she puts the boot in before the original rape allegation is dropped.

    • Objectiviser says:

      That interview was given on 21st August, AFTER the allegation was dropped. It says so right in the text of the article. It also confirms all the main points that you disputed above. One woman wanted to report rape: she went to do so. She did. The other woman alleged similar behaviour. This matches the EAW and the other claims.

      Thanks for the link: it is very clear indeed.

      • Sling Trebuchet says:

        AA’s interviews in Aftonbladet are interestin
        http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab was the initial one

        The second one – linked by Blather just above was indeed after Eva Finne discontinued the SW investigation, leaving AA as the focus for everything.

        The second story is mostly a recycling of text from the first one. What is added is a Outrage!!! that the SW invistigation is being dropped.

        In both AA does say that SW wanted to report rape, with AA along for support.
        I don’t know if anyone has a quote from SW on this.

        Certainly, Wassgren, who was the one who first talked to them says
        “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.”

        Again, if it was a simple as walking into a police station to report rape, then Wassgrens explantion of the reason for their visit is very strange.

        There is something else that is strange
        In both stories, AA says “he is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him”
        That is very clear.

        What then of EAW.1 ?
        If you read AA’s protocol, it is clear that WAW.1 is describing the Missionary Position.
        It is clear from the protocol that althought the performace of the position might have been enthusiastic, that it was not violence – as she says that Assanges stops immediately she voices a problem.

        She says clearly in the Aftonbladet stories that Assange is not violent and that she does not feel threatened.

        I really, really, really would be interested in someone explaining how the Missionary Position described by AA – who says that Assange is not violent – can reasonably become EAW.1

        • Objectiviser says:

          Thank you, I have added links above under “Charges”. Though with the comment that the story is not neutral.

          What you consider “strange” is not so strange to anyone familiar with victims – especially those who have been abused by somebody close. A non-violent man who is not threatening at normal times can still do things that are non-consensual during sex.

          Women who report people close to them for domestic or sexual abuse are also known to be tearful, have regrets, feel it is “their fault” etc. They are also known to retract their statements entirely:
          (item 5)

          According to Rixstep (yes, I picked a pro-Assange biased site deliberately), the allegation is:

          “AA tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange stopped her from doing by holding her arms and prying open her legs and trying nevertheless to penetrate her with his penis without a condom.”

          So the core of the allegation is that her movement was restricted despite her clear reluctance – by hold her arms and by attempting to force open her legs.

          That does not describe missionary position. It describes pre-sex reluctance but with physical force used to attempt to continue.

          As always, the truth of the allegation is for a court to decide: but let’s be clear on what the allegation is.

          • Sling Trebuchet says:

            If you care to read what I write in my little blog – linked above but http://sexwithlawyers.blogspot.com for your convenience..

            You will see that I have direct experience of helping a friend who was subjected to such treatement – and went throught the ‘my fault’ etc.

            For information on what AA actually reported, I prefer to go to as direct a source as possible.
            In this case I go to the police summary/Protocol of AA’s interview.

            Then they lay down on the bed, Anna on her back and Assange on top of her. Anna
            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. Anna 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. Anna 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 Anna replies that Assange must have known that Anna was trying to reach
            for a condom, and that he therefore held her arms to prevent her from doing so.
            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.

            As I write in my blog:
            What have we got? Remember that this is AA’s description of the moments that EAW.1 covers.

            Missionary Position without great finesse
            A request that a condom be worn.
            Suspension of Missionary Position
            A condom is then fetched and worn.
            Resumption of Rumpy Bumpy

            It seems clear from AA’s story that Assange stopped the moment that she raised an objection.
            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.


            Things become a lot clearer if one gets information from as close to the source as possible.

        • Objectiviser says:

          Alas, comments only allow 4 levels so I am replying here.

          I checked your blog and the two texts that you give.

          Count 1 is: Unlawful coercion

          “Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement.”

          directly maps onto: “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”

          as the EAW clarifies: “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 is a precise correlation, though phrased in legal language, the meaning is identical. Sorry – I don’t see what your issue is there at all.

          Your commentary goes on to criticise people who claim that means “he pinned her down and raped her”. This is a valid criticism, but the allegation is not rape, nor is it sexual molestation. The allegation is Unlawful coercion: illegally attempting to get somebody to do something against their will (but failing).

          Holding them down and trying to force their legs open counts as “violence” technically, though not a large amount of violence. Just a force used against somebody against their will.

          Note that in legal terms, the police are by definition coercive, and also use violence whenever putting on handcuffs against somebody’s will.

          As to “no means no”: the “no” does not have to be verbal. Shaking ones head, or trying to keep ones legs closed is also a clear refusal of consent that should be understood even by somebody who does not speak the same language.

          If one has to use overpowering force on another person, then it should be obvious that the other person has not consented. If somebody tried to drag you into the street, but you clung to a doorframe, any onlooker could tell that you were unwilling to go into the street: whether you said “no” or not. You are trying to physically prevent the other person doing something to you that you do not want done.

          Hope this clarifies for you.

        • Sling Trebuchet says:

          (Hoping that levels of Reply makes this end up in the right place)

          You wrote: “Holding them down and trying to force their legs open counts as “violence” technically, though not a large amount of violence”

          The key word is “technically”.
          So the Missionary Position counts as “violence” ** technically**, though not a large amount of violence.

          You like the AA Aftonbladet interviews?
          In both of those AA says Assange is not violent.

          I don’t know if you have great experience of sex or not.
          People sometimes play/tease/struggle. Trust me.

          What the *technical* blinkered view fails (either through wilful obtuseness or stupidity) to appreciate is that AA reports the *technical* “violence ceases the moment that she says something. She says something because Assange asked her what she was doing.

          EWA.1 is clearly using a purely *technical* interpretation of the Missionary Position.

          In my blog, I carry Louise Mensch’s “No season ticket” to its logical *technical* conclusion.

          Read that and convince yourself that snuggling up to your sleeping partner is not *technically* a sexual assault.

      • Sling Trebuchet says:

        Indications that SW did not go to the police to complain of rape:

        1) Wassgren’s memo
        “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.”

        2) The termination of SW’s interview due to her becoming upset on learnin gof the arrest warrant

        3) Eva Finné “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.”

        4) Claes Borgström “”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?”

        AA says that they went to report rape. Everything else indicates that they did not.

      • Susanne Maier says:

        It was PUBLISHED on August 21. But interviews are NEVER made on the same day they are published. Never heard of printing? Even if printing is done overnight-as most newspapers do- that means that the interview took place on the day the women went to the police or -more likely-before that.

        • Objectiviser says:

          The newspaper gives the dates that the interview happened.

          Also, newspapers with online editions will put up stories as they arrive, even if they don’t go into print until the next day.

          Hope this clarifies.

      • Blather says:

        My Swedish isn’t what it could be but thanks for picking that up. I translated that she gave the interview yesterday ( Aug 21st) . I missed the bit that clarified that it was given after the allegation was dropped. Could you just provide the correct translation?

      • Sling Trebuchet says:

        I should add yet another indication to my
        “Indications that SW did not go to the police to complain of rape:”

        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.

        Something has happened with AA between her conversations with Boström on the 19th and her first Aftonbladet interview on the 20th.
        On the face of it, she had been unexpectedly dragged in as an official victim – which was in no way her intention. She knows the world is about to explode. Alternatively, there have been conversations.
        Come the afternoon of the 21st, she becomes the only remaining victim of two in a situation where there were not intended to be any.

    • Objectiviser says:

      One of your other comments was deleted because it named one of the women. Perhaps it was not clear that this was a policy here; though we carefully redact all instances on the site.

      I have now clarified the policy here:

      If you wish to resubmit that comment (redacted) it will be published.

      Your most recent commend it borderline (“putting the boot in”). Please keep your comments respectful.

  6. Sling Trebuchet says:

    The leak I was referring to was the leak on August 20th, 2010 to an Expressen journalist. This was to the effect that an arrest warrant had been issued for Assange on rape charges.
    Clearly there was a leak
    Clearly this did not come from Assange’s side. There was no Assange side at the time.

    After that leak, the Prosecutor’s office confirmed to Expressen that such a warrant existed for Assange. This was illegal to do.

    The Missionary position has for practical purposes been classifed as “Illegal Coercion”
    Read AA’s protocol.
    She says that once Assange realised that something was wrong, he asked her.
    She then told him that she wanted him to wear a condom. He agreed to wear one.
    She then *fetched* one, and he wore it

    If you have a reasonable way of reconciling – “use force to prevent one from being fetched, which is the actual allegation.” with what is actually in AA’s protocol, it would be interesting if you would share it here.

    A suggestion of the use of the word “rape” by some witnesses somewhere sometime before the visit to the police is irrelevant.
    What is relevant is whether or not the two women went to the police to report rape.
    Even Bergström says “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?..”
    Wassgren in her memo says that they came for advice.

    5. The US can prosecute Assange for whatever they extradite him for. They can sentence him to the max for that.
    This ‘not being able to extradite him if there is a death sentence or if his human right might be abused’ is a nonsense distraction.
    When they extradite him, it won’t be for something that would prevent his extradition. This is elementary logic.

    6. You seem to miss the point on Manning.
    What happened to him was a violation of due process even for the Military.
    Your implication is that due process violations can not happen outside of a Military procedure.
    You really have to look at what happens to anyone that the US administration gets to dislike.
    Take their own native whistleblowers as an example.
    The only prosecution arising from CIA torture is the person who disclosed details of the torture.
    GITMO? http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/09/judge-rejects-obamas-gitmo-rules/

    Give any sensible person a choice between being taken to the US as a ‘person of interest’ – and hitching a ride on the Death Star, even after Darth Vadar has indicated a dislike for the person.
    My own choice would be the the Death Star.


    If you really are interested in clarifying things, I would really be interested in your opinion on (3) above.
    Are you actually asserting that AA was unable to fetch a condom due to force being used by Assange. If so, how can you explain AA’s saying that she fetched a condom and that Assange then wore it?
    It is clear from her description that once she explained her reluctance to have him penetrate her without a condom, he stopped with Missionary stuff and she then fetched a condom.
    EWA.1 is fabricated by taking a short sequence out of context and misrepresenting the true situation.

    • Objectiviser says:

      Thanks again for your comment.

      1) The leak is covered above; if you have evidence to show that the leak did not come from Assange, his close associates, or one of the women, please do share it.

      2) Correct. As covered above.

      3) You have actually misrepresented the allegation itself. Neither the missionary position nor the condom are actually part of the claim:
      “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. ”

      4) “My boyfriend hit me.. can you help me?”
      “This sounds like domestic violence. Would you like to make a statement?”
      “Yes.. yes I would.”
      [Witness becomes upset after interview, as the realisation sinks in that her boyfriend is in trouble. Final stages delayed.]

      The witness did not use “domestic violence” as a phrase before going to the police. So if we accept your assertions and logic as true, she cannot have been subject to domestic violence. She may have said “he hit me” or “he forced me”, but as long as the specific offence is not named, it can’t have happened – unless I am missing some of your logic? I don’t think I am.

      5) The US can only extradite for extraditable offences. Anything linked to espionage would be a political crime. In addition, the Swedish law is quite clear here: other offences cannot be added without the permission of Sweden. Should the US violate this, they would be unable to extradite anyone from anywhere else, since they would be in clear violation of the treaty.

      This is why they couldn’t extradite Howard and do not try to extradite their military deserters from Sweden.

      The courts examine such claims to ensure they are valid – otherwise nobody would ever be able to claim asylum anywhere for anything – the authorities could simply issue a warrant for another crime, then do as you suggest. The system is specifically designed to prevent precisely that. If there is a real danger that other charges would be brought without permission, that would be a valid defence against the request.

      6) You seem to miss the point on Manning. He is subject to military processes because he was a member of the US military. Those processes cannot be applied to people who are not members of the military.

      Your point about Gitmo is a good one: a clear violation by the US of international law in my view. But if your point is valid: why isn’t Manning there himself?

      I personally would oppose any extradition attempt to the USA for Assange – there would be a clear risk of an unfair trial and of torture in my view.

      But if Assange wants to avoid extradition to the USA for espionage (or related) crimes, the simple fact is that the safest country for him to be in is Sweden – which is why he applied for residency (covered above). One has to ask the question: why does he adamantly refuse to go to what would be the safest place in the world for him, to face what many observers say are weak allegations?

      • Sling Trebuchet says:

        1&2) Leak.
        August 20th – Arrest warrant issued for Assange – based on informal conversations
        News of this came immediately to an Expressen reporter
        Who would have done this? Who knew? A “leak” – not from official sources, but possible from an official. Unless it is an official statement, it is a leak.
        Expressen pressure the Prosecutor’s office to confirm an arrest warrant for Assange on rape related charges.
        Prosecutor’s office confirms this. This was not Due Process.
        Sh*t storm explodes.

        That is the leak that kicked off the whole circus. Whoever the individual was that leaked it, it would be madness to suggest that it was someone ‘on the Assange side’.

        3) EWA.1 describes the Missionary Position.
        It does not mention a condom. This is because the fetching of the condom totally explains that the ‘pinning down’ was the Missionary Position and not a pinning down in order to force intercourse in the way that EWA.1 implies.
        EWA.1 takes the Missionary Position out of context. It brings down a guillotine on sanity just before Assange asks AA what the problem is. What AA describes is consensual sex using the Missionary Position, briefly interrupted by a conversation about condoms – the fetching of a condom – the wearing of a condom.
        What EWA.1 describes is the initial Missionary Position before the conversation about a condom.

        4) The point is the intention of the women – in particular that of SW, as AA says she went along purely in support.
        A point I make in my blog page that I link above is that nobody actually gives a flying f**k about the women. This case is actually about consent.
        SW’s reaction to being told that an arrest warrant has been issued is extreme.
        It would be fair to describe it as a refusal to consent.
        As far as giving consent to what has happened to her since is concerned, SW has been raped viciously and thoroughly by the Swedish State.

        5) You miss my point again.
        The point is that when the US moves to extradite Assange, it will do so on the basis of charges that are extraditable ones. It can prosecute on those charges. It can take its own sweet time with delays in procedure from the very start right through any appeals after they find him guilty.

        6) You miss my point on Manning.
        The point is not that he is subject to a Military procedure
        The point is that he is subject to a gross abuse of Due Process.
        He has been confined in harsh conditions for over 800 days at this stage. He should have been brought to trial in 120 days (quite apart from not being subjected to conditions amounting to torture).
        The delay is due to the Department Of Justice. It is not due to ‘Military’ per se.
        This is something that the US clearly excels at. It is endemic in all of their systems. The end always justifies the means. Their justice is all about “Maximum Retribution”.
        Manning is not in Gitmo because the US only needs Gitmo for off-shore torture and denial of human rights of people that communities neighbouring US prisons don’t want as neighbours.

        Whether or nor Sweden would be safest place for Assange is debatable. I’m not seeing unanimous agreement by lawyers on this.
        What I do see being touted as his safety gives good grounds to suspect that he would not in fact be safe, as the arguments for his safety are being based on situations that will not logically arise.
        I see
        “He can not be extradited if the death sentence is in question” – So the US will confirm that the death sentence is not sought.
        “He can not be extradited if his human rights would be abused” – But the US never abuse anyone’s human rights. Are the UK/Swedish governments going to refuse extradition because they accuse the US of intending to abuse human rights? Really?
        Before it gets to the governments, are the courts going to do the same?
        Are European nations finally going to call the US out on abuses – such as torture, Gitmo, etc? Government to government. Mano a mano? Don’t hold your breath.

        The US will get him most probably on hacking/cracking charges quite divorced from the true overall context.
        As an example of this sort of move, see EWA.1 describing the Missionary Position.

        You use the same misdirection “But if Assange wants to avoid extradition to the USA for espionage (or related) crimes, the simple fact is …”
        The simple fact is that the extradition will not be based on such crimes. His only safety would lie in the UK/Swedish government refusing extradition based on a belief that his human rights would be abused. That’s it. That’s his *only* safety.

        Before coming to that, whatever Assanges chances might be in a secret trial in which judgements on a “he-said-she-said” are made by lay people, he would be justified in viewing the entire process with great distrust – in the light of the process to date.

        • Objectiviser says:

          Ooops. As Sling pointed out, this was intended for another comment on this thread. HIgh embarassment mod edit is now happening to clarify this.

          All your points have been dealt with. Please re-read. If you have any evidence to back up your assertions, please do provide it.

          One of your other comments was deleted because it named one of the women. Perhaps it was not clear that this was a policy here; though we carefully redact all instances on the site.

          I have now clarified the policy here:

          If you wish to resubmit that comment (redacted) it will be published.

          Your most recent commend it borderline (“putting the boot in”). Please keep your comments respectful.

          • Sling Trebuchet says:

            Although the reply tree might indicate that your comment was to myself, it seems to be directed to Blather.
            I was temporarily gobsmacked :)

        • Objectiviser says:

          My profound apologies and full retraction. I am unused to this moderation lark. It was indeed directed at Blather, and indeed the moderation emails state that quite clearly.

          I shall edit my original comment accordingly but leave it up there as evidence of what makes a moderator look like an idiot.

  7. Objectiviser says:

    Thanks for your comment, Sling.

    As detailed above, there was no leak from the authorities – the leak seems to have come later, from Assange’s own legal team.

    Nobody is suggesting that missionary position is illegal. I believe it is illegal to refuse to use a condom, however, and to use force to prevent one from being fetched, which is the actual allegation.

    The police protocols were linked to above. If you read the interviews, some witnesses claim that the word “rape” was used before the police were contacted. That is the most likely origin, I think. As described above, Borgstorm can only appeal if his clients wish to. As also document above, the appeal is a perfectly normal process – of you can check the expert opinion of Sven-Erik Alhem, item 20.

    As discussed above and elsewhere, the USA cannot extradite for computer hacking and then prosecute for espionage.

    The Manning case is a military case, not a civilian case. I (Objectiviser) am on record as calling that torture – though not all our contributors agree. However, we all agree that (being an internal military matter) it clearly falls under a different process to anything that Assange may be accused of by the civilian authorities.

    Hope this helps to clarify for you.

  8. Sling Trebuchet says:

    A few points…

    Signing/Approval of statements/protocols:

    AA was interviewed by telephone the day after the visit to the police station. That was also after the news had been leaked and the sh*tstorm had broken. The protocol was read back to her and she approved it. That’s what the protocol records.

    SW’s interview was interrupted because she became upset when she was told that an arrest warrant had been issued. From the end of that protocol.
    “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 I made 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 reason to go to the police:

    Wassgren’s memo opens with
    “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.”
    That is certainly not “they wanted to report a crime” or “they wanted to make a complaint”

    The word “rape” comes up in Wassgren’s memo, but it is ambiguous as to who raised it.
    Overall it sounds as if she came up with that interpretation.
    “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.”
    “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.”
    The telephone exchanges involved were informal and verbal. The only clue might be what is in the redacted words in her memo. Though redacted, it is clear that it refers to detail of SW only.
    In other words, even if Wassgren thought that it was rape, she felt that she had to ring around and discuss it before contacting a prosecutor.
    It is not clear what details she was working with and what information she was working with and sharing with those that she spoke to. The only clue might be in the redacted words in her memo. Though redacted, it is clear that it refers to detail of SW only.

    Crazy system in Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued for Assange on August 20th based solely on informal conversations – before any interviews.
    Then on September 1st, when Ney initiates investigations into a rape and a broader set of offences, nobody thinks to arrest anybody, or even interview them any time soon.

    I suggest that people actually read the interview protocols in order to see what the interviewers summarised. The interviews were not recorded, so the summaries are all we can see.

    As an example, read the text of the first (OTT) item in the EAW. Then read AA’s protocol that describes those moments – how the Missionary Position ceases and a condom is fetched.
    Seriously! The Missionary Position is illegal. This has been confirmed by the UK courts.

    More on this in http://sexwithlawyers.blogspot.com
    See that also for Bergström’s line on why the women went to the police station, and their possible feelings about what happened afterwards.
    I have seen someone tweeting that they want the women to have their day in court with Assange. Perhaps they should check to see what the women wanted. Is “consent” purely a la carte?.


    As for extradition to the US…..

    Assange can’t be extradited to the US if there is a death sentence involved or his human rights would be abused. He can’t be extradited to the US for political crimes.

    When the US get around eventually to extraditing him, it will be for something related to hacking or conspiracy to do so. Maybe they will find a pirated copy of a Disney movie that can be linked to him.
    There is no danger of an extradition request until after the RAPE!!! situation has been milked dry.

    As for his human rights being abused, don’t be silly. The US never uses torture or abuses human rights. If that were the case, there would be a queue of US defendants at the Hague. There would be huge levels of condemnation from civilised countries.
    Even Bradley Manning could tell you that.

  9. Pingback: Dokter’s Weekly Report #5 | Dokter Waldijk

  10. Blather says:

    There is an appendix called ‘Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues’ that was submitted to The Supreme court. Saves a lot of arguing.


    eg. Parahgraph 4.

    4. 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 the
    Appellant 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.

  11. Objectiviser says:

    Thanks for the comment, Jay.

    It is vital to understand the concept of “conditional consent”. It is quite possible to consent to sex within specific criteria. For example: “Yes, I will have sex with you, as long as X”. X can be anything – that is up to the person who has consented. It may be using a condom, or oral only (as opposed to vaginal or anal) sex. Or any combination of those. This seems to be fair and makes sense to me. A person should be able to say what they will and will not do.

    It could be consent to be tied up but without actual penetration, just foreplay. Should the other person then take advantage of the tied up state to have full sex, this would be a clear violation of the consent given. In the case of the allegations against Assange, the court decided that if the woman was indeed asleep or half asleep, then she was in a “helpless state” and could not give consent – not being fully conscious.

    The allegation against Assange is that the woman made it very clear that she would only consent to sex if a condom was used. It is further alleged that she awoke to find herself being penetrated without a condom.

    It was an “aggravating factor” that a condom was not used, according to the High Court, when they decided that the allegations would constitute an offence in England as well as in Sweden. But the main allegation is that she was asleep.

    The High Court Summary is linked above and gives a very clear explanation about all this, and it is what I based my reply on.

    But to be quite clear, the allegation is: the woman consented to sex on the strict condition that a condom was worn. She awoke to find herself having sex without a condom. Legal definitions aside, that is, I think, an allegation that everyone should consider to be serious. Whether it reflects the actual events is for a court to decide.

    • Jay Ramella says:

      Thanks for your quick reply. As I said, I accept totally the consent argument and that of her being asleep, allegedly. However, terms and conditions usually equal a contract and there is no reliable evidence that the woman agreed to have sex – of whatever nature – under certain conditions only. It is word against word, so far as I am aware. You haven’t addressed the issue of implied consent at all but I agree it is for the Court to decide the real course of events. Now that should be really interesting!

      • Objectiviser says:

        You hit the nail on the head, Jay. It is word against word and for a court to decide. That is my stance, and has been from day one. Allegations of this nature are very difficult to prove, since they happen in private.

        I am not familiar with “implied consent”, but the court certainly didn’t mention such a thing. It was the view of all the courts that the allegations (taken at face value) would indeed be rape. So if there is such a thing, then it does not alter the allegation in either English or Swedish law.

        It is horribly technical to note that the court also said that it was the consumation of sex which was involved, and that consent given afterwards would not alter the original conditions. For a layman, that sort of distinction can be difficult to read and digest. If I can draw just one positive aspect from this whole situation, it would be that uncomfortable conversations are being had. Whatever conclusions we as a society draw, we should not shy away from talking about horrible things merely because they make us feel uncomfortable. But I equally believe that we should be discussing the real facts and the real issues rather than misrepresentations thereof.

        That is the aim of this site: to get to the real facts, rather than the hyped ones. Corrections are encouraged, researched, and acted upon if valid (as on my old blog).

  12. Jay Ramella says:

    Hang on! The condom is irrelevant and if it isn’t, it’s a matter of tort. As far as I am aware, however, there is no proof or witness to the allegation that it was a contractual precondition of her agreeing to have sex with him. If so, it casts aspersion on her role in the ‘relationship’! Without that it is hearsay and has no force in law. I understand the technicality of non consent but if someone has shared your bed and their body willingly without check or hindrance for a measurable period of time, surely there is implied consent? The postman has your implied consent to venture upon your premises when he delivers a letter through your letter box – that’s not meant to be a crude analogy, BTW! Whether you consider implication or assumption to be discourteous is another matter. Having said all that, I don’t like Assange but I don’t see why he should be hung out to dry either.

  13. Pingback: Rounding Up Misogynistic Julian Assange And More « Soupy One

  14. Objectiviser says:

    Oh, just saw your other point again. A “political crime” does not mean it affects politicians. Espionage is a political crime, as linked to in the article.

  15. Objectiviser says:

    Thanks for the comment Suzanne. To clarify: there is no such crime as “conspiracy”. There is conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to steal or rob, and conspiracy to commit espionage (which is not a crime in Sweden of course). “Conspiracy” means agreeing to commit a crime. But the act has to be a crime, or there can be no conspiracy.

    However, you will often hear a shortening, such as: “we can’t get him for murder, but we can get him for conspiracy”. That is short for “conspiracy to murder” in that context.

    If Assange communicated with Manning and urged him to obtain the data, or gave him help, then that would be conspiracy to commit espionage. But since espionage is not a crime in Sweden, conspiracy to commit it can’t be either. One cannot illegally conspire to do something legal.

    Any computer crime which was done for the purposes of espionage is also espionage, even if it is also a crime in itself.

    So all of the things you list are covered by Sweden’s stance on espionage as a political crime. If this wasn’t the case, then (for example) Saudi Arabia could extradite a woman for driving a car by issuing a warrant for driving without insurance. The woman would have committed that crime (and it would be illegal in Sweden) – but it would be a political crime, since the act of driving would be a protest against the sexist laws in Saudi Arabia.

    Furthermore, if somebody else had agreed with her to go driving, then in Saudi Arabia both would be guilty of conspiracy for a woman to drive a car. Since Sweden do not consider a woman driving a car to be a crime, they would not consider conspiracy to drive a car a crime either.

    If the woman had done something illegal to enable her to drive the car (for example taking it without the owner’s permission) then that’s theft of an automobile – but since the aim of the theft was a political protest, and since she would face political persecution if returned to Saudi Arabi, she could not be extradited for the theft.

    You misunderstand what part a Red Notice plays in extradition. The English police indeed knew where Assange was. However, they had no cause to arrest him, as he had broken no English laws. They would only arrest him if they had the legal authority to do so. That legal authority comes by a request for his arrest by another police force. A Red Notice is merely the mechanism for communicating that request. It is no more and no less than that.

    The media indeed like to talk of “international Interpol manhunts” and even “Interpol raids”. While dramatic, this is absolute nonsense. Interpol are an inter-police messaging service. They do not have the power to arrest, nor do they employ anyone who does any searching. All they do is send police forces a message. Those police forces do the searching and the arresting.

    I hope that clarifies for you.

  16. Susanne Maier says:

    U act as if an extradition to the US is a mere fictional possibility in JA`s case when -at least according to Eric Holder-espionage is just one of the possible charges next to conspiracy and various computer crimes (for which there seems to be evidence in the form of a 15page chat log btw BM and JA which was presented at BM`s article 32 hearing).
    PS: While the Afghan and Iraq War Logs cover the US military abroad it is debateable if the release of the diplomatic cables would be seen as a politcal offence since the cables may or may not form the basis of political decision making in the US.
    The intention behind the release however seems to have been to create “justice” and political reforms.

    Furthermore u claim that the Red Notice was justified while JA`s lawyers confirmed that they immediately informed Scotland Yard once their client had entered UK territory. So while the media at the time spoke about an “international manhunt” the UK police were informed about his whereabouts (he was “holed up” at the homes of several friends).It seems a bit exaggerated to issue a Red Alert Notice for sb whose`s location is already known to the local police and who makes no moves to leave the country (UK).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>