The people at Flashback are scratching their heads. Now that the University of Adelaide uploaded the 3 April speech of Swedish Supreme Court justice Stefan Lindskog to YouTube and they’ve been able to study it in detail, they think have every reason to.
1. The speech couldn’t have been written by Lindskog. He could hardly pronounce the words on the pages, and stumbled time and again. Swedes might be able to understand, as Lindskog’s errors are the kind often heard by them. But the situation must have been much worse for the Australian audience. Which makes one wonder why Lindskog let himself get into such a mess.
2. The speech contained numerous factual errors regarding the Assange case, and those errors cannot be attributed to mispronunciation. Lindskog said the interrogation of Sofia Wilén was “audio recorded”, which it was not, the police documents attest to this, and inspector Irmeli Krans corroborated this for SvD some time ago. Lindskog also hinted that Assange used “violence” against the women, something that does not manifest itself in the documents, something also debunked by the women themselves.
3. Lindskog repeatedly claimed that all of “his” information came from the Internet, but even this was not the case. His “speechwriters” used other sources and then didn’t check things properly afterwards.
“Evidently he’s not the author of what he said”, posted Flashback member ErrorFlynn. “His delivery indicates he hadn’t even prepared the speech properly.”
“He starts by saying that his focus will be on general judicial questions, but it wasn’t like that at all. The speech seemed very confused and lacked a red thread, and it’s not clear what he wanted to convey and to whom he wanted to convey it.”
“But there’s an explanation for this: he didn’t understand himself what he was supposed to be saying. My conclusion is it was a lot of blather lacking in substance and meaning.”
“And finally, it’s embarrassing that highly ranked Swedish civil servants have a skills level in English not good enough to get directions to the nearest bathroom.”
Flashback member Passepartout thinks he found Lindskog’s “tell”.
“Watch how he grabs his nose when he approaches the section regarding the temporary surrender agreement between Sweden and the US. And he contradicts himself continually. In his introduction (at 1:24) he claims he got information on Assange from Wikipedia – and then he grabs his nose. Do you think he’s telling the truth?”
Finally, lillalinnea asks if her colleagues at Flashback shouldn’t inform the Australian media.
“Perhaps we should inform the Australian media. This was foul play. But then again we have the ministry of foreign affairs involved.”