Skip to content

She didn’t want to file that complaint

Dick Sundevall is the only Swedish journalist covering the case of Assange in Sweden, and he’s able to do this only because he today runs his own news site. As has been reported at Flashback, many mainstream journalists know there’s something very wrong with the way the case is being handled, but there’s a quiet pervasive self-censorship at the major editor’s desks, and no probe into the case has ever been published.

This is Dick Sundevall’s take on the affidavit of Julian Assange.

The two women who filed complaints against Julian Assange didn’t have the same opinion of what had happened. I’ve written about this before, but now there’s new evidence that shows this more clearly. A number of messages from Sofia Wilén’s mobile phone show that she didn’t want to file a complaint against Julian Assange – didn’t want to file a complaint at all, and certainly not a complaint for rape. But Anna Ardin wanted to file a complaint, as did Ardin’s friend Irmeli Krans at the police station, where Sofia just accidentally turned up.

One of our readers referred me to a document which illustrates this matter. There’s a link at the end of this article to that document. But let me first bring everyone up to speed:

One week after Julian Assange’s arrival in Sweden in August 2010, he’d be arrested in absentia for the rape and sexual molestation of two women. To understand the twists and turns in what thereafter happens, one should keep in mind that the girls aren’t social and political equals. I’ll call them ‘A’ and ‘S’.

A is 30 and well established. She does research and works as a media and political secretary for the Brotherhood movement. And sometimes she’s part of a Cuban feminist group. She’s a central figure in the arrangements of Assange’s visit to the seminar on 14 August. And the plan is she’ll let him live in her flat in the days leading up to the seminar when she’s out of town.

S is a lot younger. She has a simple job on an hourly wage at the Natural History Museum, and as we shall see, she’s a bit of an ‘intelligence groupie’, at any rate as regards Assange. I don’t use that expression to disparage her. We’ve all been young and had our idols, and in that context done immature things. S isn’t unique. She can’t be blamed.

A returns to her flat on 13 August, a day earlier than she promised. She takes Assange out to dinner, and they have sex later that evening in her flat, and again in the morning. And as we see from the police interrogations, several more times in the following six days.

A will later claim that on the night between 13 and 14 August, Assange molested her by deliberately breaking a condom and then ejaculating into her. But she doesn’t tell anyone about it that day or even afterwards. On the contrary: several days after the alleged incident, she says the following.

‘I was so proud to get the world’s coolest guy into my bed and living in my flat.’

Assange meets with the younger girl S on Monday 16 August. A doesn’t know he was making out with her two days earlier. This new meet leads to sex at the flat of S in Enköping.

First on Thursday 19 August A finds out that S is also Assange’s lover, this when S rings her and tells her. By then, Assange has been living with A for six days, but after that phone call he’s no longer welcome to stay, so he takes his things and moves out next morning.

On Friday 20 August, A starts talking with her friends about how Assange raped S. But S has never claimed anything of the sort.

S is worried she’s been infected with HIV after having had sex with Assange, and she asks A what she can do. A tells her that the police can help, can get Assange to take an HIV test. This is strange and yet illustrative of the entire story.

If they were to get Assange to take an HIV test and he were to be HIV-positive, one still has to determine if S was infected. The obvious thing in such a situation would instead be for A to explain to S where and how she could go to test herself without wasting time getting Assange to take a test too. And A of course knows of several places in town where S can get a test quickly.

When A takes S to the police, it’s ‘coincidentally’ to a station where her female friend Irmeli Krans works and ‘coincidentally’ happens to be on duty when they arrive, and it is Krans who processes the complaints. The meeting ends with them deciding to file complaints against Assange for rape and sexual molestation.

Many people ask me how this could happen. Nothing indicates that S wanted to file a complaint against Assange before A took her to the police. But this visit to A’s friend at the police still ends with S agreeing to file complaints against Assange for rape and sexual molestation.

The explanation can of course be that A and her police friend told S that what she’d experienced is classified as rape, that S was then convinced, and that she then wanted to file a complaint against Assange.

Or the explanation can be that the young girl, confronted with the well established A and her police friend, couldn’t resist the pressure they put on her. In other words: S was not convinced that she’d been the victim of a crime, but gave in to the two women who may have acted overbearing with her, and may have got her to do this against her own will?

That’s what her SMS messages say. From the link provided below, we can read under point 97:

While the younger woman was at the police station on 20 August 2010, her phone records show that she wrote that she:

did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him (sv: få tag på honom) [14:26]

and that

she was ‘chocked [sic: shocked] when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test [17:06]

Point 98:

The woman concerned told a friend that she felt that she had been ‘railroaded by police and others around her’, according to the latter’s police statement.

Point 99:

According to the younger woman’s phone records, who the ‘rape’ allegation is associated to, she wrote at 07:27 on 21 August 2010 that she

‘did not want to accuse JA for anything’;

and at 22:25 that

‘it was the police who made up the charges’.

Thereby we know what’s up with S and the alleged sex assaults. We’ve already explained in an earlier article how things went for A. The most interesting thing was probably the ‘technical evidence’ – A claimed Assange ripped a condom so that his sperm would run into her, and when the police asked if she possibly still had that condom, she replied that she’d look around at home.

[Ardin’s ‘home’ is an unbelievably small 25 square metres, so there isn’t much to look around at. She could have ‘looked around’ whilst she was still on the phone with the police. But the policewoman speaking with her probably didn’t know Ardin’s home was so tiny.]

And there in her home, despite a full week having gone by, a week where she had a crayfish party and afterwards a proper cleaning expedition, she finds one ripped condom, and gets back to the police later in the day to arrange to for them to pick it up.

[This has been known for a long time, yet the Swedish MSM have until now refused to write about it, the ‘cult’ against Assange having been so intense. And so far it’s only Dick Sundevall who dares. Such is Sweden.]

The state crime lab looked at the condom and found it to be totally unique, for despite A insisting that she and Assange had sex with that condom, and that after having pulled out of her, he ripped the top of the condom before continuing, there wasn’t the slightest trace of secretions on the condom from either of them!

[Actually Dick should point out that the condom lacked genomic DNA. Flashback conducted a study of how condoms and DNA perform in different circumstances.]

So that should be the only condom in world history used in vaginal sex, including an ejaculation, with no form of secretion found from either person.

A lot of people end up disappointed with those they share their bed with, people they invited in but soon find they don’t want in their lives any longer. Hey it’s probably happened somewhere in this world in the past few days! But very few of these people make it into a political issue.

We now know that S didn’t want to file that complaint but was persuaded, or rather pressured, to do it.

And once the complaint was filed and the prosecutor’s games had commenced, neither A nor S could do anything about the runaway train, accelerating all the more all the time. For by then, other much more powerful forces had entered the picture, forces who had an interest in discrediting Assange. And so A and S were suddenly mere peripheral playing pieces on the edge of the board, even if A not even with the most benign appraisal can be regarded as innocent of engineering this mess.

The full document with source references can be found here.

Further articles on the twists and turns in the Assange case can be found here.

Comment by Rolf
02 12 2013
When you’ve worked extensively in the international arena, you often come uncomfortably close to things like this, mostly in the business world, and mostly where business meets politics. It’s easy and it’s classic and the simple version if often the right version. What we’ve dug up is this. The CIA or at any rate the US are out to stop Assange. If you read up on Snowden you’ll understand more, and the most brutal attacks on our lives have yet to be published. A used to work for the CIA on Cuba, and was picked to squeeze Assange in a very classic way so he could be extradited to the US and silenced. She’s the one who intensively and systematically chased Assange, and the plan almost fell apart when Assange dumped her for the younger woman S. A contacted S and, as we see, persuaded her to file a complaint against Assange, and possibly, most likely, was paid handsomely for the job, got to share the commission from the CIA, who of course don’t pay up until the mission is accomplished and Assange is neutralised. There’s no limit in the world of big politics to expenses when it comes to neutralising people like Assange and Snowden. Human life has no value.

[One assumes ‘Rolf’ got to the bottom of the page to write his comment by reading through Dick Sundevall’s article, which is amazing actually, as Rolf hops over several undisputed facts as if he didn’t see them.]

Reply from Dick Sundevall
02 12 2013
You might be right, but I don’t think things were planned like this from the beginning. At any rate: we can agree that things can’t be better than they are right now for the CIA and the US, with Assange holed up in an embassy whose government definitely won’t stand up for freedom of speech and democracy. And he’s suspected of sex crimes against not just one but two women in Sweden.

I’ve a hard time conceiving how this mess could come about without the influence of the CIA. And the Swedish state will of course make sure the stalemate continues by seeing that neither police nor prosecutor go to the UK to question Assange, as often done in precisely such a situation, most recently (and repeatedly) in the notorious cocaine case where one interrogated police and others in Spain, the US, and other countries.

If Assange had been surrendered to the US, the US would have had huge international and national problems if he was convicted and sentenced harshly for what in Sweden is regarded as ordinary journalistic work.