Skip to content

Trenter’s Sixteen

Trenterx at the Flashback forum is one of the contributors who’s done the most the longest when it comes to digging up the ugly truth about the case of Assange in Sweden, with an uncanny knack for connecting the dots others have long since forgot (or perhaps never even noticed). Together with work being done at the ‘sister site‘, this constitutes the most formidable attempts to keep the case moving towards a resolution favourable to all.

Forum newcomer ‘flipflap’ lamented the other day that topics shift so quickly that he has a hard time keeping up. The following is the gist of Trenterx’s reply.

  1. The policewoman Linda Wassgren who first met Sofia and Anna started by letting them sit together and tell their stories, this before she separated them. Already in their first chat together, Anna told Linda that she and Sofia had experienced the ‘same thing’. One can see from the testimony in the police documents that this was the defining moment for the investigation, the moment when everybody was suddenly in agreement the case was about rape. Of course it was a breach of procedure to let Sofia and Anna sit together and weave a story together.
  2. Linda Wassgren’s interrogation of Anna and Sofia is not recorded and it’s not even archived as a conceptual interrogation. Yet the words exchanged here are COMPLETELY DECISIVE for the decision of the duty prosecutor to arrest Assange in absentia. This is a gross miscarriage of justice!
  3. The decision to arrest Assange was taken at 17:00 20 August. The formal interrogation of Sofia had hardly begun. Interrogator Irmeli Krans said she was prevented from speaking with the duty prosecutor. She had no way to influence the decision to arrest Assange or choose the classification of the ‘crime’. On the contrary: she was told that those decisions had already been made and that the crime would be classified ‘rape’. So what was the purpose of the interrogation?
  4. The interrogation of Anna took place a day later. [By telephone.] This despite an alleged molestation of Anna being given as one of the reasons for the arrest warrant.
  5. But not even these two interrogations were recorded. Not recorded with video (the Swedish norm in cases such as this) or even with audio. One of the interrogations (Anna’s) was conducted by telephone. The only recordings in the case are all audio and only for the interrogations where the police ask questions about WikiLeaks – those of Assange, Johannes Wahlström, and Donald Boström.
  6. Policewoman Irmeki Krans was biased as she was a personal friend of Anna. She was the wrong person to conduct an interrogation with Sofia. Irmeli was removed from the case for this reason, according to police data, on Monday 23 August, but she actually continued to work on the case on 26 August when she was asked [by Mats Gehlin] to make ‘necessary changes’ to Sofia’s interrogation [suggested by Claes Borgström]. [This caused considerable confusion as the document system doesn’t allow changes after the fact; Irmeli’s boss Mats Gehlin told her how to circumvent this security precaution, so the date for this interrogation is incorrectly dated to this day, and presumably Mats Gehlin made the authentic interrogation ‘disappear’ – he had the system access to do it]. [Why Gehlin couldn’t have put in Borgström’s ‘bait’ probably has to do with his not wanting to raise more suspicion than necessary.]
  7. Duty prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand immediately told the tabloid Expressen about the arrest of Julian Assange. She corroborated for the tabloid that it was a case of rape and that two women were involved. This is breach of office, but she’s never been sanctioned for what she did.
  8. The same day Anna was interrogated (Saturday 21 August) the police visited her in her flat to pick up a broken condom. This ‘evidence’ was supposed to prove that Assange deliberately broke condoms. The report from the forensic lab showed two months later that the condom may have been manually torn, but there were no traces of genomic DNA on the condom, not from a man, not from a woman. The condom, put simply, was never used for sex. The condom is therefore to be regarded as a falsification of evidence.
  9. The police also picked up a broken condom from Sofia. [This in violation of prosecutor Eva Finné’s explicit instructions to chief inspector Mats Gehlin that the part of the case related to Sofia had now been closed and he was not to interfere – Gehlin got past that matter by sneaking Sofia’s condom onto a ticket with Anna’s case number.] That condom has the DNA of two people, and as such has been used for sex. But in Sofia’s interrogation, there is no mention of any condom breaking, much less a condom being broken intentionally. Instead the claim of assault concerns ordinary consensual sex in the morning (after a night of it) when Sofia afterwards claims she regrets not saying ‘no’.
  10. Marianne Ny’s reopening of the case of ‘rape’ is based on ‘new technical evidence’. But that ‘new technical evidence’ is in two parts: one piece of condom that’s actually been used for sex, and a condom that hasn’t, falsified evidence. Both condoms have been broken – but who broke them?
  11. Marianne Ny has categorically refused to avail herself of Mutual Legal Assistance to question Assange in London and move the case forward, despite this being the standard procedure in Europe. Her prosecutor’s office tried to claim it was illegal because there is a demand for extradition. Carl Bildt said something of the same [in addition to telling Jennifer Robinson that Mutual Legal Assistance is against the Swedish constitution, quite the feat as Swedes don’t have a constitution]. All this was a deliberate lie which Marianne Ny’s office had to finally back out of.
  12. Marianne Ny is kept in the dark about the Ecuadorian ambassador in Stockholm personally delivering a note from his government for Carl Bildt’s foreign office where the Ecuadorians offer to help Assange be interrogated in London.
  13. The entire preliminary investigation is thus at a standstill, to the detriment of both the girls and Julian Assange. This has to be a violation of the duty to expedite criminal investigations.
  14. Major political pressure surrounded this case from Day 1. Sweden’s government have felt the pressure. Reinfeldt, Bildt, and Hägglund have all made public statements about the case. So has EU commissioner Cecilia Malmström. None of this is accepted behaviour.
  15. Anna tweeted ‘it wasn’t rape’. Sofia sent SMS messages to her friends to tell them ‘I didn’t want to accuse Julian of anything’ and ‘the police really wanted to get their hands on him’. Who is behind the curtains with the agenda of setting up Julian Assange?
  16. Sofia has two contradictory stories. She gets a ‘rape kit’ examination at the Söder hospital and files a complaint against Assange for rape, according to her new lawyer Elisabeth Massi Fritz (who is the prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt’s personal attorney). But she simultaneously spread the story that she only wanted to get Julian to take an HIV test. Did someone railroad her or pressure her to file a complaint?

Bottom line: this judicial process is far from ‘customary’. The whole thing derailed and today carries the pungent stench of corruption.