SUMMARY OF MEETING WITH MARIANNE NY 6 MAY 2013
LOCATION: Development Centre Kungsbron 21 Stockholm
DATE: 7 May 2013
TIME: 16:40 – 17:30
PARTICIPANTS: Marianne Ny and Ingrid Isgren, Thomas Olsson and Per E Samuelson
MN began: Long time no contact. Wants to know how we see the situation and to introduce IS. Erika Lejnefors has a leave of absence (union representative for JUSEK). Due to information in the media in Australia, MN wants to make clear that she has not left the investigation. No news. She wants to know what we think about the situation. Nothing has happened since December 2011. Some things have been written in the MSM. That’s the situation.
TO and PES put forth the proposal that one travels to Ecuador’s embassy and interrogates JA.
MN: sees no practical possibilities to move the investigation forward through Mutual Legal Assistance.
Long discussion about the practical difficulties of conducting an interrogation.
MN: one interrogation isn’t enough. We want to introduce new materials. Several interrogations with investigative measures between them are necessary.
MN: We have assessed the state of the investigation continually. It’s not a consideration to close the case on the grounds that it cannot be shown no crime has been committed. Prosecution is a realistic possibility. There may be parts of the case that will be closed.
MN: There are no remaining measures in the investigation remaining, only to interrogate JA.
Long discussion that MN cannot know if and in such case what remains before she’s interrogated JA.
PES and TO demanded to be given continuous access to written materials in the investigation. In particular we demanded to get Sofia’s SMS messages in printed form and the contents of Anna Ardin’s mobile phone as well as all other printed materials that we have not yet been given.
MN: There are reasons to not share any more materials with us. Therefore no continuous access will occur.
TO: So what’s your proposal?
MN: Is it true that JA still doesn’t want to come? Is he prepared to come here? If we conduct an interrogation and then go to prosecution, will he come then?
TO and PES clarified that JA is not trying to evade a trial in Sweden and that we otherwise for now do not have a mandate to present such positions.
TO and PES asked MN: How do you view the situation?
MN: for now there are no alternatives. I wanted to know if you had anything new to add?
PES and TO repeatedly asked MN about her views on the stalemate.
MS: Only travels to London ‘if it resolves the situation’.
A long discussion erupts as to what that statement meant. MN went on about a long list of practical difficulties. TO and PES asked what happens if one can solve all the practical difficulties. MN then replied that even if one solves all the practical difficulties, she wants a ‘guarantee he’ll come to a trial’.
TO and PES summarised that we in such case interpret the meeting as an inquiry into whether we could help MN get JA out of the embassy and to Sweden.
Ingrid Isgren spoke somewhat but took a clearly subordinate role. All decisions came from MN personally.
TO’s and PES’ summary of the meeting: MN’s purpose was to ask us if we in any way could help her get JA out of the embassy. She was not at all prepared to change her own position, not in the slightest.