The following is a reply to Goran Rudling’s “57 Varieties of Truth”; scathing but myopic critique on Jennifer Robinson’s brief to Canberra, regarding the situation of Julian Assange.
Hi Goran,
Much appreciated that you also reported the initial interviews with AA and SW were not recorded. It’s hard to believe there was no recording equipment available for both women, especially since AA’s interview was not done during that first visit. Having initially given your support to the women, and done your best to mediate, I fully understand your shock at the discovery of AA’s submission of false evidence. I agree with you that the case is now very weak, especially since SW didn’t sign her statement, which she claims was “railroading” her into confirming a portrayal of rape.
How is AA likely to be punished for her actions? I have gathered that Swedish justice takes a stern view on this kind of behaviour, yet she seems nonchalant, and since the lab report was issued in Oct 2010, I’m wondering why it had no apparent impact on Prosecutor NY’s investigation, or was even mentioned by the msm for almost two years. Do you have any idea why your article of March 5th 2012 was completely ignored, except by a few insignificant bloggers such as myself, Rixstep (already), Christine Assange, the Wikileaks’ defence team and a small pocket of the social media?
You wrote extensively about the lack of chromosomal DNA from either party on the so-called ripped condom, and I agree that your previous analysis of AA’s police interview already showed without a doubt that the condom was “fabricated evidence”.
It seemed reasonable for you to state the following, and I was baffled as to why nothing changed, even at a level of internal inquiry:
“What is important is that this case proves that the Swedish police and Swedish prosecutors are unable to distinguish between a real and a false accusation… For me it is very obvious that one of the women who accuses Julian Assange of sexual assault, Anna Ardin, is making up her accusations. Or in other words, she accuses Julian Assange of committing criminal acts that she knows he is not guilty of.”
It must be frustrating to do such rigorous investigation and have it fall on deaf ears. So what’s happened? You seem to have done a complete turn-around. Is that getting you more attention?
Goran you have made an unusually groundless statement about Rixstep’s Rick Downes being a serial liar, but your recent explanation of “to be considered as charged” contradicts what you wrote back in December 2010:
“Julian doesn’t seem to understand he’s under arrest. He’s not been charged. The police only want to question him so they can decide if he’s to be charged”.
And what you said in July 2011:
You also contradict yourself or mislead at other times in your 57 varieties of truth article – many times I might add – but I would like to highlight what I consider to be the most important:
You say that you find it hard to believe that Julian Assange would fear for his life during the week of the 21st-27th of September; before he handed over the Afghan War Diary to the German press on September 28th – as documented by your extracts from Stephanie Maurizi. I’m not sure that anyone would find that fair comment, but you attempt to support its credibility by saying:
“As soon as Julian arrived in Berlin he stopped fearing for his life.“
You stated earlier that he arrived in Berlin the day before, September 27th, and Maurizi reports that he made the call regarding his lost or stolen luggage the moment the documents were signed over on September 28th. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Assange may have been fearing for his life for one day after his arrival in Berlin; notably, until after he unloaded the Afghan War Diary.
If I had been Maurizi on that day, I would have feared for my life until I got the material to print. As for Assange, it is highly reasonable that he would suspend all telecommunications during the days leading up to the hand-over, and therefore be unaware of any appointments that had been made for him during that period.
I guess what you’re saying is that, in his shoes, you would have been more concerned about your luggage, and that Judge Riddle’s equally myopic “I do not know why” [Assange went off the map before delivering the material] somehow supports your “hard to believe” conclusions.
What is truly hard to believe, is that you would attempt to cite general principles about Swedish police and court procedures, when you know that those exceptions you cited will permit the court to be as secretive as it wishes. What is undeniable is that in this case, prison IS a restriction that was specified by Procecutor Ny (due to apparent flight risk); and what is regrettable, despite your stamp of approval, is that police disclosures to the media DID cause harm.
You hardly mentioned the “person unknown”, who initially told the media that it would be worth lodging a FOI request, but of course who that was is irrelevant. What is apparent in this perfectly legal process you describe, is the potential for unjustified smear, especially if someone wants the accusations to be broadcast, or the accused’s name is newsworthy. Perhaps you might like to explain what constitutes “harm”, the only impediment you mention, especially for Julian, whom you’ve already claimed is innocent in relation to AA’s fabrications.
I understand, from reading through your early communications with Wikileaks, that you thought the situation could be massaged socially, but surely by January 2011, it was time to give up on that myopic theory.
What may have seemed to you like fancy or egoism on Julian’s part – that the US were after him – later turned out to be supported by overwhelming fact. Besides the unchecked foul play from AA, which YOU largely uncovered, we discovered the Wikileaks Grand Jury; now active for 788 days and “unprecedented in scale and nature”. We also learned, via Stratfor, of the sealed indictment, which curiously enough, requires Assange’s incarceration, to be opened.
With your inordinate ability to put two and two together, you must have understood how Ny’s hell-bent attempts to get him into prison would do nicely to slit that envelope. We have seen Ecuador grant asylum in the face of political persecution, and begin to face the consequences; and Assange finally declared an ENEMY OF THE STATE, whatever that means besides hatred and vengeful name-calling…
Why, oh why Goran, do you not smell the rat when you so successfully sniffed out its tail?
Cablegate, the Stratfor emails, the Spy Files and the Afghan War Diaries may seem insignificant to you, compared to being nice to a woman who submits false evidence to get you arrested, or attending to your lost luggage in a timely manner, but you Goran, have decided to ignore the bigger picture.
It is shameful that you abandon your earlier diligence with a paltry:
“Unfortunately this is not the only investigation that is poorly conducted”
Stay on track Goran, and realize that the investigation is the core issue; not what people say about it; even Jennifer Robinson.
Dear Cathy Vogan,
When I started to look into the Assange case I wanted to find out the truth. I still do. My interest in the case is that justice is done.
I don’t know who you are, your background or what your interest in the case is. From your latest comment and article on http://thing2thing.com/?p=2820 it sure looks like you create and spread false information. I don’t think you do this knowingly like so many other Assange supporters. But I think it is correct to say that you are unknowingly in the “Assange deception complex”. Let me explain.
You write: ” You seem to have done a complete turn-around. Is that getting you more attention?
For you to make a statement like the one above it is obvious that you haven’t read my blog. It is mostly in Swedish so you are excused. In December 2010 I wrote a handful of articles that were highly critical of Julian Assange and his English legal team. Just two quotes:
“I can also see that Julian Assange’s lawyers are misrepresenting the facts in what seems to be a disinformation campaign.”
“It is also evident that Julian Assange is lying, or at least grossly is misrepresenting the facts, regarding what has happened.”
You go on: …… your recent explanation of “to be considered as charged” contradicts what you wrote back in December 2010:
“Julian doesn’t seem to understand he’s under arrest. He’s not been charged. The police only want to question him so they can decide if he’s to be charged”.
Let us examine this. I have checked my blog for December 2010. I haven’t found these words in English anywhere. In a post in Swedish on 17 December I wrote:
”Julian verkar inte heller förstå att varför han nu är arresterad. Han är inte åtalad. Polisen vill bara förhöra honom för att kunna bedöma om Julian ska åtalas.”
I am fluent in Swedish and ok in English. Your translation is incorrect. Below is my translation:
“Julian does not seem to understand why he now is under arres. He is not indicted. The police just want to question him in order to assess whether Julian should be indicted.”
You have eliminated a “why” and a “now” and changed “indicted” into “charged”. You post your translation and claim that I have actually written it. Then you go on to accuse me of making a “complete turn-around” and that I in my writings today I contradict what I wrote in December 2010. All based on made up facts. Before you re finished you insinuate that I have done this to get “more attention”.
What you have done is just what the average Assange supporter does regularly. Pick up something, twist it a bit and then present it as a fact. No verification whatsoever. Please note that I don’t think you do this knowingly like Jennifer Robinson and Rick Downes of Rixstep. But the effect is just the same. False information and false claims.
I assume you are not fluent in Swedish. That’s why I would like to know who pointed these sentences out to you and who made the translation? And I would like to know what you did to verify that the translation was correct?
Can you now see that you are unknowingly in the “Assange deception complex”? Please tell me what you are going to do about it. I am all ears.
Being uncontactable
The official explanation why Julian Assange was uncontactable between 21 and 27 September 2010 is that Julian feared for his life. He was so afraid he could not make one phone call to his lawyer. Not even from a borrowed phone. He was so afraid he could not ask a friend to check with his lawyer. I don’t think this is the truth.
At first instance after Julian fled Sweden, in the morning of 28 September, he was contactable again. He called his lawyer. Apparently he had stopped fearing for his life. The official explanation again: Julian wanted to talk to his lawyer about lost luggage. I don’t think this is the truth.
Now let’s look at your explanation. You write:
“It is therefore reasonable to assume that Assange may have been fearing for his life for one day after his arrival in Berlin; notably, until after he unloaded the Afghan War Diaries.
If I had been Maurizi on that day, I would have feared for my life until I got the material to print. As for Assange, it is highly reasonable that he would suspend all telecommunications during the days leading up to the hand-over, and therefore be unaware of any appointments that had been made for him during that period.”
You think it is “reasonable” that Julian feared for his life since he was in possession of the Afghan War Diaries and as soon as he had “unloaded” the files to Stefania Maurizi he stopped fearing for his life. You think your explanation is “reasonable” because you had feared for your life if you were in possession of the Afghan War Diaries before you had the opportunity to get “the material to print.”
You totally ignore the fact that the Afghan War Diaries were published in some of the world’s most influential papers some 60 days earlier than 28 September and the material was in most of the world’s media in July and August. You ignore the fact that Julian was still in possession of much more sensitive unpublished material, Iraq War Logs and Cablegate files.
Excuse me Cathy Vogan. Your explanation is even more ridiculous than the “official explanation”. You invented your explanation out of extremely thin air (vacuum actually) and you are trying to convince us it is “reasonable”. I am very sorry. You and I have very different ideas of what is “reasonable”.
Julian Assange’s behavior (being uncontactble for seven days while in Sweden and as soon as he left Sweden being contactable again) is to me proof that he was not willing to be interviewed and fled the country. It is also a very strong indication that Julian and his legal team are not telling the truth.
The facts of the case and other issues
Please understand that the facts of the case are only of importance in Sweden. Talking about condoms, false accusations, lack of DNA, revenge, half or full asleep, tweets and God knows what is absolutely meaningless unless it is in a police interview with Julian in Sweden or in a Swedish court. It does not matter what you and I or anybody else think about the case. The police and the prosecutors have more information than we do. They think there is enough evidence to indict Julian and they are supported by two Swedish courts. I have not seen one shred of evidence that there is political influence or any foul play.
You mention that the investigation of leaked files that ended up in WikiLeaks’ possession is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. I think that is perfectly all right. The leak is the greatest leak of classified information in the history of the United States. If the US didn’t investigate it aggressively I would have been extremely surprised.
Is there any evidence that Julian Assange will be extradited from Sweden to the US? It seems like you think so. Let’s look at what one of his close supporters, Vaughan Smith, says about it in an interview 9 October 2012 with Mary Gearin in ABC’s AM program. AM is Australia’s most informative morning current affairs program according to ABC.
MARY GEARIN: So just to clarify what happened in that meeting, the five supporters went to him and essentially raised the question of whether or not he would be prepared to leave?
VAUGHAN SMITH: Yes, we absolutely asked that, and he explained that he was unable to leave because he had evidence that pointed to the fact that leaving the embassy would lead him to, you know, get sent to the United States of America, and…
MARY GEARIN: What is that evidence?
VAUGHAN SMITH: Well, that’s quite a difficult question. Essentially, you can approach it a different way. Nobody will give him any assurances, any assurances that he won’t be sent there.
Every single time I have flown I have asked the Airline for assurances that the plane wouldn’t drop out of the sky. They have always told me it is extremely unlikely but they couldn’t guarantee it wouldn’t happen. That has been good enough for me. I assume it is not good enough for Julian.
For the last 50 years not one single person has been extradited from Sweden to the US charged with a political or a military crime. Not one. There have been more than 400 cases. In August of 1992 Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, a CIA agent that had defected. The Prime Minister at the time was Carl Bildt. The same Carl Bildt that is accused of being a US Embassy informant and an arch enemy to WikiLeaks. Sweden’s track record of extraditions to the US shows that it is extremely unlikely that Julian would be extradited.
Krister Thelin is Sweden’s leading expert on extraditions. He is of the opinion that it is extremely unlikely that Julian would be extradited to the US.
End thoughts
Very many Assange supporters make claims that are false and they misrepresent facts on a regular basis. They are totally unaware of it. They think they are right and that anybody that shows facts that proves that Julian Assange and his legal team are into a disinformation campaign of some kind is an infidel. Telling the truth about Julian Assange is blasphemy. There is no doubt there is an fundamentalist Assange cult. And there is an “Assange deception complex”.
Not everybody can translate from Swedish to English and get it right. But it is not that difficult to get it right if you want to. The easiest thing is to contact the original author of the text you want to translate. You can also use Google’s translation service. In my version “åtalad” is translated into indicted. Why you Cathy Vogan make misleading translations I don’t know. I am very interested in hearing your explanation.
In your comment you write: ”You also contradict yourself or mislead at other times in your 57 varieties of truth article – many times I might add”
I know you think there are errors in my article about Jennifer Robinson’s 57 varieties of truth. So far you have not shown one. Nada. Zilch. Noll. You are most welcome to write a rebuttal. I will publish it on my blog. So far nobody has pointed out any errors in my article.
You write ”Stay on track, and realize that the investigation is the core issue; not what people say about it; even Jennifer Robinson..
I disagree with you. The core issue is the truth. And to find the truth you have to make sure that all facts are verified. If you don’t verify facts you end up in spreading false information. And that is something I refuse to do. I leave that to Jennifer Robinson, Rick Downes and Assange supporters.
Göran Rudling
Thanks for your lengthy reply Goran. I’ve added a clip to my article (sorry, I forgot to put it in before) where you say Assange has not been charged, in English. It was uploaded on July 12th, 2011. No one translated for you and your explanation fully explains what you mean, even in a foreign language. Seems like you blow with the wind… oh dear.
Thanks also for reminding me that Julian had even more reason to fear for his life around late September 2010, since he also had the Iraq War Log and sensitive Cablegate elements in his possession. All the more reason not to give lost luggage priority. I might remind you that these leaks are the greatest in world history; not just that of the US.
I’m particularly interested of late to know what George Galloway knows about this case. Any ideas? And I would still like to know what you think constitutes “harm” [as an impediment to delivering the details of police investigations, especially regarding innocent people].
If you want to know who I am and my background, you might like to buy “The Wikileaks Tapes”. I would have loved to have interviewed you too for that collection, having cited your work in my blog. Maybe one day, if you’re in the right mood…
Dear Cathy,
I have shown clearly that I have been critical to Julian Assange and his legal team from very early on. I have not “done a complete turn-around” as you claim. Since you don’t comment on this I assume you agree.
Since you know that your claim is false you have decided make an addition to your article. The addition does not change anything unless you take out the parts which are false.
It is completely accurate and true that I in an interview with Alexa O’Brien said that Julian wasn’t charged. I am very sorry. I made a mistake. I should have said he wasn’t formally charged. I can understand that some people have been mislead by my mistake.
You obviously like to have been mislead. That is why you added the clip. If I understand your new position. You now mean that I have been critical to Julian Assange and his legal team from the beginning. And then, all of a sudden on about 12 July 2011 I wasn’t. A day later I returned to being critical again. Do I understand you correctly?
For your information I can tell you that I am much more careful with my language now. And I also know much more about the legal systems in Sweden and England. To make it simple. Julian Assange was charged around 4:11 pm on 20 August 2010. He is still not indicted. He fled Sweden on 27 September 2010. If I have ever said anything else I was wrong.
You write: Thanks also for reminding me that Julian had even more reason to fear for his life around late September 2010, since he also had the Iraq War Log and sensitive Cablegate elements in his possession. All the more reason not to give lost luggage priority.
I am pleased that you agree with me that Julian’s official explanation is a lie and that your even fancier explanation is totally unbelievable. If Julian had more reasons to fear for his life he would never ever make a phone call to his lawyer to talk about lost luggage. I agree.
The truth is that Julian made a phone call to his lawyer to talk about lost luggage. How should we interpret it Cathy?
He just forgot he feared for his life?
CIA forced him to believe his luggage was more important than his life?
Stefania Maurizi made up the story that she overheard Julian’s phone call to his lawyer?
Luggage is more important than Julian’s life?
George Galloway is luggage?
Craig Murray doesn’t know George Galloway is luggage?
Both Craig Murray and George Galloway are lost but Julian doesn’t know?
Dear Cathy. Why can’t you admit that Julian’s explanations for being uncontactable are fanciful? What do you think will happen if you do? Do you think it is the end of free speech? Do you think the Assange cult will call you an infidel? Do you think Jennifer Robinson will never invite you for a cup of tea? What are you afraid of? What assurances do you need in order to speak out?
I still think one of the accusers is making a false accusation. And I still think it is very difficult to convict Julian. But my thoughts are not important. It is a matter for the legal system in Sweden.
I also think that Julian from the beginning has made a series of serious mistakes and we have not seen his last mistake yet. And you have convinced me that you are part of the “Assange deception complex”.
JA`s lawyer said in court that he could not contact his client. Contrary to his claim that the prosecutor did not attempt to arrange a second interview this could NOT be proven wrong. So I guess until we see proof of the contrary we have to take that as fact.
BTW if he wanted to avoid a second interview why has he offered one in the UK for the last 18 months? Had the Swedish prosecutor accepted the offer-which is perfectly legal under MLA-clearly he WOULD have had to do an interview or else loose face. And contrary to Sweden where he is entitled to remain silent+refuse answers the prosecutor could have used contradictive answers against him. She could also have made it public like the first intervew and increase public pressure to surrender. And her claim that only in Sweden could she confront him with gathered evidence is nonsense. Whats so hard about taking a DNA report to the UK and conducting further phone interviews with witnesses+accusers from the UK? Nothing.
PS: U claim it doesn`t matter that u think that AA is a liar and it might not to the court. But if thats your viewpoint why do u think people should pay more attention to your criticism of JA and his legal team than to your initial criticism of the accusers and the way the investigation was handled?
BTW to the average reader it does INDEED appear that u changed your position from being crtiical of AA to critical of JA and his lawyers. Maybe thats because there is some truth in that.
PPS: The only good that your public criticism of JA brings is that the judge will not be able to accuse u of trying to support JA when+if u are asked to talk about the deleted tweets u discovered.