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.