With that context established, let us return to David Allen Green. The attacks on those who have defended Assange's extradition and asylum arguments has depended on the disgusting slander that such advocates are indifferent to the allegations of sexual assault made against him or, worse, are "rape apologists."

The reality is exactly the opposite. I have spoken to countless Assange defenders over the last couple of years and not a single one – literally not one – is dismissive of the need for those allegations in Sweden to be taken seriously and to be legally and fairly resolved. Typifying this view is Milne's column last night, which in the midst of scorning the attacks on Assange, embraced "the seriousness of the rape allegations made against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are brought, stand trial."

That is the view of every Assange defender with a platform that I know of, including me (one can certainly find anonymous internet commenters, or the occasional named one, making actual, horrific rape apologist claims, but one can find stray advocates saying anything; imputing those views to Assange defenders generally would be like claiming that all Assange critics want to see him illegally shot in the head or encaged for life because some prominent American and other commentators have called for this).

Not only Assange defenders, but also his own lawyers and the Ecuadorean government, have worked relentlessly to ensure that he faces those allegations in Sweden. They have merely sought to do so in a way that protects him from extradition to the US to face espionage charges for his journalism – a threat that could send him to prison for life (likely in a torturous super-max facility), and a threat only the wilfuly blind could deny is serious and real.

In their New York Times op-ed this week, Michael Moore and Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the sex assault] investigation, not Mr Assange." That's because, they note, Assange has repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to travel today to Sweden to face those allegations if he could be assured that his doing so would not result in his extradition to the US to face espionage charges.

I've just finished reading the witness statements which were a bit of an eye opener.
Witness E in particular but not exclusively. The majority raise interesting questions in my head. If these testimonies were to go before a judge as the evidence I really can't see how any court could justifiably convict. But then I'm not a judge am I.
It's interesting that this all seems to pivot around Sofia Wilen (not unreasonably) wanting JA to take an HIV test and apparently contacting Anna Ardin in an attempt to contact JA about him doing so.....

An illustration of this being found in witness I's statement:
"I wants to point out that when Sofia was at the hospital and went to the police, things didn't turn out as Sofia wanted. She only wanted Julian to test himself. She felt she'd been overrun by the police and others around her."

Not only have the BBC hierarchy ruled Anna Ardin’s name must not be mentioned. Also Irmeli Krans’ name is banned from the airwaves. And no, she’s not an alleged “victim” in the Assange case.

I put in an official request to the BBC for an explanation as to why it was OK for the BBC to use Nafissatou Diallo’s name but not Anna Ardin’s, in identical circumstances. I have not got an answer yet, but my request did result in a mole within the BBC telling me reporters had been banned from mentioning Irmeli Krans.

Anybody might think they were hiding something.

STOCKHOLM/LONDON (Rixstep) — Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin arrived at the Klara police station in downtown Stockholm on Friday afternoon 20 August 2010. The interrogation of Sofia was conducted by criminal inspector Irmeli Krans that same day.

Krans and Wilén were informed during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia and that the police were hunting for him in the Stureplan nightclub area.


Krans, an acquaintance of Anna Ardin, notes that Wilén seemed to go to pieces on hearing the news and that she therefore decided to abort the interrogation without the protocol being read back to her or approved by her.

Krans and her superior Mats Gehlin began 'embellishing' the testimony once it became known the charges against Assange were to be dismissed, something not only forbidden by police regulations, but also technically impossible to achieve - for good reason - with the 'DurTvå' document system in use.

A link to the details of these unauthorised changes is provided below as is correspondence between Krans and Gehlin. Attempts by Krans and Gehlin to remove/overwrite the conflicting first version from 20 August proved unsuccessful.

Krans was thereafter taken off the case, but the version presented to Assange's legal counsel is the 'doctored' version from 26 August and not the original from 20 August. It cannot be adequately stressed that if Sofia Wilén never had her original testimony read back to her and never approved it either, then that certainly holds double for the version Irmeli Krans and Mats Gehlin inserted into the system six days later.

Passages known to have been 'doctored' by Krans and Gehlin are hyperlinked to the explanatory article

Could it possibly be that the investigator in question is a friend of one of the complainants?
Could it be that if that were widely known the public may go,

"hang on a mo"?

We are Women Against Rape but we do not want Julian Assange extradited

For decades we have campaigned to get rapists caught, charged and convicted. But the pursuit of Assange is political

Caught on camera - a uniformed police officer, holding a document on a clipboard, which details possible ways that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, could attempt an escape from the Ecuadorian embassy.

The document reportedly discloses the “summary of current position re Assange” and lists possible methods that Assange might take to escape from the embassy. These include being smuggled out of the building in a parcel, or being offered a post in the United Nations by Ecuador. They state that should he leave the building in a diplomatic vehicle or even in a diplomatic bag, he must be arrested.

There is a suggestion of the possible requirement for "additional support" from SS10, an unknown agency. On being asked, Scotland Yard apparently said that it does not know what this refers to. However, at the bottom of the page is a reference to SO20, which is reportedly a counter-terrorism protective security command.

Read more: www.digitaljournal.com/article/331499#ixzz24Y2u37O8

1. The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes

In 2005, police from SO10, now SS10, were involved in the surveillance operation of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian national, that led directly to his murder at Stockwell Underground station by officers of SO19, the Armed response Unit. It was a case of mistaken identity. Two officers from SO19 fired a total of eleven shots, according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty second period, at three second intervals. It is believed that at least one member of the elite Special Reconnaissance Regiment was present at the shooting. Note: in the resulting inquiry into the murder, Gareth Peirce, who is the lawyer acting for Julian Assange, was one of two lawyers representing the Menezes family. For more, see here.

2. Mark Kennedy

Mark Kennedy worked for SO10 (now SS10) and was involved in several undercover ops, the most celebrated of which involved environmental activists who were opposed to coal-fired power stations. The activists had stopped a train conveying coal to the Drax power station in 2008. Kennedy had infiltrated the group and assisted them with reconnaissance and also drove them to a rendezvous. For more on what happened, see here. See here too for what happened eventually to the activists and how Kennedy and his operations were discredited. Note: Kennedy/Stone is now working for Densus in the USA, which is a surveillance company that spies on Occupy protesters and other protests groups.

8) Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active investigation because they face punishment for doing so.

The full transcripts of the women’s complaints have been leaked to the US media. The only people who have access to those documents are police, prosecutors and the attorneys. Indeed, these are all major aberrations–suggesting that somebody at the top has interfered.

<snip>

And who is at the very top in Sweden? Players working with Karl Rove, who was a party to the Swedish government’s collusion in the Bush regime’s rendition/torture program. As Britain holds its hearings into Julian Assange’s fate, we must take careful note of that connection.

Thanks for the light relief.

Let's hope Freaking News aren't shopping pictures of his corpse a year from now, eh?

Back to serious and depressing shit

Good friend of mine put me on to this stuff by Naomi Wolf.
(thank you Jasmine)

Click on the link below to read the whole article.

Something rotten in the state of Sweden

The lawyer for the women who claimed "rape" is Claes Borgström, a partner in the firm Borgström and Bodström.

So get THIS: The OTHER partner, Thomas Bodström, helped the CIA get approval to fly two asylum-seekers from Sweden to Egypt, where they were tortured.

What a coincidence, eh?

But wait!

A key advisor to the Swedish government in its prosecution of Julian Assange is--KARL ROVE. WTF?
She goes on to say:

And this is the wierdest twist I have to bring to you: THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN 18 MONTHS AGO.