Why do I not believe this so thoroughly when I am a rape victim myself? There are too many facts that point out this is a setup, too many signs that Anna Ardin was a jealous sexual partner of Assange looking for revenge. I believe Assange has been framed.
Allegations seem to revolve around lack of condom use and a damaged condom, not whether it was consensual. Let’s discuss what rape is, to begin with, because the real question is, did Assange force these girls in any way to have unprotected sex with him?
According to an updated definition by the U.S. Department of Justice (seen here):
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
According to court documents Sofia Wilen was not quite awake when Assange attempted to have sex with her a second time. In Sweden, having sex with an unconscious person is considered rape. (Every man who has been in a relationship is then guilty of rape). However, he had not penetrated her until after they spoke. Assange says she was awake. Wilen refused to sign any paperwork that he raped her. In fact, she said she felt “railroaded” by the police. All she wanted was him to be checked for STDs.
According to an excellent article written by Craig Murray seen here:
20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans.Anna Ardintells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.
I have several questions for Anna Ardin in regards to her complaint of sexual assault.
- As a rape victim myself, I would never have been seen afterward with my perpetrator. So if Assange assaulted you, why did you spend the next few days letting him sleep in your bed, host a party for him and be seen in public with him? The shame accompanied by an assault would make anyone hate their perp and stay away from them. After he assaulted you, why did you continue to let him stay in your apartment?
- Why did you not warn Sofia Wilen of the possibility of being assaulted? I would want someone who intended on having sex with my perpetrator to know what happened and warn them.
- Why did you not tell a single soul about the assault? Instead, you bragged about being with him
- Why did you falsify evidence by giving the police an unused broken condom that had no DNC evidence whatsoever? Besides that, if it had been used, why would you save a used condom?
Some have rumored Anna Ardin had CIA connections which is always a possibility with the details of the whole Assange case, the U.S. government has used every possible avenue to nab the Wikileaks founder. I just can’t imagine anyone continuing to spend time with the man who assaulted them. Can you?
Picture of Assange with Anna Ardin after she claims he assaulted her above.
Ardin has not only lied but ruined the life of one of the greatest men of our times. She has watched as Assange languished for 7 years in the Ecuadorian Embassy while his health deteriorated, he was tortured and abused, and said nothing. She has allowed the world to slander this man with names like “rapist” and continues on with her life. My last question for Ardin is this, how can you live with yourself?!?
The evidence, in this case, is so weak and fake how the Swedish government can even think of reopening is beyond my comprehension unless coerced. Assange has always denied the allegations. If you want to read his testimony, please go to https://justice4assange.com/Assange-Testimony.html.
The stories of Assange and Ardin do not coincide. However, the proof is in the pudding. Ardin repeatedly texted after her supposed molestation as though nothing happened, even bragging about being with him. Her testimony is full of falsehoods and implicates either a jealous lover or a CIA implant to frame Assange. Also, according to justice4assange.com:
There is widespread media misreporting about allegations made against Julian Assange in Sweden in 2010. Here are the facts:
First, Assange was always willing to answer any questions from the Swedish authorities and repeatedly offered to do so, over six years. The widespread media assertion that Assange “evaded” Swedish questioning is false. It was the Swedish prosecutor who for years refused to question Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy: they only did so, in November 2016, after the Swedish courts forced the prosecutor to travel to London. Sweden dropped the investigation six months later, in May 2017.
Second, Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 to avoid onward extradition to the US – not to avoid extradition to Sweden or to refuse to face the Swedish allegations. Assange would have accepted extradition to Sweden had it provided an assurance against onward extradition to the US (as Amnesty International also urged at the time) – but both Sweden and the UK refused to provide an assurance that he would not be extradited to the US.
Third, Sweden wanted to drop its arrest warrant for Assange in 2013. It was the British government that insisted that the case against him continue. This is confirmed in emails released under a tribunal challenge following a Freedom of Information Act request. UK prosecutors admitted to deleting key emails and engaged in elaborate attempts to keep correspondence from the public record. Indeed, the lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service advised the Swedes in January 2011 not to visit London to interview Assange. An interview at that time could have prevented the long-running embassy standoff.
Fourth, despite widespread false reporting, Assange was never charged with anything related to the Swedish allegations. These only reached the level of a “preliminary investigation”. The Swedish prosecution questioned Assange on two separate occasions, in 2010 and 2016. He has consistentlyprofessed his innocence.
Fifth, almost entirely omitted from current media reporting is that the initial Swedish preliminary investigation in 2010 was dropped after the chief prosecutor of Stockholm concluded that “the evidence did not disclose any evidence of rape” and that “no crime at all” had been committed. Text messages between the two women, which were later revealed, do not complain of rape. Rather, they show that the women “did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him” and that they “only wanted him to take a test”. One wrote that “it was the police who made up the charges” and told a friend that she felt that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”.
Sixth, Assange left Sweden after the prosecutor told him that he was free to leave as he was not wanted for questioning. Assange had stayed in Sweden for five weeks. After he left, Interpol bizarrely issued a Red Notice for Assange, usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals – raising concerns that this was not just about sexual accusations.
Seventh, Sweden’s investigation is now entirely closed. It was shelved for six years during the period 2010-2016 while the Swedish prosecutor refused to question Assange in London. Sweden’s Court of Appeal ruled that that the prosecutor had breached her duty because a preliminary investigation either has to be open and active leading to a charge, or closed—there is no intermediate phase. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention also concluded that the prosecutor’s inaction had resulted in Sweden and the UK violating international obligations.
Eighth, there was no technical impediment for the prosecutor to proceed to charge Assange after he was questioned in the Ecuadorian embassy. In early 2017, Assange’s lawyers asked a Swedish court to force the prosecutor to either charge Assange or drop the arrest warrant. The prosecutor closed the investigation in May 2017 without attempting to charge him.
Since his arrest on 11 April 2019, there has been considerable political pressure on Sweden to reopen the investigation. Theoretically any closed investigation can be reopened until the statute of limitations expires—August 2020 in this case. Such calls serve to displace the critical issue of Assange’s impending US extradition over WikiLeaks publications (whether from UK or Sweden). They also obfuscate critical facts, such as the fact that the UK and Swedish authorities had actively prevented Assange from responding to the allegations, which is contrary to basic principles of due process.
It is critical to note that the re-opened Swedish allegations in September 2010 occurred after WikiLeaks published the Iraq “Collateral Murder” video in April 2010 and the Afghanistan war logs in July 2010. In fact, US grand jury proceedings already began against Assange in June 2010 and by July, the US was publicly describing WikiLeaks as a “very real and potential threat”. The Intercept’s Charles Glass has reported that “Sources in Swedish intelligence told me at the time that they believed the U.S. had encouraged Sweden to pursue the case.” Other reports from just days before the Swedish allegations were initiated show that the U.S. State Department was encouraging allied statesto initiate prosecutions against Assange. To ignore all this, as much media reporting does, is to ignore vital further context.
In December 2018, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, together with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, reiterated their finding from 2016 and urged Assange’s freedom to be restored. UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture are currently investigation Assange’s case.
It would not surprise me to find that the U.S. government has coerced Sweden into reopening the case. They have already bribed Ecuador to evict him, why wouldn’t they make offers to Sweden to reopen Assange’s allegations? The fact is that if the British government is willing to extradite him to Sweden but not to the United States, Sweden will. Also, according to this Stratfor email found on wikileaks.org seen below, their intention is to send him to numerous countries to face charges once he is in their hands.
When you look at the numerous violations of international law in regards to Assange by Ecuador, the U.S., the U.K., and Sweden it would not astonish you at all to believe this is their intention. I just cannot find a single reason to believe the allegations are true. The only evidence I have found is that this was an example of being framed. It seems, politically speaking, it is almost routine to accuse someone of rape when the opposition doesn’t like their opponent. Julian Assange is an innocent man. Anna Ardin, however, is guilty of being an accessory to torture, torment, and illegal detainment for 7 years of a publisher and journalist. She is also guilty of the destruction of Assange’s mental and physical health.
We cannot rely on the Swedish courts to decide this as they are biased and the court hearings there are kept secret. The only part of any proceedings that are public are the charges and the verdict. Assange cannot be extradited to Sweden for more than one reason. He would be found guilty regardless of proof and then be extradited to the United States to face 170 years under the Espionage Act. We cannot allow him to be forever silenced. He stood up for the innocent, while the guilty walk free. He educated society. He does not deserve to be punished for the truth.