About | Buy Stuff | News | Products | Rants | Search | Security
Home » News » Roundups » Sweden

A Murderous System

There'd have been no case.


Get It

Try It

Nils Melzer of the United Nations told a macabre story to the Swiss Republik on 31 January of this year (2020). 'A murderous system is being created before our very eyes', he said. What he specifically was talking about was the pursuit and persecution of Julian Assange.

Nils was asked earlier on to look into the Assange saga, but refused. He says his own impression of Assange was much like portrayed in the MSM: Assange was somehow guilty of something, and he and his lawyers were probably trying to manipulate him.

But Assange's lawyers approached him a second time, in the spring of 2019, and this time Nils felt compelled to take a closer look. And he quickly understood that something was wrong. The question he asked himself was: why would a person be subject to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges ever having been filed?

Nils has never seen a case like that before. Sweden had never been interested in questioning Assange. The case had been almost closed on the day after it opened on the evening of Friday 20 August 2010, only to be reopened again on 1 September, the date when the 'saga' really begins.

'They intentionally left him in limbo', says Nils.

'Just imagine being accused of rape for nine-and-a-half years by an entire state apparatus and by the media without ever being given the chance to defend yourself because no charges had ever been filed.'

Yes, just imagine it.

But the media painted a picture of someone fleeing justice?

Yes. But of course that wasn't true at all. As this site made clear at the time. Assange turned up for an interrogation, together with his attorney Leif Silbersky, on 30 August. The interrogation was held late in the afternoon because Silbersky was in court with another case at the same time. The interpreter for that interrogation, it turns out, was not an approved interpreter, but did have connections to the US embassy in town.

Assange was apprehensive about his testimony being leaked to the media again, was assured by the lead interrogator that it wouldn't happen again, and of course it leaked, and within hours - meaning someone in that interrogation room leaked it.

The interrogation that day was only about a misdemeanour. The more serious accusation was dropped ten days earlier.

Nils is fluent in Swedish. He's Swiss, and it's not known how he acquired his proficiency, but he read through all the original police documents in Swedish.

'I could hardly believe my eyes', Nils says.

'According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman's testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.'

Nils goes on to give Republik the chronology of events on and after 20 August. How Sofia Wilén met Anna Ardin at the Klara police station where Anna's friend Irmeli Krans was based. How Sofia later fled the police station when she found out what was really going on. 'They were after Assange', she told a friend.

'[She] never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.'

Expressen editor-in-chief Thomas Mattsson broke the law by publishing Assange's name and later revealed why: the Assange story was the biggest in his publishing history.

The Assange story was so big that the reporters at the tabloid tried to elbow each other out to get credit for it, something one of them actually apologised for later on.

Yes, it was that messy.

The whole story is of course recounted in the hundreds upon hundreds of articles we published at the time, both here and at Radsoft.

Nils talks about how Sofia's original testimony was in some way 'doctored' before the third prosecutor, Marianne Ny, got to see it. He says it's not known what was originally in the document. But the people at Flashback were able to find out what was originally there. This site reported on it at the time.

And it hadn't been a 'policewoman' (Irmeli Krans) who had doctored Sofia's original testimony - it was infamous attorney Claes Borgström, who'd been given unauthorised access by the chief investigator. According to Flashback, Borgström was notorious in the legal community for stunts like that.

One example: Borgström changed the following:

'He pushed her back onto the bed'

To:

'He pushed her back onto the bed AS IF HE WERE A REAL MAN'

And so forth.

The legendary exchange between Assange and Sofia is not given verbatim. Sofia didn't ask Assange if he was again wearing a condom, not according to Sofia at any rate - she asked him:

'What are you wearing?'

And Assange's answer was:

'You.'

Nils gets it right again after that.

'Then she says: 'You better not have HIV' and allows him to continue.'

And that's what happened, as Sofia told it - which is what prompted the second prosecutor, Eva Finné, to tell the media:

'I think she is telling the truth, but what she's describing is not rape.'

Not that Sofia ever said it was - it was the police who said it was.

Another statement Eva Finné made shortly afterwards in this regard, a statement more often cited by the MSM, sums things up the same way.

'The statement was edited without the involvement of the woman in question and it wasn't signed by her', says Nils. 'It is a manipulated piece of evidence out of which the Swedish authorities then constructed a story of rape.'

Too right, as they say - which we all knew at the time.

And Nils goes on to tell the rest of the story as well. How the 'cat and mouse' begins. How Marianne Ny tries to trap Assange. How she's forced to play her cards beforehand, something that makes Assange aware this isn't an ordinary investigation.

'The Swedish Police constructed a story of rape', says Republik - and it's that header of theirs that grabs your attention immediately. There it is. Right there, right out in front. No ambiguity. All the twists and turns one saw at the time. And our goal at this site and the other was to report on the news and let others interpret it. But there it is. That's no longer an opinion, a variable - it's a fact. Staring everyone in the face. A case so absurd as to defy description. A case so absurd only a Swede could believe it.

So how did they get away with it? Sweden's media played a big part.

Early on, the Bonnier-owned TV4 had a televised interview with a legal 'expert' who, completely straight-faced, told the viewers they must not think about the Assange case. That's right: conscientious Swedes were told on prime-time television that they mustn't think about the case - that totally absurd case.

The Swedish people obeyed. Of course they did.

Whoever engineered that media frenzy against Assange in Sweden really did their homework. Incendiary stories on blogs where details were changed all the time. Media blitzes on a slow Monday morning to hundreds of greater and lesser websites, all at once. Doctored pseudo-documentaries. Blog posts that are removed when found to contradict with official narrative. And, aside from the Flashback forum, no one so much as mumbled a word of protest. Anonymous journalists who frequented the forum told of how one simply wasn't allowed to dig into the Assange case - they were all following an unwritten and unspoken rule that they all knew nevertheless that they had to obey.

Sweden can be very toxic.

Only weeks before this all began, Assange had arrived in Stockholm like a rock star. The media buzz was pervasive. He conducted online live chats with the public, hosted by three of Sweden's four major national news organisations. Assange was larger than life, a conquering hero, loved, adored, even worshipped.

The headline on the morning of 21 August in the tabloid Expresen changed it all.

The forum members at Flashback knew the MSM narrative couldn't possibly pass a smell test, but Sweden's MSM told their citizenry they must not think about the case. So Swedes did as they were told. They didn't think about it. They let their MSM do their thinking for them.

Assange's lawyer Björn Hurtig said the case was a big farce. Björn Hurtig also said that people would realise the full extent of this farce once they'd seen the paperwork.

The documents in the investigation of Assange were ultimately leaked onto an AOL server in the UK, which is where Flashback found them, but people at ground zero in Stockholm had long been able to get a copy, and many people did in fact have copies at the time. Yet no one dared come forward to expose the fraud. It was first when this site got the link from Flashback that the documents could be translated and made available to the public.

As per the 'Translator's Note' from 30 January 2011:

'The truth will out, the truth wins out. Let no journalist ever again speculate into what the protocols say. Six months of digging and the people at Flashback have the actual documents. The sleaze printed by rags such as the Daily Mail, Sweden's Aftonbladet and Expressen, and perhaps above all the toxic Nick Davies of the Guardian, can stand no more. Yet more: these documents are an indictment of the 'news organisations' who've printed deliberate inaccuracies all along or even worse: refused to print anything at all. Nick Davies' account of the protocols was maliciously skewed; both Aftonbladet and Expressen had copies early on and printed nothing. Bloggers had copies but arrogantly kept the information to their Smeagol selves.'

So how did the Swedes react when the documents hit the global stage and everyone knew the truth?

They didn't.

The government of the Swedes did the hard job for the 'special relationship'. Obama told them to apprehend Assange, and they complied - they jumped. Just like when the CIA wanted to kidnap people a few years earlier. The US government wasn't ready yet to come after Assange in 2010, so Sweden kept him on ice. They kept him tied up in an impossible legal labyrinth for nine and one half years. When their prosecutor Marianne Ny started to get cold feet after a few years, she was told in no uncertain terms by the British that she must not get cold feet. Assange's attorneys chased after justice through Sweden's twisty passages, but of course ended up getting nowhere at all.

The US waited. Once Correa was gone, they had their man in the wheelchair ready, their grand jury finally had their indictment, the media ran all over Assange with one final smear, and the MET finally entered the Ecuador embassy to take Assange away.

Today Assange is on trial again.

What did Assange do? Assange pulled pieces of seemingly unrelated technology together to create a 'brown envelope' for the information age.

What did the government of Sweden do? Rick Falkvinge expressed it best.

'When the US shouts JUMP, Sweden asks HOW HIGH?'

What did the PEOPLE of Sweden do?

Oh. Oh but no, you misunderstand. The people of Sweden? They did nothing. What did you expect them to do?

As regards Assange, the people of Sweden still do nothing to this day.

When Assange was in Woolwich, did they comment on it? No, not really. Their MSM perhaps wrote a little, but no more than needed.

Swedes don't really remember Assange anymore. Not much. And they'd really prefer they didn't have to either.

Some forty years after the end of World War Two, a German documentary team dug into the phenomenon of the rise of Nazism and the catastrophe it caused, and came to the conclusion was that none of all of that would ever have been possible without the tacit cooperation of the German people themselves. When their film was televised in Germany, it caused an uproar.

How dare they? That's what the people of Germany wanted to know.

We knew nothing of that! We were the victims! We only did what we were told to do! Our Vaterland was under attack!

One wonders what the Swedes, sponsors of the Nobel Prizes, will write on their own behalf in their own history books in the chapter on Assange. That they knew nothing? That they were told they shouldn't think about the case? That they obeyed?

There'd have been no case and consequently no media hysteria if the truth had come out from the beginning.
 - Assange in Sweden: Translator's Note

About | Buy | News | Products | Rants | Search | Security
Copyright © Radsoft. All rights reserved.