The Silence of the Swedish Lambs

August 2010 revisited. New information in the Assange case. But not really new at all.

STOCKHOLM — Those Flashbackers never cease to amaze. What’s revealed today is probably news for most. It’s evidently ‘old hat’ to some of the Flashbackers but not for the rest of the world and not even for many who’ve followed the Assange case closely.

Poor Julian Assange might have tripped into the worst cesspool ever. Not so much a question of a single orchestrated conspiracy as a number of smaller conspiracies with some of the worst people imaginable all working towards what turns out to be a common goal.

What you’ll see here is a story of legal corruption. Corruption with a notorious attorney, with a crazed feminist at the Stockholm police department, and evidently with a high ranking member of the police who is ready to defy instructions from a chief prosecutor to get his way.

But starting from the beginning: Flashback got two newcomers recently suspected of being trolls. In typical Flashback fashion, the newcomers weren’t called out as trolls but were ‘reasoned with’. Veteran trenterx was one of the regulars who tried to talk sense into them.

Welcome to the thread. And yes, you're out sailing. But your perception is common. That's why we'd like to change it. I think one of the reasons the matter of Anna Ardin's condom hasn't exploded in the media is that journalists and the public don't understand the significance of it being without chromosomal DNA.

Member Kungsgatan36 (a downtown Stockholm address) comments. A long read but bear with it.

If it were so. I think it's a misconception that the silence of the media about the condom lacking chromosomal DNA is about a lack of knowledge about its existence and importance. I think I know enough journalists in the Swedish MSM are following this thread very closely and are fully aware that the most important piece of 'evidence' in this legal process is not only worthless as evidence but in addition is most likely intentionally falsified.

If this was any other ordinary sex case with a super-celebrity then the false and manipulated ‘evidence’ would have got a lot of coverage in the MSM. Newspapers radio and television would all have referred to the protocols from the crime lab and experts would be invited in who could corroborate that the evidence was falsified.

But the Assange case is not an ordinary sex case. It’s unique. Forces we barely sense the contours of have been extraordinarily successful in contaminating everything about it. Early on a ‘brotherhood’ periodical [connected with Anna Ardin] set the tone by naming Assange in the same breath as the criminals ‘Man from Haga’ and ‘Man from Örebro’ – brutal serial rapists who attacked women they didn’t know.

The topic became so contaminated that every Swedish editor’s desk or journalist in the MSM who studied and looked at the image of Assange as a criminal risked reputation and honour. That’s where we are today and where we have been since autumn 2010. The entire Swedish MSM appear outwardly to be in 100% agreement that Assange is a lying, creepy, and overhyped zero who has destroyed WikiLeaks and who behaves like a cad towards women and who cowardly refuses to accept responsibility for what he’s done. It’s hard to imagine a more despicable creep.

To object to this, with things at such a fever pitch and as if this case was about a child molester or a child killer, demands great journalistic courage and strong publicist integrity. So far no one in the Swedish MSM has shown such courage or integrity. Those who object are in the MSM outside Sweden. They don’t exist in this country.

We find ourselves in a very special situation where the ‘competition’ that normally takes place between the news agencies to dig, find new facts, reveal the truth etc has been completely thrown out of whack.

To keep a low profile and fall in line is without risk, to step forward, to diverge, to stand out is very risky.

To not write anything at all is without risk. To keep silent about what one really knows is without risk. But to step forward and perform a sound journalistic service where one analyses, studies, and tells what one really knows – normal journalism – means in the Assange case one is taking risks that no news agency will yet dare. It’s better to lay low and keep your mouth shut.

But as I said: I think I know that many journalists in the MSM follow this thread and are as knowledgeable about the issues as we who post here. Some of them are probably writing here as well. And I’ve also understood that, in smaller groups, there continues to be a discussion at major agencies about whether one dares break the silence, and when in such case this can be.

That day is coming. I’m sure of that. And who will be first? Personally I’d bet on SvD. Who knows? They might walk off with the journalist awards in a few years.

A newcomer writes:

It's uncomfortably clear what the attitude of the MSM is when you realise the condom's already been reported in the MSM. Swedish Metro wrote on 22 December 2010: 'The condom can now become one of the most important pieces of evidence in the investigation'. But of course only if it could have been used to convict and not acquit Assange.

Whereupon MoLoK resurfaces and leads the readers into seismic territory.

I've written about this before. But it's worth repeating after the above posts (which were excellent).

I am not a journalist myself but I know quite a few. And yes this is in Stockholm and not out in the countryside. Already a year ago I asked some of my journo friends why no one wrote about what I felt were obvious things about the Assange case.

Krans’ early tweets and the obvious lies of the police spokesman to protect Krans. More or less: ‘the officer in question has had nothing to do with the case after 23 August so we don’t think this is a problem’.

But Krans tidied up the interrogation of Sofia Wilén 26 August (and she did not have access to the file on 23 August as she said herself, if you remember). The police spokesman corroborates [Flashback member] lillalinnea‘s exciting information from earlier:

On 24 August Sofia Wilén’s interrogation is sent by chief inspector Mats Gehlin to Claes Borgström.

Aleksanterinkatu asked at the time:

Que? You have information that Mats Gehlin sent Sofia Wilén’s interrogation to Claes Borgström 24/8?

lillalinnea back:

That is correct. That information can be found in Mats Gehlin’s personal diary.

Anna Ardin notified Mats Gehlin already 23 August that she and Sofia Wilén would be paying a call on Claes Borgström.

Could it be Claes Borgström who gussied up the interrogation and then returned it and Mats Gehlin who via Irmeli Krans put it back in the database and had it signed? This sounds more like a screenplay. But who knows.

Again from lillalinnea.

I have no information on exactly when Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén notified Mats Gehlin that they would be calling on Claes Borgström.

On the other hand I have received information from someone who has personal experience of Claes Borgström authoring ‘screenplays’ for plaintiffs so they can rephrase things in their own words with the same contents so they can achieve exactly what is needed to get the cases to go as the clients want.

I don’t know if this is a commonly occurring procedure for plaintiff attorneys or if it only shows how Claes Borgström works. Perhaps someone else has experience in this regard?

MoLoK drags out one of his own old posts.

So then the plaintiffs spoke with Claes Borgström who sent the changes in testimony on to Mats Gehlin who gave them to Irmeli Krans who pasted them in.

Sounds reasonable.

That’s where we got ‘demonstrably’, ‘as if he were a real man’, bits of condom sent to the crime lab, and so forth.

Batuta added:

That’s the way it looks. And evidently it’s part of the duties of a plaintiff attorney. Was Claes Borgström officially appointed when he made those changes?

And MoLoK winds up.

^^ So Claes Borgström’s behaviour is ‘ethical’. But it doesn’t stop journalists from comparing the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of the interrogation.


Sporadic contributor glugg pops in. And here is where it really starts to get interesting.

But if it was Claes Borgström who dictated the changes then why does the updated file still have the notice:

‘This interrogation was neither read nor approved but Sofia’s been told she can do so on another occasion.’

MoLoK answers.

I presume Sofia Wilén approved the interrogation in early September when she was again brought in for questioning?

glugg back.

But that the plaintiffs (via their attorney) add to the interrogation after the fact must reasonably be interpreted as an approval (of the updated version)? So why is the notice still on the updated interrogation?

This means in such case that Claes Borgström has made changes without consulting with Sofia Wilén. How can he add to a police interrogation which is not recorded and which he did not personally witness? I have a difficulty believing this is ethical behaviour.


That's a good question. Perhaps Claes Borgström makes a habit of correcting the testimony of his clients? Or what about Thomas Quick? Claes Borgström probably learned a thing or two from that case and all that followed, and therefore the notice remained.

Trenterx is back.

We can see from MoLoK's exemplary compilation that chief inspector Mats Gehlin sent Sofia Wilén's interrogation to Claes Borgström 24 August. And he does this because Claes Borgström contacts him and tells him he'll be representing Sofia Wilén.

At the same time: chief prosecutor Eva Finné tells Mats Gehlin to discontinue the investigation – something that Mats Gehlin complains about in the evening tabloids. But Mats Gehlin and Claes Borgström keep on working on the investigation anyway, in spite of the orders from chief prosecutor Eva Finné, and try to get a condom from Sofia Wilén.

Almost everything points to Claes Borgström and Mats Gehlin working together from 23 August and onwards in an effort to change the ruling of chief prosecutor Eva Finné from 21 August – ‘no crime has been committed’ – and her decision to close the preliminary investigation on 25 August.

I can imagine Claes Borgström changing Sofia Wilén’s testimony without her approval – the changes Irmeli Krans is ordered to put in the system on 26 August, despite her already being taken off the case.

The gambit succeeded. Marianne Ny reopens the Wilén case with the support of an ‘improved’ interrogation and with the knowledge a condom has been sent to the crime lab.

MoLoK with the insight of the day. And a damning one at that.

Claes Borgström and Mats Gehlin were forced to wait until 26 August to formally make changes to Sofia Wilén's interrogation - until Eva Finné finished her work on the case.

Trenterx with a final comment.

You can read this notice by Irmeli Krans at the bottom of Sofia Wilén's testimony:

‘The interrogation was to be tidied up on the next work day Monday 23 August 2010. This was not possible as I was denied access to the interrogation I’d held. After a lengthy correspondence I was given an order by chief inspector Mats Gehlin to instead create and sign a new interrogation in [our computer system] DurTvå which was carried out Thursday 26 August and which incorporated the necessary changes.’

We still don't know why Irmeli was denied access 23 August. Claes Borgström was brought in (informally) on 23 August as an as yet not appointed attorney for Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén. I believe Mats Gehlin and Claes Borgström agreed they needed changes in Sofia Wilén's interrogation if they were to succeed in getting the case reopened with a charge of rape.
Mats Gehlin sent the interrogation to Claes Borgström 24 August, got it back 25 August, and Irmeli Krans made the 'necessary changes' 26 August - this despite her being taken off the case for her known 'bias'.

And of course the police hid the fact she worked on the case 26 August.

The discussion ends (for now) with an admonition from BullshitDetector to the world’s journalists.

Citing the above mentioned article from Swedish Metro which deftly fails to mention the Ardin condom totally lacks chromosomal DNA, he sends the journalists to the source documents (found in English here) where they can read for themselves what the Swedish media have been trying to hide.

‘The Guardian is mentioned in the article. It can be worth remembering that it was their hack David Leigh who published the Cablegate encryption key in his book – this BEFORE WikiLeaks decided to release all the remaining cables. Did you read about that in the Swedish media? I don’t think so! And no you can’t change the encryption key on an encrypted file!’

‘Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don’t know and I don’t care.’

Things to be considered

√ Chief prosecutor Eva Finné dismissed the rape charge against Julian Assange the day after the case was opened. She dismissed it on the strong grounds ‘no crime had been committed’. Eva Finné was the first prosecutor to see the testimony of Sofia Wilén – the prosecutor from the night before had issued an arrest warrant on hearsay only.

√ The lesser charge relating to the testimony of Anna Ardin would have been dismissed as well: the narrative was obviously constructed after the fact and Ardin falsified evidence (and may herself be the subject of a criminal investigation as a result).

√ It was Ardin through her contacts at the ‘Rebella Blog’ and her ‘Tro & Politik’ publication who proceeded to smear Julian Assange after the charges had been dropped.

√ Sofia Wilén complained she’d been ‘railroaded’ by Ardin into getting involved. She refused to read or sign her statement once she realised what was happening – that they’d issued an arrest warrant for the man she idolised.

√ The Swedish media have never mentioned that Anna Ardin’s condom is falsified evidence. Ordinary Swedes could see this if they checked the police documents but few bother to take the time.

√ Notorious politician and attorney Claes Borgström was contacted by Anna Ardin because Anna Ardin feared she herself would be the subject of a criminal investigation.

√ Claes Borgström and chief inspector Mats Gehlin worked behind the back (and in violation of the instructions) of chief prosecutor Eva Finné who had ordered the Assange case closed.

√ Claes Borgström and chief inspector Mats Gehlin used gussied up testimony and the false evidence of the condom to get the case against Assange reopened (and bring the world to the ridiculous impasse of today).

√ Never trust the mainstream media – especially in the duckpond of Sweden. Swedish MSN journalists know the truth – but they’re too scared to say a word.


Read the whole original article:,00.shtml

Be Sociable, Share!