By Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Note. This text was originally written to serve as publisher’s presentation notes to the newly published article in Professors blogg by the American attorney and journalist Andrew Kreig. However, the length consideration and other information added compelled its publication separately. The article of Andrew Kreig in Professors blogg "Swedish authorities face yet another irregularity in their sex probe of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" is found here.
Clip of the police-investigation. Page 10 of the FUP document
Irmeli Krans: "Claes Borgström is a worth-admiring and axtremely knowledgeable lawyer. I am proud he is a social democratic"
The Swedish newspaper Expressen - a right-wing tabloid of the Swedish establishment's press - convinced the world in March it had a “scoop” of breaking-news in the Assange case. The paper reported that the police officer Irmeli Krans who interrogated one of the Assange-accusers was a friend of the main accuser-instigator Anna Ardin. But this fact was already known by everybody who cared to read the proceedings of the police investigation. So it was simply one of the many irregularities in the case ignored by the mainstream Swedish media, much like the continuing cover-up of the rigged documentary about Julian Assange broadcast the State-owned National Television, SvT 1.
So the question remains why Expressen would have decided to publish “the scoop”. Professors blogg's interpretation is simple.
Expressen's so called scoop it was to create an alibi, an exception, within an overall cover-up that otherwise is performed by the Swedish mainstream media in regard to the affair Assange.
The trick consisted in showing now "anti-official", "critical investigative journalism", through "breaking news" but referred to facts already known by the legal teams and prosecutor of the case, and therefore in no possible way it would alter the course of events.
Why? The story broke at a time when the Swedish-media behaviour have been in the focus of worldwide attention because of the Assange verdict in London ordering his extradition. Further, the only element admitted by Judge Riddle giving the Assange’s defence right was the judge’s reference to the hostility against Assange from the Swedish press. This was also the main contain of my witness report submitted by Assange's lawyers to the London court, which was based in research summarized in Newsmill ("Professor: Medierapporteringen om Assange är osaklig och likriktad") and published in full text here in Professors blogg ("Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?").
Professors blogg's alibi-hypothesis derives also support from the fact that Expressen published its “scoop” simultaneously in English – which is very unusual for Expressen and most others in the Swedish media, This would mean that a primarily goal was to counteract international opinion.
Close-up of a picture published by Irmeli Krans in her homepage, posing around Thomas Bordström in the company of other police officers
As indicated above, the main issue about Irmeli Krans is not her friendship with Anna Ardin. Instead The main issue here is to investigate to which extent their frienship - and their political bound in the social democratic Party - biased the interrogation of Ardi's accuser-peer Sofia Wilen itself. Further, what was the plan for the interrogation? Was it according to a sequence recently disclosed in the Swedish investigative forum Flashback?
Important questions:
- Why did the accuser SW in the company of AA arrived to the Police station at 14,00 the 20th of August to be interrogated in such opportunity coinciding with just the day and just the shift of Irmeli Krans at just that Police station? (The interrogation, as noted here and elsewhere, was conducted by Anna Ardin's friend and party comrade Irmeli Krans, the police-officer and HTB-feminist Irmeli Krans?
- What associations would exist in the fact that the police officer was also active in the social democratic HTB movement, and as a member of its leadership?
- What is the relevancy in the context above that such interrogation was never tape-recorded, against what it is customary and instructed by the Police authority? Or later re-edited out of "memory" by the police officer friend of the acusser AA?
- Or that the same police officer that publicly have declared admiration for the accusers' lawyer Claes Borgström and his law-firm partner Thomas Bordström, both militant-feminists and both politicinas belong to the very same political party than Krans and AA? Yes, the same Claes Borgström, author of the initiative to re-open the Swedish case against Julian Assange.
- Or that Thomas Bodström - the main Swedish politician targeted by the WikiLeaks disclosures and involved in the CIA rendition flights of Swedish political prisoners - was also her boss as former Minister of Justice?
- The same Thomas Bodström which is from the very same political social-democratic group "Bröderskap" in which accuser AA is the political secretary since 2009?
If all the above does not suggest a set-up scenario to any normal intellectually-equipped reader then we will have to take the discussion of the notion normalcy from the very beginning.
The complete and extensive timeline in Daddy's blogg here
Timeline as given in Flashback forum 18 April 2011[According to Flashback/MoLok]
2010-08-20 Police Imeli Krans (IK) (active Social Democrat and friend of Anna Ardin, AA) decides the case should be categorized under suspicion of rape
2010-08-20 Police LW decides on suspicion of sexual assault
2010-08-20 JA arrested in absentia
2010-08-21, kl. 11:31 to 12:20 SW Police are questioning AA (telephone interviews, commentary)
2010-08-21 Chief prosecutor Eva Finné (EF) inhibits the arrest-decision on JA
2010-08-25 Chief prosecutor EF decides to close the investigation on rape but gives directives for further investigation of molestation
2010-08-26, kl. 14:43 to 18:40 NS states that she keeps hearing of SW (abstract). Not read or approved by SW.
CORRECTION: "It should also say that Irmeli Krans (not NS), held the interrogation with SW" [Sent to Professors blogg by Anonimous 19 April 2011].2010-08-30, Kl. 17:43 to 18:37 the police interrogation MG JA.
2010-08-27 AA's and SW's lawyer Claes Bodström (CB) request reconsideration of EF's closure decision.
2010-09-01, kl. 16:45, police NS prepares PM, where she states that her questioning of SW 2010-08-20, took place between the hours. 16:21 to 18:40. NS stated that she would have edit anew the hearing 2010-08-23 but was denied access. Typing was 2010-08-26 but then did she not watch the law.
CORRECTION: "It should say that Irmeli Krans (IK) wrote the PM (not NS), as IK held the interrogation with SW" [Sent to Professors blogg by Anonimous 18 April 2011]
2010-09-01 Over Prosecutors MN decides to resume the investigation of rape, sexual coercion and sexual assault
2010-09-03 Hearing 2 with SW???
2010-09-07, kl. 15:25 to 15:50 Police EV hold hearings with the PO, a friend of AA (telephone interviews, commentary)
2010-09-08, kl. 04:40 (?) -10.05 MG Police are questioning HR, childhood friends with SW (telephone interviews, commentary)
2010-09-08, kl. 09:30 to 10:15 Police EV hold hearings with KB, friend to the AA (telephone interviews, commentary).
2010-09-13, kl. 09:09 to 09:25 Police MG holds hearings with KS, a colleague with SW (concept Hearing)
2010-09-13 prosecutor EL decides on suspicion of sexual assault in four cases
2010-09-14 Over Prosecutors MN gives JA's public defender BH told that JA is free to leave Sweden.
2010-09-20, kl. 09:42 to 11:10 Police EV keeps questioning of the witness journalist JW (audio interviews).
2010-09-20, kl. 11:20 to 12:17 Police MG hold hearings with witnesses DB (audio interviews).
2010-09-21 Over Prosecutors MN, contact JA's public defender bra to interrogate JA.
2010-09-27 Over Prosecutors MN decides on suspicion of sexual assault, and decides to ask JA, in his absence.
2010-10-06, kl. 17:38 to 17:55 Police MG holds hearings with JW, SW's brother (telephone / concepts interrogation).
2010-10-10 Police MG prepares PM due to talks with SKL; clearance: no traces of DNA on the condom from the AA's apartment, however, traces of DNA on the condom from SW's apartment.
2010-10-22, kl. 14:15 to 14:35 Police MG keeps hearing of SB, SW's former boyfriend (telephone / concepts interrogation).
2010-10-25 Formal expert report from SKL on condoms
2010-10-27, kl. 17:00 to 17:25 Police MG keeps hearing of MT, a colleague with SW (Phone / concepts interrogation).
2010-10-28 Police MG speaks with SKL who say it shows something that is not going to suggest condom from AA's apartment.
2010-11-15 Detention memorandum drawn
2010-11-18 Stockholm City Court JA arrest in absentia on suspicion of rape, among other things
2010-11-24 Svea Court of Appeal determines the arrest of JA, JA is still an international wanted list.
2010-12-07 JA apprehended by police in London
2010-12-14 The insidious attempt at character assassination by the JA campaign twitter # prataomdet (TALK ABOUT) comes into play.
Media links 1, 2, 3
Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Post Scriptum. The article Key facts the police files reveal (in the English site The Julian Assange Rape Case) gives a detailed description of what would have happened in the Police station at the time of the interrogation mentioned above. Some of the aspects described are fact-based; some are speculations around the facts. But definitely worth to read.
Below a timeline and referred text as published by the Swedish-based Daddy's blogg
<<August 20th Ardin and Wilen go to Klara police station in Stockholm to make inquiries about the possibility of forcing Assange to take an STI test. The visit results in charges being filed against Assange. [20]
Police woman Irmeli Krans, (later confirmed to be a personal friend and socialdemocrat party colleague with Anna Ardin, Claes Borgström and his business partner Tomas Bodström), starts the interrogation, but before it is finished, policewoman Linda Wassgren calls the prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand and arranges the arrest (anhållan) of Julian Assange.
Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, unlawfully told the press that Julian was wanted for rape (reported in the tabloid Expressen, owned by Bonniers AB, part of the Investor group. Bonnier AB also own Swedish newspapers Dagens Nyheter, Dagens industri, Sydsvenska dagbladet, Ystad allehanda, Trelleborgs allehanda, Kristianstadsbladet and are part owner of TV channel TV4 ).
Kjellstrand was replaced the next day by prosecutor Eva Finné who invalidated the arrest and stated that the interrogation report showed that no crime had been committed. Not even the weaker of the possible charges. She states that the original interrogation report of Sofia Wilén shows that there was no crime described. This original interrogation was later said to be lost or deleted, and it was never signed by Sofia Wilén. (the interrogation was never finished, Sofia Wiléns distress on hearing about the arrest and rape charge towards Julian Assange made her unable to concentrate.)
Monday the 25th August, two days after the interrogation Irmeli Krans could no longer access the protocol in the police computer system Dur 2. Mats Ghelin then orders Irmeli Krans to write a new report of the above interrogation of Sofia Wilen. (precise references to the original report http://www.flashback.org/sp28605042%29
There were early rumors of an internal promemoria among the police protesting the rape charge. This protest was probably coming from Irmeli Krans. Probably, and speculatively, the whole affair at this moment was grasped from the control of Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans, and into the hands of policeman Mats Gehlin. The same Mats Gehlin that become leader of the investigation from now on, and that continuosly leaks material to the press, and makes public statements to the press where he critisizes prosecutor Eva Finné. >>
Police woman Irmeli Krans, (later confirmed to be a personal friend and socialdemocrat party colleague with Anna Ardin, Claes Borgström and his business partner Tomas Bodström), starts the interrogation, but before it is finished, policewoman Linda Wassgren calls the prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand and arranges the arrest (anhållan) of Julian Assange.
Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, unlawfully told the press that Julian was wanted for rape (reported in the tabloid Expressen, owned by Bonniers AB, part of the Investor group. Bonnier AB also own Swedish newspapers Dagens Nyheter, Dagens industri, Sydsvenska dagbladet, Ystad allehanda, Trelleborgs allehanda, Kristianstadsbladet and are part owner of TV channel TV4 ).
Kjellstrand was replaced the next day by prosecutor Eva Finné who invalidated the arrest and stated that the interrogation report showed that no crime had been committed. Not even the weaker of the possible charges. She states that the original interrogation report of Sofia Wilén shows that there was no crime described. This original interrogation was later said to be lost or deleted, and it was never signed by Sofia Wilén. (the interrogation was never finished, Sofia Wiléns distress on hearing about the arrest and rape charge towards Julian Assange made her unable to concentrate.)
Monday the 25th August, two days after the interrogation Irmeli Krans could no longer access the protocol in the police computer system Dur 2. Mats Ghelin then orders Irmeli Krans to write a new report of the above interrogation of Sofia Wilen. (precise references to the original report http://www.flashback.org/sp28605042%29
There were early rumors of an internal promemoria among the police protesting the rape charge. This protest was probably coming from Irmeli Krans. Probably, and speculatively, the whole affair at this moment was grasped from the control of Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans, and into the hands of policeman Mats Gehlin. The same Mats Gehlin that become leader of the investigation from now on, and that continuosly leaks material to the press, and makes public statements to the press where he critisizes prosecutor Eva Finné. >>
The complete and extensive timeline in Daddy's blogg here
Timeline as given in Flashback forum 18 April 2011[According to Flashback/MoLok]
2010-08-20 Police report against Julian Assamge (JA)
2010-08-20 Police Imeli Krans (IK) (active Social Democrat and friend of Anna Ardin, AA) decides the case should be categorized under suspicion of rape
2010-08-20 Police LW decides on suspicion of sexual assault
2010-08-20 JA arrested in absentia
2010-08-21, kl. 11:31 to 12:20 SW Police are questioning AA (telephone interviews, commentary)
2010-08-21 Chief prosecutor Eva Finné (EF) inhibits the arrest-decision on JA
2010-08-25 Chief prosecutor EF decides to close the investigation on rape but gives directives for further investigation of molestation
2010-08-26, kl. 14:43 to 18:40 NS states that she keeps hearing of SW (abstract). Not read or approved by SW.
CORRECTION: "It should also say that Irmeli Krans (not NS), held the interrogation with SW" [Sent to Professors blogg by Anonimous 19 April 2011].2010-08-30, Kl. 17:43 to 18:37 the police interrogation MG JA.
2010-08-27 AA's and SW's lawyer Claes Bodström (CB) request reconsideration of EF's closure decision.
2010-09-01, kl. 16:45, police NS prepares PM, where she states that her questioning of SW 2010-08-20, took place between the hours. 16:21 to 18:40. NS stated that she would have edit anew the hearing 2010-08-23 but was denied access. Typing was 2010-08-26 but then did she not watch the law.
CORRECTION: "It should say that Irmeli Krans (IK) wrote the PM (not NS), as IK held the interrogation with SW" [Sent to Professors blogg by Anonimous 18 April 2011]
2010-09-01 Over Prosecutors MN decides to resume the investigation of rape, sexual coercion and sexual assault
2010-09-03 Hearing 2 with SW???
2010-09-07, kl. 15:25 to 15:50 Police EV hold hearings with the PO, a friend of AA (telephone interviews, commentary)
2010-09-08, kl. 04:40 (?) -10.05 MG Police are questioning HR, childhood friends with SW (telephone interviews, commentary)
2010-09-08, kl. 09:30 to 10:15 Police EV hold hearings with KB, friend to the AA (telephone interviews, commentary).
2010-09-13, kl. 09:09 to 09:25 Police MG holds hearings with KS, a colleague with SW (concept Hearing)
2010-09-13 prosecutor EL decides on suspicion of sexual assault in four cases
2010-09-14 Over Prosecutors MN gives JA's public defender BH told that JA is free to leave Sweden.
2010-09-20, kl. 09:42 to 11:10 Police EV keeps questioning of the witness journalist JW (audio interviews).
2010-09-20, kl. 11:20 to 12:17 Police MG hold hearings with witnesses DB (audio interviews).
2010-09-21 Over Prosecutors MN, contact JA's public defender bra to interrogate JA.
2010-09-27 Over Prosecutors MN decides on suspicion of sexual assault, and decides to ask JA, in his absence.
2010-10-06, kl. 17:38 to 17:55 Police MG holds hearings with JW, SW's brother (telephone / concepts interrogation).
2010-10-10 Police MG prepares PM due to talks with SKL; clearance: no traces of DNA on the condom from the AA's apartment, however, traces of DNA on the condom from SW's apartment.
2010-10-22, kl. 14:15 to 14:35 Police MG keeps hearing of SB, SW's former boyfriend (telephone / concepts interrogation).
2010-10-25 Formal expert report from SKL on condoms
2010-10-27, kl. 17:00 to 17:25 Police MG keeps hearing of MT, a colleague with SW (Phone / concepts interrogation).
2010-10-28 Police MG speaks with SKL who say it shows something that is not going to suggest condom from AA's apartment.
2010-11-15 Detention memorandum drawn
2010-11-18 Stockholm City Court JA arrest in absentia on suspicion of rape, among other things
2010-11-24 Svea Court of Appeal determines the arrest of JA, JA is still an international wanted list.
2010-12-07 JA apprehended by police in London
2010-12-14 The insidious attempt at character assassination by the JA campaign twitter # prataomdet (TALK ABOUT) comes into play.
Media links 1, 2, 3
Other articles in Professors blogg on the Swedish case against Assange
17 April 2011. Swedish authorities face yet another irregularity in their sex probe of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. By Andrew Kreig
