Last week, I thought I had turned up a breaking news
article about Julian Assange which might clear his name. It was in the Swedish
newspaper, Expressen, and claimed that one of the women accusing Assange of
rape, Anna Ardin, was previously friends with the gay activist police
interrogator, Irmeli Krans. This was some months before going with Sofia Wilen to the police station where Krans worked (not the one near to where these women reside) to make a complaint concerning Assange
and condoms. Much to my chagrin the article turned out to have been published
in March 2011 yet tomorrow the date will read 1 September 2012. Expressen, like other annoying newspapers, has the habit of superimposing
the current date over old articles. There should be a law against this practice
because it makes seekers after the truth look like idiots. At least it would do
if anybody in this country had heard of this story. What is most disturbing about
this story is that it has been around for almost eighteen months, and the UK media have
totally ignored it. I had not heard about it or I would not have called it breaking news. You had not heard about it. But
there is a lot more you have not heard.
There has been plenty of coverage of the
name of Julian Assange, usually mentioned in the same sentence as the word ‘rape’,
yet nothing of those who have made it their business to entrap him. Even my M.P. Steve McCabe
tweeted how he thought Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face
rape charges. Why have the media made no mention of the other story, the one
that could clear Assange? Yesterday I watched Sophia Smallstorm’s video questioning
the official version of what really happened to the World Trade Centre on
September 11, 2001. It finishes with the following:
"This film was made to present possibilities and raise questions. We do not control our airwaves. We have consigned them to large corporations who create scripted soundbites serving as news."
"This film was made to present possibilities and raise questions. We do not control our airwaves. We have consigned them to large corporations who create scripted soundbites serving as news."
And this is what we are
getting regarding Julian Assange, a
brave man who has had to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid extradition
to the United States where he would be imprisoned indefinitely for leaking the
shocking footage of US military personnel shooting innocent civilians and
boasting about their conquests. It is true, we are getting scripted soundbites from the
Zionist/Neocon media for nearly every news item published or broadcast today. This makes me ask if it is
Julian Assange in need of rehabilitation, or is it the United States of
America and its puppet the United Kingdom?
Let us look at the police statement taken by Irmeli Krans who now describes herself as a politician on Facebook. I suspect you did not know that much of this statement is available. I suspect you did not know that the original interrogation conducted by Irmeli Krans was in the public domain. This says more about who owns the media than the journalists themselves. They are not allowed to mention the names of Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilen or Irmeli Krans. Why not? Because if they did you might stumble across Sofia Wilen’s police statement - which is quite graphic, and one which it might be added Sofia Wilen would not sign.
Let us look at the police statement taken by Irmeli Krans who now describes herself as a politician on Facebook. I suspect you did not know that much of this statement is available. I suspect you did not know that the original interrogation conducted by Irmeli Krans was in the public domain. This says more about who owns the media than the journalists themselves. They are not allowed to mention the names of Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilen or Irmeli Krans. Why not? Because if they did you might stumble across Sofia Wilen’s police statement - which is quite graphic, and one which it might be added Sofia Wilen would not sign.
The interrogator, Anna Ardin’s friend, Irmeli Krans, has a politician’s way with making words say
what is required at the time rather than making any serious attempt to tell the truth. The three belong to
the same political party but Krans’ fabrication of the truth may be the reason why
Sofia Wilen did not sign the original statement. Later it got even further
embellished. There was an attempt to destroy the original statement but they found this
was not possible. A week after Wilen's statement was taken Irmeli Krans made
the following additions (in bold and underlined).
“When they went back in the bedroom Julian
stood in front of Sofia and grabbed her hips and pushed her demonstratively
down on the bed, as if he were a real man.”
“She lay awake a long time wondering what had happened and exchanged SMS messages with her friends. He lay beside her snoring.”
“She lay awake a long time wondering what had happened and exchanged SMS messages with her friends. He lay beside her snoring.”
“At one point when he mounted her from behind,
she turned to look at him and smiled and he asked her why she was smiling, what
she had to smile about. She didn't like the tone in his
voice.”
I advise people to read the full statement to get the full context. Excuse me, but if Sofia is smiling while
they are making love it does not seem like Julian Assange is raping her, or am
I missing something? Wake up world. You are tools of the media!