Not only
have the BBC hierarchy ruled Anna Ardin’s name must not be mentioned. Also
Irmeli Krans’ name is banned from the airwaves. And no, she’s not an alleged
“victim” in the Assange case.
I put in
an official request to the BBC for an explanation as to why it was OK for the
BBC to use Nafissatou Diallo’s name but not Anna Ardin’s, in identical circumstances. I have not got an answer yet,
but my request did result in a mole within the BBC telling me reporters had
been banned from mentioning Irmeli Krans.
Anybody might
think they were hiding something.
[Interesting comment below]
Komodo
22 Aug,
2012 - 3:03 pm
In the end, all this careful police-room theatre was spoiled with a too-hasty denouement. The interrogation was not even over before a different policewoman, as if on cue, called the prosecutor and obtained an order to arrest Julian in absentia. It almost seems as if a thoughtful hand had prearranged it all. The prosecutor issued the arrest warrant without having read the complaint and before Anna had made a statement or even a complaint. The climax of our drama took place at 6 pm on Friday, and yet the very next morning (Saturday, August 21st), the sleazy right-wing tabloid Expressen, a Swedish clone of the New York Post, had already published all of the police allegations, featuring a photo of Assange on the front page and the headline ‘DOUBLE RAPIST’.
That was a Pentagon threat coming true. The US military demanded from Assange to destroy all the files, or else. “If doing the right thing is not good enough for them (WikiLeaks), then we will figure out what other alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing,” the Pentagon spokesman said. The sex case was a device to compel Julian, and Sofia’s feelings were of no importance.
The leaked police papers reveal that Sofia was heart-broken when she learned of the charges; she never expected Assange to be charged with rape. As we learn in testimony from her American boyfriend, Sofia was raised to have a hysterical fear of unprotected sex. After a lifetime of horror stories, she feared the fatal consequences of unprotected sex; she was terrified at the thought of viruses crawling over her body, and the only thing she wanted from the police was to force Julian to take an STD test immediately. Julian was willing but the labs were closed for weekend.
Even Irmeli Krans, our man-hating interrogator, could not help but think there was no crime committed. Apparently Irmeli had made plans to comfort Sofia, and voiced her intentions to her superiors; she was promptly taken off the case and her boss Mats Gehlin took over. The first thing he did was order her to fix the record of the Sofia interview. Irmeli knew this was wrong, and she wrote him a message saying “With the risk of appearing difficult I do not want to have an unsigned document with my name circulating in DurTvå-space. Particularly not now when the case has developed as it has.“ But he kept pushing her, and eventually she submitted to his authority. The computer system (DurTvå) however, would not allow her to falsify the records – instead, the system re-dated the protocols to August 26, a sure sign of tampering. So now the original protocol does not even exist. Yet even after doctoring the records, the interrogation of Sofia Wilen is a most peculiar one: she did not sign it and there is no voice recording, so we can only guess what went on in there. Discrepancies in Swedish police records might not be news, but that night of August 20th – the night the prosecutor authorized Julian’s arrest – was a very busy night for a pandering political party and its pet journalists.
Also from
http://www.israelshamir.net/English/PoliceLeaks.htm
SOURCED: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/banned-names/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Only comments that benefit this cause are approved.
My time is precious I practice Mr Obama's freedom of speech.
Thanks for your support and time to visit us.