Christine Assange Interview Part One
June 25, 2012
As I’ve mentioned previously on the blog, each time we do a story on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, we typically lose 2-5 followers.
Here’s an example of the typical, uninformed responses we’ve gotten:
poorly informed person said: He is accused of fucking RAPE, you dickwad. Manning is the true hero and yet you give air time to this egotistical piece of shit. People have been extradited to the US from the UK more often.
The fact that the misinformation about Assange is so prevalent, that the media assassination has been so successful that negative public opinion permeates even parts of the American left is absolutely unacceptable. The public is misinformed by reckless, biased media coverage. To combat the misinformation in whatever small way we can, we’ll be doing a full series on Wikileaks, exposing the real information about Assange’s extradition case and the allegations against him.
You can stay up-to-date with all of our posts on Wikileaks and Assange at: thepeoplesrecord.com/wikileaks.
Interview Part One - Christine Assange on sex allegations against her son
Christine Assange talks with thepeoplesrecord.com on June 24, 2012 about the allegations being made against her son, Julian Assange. Christine Assange included information about: Julian Assange’s bid for asylum in Ecuador, the future of Wikileaks, the roles of Australia, Sweden and the United States in the case against Julian and biased media coverage of Julian Assange allegations.
Read the interview and inform yourself about what is going on before you agree with the slanderous media coverage that already paints Assange as a guilty party. Part two will be posted later this week.
ThePeoplesRecord.com: Before we get to the more current news in Ecuador, I just wanted to set things up by asking you to talk about the allegations being made against Julian, and what if anything has he been charged with?
Christine Assange: Julian has not been charged with anything, by anyone, anywhere in the world.
TPR: What are the allegations against him, and where, in your estimation do those allegations come from?
CA: Well to give you some background, before this Julian has never had a sexual allegation made against him in his life.
Now, when Julian went to Sweden in August of 2010, the Collateral Murder had been published and the Afghan War Diaries had just been published. It made people very very angry and threats were being made against him. He decided to go to Sweden to set up Wikileaks because the Swedish had good whistle-blowing legislation.
In addition, WomanAA had invited him to speak at a meeting about the Afghan War Diaries. He had sexual relations with WomanAA and WomanSW both. Both women had requested that he stay at their place and offered him a place to stay. At the time, Julian’s life was in danger and he saw their offer of housing as his being offered protection during a dangerous time in his life. In the first case, Woman AA was supposed to be away all week but she came home early the day before he was supposed to give a speech. There was only one bed and she offered him to sleep in it. When the women found out about each other, they went to the police station and they asked Julian about STDs and Julian said his afternoon was taken but that he would get a test done the next day if they wanted him to.
Woman AA took Woman SW to see her friend, a police officer at a police station some ways away, it certainly was not the first police station that the women could have gone to. Halfway through the interrogation by Woman AA’s friend, the police officer, Woman SW became so upset that she refused to finish the interview and didn’t sign the statement. She was so upset because she thought that the police were going to allege rape. Even today, neither Woman AA nor Woman SW has alleged rape. Only the police have alleged rape. And in Sweden, rape can be alleged in circumstances of consensual, non-violent sex. They have a very radical view over there about what rape is.
The story was then leaked to the media. Julian didn’t even know there was an investigation going on. He wasn’t interviewed. He wasn’t questioned. The police prosecutor first released the story to the media through a Swedish tabloid. That night they began to type out the headline “JULIAN ASSANGE HUNTED DOWN FOR DOUBLE RAPE”! Very dramatic. He found out about it while looking through the paper the next day and was horrified. He knew he hadn’t raped anybody.
The chief prosecutor in Stockholm looked at the file and dropped the rape allegations that were found to be absolutely baseless. He moved the investigation into the minor allegations of “sexual misconduct”.
Now, looking at the players here: Woman AA, the police officer interrogating Woman SW, the politician lawyer representing the women and his business partner all belong to the same political party, a liberal party, the Social Democrats and all have strongly supported legislation that would widen the definition of rape to include consensual sex just a few weeks after the sexual allegations were made against Julian. So you can see that there was a vested interest in getting this allegation up.
So with the election coming up, Woman AA presents new evidence for an appeal. A week later, she produces a condom. On the basis of that, they shop around for a prosecutor likely to push for rape allegations. They then choose a well-known active campaigner for the widening of the definition of rape to include consensual sex, Marianne Ny. So they appeal to Marianne Ny with this evidence and they do not inform Julian or his lawyer of the appeal. The condom that Woman AA produced was tested and there is no DNA evidence found either of Julian’s or of Woman AA’s but the rape allegations were still reinstated.
Julian then contacts the prosecutor and asks for an interview because he feels that he can clear his name but the prosecutor rejects all his attempts to have an interview. There were several problems with the investigation: the women’s testimony was never recorded in any way, according to police procedure they should have video tape or audio tape and they have neither, the police file was leaked to the media which is abnormal, they refused to hand that same file to Julian’s lawyer, they refused to question his witnesses for many many months and they made countless witnesses go on videotape, but never the women alleging the crimes. Julian continued to reach out to the investigation but he could not get an interview.
He has to leave the country because he is about to publish cablegate and more Iraq war logs. So he asks permission from the chief prosecutor to leave the country for a business meeting. Julian gets permission and leaves the country on September 15. The prosecutor then wants to do the interview. Julian offers to fly back in for the interview on the 6th of October and the prosecutor rejects that because it’s the weekend, and then offers to fly back on the 11th of October and she rejects that because it is too far away.
Under house arrest after working on cablegate, he offers to be interviewed through phone or video-conference or by mutually agreed upon legal assistance and all of those options are also rejected.
When I asked Julian what he thought was going on, it was a very simple “Mom, if they interview me, they’ll either drop the case or charge me and the evidence doesn’t exist to charge me.”