Evidence DestroyedWoman AA destroyed evidence
Woman AA Destroyed Evidence
The Twitter Trail
Complainant AA documented her interactions with Julian Assange on social networking sites. Shortly after ’accompanying’ the other woman (SW) to the police station, AA deleted two tweets that are important evidence in the case. They were made after the alleged crimes, during lunchtime on 14 August 2010) and at 2 in the morning on 15 August 2010.
- Complainant AA deleted her tweets, and presumably the picture of Julian Assange lying in her bed on 20 August 2010, the day the complainants went to the police station.
- Complainant AA deleted her tweets from the mirror site bloggy.se on 13 September 2010.
- Complainant AA deleted the 7-step guide to taking legal revenge against one’s boyfriend. On 12 December complainant AA changed the 7-step guide to a single step: Step 1: Think very carefully about whether you really should take revenge. In most cases it’s better to forgive than to get even. (emphasis in the original).
Witness Göran Rudling, who campaigns for reforming the Swedish sexual offences laws so that they offer better protection for victims by focusing on consent, tracked down complainant AA’s deleted tweets (Swedish original here) through the cached pages of her Twitter account and her microblogging site, bloggy.se, which was a mirror site for her tweets.
Why did AA delete the tweets?
Rudling argues that this and other evidence (English/Swedish), including the ’broken condom’ submitted one week after the sex which rendered odd lab results (English/(Swedish) - indicate that AA’s made false accusations against Assange, in addition to the clear destruction of evidence.
According to Rudling Assange is innocent firstly because the testimony of complainant SW, as well as SW’s friend’s testimony show that she did not want to report Assange for ’rape’. She felt she had been ’railroaded’ by others around her. Secondly, he is innocent because, (according to Rudling), AA’s accusations are false, and she has been shown to have deleted evidence that would be helpful to Assange’s defence.
According to Julian Assange, complainant AA took without consent a trophy picture of him lying in her bed and posted it on Facebook. Several people connected to complainant AA and Julian Assange claim to have seen this picture on the social networking site. It was removed from Facebook. AA had also posted on her blog 7 steps to lawful revenge, which she later partially deleted.
Is Complainant AA criminally liable?
Göran Rudling argues that complainant AA is criminally liable for destructing evidence:
A person who... falsely testifies of a criminal act, provides compromising circumstances, or denies acquitting or mitigating circumstances with prosecutors, police or other authority to prosecutors, police or other authority shall be found guilty... of false accusation [with a penalty of] imprisonment not exceeding two years or... to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months. Swedish Penal Code Chapter 15, 7 §
Rudling’s discovery raises serious questions about complainant AA’s motivations. The deleted tweets provide further context for complainant AA’s three contradicting accounts of the events, which journalist Donald Boström described in his testimony for the Swedish preliminary investigation (English translation).
The original article by Göran Rudling revealing the deleted tweets (in English at the end of the document)