3 ms·

> Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged, assuming one is not going to just take his word for it. If Melzer was j

> Melzer actually gives us absolutely no reason to think that any evidence were forged, assuming one is not going to just take his word for it. If Melzer was just "some random opinions" it would be easy to dismiss. But as UN Special Rapporteur on Torture one should probably put some weight on his professional opinion. Or Swedish officials should explain why the allegations are wrong, but they reportedly refuse to do so. Also if Melzer fabricates the allegations here, that would be a problem for credibility of the position of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and investigated. Another reason for Swedish and UK officials to answer in some form. The article also contains original copies of the mail exchanges between the Swedish police (at least it says so), but I don't speak Swedish and so cannot read it.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
The mails discuss how some unclear problem (apparently related to completeness) should be handled, and arrives at saying that the unnamed police should make a new document, paste "the text" into it, and then sign. The Named superior will then write a PM about the fact that there are now two "interviews" when only one was formally held by the unnamed officer.
- nsajko 7y ago
  Do I understand correctly that Melzer is then either lying or wrong about the emails ("Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement")?
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Yes, I would say Melzer is wrong or misinformed. The document is a copy of RE: RE: RE:-type mail conversation and has to be read from the bottom up to make proper sense (the included timestamps support this reading). When one does this it is clear that there will in fact be two documents regarding the interrogation and a separate PM explaining this. However, if you read it top down you might come to the honest (but erroneous) conclusion that someone is being told to manipulate the original document directly.
    - usdgknsdg 7y ago
      > When one does this it is clear that there will in fact be two documents regarding the interrogation and a separate PM explaining this. Melzer claims there is only one statement/document. From the article: "We don’t know, because the first statement was directly written over in the computer program and no longer exists."
      - SiempreViernes 7y ago
        Indeed, but the provided scan states there will be two documents about the interrogation and a separate PM. This is why I said Melzer was wrong.
        3Y7RaZUo 7y ago
        There is no reason to believe there actually is two documents. It could just as well have been removed, either by accident or on purpose. I certainly trust Nils Melzer more than any police employee. This is the only additional information on this I could find: https://data.ddosecrets.com/file/Assange/Assange-Sthlm-polismyndighet.pdf https://data.ddosecrets.com/file/Assange/Assange-Sthlm-polis...
        SiempreViernes 7y ago
        What exactly are you saying you trust Melzer word on? Do you trust his word that the document provided is evidence of tampering of the record? Because anyone that understands swedish and reads the text in the chronological order indicated by the datetimes will conclude that the final word is that two documents are to be created. Weird flex, but ok..
        nsajko 7y ago
        Have you taken a look at the entire freedom of information document? I am interested if the possible missing context changes your understanding of the situation. Anyway, I submitted a post on HN to request speakers of Swedish to try and make sense of the situation, that presumably includes you :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868

SiempreViernes 7y ago

The mails discuss how some unclear problem (apparently related to completeness) should be handled, and arrives at saying that the unnamed police should make a new document, paste "the text" into it, and then sign. The Named superior will then write a PM about the fact that there are now two "interviews" when only one was formally held by the unnamed officer.

nsajko 7y ago
Do I understand correctly that Melzer is then either lying or wrong about the emails ("Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement")?
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Yes, I would say Melzer is wrong or misinformed. The document is a copy of RE: RE: RE:-type mail conversation and has to be read from the bottom up to make proper sense (the included timestamps support this reading). When one does this it is clear that there will in fact be two documents regarding the interrogation and a separate PM explaining this. However, if you read it top down you might come to the honest (but erroneous) conclusion that someone is being told to manipulate the original document directly.
  - usdgknsdg 7y ago
    > When one does this it is clear that there will in fact be two documents regarding the interrogation and a separate PM explaining this. Melzer claims there is only one statement/document. From the article: "We don’t know, because the first statement was directly written over in the computer program and no longer exists."
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      Indeed, but the provided scan states there will be two documents about the interrogation and a separate PM. This is why I said Melzer was wrong.
      - 3Y7RaZUo 7y ago
        There is no reason to believe there actually is two documents. It could just as well have been removed, either by accident or on purpose. I certainly trust Nils Melzer more than any police employee. This is the only additional information on this I could find: https://data.ddosecrets.com/file/Assange/Assange-Sthlm-polismyndighet.pdf https://data.ddosecrets.com/file/Assange/Assange-Sthlm-polis...
        SiempreViernes 7y ago
        What exactly are you saying you trust Melzer word on? Do you trust his word that the document provided is evidence of tampering of the record? Because anyone that understands swedish and reads the text in the chronological order indicated by the datetimes will conclude that the final word is that two documents are to be created. Weird flex, but ok..
        nsajko 7y ago
        Have you taken a look at the entire freedom of information document? I am interested if the possible missing context changes your understanding of the situation. Anyway, I submitted a post on HN to request speakers of Swedish to try and make sense of the situation, that presumably includes you :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209868