5 ms·

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 w

by 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
        3Y7RaZUo 7y ago
        I trust him when he says: > We don’t know, because the first statement was directly written over in the computer program and no longer exists. We only know that the original statement, according to the chief public prosecutor, apparently did not contain any indication that a crime had been committed. In the edited form it says that the two had had sex several times – consensual and with a condom. But in the morning, according to the revised statement, the woman woke up because he tried to penetrate her without a condom. She asks: «Are you wearing a condom?» He says: «No.» Then she says: «You better not have HIV» and allows him to continue. The statement was edited without the involvement of the woman in question and it wasn’t signed by her. It is a manipulated piece of evidence out of which the Swedish authorities then constructed a story of rape. I went back to look at documents submitted with the häktespromemoria[1]. There is no second document and no PM written by Mats Gehlin but there is a PM by Irmeli Krans (the other person in the conversation) on page 15. It dosen't say what was changed but it says "förhöret skulle renskrivas" which to me implies that the changes should be in spelling, grammar, and structure and should not significantly alter the meaning of the text. It does however seem likely that the meaning was altered as the edited version alleges criminal conduct while the first allegedly did not. It appears the first version that according to the PM was only a draft was saved separately and not in the DurTvå system that Krans claimed not to have had access to at the time it would normally have been saved. I assume it was deleted after the new version was uploaded to DurTvå. [1]: https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-assange/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/...

by nsajko 7y ago

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
      - 3Y7RaZUo 7y ago
        I trust him when he says: > We don’t know, because the first statement was directly written over in the computer program and no longer exists. We only know that the original statement, according to the chief public prosecutor, apparently did not contain any indication that a crime had been committed. In the edited form it says that the two had had sex several times – consensual and with a condom. But in the morning, according to the revised statement, the woman woke up because he tried to penetrate her without a condom. She asks: «Are you wearing a condom?» He says: «No.» Then she says: «You better not have HIV» and allows him to continue. The statement was edited without the involvement of the woman in question and it wasn’t signed by her. It is a manipulated piece of evidence out of which the Swedish authorities then constructed a story of rape. I went back to look at documents submitted with the häktespromemoria[1]. There is no second document and no PM written by Mats Gehlin but there is a PM by Irmeli Krans (the other person in the conversation) on page 15. It dosen't say what was changed but it says "förhöret skulle renskrivas" which to me implies that the changes should be in spelling, grammar, and structure and should not significantly alter the meaning of the text. It does however seem likely that the meaning was altered as the edited version alleges criminal conduct while the first allegedly did not. It appears the first version that according to the PM was only a draft was saved separately and not in the DurTvå system that Krans claimed not to have had access to at the time it would normally have been saved. I assume it was deleted after the new version was uploaded to DurTvå. [1]: https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/bilden/forundersokningen-avseende-assange/AssangeSexAllegations.pdf https://www.magasinetparagraf.se/wp-content/uploads/content/...