Hacker News Reader

Comment by usdgknsdg | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

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")?

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.

> 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."

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.

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-polis...

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..

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

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/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com