Swedish speakers of HN: Please check if testimony on Assange was manipulated | Hacker News Reader

Swedish speakers of HN: Please check if testimony on Assange was manipulated

85 pointsnsajko28 comments

Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and supporter of Assange, claims, based on transcripts of emails between Swedish policemen and his own fluency in Swedish, that the senior police officer told the policewoman to "rewrite" the purported victim's testimony: he accuses the Swedish police of "proactive manipulation of evidence"[0][1].

But then a HN reader, based on a screenshot of the transcripts provided in [1], comes to the conclusion that Melzer is confused about the emails[2]. However, in the tree belonging to that HN comment, another commenter posted the link to the entire freedom of information document provided by the police[3].

Could those of you who understand Swedish take a look at that document (I think one would want to start at around page 9 of 16) and clarify the emails and the situation?

[0] https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24838

[1] https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22203599

[3] https://data.ddosecrets.com/file/Assange/Assange-Sthlm-polismyndighet.pdf

> 8/23/2010 8:27

> nei.-iäo tronoäl-ait-iäo oioit ratt nu och att dokumentet kommer fram ti11 dig sofi ' däi-ska'. ' ski cka ääinä-en bekräftelse

"I hope I did right now and the document reached you. Please confirm"

> 8/24/2010 9:33

> Gör enligt följande. rlipp in detta i ett för[ör och signela förhöret. Det kommer sä kons-ti gt ut om iag signerar. Jag bi fogar det 9am1a förhöret.

"Do the following: add this in a interrogation and sign it. It'll look weird if I sign it. I'm attaching the old interrogation"

> 8/24/2010 1:38

> Hei, iaä'lr kanske tröo men iao förstår inte riktiqt hur du menar

"Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I don't really understand what you mean"

> 8/24/2010 1:44

> Gör ett nytt förhbr.'Klipp in texten i det och adressera fÖrhöret till ärendet. si gnera också förhöret.

"Do a new interrogation and cut in the text in that, and address the interrogation to the matter/subject. Also sign that interrogation."

> 8/24/2010 4:35

> visst. men då finns dät två förhör. Men det är endast ett forme'llt förhör som trai tiåttits. av mio i alla fa'l l. vart tar då det andra förhöret vägen? om det ska oå rätt'till aitar iao att iao måste oöra ändrinoarna i oriqinälförhöret o sionära det. Med risk f6r-att fiaftstå som-krånqlio vill iaq intä ha ett osiqnerat dokument med mitt namn cirkulerande i dirtvärymdän. särskilt inte nu när ärendet har utvecklats som det gjort.

"Sure, but then there is two interrogations, but there is only one that have been formally done, at least by me. Where is the second interrogation going then?

If this is gonna be rightly done, I guess you'll have to edit the original interrogation/transcript and sign it.

With the risk of sounding annoying, I don't want to have a unsigned document in my name, circulating in "dirtvärymdän" (CapableWeb: not sure what that is...), especially not when the matter developed like it did."

----

Think that's it, in terms of editing any interrogations/transcripts. Let me know if there is any specific parts you want translated.

Edit: reversed the order, so first email is in the top and last one in the bottom

Sorry, but could you reorder your paragraphs so they would be chronological in regard to the timestamps? I would do it myself, but it would not be appropriate as I do not understand Swedish.

As far as I realize the chronological order is from the bottom up, in both the PDF and your comment, which is possibly confusing. A problem is that the AM/PM period modifiers seem to be missing, though.

EDIT: also could you comment on the untranslated parts around the ones that you translated; what are they about, approximately?

EDIT2: sorry again, but I think you put 2019 in some timestamps by mistake, could you correct that, please?

> Sorry, but could you reorder your paragraphs

Yeah, done. Also added the timestamps to be extra clear.

> A problem is that the AM/PM period modifiers seem to be missing, though

No, it's not missing, Sweden don't use AM/PM, there is only a 24 hour clock. So all the times are either in the morning or during the night.

> also could you comment on the untranslated parts around the ones that you translated; what are they about, approximately?

Sure. First six pages is just police yadda yadda about the freedom of information request. Other parts are about making the requests secret as journalists are trying to get out information, confirming addresses, comments on deciding on meeting times with some lawyer, some "Linda viassgren" doesn't want to speak with the police and similar stuff. Nothing interesting really.

> EDIT2: sorry again, but I think you put 2019 in some timestamps by mistake, could you correct that, please?

Sorry about that, old habits are hard to kill. Fixed that too.

> Men det är endast ett forme'llt förhör som trai tiåttits. av mio i alla fa'l l.

Looks like "endast ett formellt forhor som ??? tillatits, av mig iaf" -- only one formal interrogation that has been authorized, by me anyway. But the OCR is really bad. Good job with the translation!

Edit: no, it's not, should have looked at the graphical version!

It's not "tillats", it's "hallits" (missing right keyboard setup right now). See https://imgur.com/a/eRbfe11 and the full document here: https://data.ddosecrets.com/file/Assange/Assange-Sthlm-polis...

Also, translation was not done from the OCR but manually, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22210259

I see! Thanks!

If you want to help with translating, take a look at the PDF: although the OCR is bad, the included scanned text is supposedly OK for humans to read.

> dirtvärymdän" (CapableWeb: not sure what that is...),

The text says "durtvårymden", and the latter part rymden, in context, is likely best translated to "ether". Ie, they don't want their name to be circulating in the ... ether. I would guess Durtvå is either a misspelling or a specific network.

Update: Did a google (should have done that earlier) and got back an answer: Durtvå is the "Datoriserad utredningsrutin med tvångsmedelshantering" system. Translated to english I would call it the computerized investigation and police action system.

My guess is that the police have some internal name for communication between police <> outside or possibly journalists. At least that's what I gather from the context, they don't want this to come out in public.

> Update: Did a google

I see! I did some searches as well but came back empty handed. Thanks for figuring it out!

ether = aether = "a medium that was once supposed to fill all space and to support the propagation of electromagnetic waves". This definitely suggests that what their trying to communicate here is that they don't want to see their names circulating on mediums like the Internet or other oldschool broadcasting mediums like newspapers, radio and television.

In Swedish, "rymden" kan also refer to just the "space" or "attention" really. It doesn't imply any public space really, just any space.

One way to look at the use of "space" there is that an English speaker would say "room", as in "chat room".

Maybe the last part should also be included? The last reply is "yes, but I will write a pm about it". This is the answer to the statement about there being two interigations if she creates a new one.

Maybe we can request that PM?

I think in this context PM is short for promemoria which means "memo", as in, "yes but I'll write a[n explanatory] memo about it"

Exclusively about date/times, this seems like the correct sequence (older to newer):

1 > 8/23/2010 8:27

2 > 8/24/2010 1:38

3 > 8/24/2010 1:44

4 > 8/24/2010 4:35

5 > 8/24/2010 9:33

Which should imply that there has been some other communication through other means between #1 and #2.

Swede here.

I think 1, 2 and 3 are irrelevant. No advanced OCR needed.

Link number 4 seems to contain everything in cleartext (well, PDF, but the text is text, not bitmaps).

While I can read this I can't tell if this is evidence of a conspiracy, or if it's just the case of a more senior police officer helping a junior officer to do things by the book. (I do see some hints of this.) I think we'd need legal professionals to have a look at this.

freedom of information document provided by the police

Just for correct context: wasn't the whole thing leaked before the police agreed to share anything? That's how we knew what a slap-up job the character assassination was so quickly. I recall reading translations of the interview very early on.

The document I posted the link to here says at the top (Google Translate): "Request for getting to take part of the public record The decision of the police authority Polismyrdigheten Approves partly". That is why I said it is "freedom of information document provided by the police", although I may be wrong on the "freedom of information" part.

If you have links to other documents, it would probably be good to post them for cross-checking.

Just wanted to say good job on the translation given the level of errors in the OCR...

Translation was done from the PDF document (https://data.ddosecrets.com/file/Assange/Assange-Sthlm-polis...), where there is no errors visible. It's only the copy-pasted text (that I pasted in the HN comment to give some context) that has the errors.

A second opionion:

* 8/23/2010 8:27

Hej, jag hoppas att jag gjort rätt nu och att dokumentet kommer fram ti11 dig som det ska. Skicka gärna en bekräftelse.

Vad beträffar den muntliga föredragningen för åklagaren har jag ingen mer information än att den gjordes per telefon av Linda Wassgren någon gång under förhörets gång. Vad som föredrogs är för mig obekant då Wassqren inte ville kommunicera med mig. Någon möjlighet att rådgöra brottsrubricering med åklagaren gavs inte utan jag fick veta att det skulle rubriceras som våldtäkt enligt åklagarens direktiv.

Hälsningar Irmeli Krans

Hi, I hope that I've done it correctly now and that the document will reach you properly. Please send a confirmation.

As far as the verbal presentation for the prosecutor goes I don't have any more information other than it was done on phone by Linda Wassgren sometime during the interview. What was presented is unknown to me since Wassgren didn't want to communicate with me. Any possibility to advice on the charges with the prosecutor was not given, instead I was informed that the charge would be rape according to the prosecutor's directions.

Greetings Irmeli Krans

-

* 8/24/2010 9:33

God morgon Irmeli!

Gör enligt följande. Klipp in detta i ett förhör och signera förhöret. Det kommer se konstigt ut om jag signerar. Med vänliga hälsningar Mats Gehlin

Good morning Irmeli! Do as follows. Add this to an interview and sign the interview. It will look weird if I sign. Best regards Mats Gehlin

-

* 8/24/2010 1:38 Hej, jag är kanske trög men jag förstår inte riktigt hur du menar. Anders Ringkvist försöker hjälpa mig o vi har ringt upp till er utan att lyckats lösa problemet. Irmeli Krans

Hi, perhaps I'm slow but I don't quite get how you mean. Anders Ringkvist tries to help me and we have called you without being able to solve the problem. Irmeli Krans

-

* 8/24/2010 1:44 Gör ett nytt förhör. Klipp in texten i det och adressera förhöret till ärendet. Signera också förhöret.

Med vänliga hälsningar Mats Gehlin

Create a new interview. Paste in the text in it and assign the interview to the matter. Also sign the interview.

Best regards Mats Gehlin

-

* 8/24/2010 4:35

Visst, men då finns det två förhör. Men det är endast ett formellt förhör som har hållits, av mig i alla fall. Vart tar då det andra förhöret vägen? Om det ska gå rätt till antar jag att jag måste göra ändringarna i originalförhöret o signera det. Med risk för att framstå som krånglig vill iag inte ha ett osignerat dokument med mitt namn cirkulerande i durtvårymden. Särskilt inte nu när ärendet har utvecklats som det gjort.

/ Irmeli Krans

Sure, but then there will be two interviews. But there is only one formal interview that has been held, by me at least. So where does the second interview go? If this is to be done properly I suppose that I need to make changes to the original interview and sign it. With risk of being difficult I don't want an unsigned document with my name floating in durtvå-space. Especially now when this matter has developed the way it has.

/ Irmeli Krans

-

* 8/26/2010 12:30

Ja men jag skriver ett PM om det.

Med vänliga hälsningar Mats Gehlin

Yes but I'll write a memo about it.

Best regards Mats Gehlin

DurTvå seems to be a "computerized support system" where interviews and other things relating to investigations are stored. I think they are discussing how the entry for the interview should be updated, not altering the interview itself but it's difficult to say with this little context.

Edit: Corrected "Add this to an interrogation" -> "Add this to an interview" and "Paste in text" -> "Paste in the text"

Agree this is the part of the Freedom of Information Request that is relevant to this, and that this is a sensible translation.

My interpretation of this is that Irmeli Krans is asking Mats Gehlin how to formally log additional information (in the form of some kind of verbal communication with the prosecutor) and ensure that this information is associated with the case file.

The back and forth, again as far as I understand the implicit context and the terminology used, concerns how to do this technically. Gehlin suggests it be logged as a separate, additional interview. Krans is worried that will look weird, since there was only one actual interview undertaken by Krans. Krans then suggests that the technically correct way of doing this would be to change the original interview and sign that.

I read "change" here as implying "append the new information in that document". There is no obvious suggestion of editing the existing text of the original interview.

Something is rotten in the state of D̶e̶n̶m̶a̶r̶k̶ Sweden

[flagged] already? Wow HN has some torture fans...

Please don't post dross comments like this. It's plain that HN is divided about Assange, as it is divided on every other divisive topic. That's a trivial consequence of the population sample being large enough.

"You'll have to edit the original interrogation/transcript and sign it"

IF this leaks are correct and true and not a fake leak, it sounds totally like two people conspirating to manipulate evidence against a third accusate of a crime, without his knowledge, and for unknown purposes.

We are talking of: correcting a typo? removing some parts?, adding other parts? adding a phrase that says something like "yes, I raped this women and enjoyed each second of it"?. Is horrible.

If proven true, this would be a serious issue that distroys the right to defence. Manipulating evidence is typified as a crime in most countries. They had a lot of things to explain.

On the contrary, I think this is more damning for Melzer: it seems inconclusive as proof for the accusations of "proactive manipulation of evidence", when he should really have had something more considering all the fuss he is raising.

Mind you, it might turn out the police did do malicious manipulation of evidence; but right now it seems more like Melzer is just trying to get publicity or something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com