Witness Donald Boström. Date: 20 September 2010. “But at the same time, I began to think: How can it be possible? For, if they are having sex, consensual according to her, and something happens that she experiences as an assault, how can she nevertheless gladly arrange a crayfish party, let him remain in her flat, share a bed and so forth? I felt that there is something here that does not add up. So I had the feeling that she was a credible person, yet there was something about her story that did not add up. So those are pretty much the two impressions I have, parallel with each other: a credible young woman, a strong young woman who knows what she wants, but something that does not add up. And it is somewhat strengthened by the fact that I now had three versions of what happened..So for me, the accusation was first an enormous shock; and then another enormous shock that the whole business had come out so fast and that the prosecutor had acted so quickly. And then an enormous shock when the entire case was laid down. So that to me, the whole business smelled bad from beginning to end, because there was something that did not add up.
When Anna called, I think it was Thursday.. Up until then she had joked that, “He has not succeeded in bedding me”, and so on.. But on Thursday, that is why she said, “I have also had sex with Julian.. What I said before wasn’t true.” So it did come out that they had sex.. And the reason she said that was that Sofia called and told her about their night.. So that within the space of a minute or so, I understood that both of them had had sex with Julian – but also that the sex was consensual.. When she called me and said “we had sex” and this happened, she did not in any way imply that she had been the victim of sexual assault. In fact, she did not even want to go to the police. But the way she put it was like, “I want to go with, I promised Sofia I would go with her for support” – not that she had any reason to go, herself. And so my impression is that she did not experience anything very serious, but that she had become angry. Roughly: Don’t destroy the condom, but not that it was an assault. Then she called back and said, as I mentioned, that because she strengthened Sofia’s story with that one sentence, the case became stronger, as she expressed it. That was exactly what she said.. But it was not her case. But that Friday when the women went to the police; I think it was a Friday. Before that, Anna phoned me often and said that all we want is for him to take an HIV test; then we won’t file a complaint, she said.”
On the 11th of August, 2010, Julian Assange arrives in Stockholm. He stays at Anna Ardin’s Stockholm flat – she is away.
On the 13th of August, Anna Ardin returns a day early. He offers to find other lodgings, but she invites him to stay. They go out for a meal at a local eatery. Later that night and in the morning of the 14th of August the couple engage in sex.
On the 14th of August, Julian Assange is the principal speaker at the Social Democrats’ Brotherhood Movement (Broderskapsrörelsen) seminar on “War and the Role of Media”; Anna Ardin plays a key supporting role. Julian Assange spends the afternoon with Sofia Wilén, during which they engage in heavy petting and agree to meet again. That evening, Anna Ardin arranges a crayfish party in Julian Assange’s honour. Alternative lodgings are offered to Assange, but Anna Ardin invites him to continue residing at her flat. A guest at the party stated: “It was a very hearty evening” and when he offered for Julian Assange to stay at his apartment, Anna Ardin replied, “he can stay with me.”
On the 15th of August, at a meeting on the future activities of WikiLeaks in Sweden, Anna Ardin serves as Julian Assange’s press secretary. Later, Julian Assange and Anna Ardin attended a dinner party at Stockholm restaurant Glenfiddich organized by the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, Rick Falkvinge.
On the 16th of August, Assange accompanies Sofia Wilén to her flat in the town of Enköping. He wears a condom during several consensual acts of sexual intercourse. He penetrates her once without a condom.
On the 17th of August, according to witness Johannes Wahlström, Anna Ardin was condescending when describing Sofia Wilén: “Here, this is what I wrote on 17 August: “Good morning. Can you remind J that we have a meeting at noon at the journalists’ union. I suspect that [inaudible] sleeping, and unfortunately I cannot fetch him today.” Anna Ardin replied: “He is not here. He has been planning every night to have sex with the cashmere girl, but has not been able to find the time. Perhaps he managed to do so yesterday?” That was at 9:40 a.m. on August 17th. My reply: “Poor taste. Do you have her number?” Her reply: “Not sure that he has any taste at all, to be honest; but she was cute. Not mentally quick enough according to J. But cashmere and breasts and idol worship compensate. No unfortunately not. firstname.lastname@example.org. Works at the Museum of Natural History. That’s all I know.”
On the 19th of August, Sofia Wilén phones Anna Ardin to seek assistance in contacting Julian. Anna Ardin asks Julian to move out of her flat, which he does the following morning.
On the 20th of August, Sofia Wilén visited a sex crimes clinic at Söder Hospital where she was tested with a rape kit and received preventive medicine against HIV.
After visiting Söder Hospital, Sofia Wilén (now accompanied by Anna Ardin) went to Klara police station. There are other police stations much closer to Söder Hospital and Anna Ardin’s flat in the Södermalm district, however, Anna Ardin’s friend and fellow political associate in the Swedish HBT (homosexual, bisexual and transexual) and the SDP – the police officer Irmeli Krans, is currently on duty at the Klara station. Both Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans are SDP candidates for the Stockholm City Council election which is currently in progress.
Sofia Wilén’s brother later said that his sister told him “that she did not want to make any charges against Julian, but only wanted him to get tested for (sexually transmitted) disease”. Anna Ardin said to friends that she merely wished to “provide moral support to Sofia Wilén.” However, by the time they entered the police station, Sofia Wilén had already had an HIV test. Witness Hanna Rosquist: “Hanna said that Sofia wanted Assange to be tested for venereal disease. Sofia had gotten a test, but it would take a much longer time before she got the results. It would go much faster if Assange were to get a test.”
The interview begins at 16:21 and ends at 18:40. Anna Ardin is present while Irmeli Krans questions Sofia Wilén and intervenes to make prejudiced comments against Julian Assange. Long before the process is completed, two colleagues of Irmeli Krans – Mats Gehlin and Linda Wassgren – telephone the on-call prosecutor with details of the continuing interview. Based on that limited information, prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand issues an in absentia warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange on suspicion of raping Sofia Wilén and molesting Anna Ardin. Neither woman has been consulted; the decision is made on their behalf by the prosecutor. The warrant is issued at 17:00, with the interview still only half complete.
When Sofia Wilén is informed at 18:40 that Assange is to be arrested on suspicion of raping her, she is unable to continue. Irmeli Krans stated: “After being told about the arrest warrant, Sofia had difficulty concentrating on the interview. I therefore made the judgement that it would be best to break off the interview. It has not been read to her for approval.” As far as is known, Sofia Wilén has never approved officer Krans’s account of the interview, which is the principal basis of the most serious accusation against Julian Assange. Her friend Marie Thorn told the police that “what happened after Sofia went to the hospital and the police was not what she wanted. The only thing she wanted was for Julian to be tested. She felt that she had been run over by the police and by others around her.”
The interviews of Julian Assange and the journalists Donald Boström and Johannes Wahlström were recorded and transcribed, the other nine testimonies taken were not recorded and were ‘narrative’ testimonies written by the interviewing officer after the interviews, this is completely against police protocol. After the warrant for Julian Assange’s arrest is issued, the news is leaked by either the police officers, the on-call prosecutor, or Anna Ardin to the journalist Niklas Svensson of the tabloid newspaper Expressen.
Anna Ardin gave her statement by telephone the next day. She then gave her story to the Aftonbladet tabloid newspaper, she told their reporters: “Julian Assange has a skewed view of womanhood and doesn’t know how to take ‘no’ for an answer”; however, nowhere in her testimony is this word used, she clearly states that she gave consent, her main concern was the ‘deliberate’ breaking of a condom.
Within days, the police leak Anna Ardin’s and Sofia Wilén’s statements to the Expressen. When Julian Assange is eventually found for questioning (30th of August), his statement is also leaked to the Expressen and appears the following morning, despite assurances by Mats Gehlin that this would not happen. The Western mainstream media displays distorted facsimiles of the protocol contents with quotes selected that are not representative. Coverage of the unfolding affair conforms to a textbook case of public opinion manipulation. From the first report, a media consensus descends over the story, similar in structure and technique to those employed in the run up to the illegal 2003 Iraq war. (Manipulating Public Opinion: The Why and The How. Edward L. Bernays. American Journal of Sociology, Volume 33, Issue 6 (May, 1928), 958-971). Thoughtful reporting of the affair would have to have included content and opinion aimed at informing readers of the difficulties and uncertainties regarding interpretation, but reporting prefers only to provide misleading information.
Elements of the missing balance and detail:
Anna Ardin continued to allow Julian Assange to stay at her apartment for four days after the alleged offence. She repeatedly insists that he stay when others suggest accommodating him. Julian Assange said she also engaged in further consensual sex with him. After 9 days, she describes this as molestation. During this time she continued to act in a voluntary role as his press secretary. According to witness Kajsa Borgnäs “Among other things, Kajsa asked Anna if she was going to have sex with Julian, because Anna is single and she and Kajsa had earlier talked about sex. Anna had then related that she had already done so, but had said that it was the worst lay she’d ever had. Anna had also said that Kajsa could take him.”
Anna Ardin created and then deleted evidence (tweets) indicating that she was enjoying Julian Assange’s company at a crayfish party she had arranged at her house to honour him the night after the alleged incident: “Sitting outside.. nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!” She deleted a blog posting detailing how to get revenge on unfaithful lovers. There are the photos of her smiling with Julian Assange during a dinner engagement with members of the Swedish Pirate Party two nights after the night in question (see Page 2).
In both emails and SMS messages provided to defence attorney Björn Hurtig and in her own unrecorded ‘narrative’ account, Sofia Wilén states: “After several acts of copulation she was half sleep when she felt him entering her again. She said, “You’d better not have HIV” and he said: “Of course not,” but “she couldn’t be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before”.“She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night long.” Witness Katarina Svensson: “Sofia also said that, when she was half asleep on her side, she had been aroused from slumber to feel that Assange was inside her.”
The Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny later develops these allegations into Rape: “On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party Sofia Wilén, Julian Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.”
Anna Ardin stated in the Aftonbladet: “It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent, and I do not feel threatened by him.” Anna Ardin alleged in her unrecorded ‘narrative’ police interview: “Anna tried several times to reach for a condom, but Assange stopped her from doing so by holding her arms and prying open her legs while trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Assange asked Anna what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him that she wanted him to wear a condom before he came in her. At that, Assange released Anna’s arms and put on a condom that Anna fetched for him.” Finally the condom was in use, however, “Anna is convinced that when he withdrew from her the first time, Assange deliberately broke the condom at its tip and then continued copulating to ejaculation. To my question Anna replies she did not look closely at the condom in order to see if it was broken in the way that she suspected; but she believes that she still has the condom at home and will check to see.” According to witness Donald Boström: “And I have to tell you that we also had sex at an early stage at my place, and right in the midst of the act he destroyed the condom.” Julian Assange’s “not violent” behavior and use of a condom when asked, is later developed into Unlawful Coercion and Sexual Molestation by Marianne Ny in the European Arrest Warrant.
A ‘worn’ looking condom, split at the end was submitted as evidence by complainant Anna Ardin 12 days after the alleged incident. It was examined by two forensic laboratories and was found to contain absolutely no chromosomal DNA fragments from either the complainant or Julian Assange. Chromosomal or nuclear DNA in dried stains is remarkably resilient to degradation and can remain detectable for years. The laboratories then applied more refined techniques to the condom. According to sources, an almost undetectable speck of mitochondrial DNA was found. Mitochondrial DNA, if there are absolutely no chromosomal DNA fragments present, can only come from hair or nails. Any condom used for sex should be awash with chromosomal DNA fragments from both parties.
Anna Ardin also alleged in her unrecorded ‘narrative’ police interview: “On one occasion (on Wednesday, 18 August) he had suddenly removed all the clothes from his lower body, and then rubbed his lower body and erect penis against Anna. Anna states that she felt this was strange and unpleasant behaviour, and had therefore moved down to a mattress on the floor and slept there instead of on the bed with Assange.” Julian Assange’s alleged behavior when sharing a single bed with the woman he’d had sex with, is later developed into Sexual Molestation by Marianne Ny in the European Arrest Warrant.
UK CPS Disclosure Manual Chapter 35. The duty of candour: 35.51. Prosecutors must bear in mind that the description of the conduct contained in an extradition request will usually be the only information upon which the extradition proceedings (including decisions on such matters as the question of bail) will be based. 35.52. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the description of the conduct alleged is framed with the greatest care; it is an essential protection to the person whose extradition is sought. 35.53. Whether or not evidence in support of the request is required to be submitted under the extradition scheme in question, the prosecution case must always be put accurately and fairly. 35.54 If there is a variance between the case as outlined in the extradition request and that which is subsequently put in court following the accused’s extradition, there is a risk that the proceedings may be stayed on the grounds of abuse of process.
On the same day that Anna Ardin is interviewed (21st of August), the police dossier is reviewed by prosecutor Eva Finné, to whom the case has been transferred at the direction of Prosecutor-General Anders Perklev. Eva Finné states: “I do not believe there is any reason to suspect that Julian Assange has committed rape,” The only remaining suspicion is that Julian Assange may have physically but not sexually molested Anna Ardin. The arrest warrant is cancelled.
On the 22nd of August, Anna Ardin learns the case is likely to be dropped, she telephones Claes Borgström asking for help.
On the 25th of August, Eva Finné decides to dismiss all sex related charges. “I have discontinued the preliminary investigation of the charge originally designated as rape. There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever. I have gone through the interview with the complainant Sofia Wilén and as previously noted, the information which has emerged from the interview with the complainant is such that there is no longer any suspicion of rape. This does not mean that I do not find her testimony reliable. I have studied the interview to determine if there are grounds for suspicion of some other crime, primarily molestation or sexual molestation, but find that such is not the case according to my analysis.” The non-sexual molestation of Anna Ardin is to be further investigated.
Irmeli Krans, is not pleased with this decision. She writes on her Facebook page: “What the heck is this??? Judgement zero!!!” “SCANDAAAAAAAAL!!!!! My god!!! Scandal in every newspaper and broadcast news report. But our dear, eminent and exceedingly competent Claes Borgström will hopefully establish a little order!” Later she posts: “The overrated Assange bubble ready to burst.” “Way to go, Claes Borgström!!!”
On the 27th of August, Claes Borgström submits a formal request for the reconsideration of Eva Finné’s decision.
By the 29th of August, he begins asserting that Julian Assange is guilty of two rapes.
In an interview in the Aftonbladet tabloid newspaper, when asked why Anna Ardin at first did not believe that she had been raped, Claes Borgström explains: “She is not a lawyer.” When asked, did his clients fully support the move to proceed against Assange? “Yes, yes. They do. At the same time, maybe, if they had known from the very beginning what would happen, maybe they would not have gone to the police at all. I don’t know.”
At the request of Claes Borgström, prosecutor Marianne Ny announces (1st of September) that Julian Assange is once again suspected of rape, and that Eva Finné’s sole remaining suspicion of non-sexual molestation is to be “expanded” to include several instances of sexual coercion and sexual molestation.
On the 15th of September Marianne Ny gives permission (via Björn Hurtig, Julian Assange’s Swedish attorney) for Julian Assange to leave the country on the , however, he waits another two weeks before leaving to see if he can get matters cleared up. Björn Hurtig is still asking between 15th and 21st of September if an interview could be arranged “in the next few days”, every request is denied for one reason after another, “the police officer was ill”.
On the 27th of September, Julian Assange leaves Sweden returning to England via Berlin, to oversee the IraqWarLogs disclosures.
On the 18th of November, Marianne Ny issues a Swedish warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange on “reasonable suspicion” of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Marianne Ny states that the warrant was needed because it had been impossible to arrange an interview with Julian Assange. However, her only attempt to arrange an interview occured on the 21st of September (19 days after she took over the case) and consisted of just two SMS messages and two telephone calls to Björn Hurtig. By the time this request was made, Björn Hurtig couldn’t reach Julian Assange who was by then engaged in the IraqWarLogs release. No other effort was made by Marianne Ny to arrange an interview. Björn Hurtig continued to attempt to arrange an interview after Julian Assange had left for England and was free from the IraqWarLogs work; all requests are denied without any reason being given.
Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny refused to provide Julian Assange or his lawyers with information on the allegations against him in writing. This violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18.), the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5) and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights. The prosecution also refused all voluntary offers for cooperation that fit under the Mutual Legal Assistance Protocol, such as making use of alternative methods to interview Julian Assange. Marianne Ny repeatedly stated in the press that British and Swedish law prevented her from questioning Julian Assange in London. In a witness statement submitted in the extradition proceedings 04.02.2011, she admitted that it was possible for her to interview Assange in London within the framework of Mutual Legal Assistance. However, Marianne Ny, (apparently unaware of the contradiction) then claimed that would not be ”an appropriate course” to take, because she considered it necessary to interrogate Assange “in person”. Under Sweden’s Code of Judicial Procedure “the investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience;” (Chapter 23, Section 4) it is strange that Anna Ardin was allowed to give her evidence via telephone to a police station several miles away and Julian Assange, who stands to suffer a rather greater inconvenience and perhaps even endangerment, is not.
On the 20th of November, Marianne Ny issues a European Arrest Warrant and authorizes Interpol to post a Red Notice on Julian Assange- the highest priority alert, which is usually reserved for the most serious criminal suspects.
The ‘unusual handling’ of the case by Marianne Ny and the mounting risk of being extradited to the United States finally leads Julian Assange to contest the EWA and extradition to Sweden.
At the extradition hearing 07.02.11 City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the mismatches and exaggerations between the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the original accusers’ statements to the Swedish police are revealed. In particular the original police reports showed – contrary to the EAW – absence of alleged rape, absence of alleged force or injury, admission in both cases of consensual sex on the same occasions as the allegations, and splitting of a condom used with plaintiff 1 rather than failure to use one. Text messages exchanged between complainants and their friends completely contradict the factual allegations in the EAW issued for Julian Assange and cast immense doubt on the allegations. Judge Howard Riddle of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court stated that Mutual Legal Assistance, “was a more proportionate response than issuing an EAW.” On the 8th of October 2012, regarding sureties, Riddle stated, “the possibility that Mr Assange has a defence of reasonable cause to the allegation of failure to surrender cannot be excluded. The same applies when any defendant apparently absconds.”
The UK High Court has set a further precedent regarding the use of EAWs, UK citizens can now be extradited without charge to Europe, merely for questioning. In contrast to the UK High Court judges, the Irish Supreme Court recently ruled that extradition under the EAW without charge is not legal. The UK has recently announced that it intends to withdraw (opt-out) from the EAW system in 2014. A further precedent means that an ‘investigating prosecutor’ can now be viewed as an impartial ‘judicial authority’. In EAW extradition cases the judges are forbidden from testing the evidence to ensure that there is a prima facie case and are directed by the Framework Decision governing EAWs to follow “mutual recognition” of European justice systems, i.e. “trust” that judicial systems function well and fairly and that judges and prosecutors act impartially. Marianne Ny was in possession of the report from the Swedish National Forensics Lab regarding the condom evidence three weeks before she filled out the European Arrest Warrant describing the ‘torn’ condom encounter as an offence of sexual molestation. It is alleged that the grace period to make an appeal to the ECHR was reduced by the Supreme Court from 14 days to zero days – making it impossible for Julian Assange to take his case to the ECHR before his Supreme Court appeal time period expired and that this happened after Marianne Ny made a request to the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service.
When the politician-lawyer Claes Borgström had the Julian Assange case re-opened, he was in the midst of an election (he would later become the publicly-financed representative of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén). At this time, Claes Borgström’s re-election prospects were in difficulties; the political tide in Sweden was shifting decisively towards the centre-right Alliance Party and he had been heavily criticised for failing to protect his mentally disturbed client’s interests (Thomas Quick) in a case that was rapidly becoming known as Sweden’s most infamous miscarriage of justice. Recently Anne Ramberg, Secretary General of the Swedish Bar Association, investigated e-mail conversations (regarding a media campaign seeking to mitigate the depth of the Quick scandal) between Claes Borgström, Supreme Court Justice Göran Lambertz, prosecution lawyer Christer van der Kwast and interrogator Seppo Penttinen. The Bar Association board has decided to refer the case for trial in the Disciplinary Committee.
The similarities between Claes Borgström in the Julian Assange case and Giuliano Mignini in the Amanda Knox case are startling. Both were recently disgraced senior lawyers, both attempted to used a high profile case to salvage their reputations, seeking to deflect attention from damaging ongoing investigations into their conduct; and both succeeded only in condemning themselves further, whilst injuring everyone connected with the cases.
Thomas Bodström, the Swedish Justice minister responsible for the CIA renditions and subsequent torture of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery (two Egyptians citizens seeking asylum in Sweden), and Claes Borgström are business partners in a law firm (Borgström & Bodström Advokatbyrå). Claes Borgström is a friend of Anna Ardin’s, Irmeli Krans’s and Marianne Ny’s; he is the Social Democrat Party’s spokeperson on gender equality, he claims that all men carry a collective guilt for violence against women and has in this context supported Gudrun Schyman’s “Man Tax”.
Thomas Bodström, Claes Borgström, Marianne Ny, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin all have political ties to the Social Democrat Party. Thomas Bodström and Anna Ardin are members of a Christian faction of the Social Democrat party, the “Brotherhood Movement” (Bröderskapsrörelsen). On Irmeli Krans homepage she has published pictures of herself together with the retired leader of the party, Mona Sahlin, and the former minister Thomas Bodström.
Almost nothing is known about Sofia Wilén.
Both the EAW and the Interpol red-notice were issued for Julian Assange by Sweden just before Wikileaks began to publish Cablegate.
There is no bail system in Sweden; Julian Assange would be held in a remand prison throughout any proceedings and at any time the United States can file their extradition warrant. He would then remain in prison until extradition. Once in Sweden, Julian Assange will no longer be able to seek political asylum.
Very little attention has been given to the temporary surrender (sometimes called ‘conditional release’) mechanism that Sweden established bilaterally with the United States in their 1984 treaty (TIAS 10812) which supports the contention that an extradition from Sweden would be rather more straightforward than from the UK.
Tony Kevin, Australian ambassador to Poland (1991–94) and Cambodia (1994–97): “If he is soon extradited from the UK to Sweden, as now seems likely, he faces the danger of early ‘temporary surrender’ from there to the US, under a Swedish-US arrangement for transferring people charged with crimes in both countries. This enables the two governments to avoid procedural requirements and opportunities for appeal that exist under normal extradition arrangements. Assange could then face very serious charges in the US. Cables recently obtained by the Sydney Morning Herald under Freedom of Information from the Australian Embassy in Washington confirm that since 2010 the US Justice Department has conducted an ‘active and vigorous inquiry into whether Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act’”.
The Stratfor emails, gathered by the hacker collective Anonymous and published on WikiLeaks (the so-called GIFiles), indicate a secret indictment against Julian Assange; this information was also published in Rolling Stone 28.02.12. In one of the emails, sent to Stratfor intelligence analysts on 26.01.11, the company’s vice-president for intelligence, Fred Burton, wrote: “We have a sealed indictment on Assange.” Stratfor’s vice-president of public policy, Bart Mongoven, writes that Assange should face “whatever trumped-up charge is available to get this guy and his servers off the streets.”
ABC Four Corners Andrew Fowler 23.06.12: “Four Corners has obtained a copy of a subpoena from a grand jury which is examining evidence for possible charges relating to ‘conspiracy to communicate or transmit national defence information’ and obtaining ‘information protected from disclosure from national defence’. Critically, the subpoena (Grand Jury case number: 10GJ3793) contains the identifying codes 10 and 3793”. Michael Ratner: “There’s a grand jury currently sitting in Alexandria, Virginia, and it’s interesting the grand jury’s number is 10, standing for the year it began. (There’s) GJ, which is grand jury, and then 3793. Three is the conspiracy statute in the US and 793 is the espionage statute. So what they’re investigating is 3793; conspiracy to commit espionage.”