Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 31 posts

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

#1

Post by nsajko »

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

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

#2

Post by capableweb »

> 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

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

#3

Post by nsajko »

capableweb wrote: post #2

> 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 int…

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?

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

#5

Post by contingencies »

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.

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

#6

Post by nsajko »

contingencies wrote: post #5

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.

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

#7

Post by capableweb »

nsajko wrote: post #3
capableweb wrote: post #2

> 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 int…

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 comme…

> 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.

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

#8

Post by capableweb »

efrecon wrote: post #4

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.

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

#9

Post by nils-m-holm »

capableweb wrote: post #2

> 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 int…

> 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!

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

#10

Post by capableweb »

nsajko wrote: post #3
capableweb wrote: post #2

> 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 int…

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 comme…

> 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.

Post reply on HN