In his own words: Assange witness explains fabrications

A major witness in the United States’ Depart­ment of Justice ca­se aga­inst Ju­li­an Assange casts serious doubt on statem­ents found in the indictment aga­inst the Wikileaks founder.

In his own words: Assange witness explains fabrications

As Stundin previously reported, a key witness in the case aga­inst Julian Assange has admitted to fabrications and thus cast serious doubt on statem­ents found in the indictment aga­inst the Wikileaks founder. We can now share audio recordings of that witness, Sigurdur Ingi (Siggi) Thordar­son, where he discusses his part in the case and what orig­inally led him to entangle him­self in an FBI investigation while he was a delinquent teenager on a crime spree.

The excerpts pres­ented here are taken from over nine hours of audio recordings of Thordar­son willingly discussing his crimes and deceptions with Stundin’s reporter. 

One issue, that was raised in the updated indictment aga­inst Assange pres­ented to UK courts for the pur­poses of seeking extradition to the United States, is the claim that he received audio files containing secret recordings of mem­bers of the Icelandic parli­ament. 

Thordar­son, known also as Siggi, now says he handed Assange a USB drive in early 2010 but had no knowledge of what was on it. He did not even know if there were any actual audio files on the drive, much less what such files may have contained. This app­e­ars to contradict the indictment, where Siggi Thordar­son is cited as a source.

Reporter: “You also sent it to Julian?”

Siggi: “Yes, well, I gave him a memory stick.”

Reporter: “A memory stick with the conversations on it?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: ”OK. So he received these phone calls?”

Siggi: “At least he received some files. I never listened to them so I have no idea what was on there.”

Reporter: “You didn’t feel like checking it out to hear it? How large was this file?”

Siggi: “I don’t rem­em­ber, I was doing somet­hing at the time so I thought I’d just throw it at Julian and he’d go over it.”

Reporter: “OK, but how large was this file? How large was the memory stick, was it like 16 giga­bytes or 2 giga­bytes?”

Siggi: “No, no, it would have been on a 34 or 64 giga­byte stick.”

The UK judge cited this part of the indictment in the judg­ment over extradition, say­ing Thordar­son was asked by Assange: “...to hack into computers to obtain information including audio recordings of phone conversations between high-rank­ing officials, including mem­bers of the Parli­ament, of the govern­ment of “NATO country 1” [Note: Here the prosecution claims that Assange is not charged for receiving or publ­is­hing information offered to him, but rather that he actively sought out information. As an example of this, the prosecution claims that the parli­ament call recording incident was an attempt to obtain the data through hacking.] 

When confronted, Thordar­son admits this is not true but claims he is not allowed to ela­borate on why the indictment does not match his pur­ported testimony.

Reporter: “Did you tell the FBI that…”

Siggi: “That I hacked them? No.”

Reporter: “...and that Assange asked you to hack them?”

Siggi: “No.”

Reporter: “Then why does the indictment claim you said that?”

Siggi: “I can’t answer that.”

Reporter: “Is it because you don’t want to, or is it because of the FBI you can’t answer?”

Siggi: “I can’t answer that.”

Reporter: “Why can’t you answer?”

Siggi: “Because I’m not allowed to.”

Thordar­son was recently called in to provide further testimony on the case in the United States. He says he cannot go into details about his trip but the focus of the discussion was on new information, rather than confirming what he had claimed before.

Siggi: “There were a lot of questions that had never been raised before, so that wouldn’t have made sense.”

Reporter: “OK, so there was an attempt to open a new line of investigation as my sources claim?”

Siggi: “A new line?”

Reporter: “In other words, they were looking into other subjects than they had previously done with you?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “And those subjects pertained to extend­ing the investigation into differ­ent areas than contained in this indictment?”

Siggi: “I couldn’t say.”

Reporter: “You couldn’t say or you aren’t allowed to say?”

Siggi: “Either one.” *laughs*

Reporter: “You have to choose one, Siggi! You have to pick an option!”

Siggi: “I can’t comment on that.”

Reporter: “So you aren’t allowed to comment?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

The FBI has access to communications between Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, as they seized computer equipment belong­ing to the latter when she was arre­sted. In one conversation Assange mentions receiving documents relat­ing to the collapse of the Icelandic bank­ing system. The collapse was a direct result of reckless and even criminal actions by top-level bankers, and Wikileaks had exposed sim­ilar wrongdoing at another Icelandic bank two years ear­lier.

Thordar­son has now revealed him­self to be the source mentioned in the chat log between Manning and Assange. However, he simply laug­hed and declined to go on the record when asked how he mana­ged to steal the documents from under the noses of the resolution committee of the failed bank Glitnir.

Reporter: “On the 5th of March 2010 Assange said to Manning that he had acquired sto­len bank documents from a source, that source was in fact you?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “What bank documents are those?”

Siggi: “From Milestone and Glitnir and…”

Reporter: “OK, those are the Milestone documents you had taken with a memory stick that you just used to take it from their computer, right? The computer was open, wasn’t it?”

Siggi: “I don’t rem­em­ber. But these are documents that pertain to...”

Reporter: “But these are the documents you took, the Milestone…”

Siggi: “Yeah, he was talking about those.”

Reporter: “OK, but is he talking about somet­hing more than that? Because...

Siggi: “Yeah, because I had and still have Glitnir bank’s loan book that was never publ­is­hed. I also had a file that was Lands­banki’s loan book but it was encrypted. I was going to get David House to see if he could use this supercomputer at MIT to encr… decrypt it.”

Reporter: “Decrypt it. That’s the file that was float­ing around everywhere online? Everyone was trying to decrypt it, it had alr­eady been downloaded…”

Siggi: “Indeed.”

Reporter: “What about the Glitnir loan book, where did that come from?”

Siggi: “Ahaha… I’ll tell you that off the record.”

Thordar­son is a well known fraudster in Iceland and app­e­ars to have made his liv­ing through the years by cheating and steal­ing from a long list of local companies. As part of his fraudu­lent schemes he ran an online store with Wikileaks merchandise in 2010 and claimed to be rais­ing money for the organization. However, it all went into his per­sonal bank account and he refu­ses to say what he did with the money he stole from Wikileaks.

Reporter: “I’m a little curious to know where that went…”

Siggi: “I’ll let you know as soon as I find out, haha!” 

Reporter: “OK, so you got the money deposited into your bank account, right?”

Siggi: “Indeed.”

Reporter: “We can go off the record if you want?”

Siggi: “Doesn’t matter, I admitted to it in court. But you see the store was and always had been in my name.”

Members of the Wikileaks organization eventu­ally became aware of what was happ­en­ing and tried despera­tely to find Thordar­son and recover the money. He was also wanted for various other crimes in Iceland, including financial fraud and sexual abuse of minors. It was at this time he decided to walk into the United States emb­assy in Reykja­vík and offer testimony aga­inst Assange in exchange for protection. However, this ina­dver­tently put him in even more trouble.

Sabu

Thordar­son had previously been in contact with the infamous hacking collective known as Lulzec, hea­ded by a per­son using the alias Sabu. What Thordar­son did not know at the time was that Sabu had been arre­sted by the FBI and tur­ned infor­m­ant only a month ear­lier. By ask­ing Sabu to hack Icelandic govern­ment sites Thordar­son had so thoroughly incriminated him­self that US aut­horities had him in a vice. He says officials told him he faced a lengthy pri­son sentence if he didn’t cooperate fully.

Reporter: “They just say to you, here’s the situation, and they lay it out.”

Siggi: “Yup.”

Reporter: “And that didn’t paint a pretty picture according to my sources.”

Siggi: “Indeed.”

Reporter: “They were per­haps even point­ing out that you were hea­ded to pri­son imminently if you didn’t answer the FBIs questions and work with the FBI on this. You are panicking at that point.”

Siggi: “I don’t look at it as a threat. Stating the obvious isn’t necessarily a threat.”

Reporter: “Look... it feels like the Icelandic police were tell­ing you that they would make the charges in Iceland disapp­ear.”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “...and the FBI would make the American charges disapp­ear? So by mak­ing an imm­unity deal with the Americans you would be off the hook for anyt­hing that could cause you problems back home?”

Siggi: “Huh. That’s news to me.”

It app­e­ars the deal was for Thordar­son to provide statem­ents that could strengt­hen the indictment aga­inst Assange, in exchange for total imm­unity. He would get away with his crimes, as he him­self put it.

Reporter: “You were the small fry, you knew they wanted the big fish, and you provided everyt­hing to help them catch the big fish.” 

Siggi: “Yeah. I agree with that portra­yal, that’s the way it was. But the idea when I was there back in the sum­mer of 2011 or whatever, that wasn’t the idea. I had just been backed into a massive corner and I folded.”

Reporter: “OK, but you can see that from my point of view this story is full of holes.”  

Siggi: “Sure.”

Reporter: “The amount of pressure you are under, mental and physical, from the FBI. If you aren’t cooperating 110% you are simply f---ked.”

Siggi: “They would have alr­eady revoked this imm­unity deal if I was lying.”

Reporter: “Is that really so?” 

Siggi: “Yes!”

Reporter: “Because they are basing a lot on just your word.”

Siggi: “It’s stated many times in my agreement that if I were to be caught out lying, just one false word, the imm­unity agreement would be revoked. And they could proceed with prosecuting me. There is not­hing in the indictment about what evidence they have, the justice system doesn’t require that to be public.” 

Reporter: “Actually that is part of discovery...”

Siggi: “When it goes to court.”

Reporter: “Sure, but…”

Siggi: “There you have an indictment that will be added to later. 

Reporter: “Yes, but still, if they can’t get him extra­dited from the UK they have no case.”

Siggi: “The [UK] judge didn’t refuse extradition based on the evidence of the case, it was for health rea­sons.”

Reporter: “Exactly.”

Siggi: “Are you trying to tell me they wouldn’t just immedi­ately request extradition from whatever country he would tra­vel to next? The only thing that can save Julian now is if Joe Biden blows the whole thing off.”

Reporter: “What would happen to you in that case?”

Siggi: “I don’t know.”

Reporter: “I mean if the US att­orney general says the investigation is over and not­hing further will be done, because Biden says so, what happ­ens to you?”

Siggi: “I have an imm­unity agreement, it wouldn’t be invali­dated.”

Reporter: “Even if the case is dis­mis­sed?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “So you get away with all your crimes?”

Siggi: “That is my und­er­stand­ing.”

It is not clear to what extent the Icelandic aut­horities were infor­med about these arrangements, if at all. Indeed Thordar­son claims he was assured by the FBI that no information would be shared with the Icelandic police about crimes he committed in Iceland, particularly the hacking attempts aga­inst Icelandic institutions.

Siggi: “My worry was that if I told them who was hacked and how, like Lands­virkjun and the govern­ment’s website and all that, I would become a target of Icelandic aut­horities.”

Reporter: “Why?”

Siggi: “Eventu­ally I asked if they [Icelandic aut­horities] would get access to the data I tal­ked about and they [the FBI] just said no, that would never happen. That was the only discussion I had with the FBI about Icelandic aut­horities.”

Thordar­son is now 28 but was a teenager when he volunteered to work for Wikileaks a decade ago. He claims to hold no per­sonal ill will aga­inst Julian Assange but regrets gett­ing invol­ved in “this adventure” as he puts it. Thordar­son says he suffers from extreme anx­iety and insomnia as a result of his experiences and does not fully trust the FBI or the American justice depart­ment to keep up their end of the deal, but is hopeful they will. 

Siggi: “Of course they can fuck me up! Of course they can. In that case it’s just a ball I’ll tackle when it gets to me, I can't be bothered to think about it befor­ehand.”

Reporter: “It’s a pretty big ball, Siggi!”

Siggi: “For sure! I won’t deny that, not at all. But will it help me to worry about it at this point? No. 

Reporter: “Do you have anx­iety about the [Assange] case being dropped?”

Siggi: “About what will happen?”

Reporter: “Yes.”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “So the prospect of Julian being a free man, it gives you anx­iety?” 

Siggi: “Him being free? I would celebrate that.”

Reporter: “Ok, but…”

Siggi: “As far as the impact on me per­sonally, we’ll just have to find out.”

Reporter: “OK, I know you and Julian had a very close relationship.”

Siggi: “Mhm.”

Reporter: “You do realize this testimony could cost him his life.”

Siggi: “I do.”

Reporter: “How does that make you feel?”

Siggi: “What we’re deal­ing with there is that you shouldn’t just bring a 17 or 18 year old boy into somet­hing like this.”

Reporter: “Are you angry at him?”

Siggi: “No.”

Reporter: “Do you feel hurt?”

Siggi: “No.”

Reporter: “What are your feelings toward Julian today?”

Siggi: “I… don’t know.”

He ela­borates, say­ing the entire thing felt unr­eal and more like a computer simulation than real life at the time.

Siggi: “It’s no secret that I was *** scared out of my mind. Like I have said many times, an 18 year old teenager doesn’t have any clue what he is doing. You’re not play­ing a fucking video game, you aren’t play­ing The Sims or Black… what is… what is the one, I don’t play video games and don’t know the names. Call of Duty?”

Reporter: “It’s actually damn good.”

Siggi: “OK! But what I mean is you don’t realize it. And that is the worst part, I still don’t comprehend it today. It wasn’t like we were publ­is­hing somet­hing in the school paper.”

Reporter: “No, what you publ­is­hed was the real deal.”

Siggi: “Exactly. And that’s what one doesn’t realize.”

Reporter: “But do you feel like you did somet­hing wrong by publ­is­hing these documents? Do you think it was wrong?” 

Siggi: “Hm. Today, I would say yes.”

Thordar­son beli­eves he has the right to speak to the media, despite his agreement with the US aut­horities. He accepts culpability for his own crimes but says ultima­tely Assange should be held responsi­ble for those crimes as the head of the Wikileaks organization at the time.

Siggi: “There is not­hing in my agreement that states…”

Reporter: “That you can’t talk to the media?”

Siggi: “No, the only thing they may have asked of me was to not divulge my conversations with them.”

Reporter: “OK, but like I said, this is obviously a very serious case and you have clearly done a lot of things.”

Siggi: “Mhm.”

Reporter: “Do you think you should be charged in this indictment alongside Julian?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “You think so?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “So what if Julian decided to save him­self by squealing on you? Because it was you that accepted most of these documents. You are the front man.”

Siggi: “Mhm.”

Reporter: “Doesn’t it seem strange to you that he is the one who is going to be pun­is­hed for things that you did?”

Siggi: “Things that I did? He was the editor in chief, it’s self-evident that if you are the editor you are responsi­ble, right?”

Convicted for sex crimes against minors

Apart from his well documented and extensive financial fraud aga­inst Wikileaks and many companies in Iceland, he has also been convicted of sex crimes aga­inst nine under-age boys who he deceived and coerced into giv­ing him sexual favours. Five other sim­ilar cases were dropped due to lack of evidence. One of the victims committed suicide after prosecutors dropped charges specifically related to his abuse. Thordar­son, who was diagnosed with sociopathy by a court-appointed psychiatrist, claims to be haunted by these events.

Reporter: “We are talking about a boy who felt like you had abused him.”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “His case was dropped.”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “He was denied justice.”

Siggi: “Indeed.”

Reporter: “He then commits suicide. I’m not say­ing you are sol­ely responsi­ble for that but you do bear some responsi­bility.”

Siggi: “I know that. Believe me, I know. 100%. I even tried to talk to the state prosecutor and asked, for sake of argu­ment, if this case could be addressed to bring it to a close. They said no.”  

Reporter: “Do you think you should have been convicted on the five charges that were dropped?”

Siggi: “Well, some of those cases that were dropped were just ridiculous. One of them was about a message I sent to some­one on MSN ask­ing if he wanted to have sex. But the boy who killed him­self, his case should have gone forward.”

Reporter: “You made extra­vagant promises to him, you don’t rem­em­ber? You promised him a mont­hly sal­ary of a million króna [$7.800]. All he had to do was sleep with you.”

Siggi: “Yeah.”

Reporter: “And if he didn’t want to sleep with you any more he could keep the money, you’d sign a contract to that effect. You rem­em­ber this?”

Siggi: “Yes.”

Reporter: “You were bullshitt­ing him, you didn’t have that kind of money.”

Siggi: “No, but it was still just prostitution. That’s what it is, legally speak­ing.”

Reporter: “I didn’t ask about the legal definition.”

Siggi: “But according to my conviction that’s…”

Reporter: “I know that. But I’m ask­ing how you feel about this, per­sonally.”

Siggi: “Right now? I think it’s ridiculous. 

Reporter: “This goes beyond prostitution, doesn’t it? I don’t mean in the legal sense, I’m just talking about how it feels on a per­sonal level. You press­uring this young boy, who was sav­ing up to buy him­self a flat. 

Reporter: “I mean, you promised him a computer, which you did indeed provide. But, I mean, you are press­uring him a great deal and he’s not even gay.” 

Siggi: “No, but he had the choice to say no.”

Reporter: “He did say no.”

Siggi: “OK.”

Reporter: “Yet you continued.”

Siggi: “OK. That’s how you hit on people, ya know?”

Kjósa
0
Hvernig finnst þér þessi grein? Skráðu þig inn til að kjósa.

Athugasemdir

Allar athugasemdir eru ábyrgð á þeirra sem þær skrifa. Heimildin áskilur sér rétt til að fjarlægja ærumeiðandi og óviðeigandi athugasemdir.

Nýtt efni

Mest lesið undanfarið ár