“I, and many others, believe this case is more about politics, and how the United States wants to stop Wikileaks telling the truth, than a personal, and what should in fact be a private affair, between two lovers. Would your client not agree with that? Would you not agree with it?”
By John Goss
The new legal representative of Sofia Wilen is Elisabeth Massi Fritz. One of the first things she did when she took over was to seek publicity by posting about how much under stress her client was due to the case taking so long to come to a Swedish court.
She never mentioned how much stress Julian Assange might be under, cooped up in the Ecuadorian Embassy, because of allegations which increasingly appear to be of a political origin. She also saw to it that the press release contained an allegation of rape again. Having read Sofia Wilen’s first statement, the one she would not sign, the one she refused to continue with as soon as the word ‘rape’ was mentioned, it occurred to me, and I know a lot of other people, that Sofia was being coerced into testifying against Assange. So I wrote to Ms Fritz to try and find out whether this new statement was the sole work of Sofia. Ms Fritz did not respond.
Later it was revealed that there were two statements issued, one for the Swedish media, and one for the international media. It was also revealed that Ms Fritz may not have been the author of these press releases, but Anna Sjögren.
There may be a legitimate reason for Ms Sjögren’s name being on at least one of the documents, for example Ms Fritz could have been using a colleague’s computer, but as her office has not responded to my first request, I have no great hopes of a response from my second.
The initial keenness of Ms Fritz to talk to the press seems to have been, like the whole affair, generated by a political motive. Her reluctance to respond to perfectly legitimate questions makes me suspect that it is not justice she seeks but the continued persecution of Assange. Both Assange and Sofia Wilen appear to be victims of Sweden’s fealty to the United States of America.
Dear Ms Fritz
As the legal representative of Sofia Wilen would you please be good enough to answer some questions about the how the Swedish legal system works with regard to this high-profile case? I notice you have been talking to the press a lot more than Claes Borgstrom ever did. As a journalist I welcome that. Has Sofia Wilen been advised to change her lawyer because it has been revealed that Borgstrom’s firm and Sweden’s ambassador to Australia, Mr Sven Olof Petersson, were implicated by having knowledge of the rendition and torture of Egyptians from Sweden Mr Ahmed Agiza and Mr Muhammed al-Zery? Through this revelation Mr Borgstrom has been discredited as much as his other client Anna Ardin with deleted tweets and her deleted blog about seven legal steps to revenge against men who dump their lovers. So I realise that Sofia is the only plaintiff with any degree of credibility.
I, and many others, believe this case is more about politics, and how the United States wants to stop Wikileaks telling the truth, than a personal, and what should in fact be a private affair, between two lovers. Would your client not agree with that? Would you not agree with it?
Before these allegations Julian Assange had been around for nearly 40 years without any charge of rape or sexual misdemeanour made against him, and then, like a number 11 bus in Birmingham where I live, two come along at once. Does that not appear to be something of a coincidence to you?
The original police statement made by Sofia Wilen, the one she did not sign, is significantly different from what you say she is saying now. In the UK we had a Dr David Kelly (sadly dead now) who told the truth that our government had ‘sexed up’ a dossier on Saddam Hussein’s capability of having weapons of mass destruction in order to take us into an illegal war. The phrase ‘sexed up’ has as much to do with sex as the Swedish word for ‘rape’ appears have to do with rape (forceful and painful penetration without consent) and what the phrase actually means is that the dossier had been embellished to make a stronger case for war. Have you, Ms Fritz, embellished or advised Sofia Wilen to embellish her original statement to make a stronger case? If you have embellished the statement, or helped her do it, could not the stress you say she is under actually be caused by you?
Has your client any idea who illegally leaked the ‘rape’ story to the press? Because that’s one of the reasons I believe this is political rather than personal.Why do you not come to the UK to interview Julian Assange about the allegations or at least guarantee that Sweden would not extradite Assange to the US? Then it would be over for both your client and for Mr Assange, who is also suffering.If you answer these questions please be assured I will publish your answers. If you don’t I will just publish the questions on their own. I will forward this email letter to a trusted friend and allow you five working days to respond.I thank you in anticipation of your keenness to share stories with the press.Yours sincerely,
|from:||john goss <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|date:||17 June 2013 15:32|
|subject:||Continued persecution of Julian Assange|
Dear Ms Elisabeth Massi Fritz,
I wrote to you last week about your keenness to talk to journalists concerning your client’s allegations against Julian Assange and hoped, wrongly it seems, that you might answer a few questions about the case which you claim is causing so much distress to your client. Since then I have discovered that you may not have written the press releases, of which there appears to be a version for Swedish consumption and one for international readership.
Can you confirm that you are the author of these releases, or is that author Anna Sjögren?
If Ms Sjögren wrote and released the documents under your name, do you consider it proper legal practise for her to have done so? Was the release made with your knowledge?
When were these releases made? Were they released on 21 May, 22 May or 4 June?
If the purpose of these releases was to expedite proceedings, as was claimed, and journalists contact you to see how they can help, would it not be in the best interests of your client, and the interests of Julian Assange, to answer the questions?
I apologise for not being able to ask these questions in Swedish. If that is causing you a problem perhaps you would be good enough to answer them in Swedish, as one of my colleagues copied into this email would help with the translation.