He has been interviewed, about these events, on the 30th August, by Sthlm police[0]. Swedish law demands that he can only be charged after a second round of questioning after extradition (as I understand it).
How many "less high profile" alleged rapists leave the country and then fight extradition? It seems to me obvious that he's being treated unusually because he has behaved unusually.
It is not uncommon, especially in cases of this kind, for prosecutions to be brought even in the absence of formal complaints (and sometimes against the express wishes of the victim). That's the nature of criminal actions - you offend against the state, and the state brings the prosecution. It's sometimes absurd but, again, it's not out of the ordinary.
Everything I've heard from Assange about his behaviour has been deflective - "the charges are without basis" is the closest he's got to denying it and that sounds like it came from his lawyer. "This has been a very successful smear campaign", "I'm the only victim in this", "it's deeply disturbing that the charges are raised at this time", and that the extradition proceedings to Sweden are "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US".
If the often-raised last point is true, why the hell did he APPLY FOR RESIDENCE in Sweden three months before the warrant was issued? [1]
The whole thing really seems to me like he knows he did the things he is accused of but he just doesn't think they're crimes or problematic. You're welcome to draw an alternative conclusion, but I don't think there is anything murky in the judicial process.
You are right, I didn't remember the first interview. He was, though, subsequently told he was free to leave, after the first prosecutor decided there was no case. When he's a new prosecutor well known for her aggressive activism in expanding the scope of rape law then decides to override, there's every reason to be worried, whatever you've done or not done.
For being "well-known for her aggressive activism in expanding the scope of rape law" it's surprising I can't find anything about it on the first 3 pages of Google that pre-dates the Assange trial.
How many "less high profile" alleged rapists leave the country and then fight extradition? It seems to me obvious that he's being treated unusually because he has behaved unusually.
It is not uncommon, especially in cases of this kind, for prosecutions to be brought even in the absence of formal complaints (and sometimes against the express wishes of the victim). That's the nature of criminal actions - you offend against the state, and the state brings the prosecution. It's sometimes absurd but, again, it's not out of the ordinary.
Everything I've heard from Assange about his behaviour has been deflective - "the charges are without basis" is the closest he's got to denying it and that sounds like it came from his lawyer. "This has been a very successful smear campaign", "I'm the only victim in this", "it's deeply disturbing that the charges are raised at this time", and that the extradition proceedings to Sweden are "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US".
If the often-raised last point is true, why the hell did he APPLY FOR RESIDENCE in Sweden three months before the warrant was issued? [1]
The whole thing really seems to me like he knows he did the things he is accused of but he just doesn't think they're crimes or problematic. You're welcome to draw an alternative conclusion, but I don't think there is anything murky in the judicial process.
[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/31/wikileaks-julian... [1] http://www.thelocal.se/29684/20101018/