[nailer]

Yes I know the prosecutor can persue the case any way they want to.

I find it odd that you don't understand this, but the point is very simple: if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange. Instead they refused to.

[foldr]

>if the purpose of the Swedish Prosecutor was to investigate a potential crime, they would have interviewed Assange.

I don't see how you are drawing this conclusion. There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview. More broadly, complying with Assange's demands would also have sent the wrong signal to anyone else trying to escape the justice system.

[nailer]

> There would have been little point in interviewing Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, since it would not have been possible to arrest him following the interview.

To determine his guilt, and answer the questions the presecutor needed?

You surely know this - my general feeling at this point is you're simply asking questions to antagonise anyone who disagrees with you. Hacker News needs a block function.

> More broadly, complying with Assange's demands would also have sent the wrong signal to anyone else trying to escape the justice system.

Most people don't have a US Home Secretary who wants them tried with treason (ie, potentially dead) and an bizarrely increased amount of attention compared to any other similar case, from a country that's been revealed as a covert member of Nato.

Also most rape victims aren't excited to go to a crayfish party with the person who just supposedly raped them 24 hours ago.

[foldr]

>To determine his guilt, and answer the questions the presecutor needed?

The reason that they needed to interview Assange was so that they could proceed to arrest him and charge him. That is why the EAW was issued. The interview was a procedural formality, not something that would have been particularly useful in its own right.

>Most people don't have a US Home Secretary who wants them tried with treason (ie, potentially dead) and an bizarrely increased amount of attention compared to any other similar case, from a country that's been revealed as a covert member of Nato.

How is that any concern of the Swedish prosecutor? It's not their problem if the US tries to extradite Assange. (There is, of course, no evidence that the US is going to do this beyond Assange's paranoid fantasies.)

>Also most rape victims aren't excited to go to a crayfish party with the person who just supposedly raped them 24 hours ago.

It's actually pretty common for rape victims to remain on more-or-less friendly terms with the people who raped them. (You can see a similar phenomenon with domestic abuse.)

[nailer]

> The interview was a procedural formality, not something that would have been particularly useful in its own right.

No, it was to assess the facts and see whether the case had merit. The police do not arrest someone on every accusation of crime (although in this case the victim made statements saying they didn't wish Assange to be charged).

> Assange's paranoid fantasies

By that do you mean Hillary Clinton's repeated statements on how Assange should be dealt with?

Additionally, this wasn't a domestic abuse case. Aardin and Assange were having casual sex, not a long term relationship as is typical in domestic cases.

[foldr]

>No, it was to assess the facts and see whether the case had merit

No, it wasn't. See e.g. the quote from the Magistrates' court judgment above.

>The police do not arrest someone on every accusation of crime

The Swedish prosecutor had a strong presumption in favor of arresting and charging Assange in this instance, as the court judgments make clear. That was on the basis of the evidence already available.

You may not be taking into account differences between the Swedish and US/UK justice systems. Formal charges are brought much later in the Swedish system, as the court judgments explain. The investigation into Assange had proceeded to a stage where charges would most likely already have been filed in the US or UK. The investigation was well beyond the stage where they would have wanted merely to talk to Assange.

>By that do you mean Hillary Clinton's repeated statements on how Assange should be dealt with?

Clinton has no power to extradite Assange. It doesn't matter what she says.

>Additionally, this wasn't a domestic abuse case. Aardin and Assange were having casual sex, not a long term relationship as is typical in domestic cases

As I said, it is not uncommon for people who are raped to remain on friendly terms with their rapists. The fact that they were not in a LTR doesn't change that.