[_petronius]

I don't think either of your "possible explanations" are borne out by the evidence, but then there are a dozen other explanations that are both more plausible, and whose truth-potential is not dependent on whether they make sense to you personally.

[leereeves]

If the tweets you link are to be believed, we don't have to guess. Apparently no one in the prosecutor's office reads the news.

I don't find that believable, but whatever.

[9935c101ab17a66]

I'm not sure why you place so much importance on this seemingly small detail that, as far as I can tell, doesn't really have a broader contextual impact. That being said, without knowing more about the situation, it's completely believable that the prosecutor's office would not initiate legal action based on rumours in the news, especially since there have been so many rumours and predictions around what the Ecuadorian embassy intends to do with Assange and when they intend to do it.

It really does look to me like you are grasping at straws, but maybe I've missed something.

[leereeves]

Why would you assume I'm "grasping" for anything, or that I'm defending Assange? Questioning the official story is not equivalent to being a fan.

I just realize Assange is a high-value target for political and legal attacks (including false allegations), so I think people who unquestioningly believe what they hear about him from official sources are naive. Haven't we all seen enough to know that governments and the media don't always tell the truth?

And when Sweden cracked down on The Pirate Bay we saw that the Swedish government is not immune to pressure from Washington.

All I'm saying is: wait for conclusive proof before leaping to conclusions.