[viraptor]

I'm not sure what the issue is. If you are already hiding in a place unreachable by the Swedish LE, you don't have to take part in anything. If you agree to take part in the investigation over internet anyway, that's still better for the victims. (verdict, potential damages from any sources the LE can take over, public acknowledgement of guilt, etc.)

[dogma1138]

For the same reason you don't usually negotiate with terrorists? Or any other behaviour you don't condone, right or wrong the guy made a mockery of Swedish LE if nothing else he should be charged with obstruction for going AWOL after agreeing to come for an interview and then skipped the country a day before.

[viraptor]

I don't see how this is similar to negotiating with terrorists. He holds no power in this case while physically unreachable by Sweden. If found guilty, he gets more problems. If found innocent, he's stuck with all the original problems.

Charging him for running away also seems irrelevant to the original question - was this case more than a political play.

[dogma1138]

So in your opinion it's ok for someone who committed a crime to run away and hide and then have the DA go and question to them knowing regardless of the outcome they can't touch them and even compelling them to answer questions would be impossible unlike in court?

Ofc not, they should be marked as fugitives and held in contempt until they can brought in.

This wasn't a political case this was an asshole trying to escape justice, he knew he wouldn't be extradited to the US from Sweden he just hoped to play that while he plays the UK authorities while he spins this as political prosecution to his fans and the media to gather public support.

[viraptor]

You're bringing up the actual act of running away. I'm saying once someone already ran away and you know you can't touch them, it's more beneficial to everyone to allow them to testify remotely than delay/close the case, potentially forever.