> A better question would be why the prosecutor didn't conduct this interview during the week the stayed in Sweden after the accusations were officially in the media?
Different prosecutor, one less high up in the system there.
The original prosecutor made the right decision. The chance of a conviction is zero. No sane jury in a civilised country will find a man guilty of raping a woman who made him breakfast and went out with him the next day, tweeted about the incident positively and generally acted as happy as can be until she decided ... much later ... that actually she had been raped. (then she started trying to delete the evidence that she was lying). The case just has no merit at all, which is why Assange thinks it's a set up - the new prosecutor is either a tool of the USA or some kind of bizarre ultra feminist who thinks women never ever lie about rape. Whatever the cause, Assange doesn't want to go there for obvious reasons.
Different prosecutor, one less high up in the system there.
The original prosecutor made the right decision. The chance of a conviction is zero. No sane jury in a civilised country will find a man guilty of raping a woman who made him breakfast and went out with him the next day, tweeted about the incident positively and generally acted as happy as can be until she decided ... much later ... that actually she had been raped. (then she started trying to delete the evidence that she was lying). The case just has no merit at all, which is why Assange thinks it's a set up - the new prosecutor is either a tool of the USA or some kind of bizarre ultra feminist who thinks women never ever lie about rape. Whatever the cause, Assange doesn't want to go there for obvious reasons.