Quote Originally Posted by Snowhobbit View Post
Asylum is usually something requested to avoid persecution, not prosecution.
That is up to him and the country he requested asylum from. A person can be persecuted by being prosecuted.

Assange is the one who is currently refusing interviews, the prosecutor has after being told by the supreme court moved to conduct interviews. This being unlike Assange who is too great and mighty to respect the decision of two (!) supreme courts. His mental illness is not relevant to the case.
No, Ecuador is, and we don't know the reason. Is it technical, is it legal? My google fu failed me, so if anyone has a link to the statement explaining why they declined, I'd like to read it.

The formality of legal procedure requires for Assange to be presented with the prosecutions side of the story and give his own version before he can be brought to trial. He is of course not required to incriminate himself, such a claim is just ridiculous. Legal proceedings are required for a reason and cannot be exempted even for superstar rapists.
No it isn't. If I sue you, the court is obliged to inform you of the proceedings and offer you the chance tell your side of the story and prepare a defence. If you refuse to do so, it is not mine or the court's problem. Assange has appointed legal counsel who represent him in this case so the prosecutor could have informed them of the "their side of the story". Also, there's this thing called the mail. Julian Assange, Ecuador embassy, 3 Hans Crescent, Knightsbridge, London, UK.

Dear Mr. Assange.

We wish to inform you that since you refused to give an interview which would only help your case, we have decided to formally charge you with rape of Name1 and Name2, under Swedish law, article X. The first hearing will be conducted at Date and Time.
It is a complete bollox that they have to interview him. What if he was detained in Sweden and chose to defend himself by being silent? No one can force him to talk, either at the interview or at the trial. Would they drop the case then? Well, we tried to interview him but he refused to say anything.

So, Mr. Northern Lawyer, your case, like theirs, is paper thin.

Ever since the prosecution changed its tune (and decided to do its damn job) the Assange side has refused to participate in an interview and have done everything they can to prevent such a thing from taking place.
Not Assange. You're acting like he's the ruler of Ecuador.

The reason for this being in limbo is one of a few. 1, his lawyers are lying to him about the risk of extradition. 2, he is mentally ill and believes the CIA will send in a strike team the moment he steps outside of the embassy. 3, He is a rapist and prefers to sit in an Ecuadorian embassy over a Swedish jail.
1. Really? I don't see it that way.
2. Let's say he is innocent for the moment and that he did receive a text message from a woman he supposedly raped telling him the police twisted her story. Would he really need to be mentally ill to fear he's being persecuted?
3. Possible, but more far fetched. Why would he agree to an interview at any time, then? If the evidence is so overwhelming, why wasn't he charged and tried in absentia already?

You only have two scenarios. He is either guilty or innocent. His behaviour has been more consistent with the latter, so if we assume he is innocent, he's behaviour so far has been perfectly rational. If we assume he is guilty and that the prosecutor has enough evidence to think that, why wasn't he charged and/or tried in absentia and why wasn't every effort taken to interview him, so they can at least say "look we've been trying to interview him for four years, and he's been refusing for four years."