Just to focus on one issue -- of the four allegations [not criminal charges] on the Swedish EAW-sheet [ http://alturl.com/3n85m ], the most serious [potential 4-yr stretch] and probably only one IMHO for which JA could possibly be extradited, is the offence of RAPE - defined by Swedish Penal Code [ http://alturl.com/y8udt ] as:
Chapter 6: Section 1
Para.1: A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.
Para.2: This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state.
Para.3: If, in view of the circumstances associated with the crime, a crime provided for in the first or second paragraph is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed for rape.
The facts alleged in Ny's EAW to constitute the offence are recited, under 'Description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed', at page 4, point 4 as, "Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state" - in other words, the Prosecutrix has cut'n'pasted from Para.2 an edited legal definition of the offence into a box supposed to contain a description of actual events ... which may seem a harmless cart-before-the-horsing mishap to some, but actually indicates the abuse of dishonestly fitting the facts around the law to secure an extradition/conviction, a point reinforced by the knowledge that in other EAW cases before British courts, these details on facts relating to alleged offences can run to several pages of text.
If, as alleged in the skeleton defence argument [ http://alturl.com/7baio ] at p.46, para.109, Ny has additionally suppressed from the British Court's consideration available evidence of Wilén's subsequent SMS to a friend that this morning-after-the-night-before action occurred while she was "half-asleep" ... that is a [legally] significantly different state of affairs than what is made to appear on the 'upgraded' EAW, which, by design, describes a technical rape in Swedish law if, at the moment of penetration, she was literally sound asleep, even if this were immediately followed by [effective] retroactive consent, mutually whole-hearted Ugandan Negotiation of the Morningwood issue, then brandy and cigars all round.
i.e., saying someone was 'in a helpless state due to being half-asleep' just does not have the same inculpatory effect as 'fully asleep' regarding a presumptive incapacity to consent [an issue in British law, but not, apparently, Swedish], and the attempt in this case to falsely convey the latter impression strongly indicates bad faith [mala fides] and malicious bias on behalf of the Swedish Prosecutrix.
Furthermore, if Wilén's actual complaint that JA failed, after consensual condom-free sex, to submit to an AIDS test has been converted, as it very much appears, into a contrived criminal case in order to coerce him into a procedure he is under no legal obligation to comply with, or any other improper reason, then this is another, more fundamental, abuse of process.
The Swedish Crown Prosecutions Office website describes [ http://alturl.com/njs2m ] the requirement on its Prosecutors to "be objective when he or she initiates a prosecution ... [and] give due consideration to anything that could changes the situation with respect to evidence." As the same standard obviously also applies during the preliminary investigation of allegations [where this case remains in Sweden], Marianne Ny has demonstrated complete disregard for the hefty responsibilities required of her public office and has abused due process, the EAW procedures, the British judicial system and the rights of JA in large measure.
If she set out to make a name for herself in this case, she has undoubtedly succeeded, but looks set to land in roughly the same competence category as the inimitably inept Andrew J. Crossley. The British courts will certainly not be fooled into acceding to such prosecutorial abuse and I predict she will be seeking alternate employment shortly, whilst defending an overwhelming personal libel suit.
Paris, 'cos she'd have made a better fist[ing] of this case!