Re: Conspiracy theories
no, he left first, the day before he was to be interviewed (and where his lawyer had been told he'd probably be arrested, hence his flight to the UK, the only country he could enter without a visa and stay in for more than the 24 days left on his schengen visa) which was September 27.
The first hearing at the stockholm court was 18 november 2010.
The Svea court of appeal hearing was 24 november 2010
They appealed to the Swedish Supreme Court, their application was denied (nothing new, novel, unusual, etc)
the EAW was issued 26 november 2010.
SOCA certified the EAW on december 6, and on the 7th Assange handed himself in.
" But it's also where knowledge of Swedish criminal procedures might confuse things. So why the need for further police interviews, if charges have already been presented to the Swedish courts and appealed. I'm assuming that's around the difference between having evidence to charge vs evidence to prosecute."
The Swedish legal system isn't like the UK/Us one, not exactly.
What was presented was in some ways similar to what the US would call an indictment, although my understanding is that there is the ability for the defense to have some exculpatory input. However, fleeing the country the night before a scheduled interview, then refusing to return (that's what happened through october 2010) does put the preponderance of evidence squarely in the area of 'feeling guilty and avoiding arrest'. Especially when, in August, he applied for a work/residence permit, and issued a press release saying he was moving there because they have a great and fair justice system, a free and open press, and they don't extradite to the US for political crimes (famously, Sweden refused to extradite the only CIA officer to defect to the USSR, and just to amp the US pressure up a bit, the President at the time was VP when the defection happened, and was a former head of the CIA - it was personal for Bush Snr)
Anyway, the format of Swedish law and policing is that there has to be a final interview first, and then following that interview is the arrest and charging, with appearing at court soon after. They needed the interview to then do the arrest and charging. By comparison, under the UK system, he'd have been arrested on suspicion of the charge for the first interview, and charged and bailed to appear pending further investigations. This was pointed out to him and his team by the High court Judge who kept trying to conflate the UK and Swedish terms for 'charged', by saying 'but he hasn't been charged' using the Swedish literal to imply failure to reach the UK standard.
As for it being a false claim, it's unlikely. It fits with what I've heard of him from those who've worked with him. His responses are also not the kind typical of an innocent man, especially with the resources and knowledge he had to hand. his arguments against the charges are also bizarre in their terrible fabrication. Such as claiming the women dropped the charges, when in fact when the original prosecutor dropped it, they hired a lawyer to appeal that. And so on.
They've even started pointing to the high court stipulations to try and prove their narrative and re-write facts, seems they're oblivious to the fact that barristers will agree to stipulations that have little relevance to the elements of the case even if they're not wholely true, because 'its not worth arguing over that'.