"So, after 4 years of a swedish bureaucrat waving their dick
[...] I look forward to 10 years from now when I can watch the documentary and finally find out what the heck went on with this whole thing.[...]
Assange fled from their jurisdiction (which he should have been interviewed per Swedish procedure, if you read below), after his legal counsel had been advised the police wanted to interview him prior to charging him. Though his legal counsel denied having been in contact with him, he subsequently admitted this was not true in a British court, which led his professional association to declare they wished to interview him, the implication being that he must have tipped his client the wink, which wink precipitated his client's flight from Swedish justice. Later, back in the UK, Assange broke bail (put up by his 'friends'), and fled again, this time to the representative of the human rights abusing Ecuadorian government, where he's been for four years.
Inconsistencies have plagued Assange's arguments from the very start, and here we are; Assange claimed it was inhumane to put him in Wandsworth prison, and applied for bail, the British CJS, as if blissfully unaware that he was by definition at risk of absconding (because he did so from Sweden when facing the probability of arrest under the normal Swedish procedure of 1) interview then 2) charge and 3) arrest), gave him bail. As I say, Assange gratefully and inexplicably again vanished in a puff of smoking packets, and reappeared in the Ecuadorian embassy. I note ironically this must have been the biggest ftp operation since the equally second rate Lawnmower man.
In past times Assange indicated he wanted to settle in Sweden, apparently because it was liberal and actually housed a Wikileaks server. After he'd been advised of his status as a suspect in that fair country he declared it has banana republic standards of justice, whilst indicating he felt they'd extradite him to the US, mentioning capital punishment as a source of concern; it is the case that Sweden does not extradite to countries intending to apply capital punishment; so, having fled to the country most likely by virtue of a Tony Blair/US treaty to bend over for the US government and extradite him, then being subjected to a EAW (which means he cannot be extradited until the EAW is spent), he claimed he was at risk of extradition to the US from Sweden.
My opinion? Although it is an opinion I'll save the Reg any agony by expressing it, but you can surely tell what it is, owing to the way the facts stack up and my expressions of disbelief.