Re: @Jellied Eel - Curious
It was reopened 3 days after Finne dropped it (and dropped it rather mysteriously). Assange's own lawyer testified that Ny did a first quick question after hte reopening. But are you ready for the fun part?
In the Feb2011 extradition hearing, Assange's lawyer testified that there'd been no attempt to interview Assange, and that the prosecutor said he was free to go. The expert witnesses testified on this as well.
That's what cook there talks about.
Slight problem though, as Ny's office supplied a whole bunch of communications with Hurtig, Assange's swedish lawyer, about interviews. So, who to believe? Well, Hurtig still had text messages on his phone from Ny arranging interviews and suchlike, which he had to read out in court. So, then Hurtig admitted the whole 'didn't interview' and 'said he was free to leave Sweden' was a deliberate lie. Hurtig then tried to claim that sure, he arranged on the 20th an interview with Ny for the 28th, but that he hadn't spoken to Assange since the 19th, and didn't until the 29th. It was only coincidence that Assange left Sweden suddenly for the UK (where he had no business) late on the 27th, hours after Ny's office had informed Hurtig that Assange would probably be taken into custody the following day. Oh, and then Assange and Hurtig kept promising Ny that he'd come back to Sweden for an interview in the following days, and never did.
Documentation of the communication with Ny's office was submitted to the court.
Cook's "opinion" piece is filled with the same lies that fill the defense assange site, including the claim " Interpol issued a Red Notice for Assange, usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals."
Red notices are not usually reserved for terrorists and dangerous criminals, they're just the name of a notice for someone wanted internationally by a court either to be prosecuted, or to serve their sentence. It's usually a preliminary for extradition, and there's over 50,000 of them active right now. A blue notice is similar, but is for a witness, and a yellow one is for someone considered missing. Terrorists and dangerous criminals would get either an Orange or a Green notice.
So yes, he skipped Sweden to avoid arrest. In fact Assange's own defense experts, after having told the court that wikileaks had lied to them about the facts that their testimony was based on and been given the actual facts in the case by the court, all agreed with the prosecutor, with the one they usually point to (Karl Alhem) saying that he'd have gone for a Red Notice just like Ny did in those circumstances, and that Ny had been incredibly lenient with Assange, as it was standard practice to place people accused of these crimes in custody straight away.
Seriously, read the court findings from the Feb 2011 hearing, it destroys most of the stuff in that blogpost. Here, I'll make it easy http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html
Oh, and the leak was from Hurtig's office.
If you're going to say an article has 'decent run-downs of timelines and events', hows about actually making sure it does, instead of repeating lies that Assange's own defense team admitted to being deliberate lies more than 8 years ago.