That question was tested by the Swedish court, and they found that the prosecutor was able to continue the investigation by questioning Assange in the embassy through an agreement between the Ecuador and Sweden. This decision to drop the case was partial because of the result of that interview.

That interview was led by a prosecutor from Ecuador. The Swedish prosecutor and police was only allowed to be present, so they could not question Assange as they wanted.

Edited:

You're right. The Swedish prosecutor and police were present but indeed the questions were posed on their behalf.

> On Monday morning, a Swedish deputy chief prosecutor, Ingrid Isgren, and a police inspector, Cecilia Redell, arrived at the Ecuadorean Embassy, in the Knightsbridge section of West London, as journalists gathered outside.

I don't think this means that Sweden didn't get the chance to ask question though - and if there were any they were prevented from asking, I'm sure they would have stated this in the aftermath.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/world/europe/assange-wiki...

Did you read your link? Ecuador was the one that shut him out and the questions were asked by a prosecutor from Ecuador.

>The questions were prepared by prosecutors in Sweden, where an arrest warrant for Mr. Assange was issued in 2010, but were posed by a prosecutor from Ecuador under an agreement the two countries made in August.

>“For some reason that I am not aware of, I am not on the list of approved persons that Ecuador has established,” Mr. Samuelsson told Radio Sweden.

Amended.

The Swedish prosecutor has said that they hoped to get a sample of Assange's DNA during the interview, but since it was carried out by a prosecutor from Ecuador that seems unlikely and I haven't seen anything about them getting it.

What on earth would they need DNA for ?

Assange has already stated that he had sex with both women.

Which means nothing unless you are talking about interrogation.

They could just have decided they didn't get good enough questions and kept the case open. They didn't because there isn't a case.

He was indeed questioned at the Ecuadorian Embassy [1]. And before that, for years, Assange gave them that offer, but they refused time and time again (until they relentlessly accepted) [2].

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-sweden-assange-idU...

[2] "He has offered to be questioned inside the embassy but the Swedish prosecutors only recently agreed." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/11/ecuador-to-let-sw...

> Well if you cannot question the accused

What do you mean? The Swedish prosecutor has been invited to question Assange for the last 5 years and declined to do so until a few months ago.

Julian was invited back to Sweden and he declined. It's not the job of Swedish authorities to fly all over the world to question people of interest, they would get nothing done.

1. That's a false equivalence, and you know it.

2. The swedish courts have found that it was in fact the swedish authorities job.

1. No, Julian was the person of interest, he should come to the police, not the other way around. You claim the swedish prosecutor "was invited" but "declined" to question him where he wanted. Persons wanted for questioning regarding rape or any serious crime does not get to invite prosecutors where and when they want to have a conversation about it.

2. The Swedish court found that it was ok to do so because it was being dragged out, not that that it was their job.

They were offered video link interrogation, which swedish authorities have done many times before, but Marianne Ny refused.

The defendant could choose not to answer any questions, so would it change anything?

It's one of the fundamentals of the Swedish legal system, you can't be sentenced in your absence or at least not without being heard

He was heard at the embassy, back in November.

Not by Swedish police or prosecutor, Ecuador didn't allow it. Only a prosecutor from Ecuador was allowed to ask questions.

That does not limit the amount of evidence that can be collected.

It does not but it limits the possibility to prosecute which is what the prosecutor came to terms with, at least according to her comments on the Swedish evening news. Basically the statue of limitations for this crime is 10 years, it's now been 7 and there is no resolution in sight so it's basically just a waste of time and money. Embarrassing if you ask me but that's the way it is.

No, that's not how it works. Showing up for a trial (and being represented) reduces your chances of a conviction. Sweden could have held a trial in absentia leading to a conviction if they believed they had a case to begin with.

I always wondered why they did not do that.

As it has been explained many times: no, they couldn't have.

Trial in absentia is not a universal feature of justice systems. Germany, for example, doesn't have it. Neither has Sweden.

Sweden most certainly has trial in absentia. It is up to the judge to decide if a case can be tried in the absense of the accused.

Use google translate: http://lawline.se/answers/8630

Thank you, I had heard otherwise. Upvoted.

In fact, it does. I don't know why people keep perpetrating these long ago debunked falsehoods.

This document[0] alleges Sweden has a right to remain silent. If Assange had shown up in court and refused to answer any questions, how would the case have changed? What was the prosecutor's plan in this eventuality?

[0] - https://www.loc.gov/law/help/miranda-warning-equivalents-abr...