Back then, I and a number of the other legal dudes on HN were saying that the US would definitely try to extradite Assange no matter how long he tried to stay in the embassy.[1] We all generally agreed he should face justice in Sweden (if he was innocent, as he claimed) because Sweden does not extradite for the crimes he is now charged with...but the UK does. While it's possible Sweden might have deported him to Australia after whatever happened in Sweden, that scenario was never brought up.

[1] We're still trying to extradite Polanski, even though he's been a fugitive for decades. The US legal system has patience, largely because everything takes so long anyways.

So why didn't he go to Sweden?

Even if guilty and they can prove it, a Swedish jail is probably nicer than a US one and I doubt he would go down for longer for the alleged crimes in Sweden than for those in the US. What was it - sex without a condom? Versus the espionage in the US?

When people are out to get you and you see irregular behavior from people in the government, what is a rational behavior?

The case had gone through not one but two prosecutor, both which dropped the case. Rumors of US influence and a third prosecutor picks up the case.

Could be nothing of course and just part of normal operation by the legal system. Just because people were out to get him doesn't mean he should had reacted paranoid about it.

Because he thought they would hand him to the us.

it's certainly possible. I guess we'll never know.

Because there is a history of Sweden quietly allowing the US to perform extraordinary rendition there.

The terms "many observers" and "many voices" are weasel words, and also blanket statements. Your argument would be much better if you could be more specific about who you are referring to.