On 9 May, Assange had only been in jail for about a month. The expert claims the abuse predates that ("for a period of several years") which implies it started in the Ecuadorian embassy where he had been staying of his own accord.

He couldn’t really leave the Ecuadorian Embassy given that he was afraid of being arrested and eventually being extradited back to the U.S.

He’s not saying that Assange didn’t have symptoms similar to a torture victim - just that he was there voluntarily, and so it isn’t actually torture.

He could leave the embassy at any time, which is where the purported damage was done. He is now in prison, where he cannot leave it any time. Melzer visited him recently in prison, thus your quote. It seems pretty clear. The parent may be lacking in nuance for his situation, but it is correct.

They were waiting in front of the embassy 24/7. We can now see that he was exactly right in his prediction of what would happen if he left, and how. He's been held in solitary confinement, itself already widely regarded as torture.

Saying "he could have left" in this situation, after being shown exactly how that would have/did go down, is like camping out in front of your ex-girlfriend's house with a baseball bat, then telling the officer you didn't beat her and thus did nothing wrong. Except the whole world can see you totally did beat her when she finally left the house.

In addition, he didn't even know if it would be a real arrest and just solitary confinement considering the CIA's reputation.

I didn't say otherwise. The grandparent stated that he had a choice to leave, the parent implied that he did not because he was in prison. That is not true - the grandparent was correct.

As I said, framing it as that simple of a choice may lack some nuance in describing the pressure he was under. But it is factually true that he was not forced to stay in the conditions which are being criticised. Some would also say that the nature of the conditions was somewhat of his own doing, since the relationship with the embassy is well documented to have deteriorated greatly over time. I can't vouch either way, and it seems people are downvoting normal conversation so I doubt it will be productive to continue.

Melzer was asked about that. He responded: "Mr. Assange was about as free to leave as someone sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool." - https://twitter.com/NilsMelzer/status/1134400849097220102

You're plastering this thread with the same talking points. People are responding to you. Were you going to address any of the responses, or just keep plastering?

Generally people accused of serious crimes are not as free as the rest of us.

He has always been free to face his accusers.

BS. They're accusing him under a law that would not allow him to present any motive for what he did. Not a fair trial by most countries' standards.

What is an acceptable motive for rape?

The charges he will be facing on the US are for spionage (under patriot act) not rape.

Please don’t do that here. We’re not talking about rape. We’re talking about the espionage accusations.

Not really. It was the arrest warrant for the rape charges in Sweden that kept him confined in the Ecuadorian embassy.

I thought the news was about Sweden dropping the case of rape.

I've done my reading, nowhere it was mentioned that it wasn't about the allegations of rape.

BTW, the comments guidelines state

    Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article?