I cannot pretend to have as much insight into this case as Nils Metzner. However, I can take issue with the spin presented on several things. I read this paragraph above, and kept reading:

> Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didn’t fit with the public prosecutor’s schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick.

Two schedule conflicts, one due to illness? This is the kind of thing that is being used to "show" that there was maliciousness afoot? I wonder how many times Assange rescheduled the same meeting (in between planning his trip to Berlin for a conference)?

There _are_ irregularities and holes in this whole thing (from the government(s)) side that have absolutely shown problems with the handling of the affair, and that have done a poor job of showing effective or efficient handling of things and allowed this whole situation to fester and worsen.

But things like that cause little more than an eye-roll. I'd wager that a vast majority of people reporting to police stations for voluntary interviews have at one time or another (or in this case, twice) run into a scheduling conflict:

"The public prosecutor repeatedly kept delaying proceedings"

is _not_ an unbiased perspective (or rather language) of an investigator.