As I have to point out every time this pops up - Assange has been through the entire appeal chain of the UK courts arguing his case and he has been rejected at every stage. The courts are fiercely independent (see recent Brexit coverage) and have a history of standing up to the government of the day when it comes to extradition.
Are we at a point where we should simply put this to third-party researcher?
Let me add my own facts that several third-party lawyers stated in the very first days that this kind of she-said-he-said has no chance to ever result in a conviction, and that the prosecutor is behavior in a oddly way for stating that the case has a strong chance for conviction (all the evidence was leaked and public). She said she was half-asleep, he said she was awake, and on that we got a rape charge of lesser degree, which in average do not even give jail time. No witnesses, no physical evidence, no collaborating-anything for either side. The prosecutor main argument to the media is that Assange claims are not believable because he did not agree to go to Sweden.
This case is the highest cost vs crime severity ever done by Sweden and the UK. It might even be the highest in Europe. Why is so much money being spent on this specific case and not others?
I choose to believe the independent judiciaries of two sovereign nations.
Assuming that political pressure is being successfully brought to bear on UK judges is just yet another conspiracy theory, concocted to paper over inconsistencies and gaps in the original conspiracy theory.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005
In the Assange case I recall even the prosecutor saying that the kind of things was common when doing police work over borders, but that they hoped that things would be done on time. From what I remembered, it was also mostly on time.
But since Embassies are considered sacrosanct, it is the Ecuadorians that exercised their right to dictate the rules of the interview rather than the three other involved nations.
Here's a seemingly comprehensive history: http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusive-new-docs-throw-doubt-o...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4304200/Pamela-Ander...
He absolutely has cause for concern, I agree, but what he has to gain in this specific case strikes me as a lot more than he can inflict on his opposition, even if it came down to just the PR benefits.
He can claim this, allowing him to imply that he is of course innocent, safe in the knowledge that it's impossible for the Swedish prosecutor to make such a guarantee.
And Assange said he would allow himself to be extradited to if Manning was commuted. She was, Assange is still in the Ecuadorian embassy.
The UK has much favourable extradition treaties with the US than Sweden has.