Meanwhile, Ecuador prepares to extradite a blogger it offered asylum in 2008.

[sabrina 1]

39. Marianne Nye has lied about this. There is no Swedish law that prevented

her from questioning Assange, first in Sweden when he asked daily to speak to her and she refused, and then from London which she again consistently refused to do. She claimed there were 'legal impediments', but this turned out not to be the case.

She has also been asked why, after two years, she has failed to file charges. Her circular arguments have been noted by legal experts everywhere, leading many people to believe that she never intended to file charges, but did intend to keep him under house arrest in London for as long as possible.

Her next excuse was that she could not arrest him even if she did speak to him London. Considering that she already had him arrested after issuing the EAW, and that he was out on bail from that arrest, that too was a lie.

But if people took the trouble to look at her 'evidence', they might begin to understand why she is so reluctant to file charges. The exculpatory evidence in this case, NOT published on a daily basis by the press, is mountainous. Starting with texts between the women, 'plotting to make money' by 'destroying his reputation' eg, and much much more. So long as she refuses to charge him, she can continue to refuse to turn that evidence over to the Defense. The Defense did finally get to see some of it, but were denied the right to make copies.

Once the actual evidence, not the ever-changing allegations from the women's original, and recorded statements to the police, is viewed by the public, she is going to have an awful lot of questions to answer. Eg, there are many witnesses who gave testimony, most of it does not bolster her case especially coincided with the women's own words, which they tried to scrub from the internet but not before bloggers saw them and/or screen capped them, making it impossible for those damning texts to go away.