Condom used as evidence in Assange sex case 'does not contain his DNA'

[pnwmom]

227. Except in the appeals documents of the British court.

He isn't wanted for initial questioning in Sweden. They are ready to prosecute him -- unless the interrogation once they have him in custody causes them to drop the case -- and they need to have him in custody for that.

http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?%20utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co

Assange did argue in the Magistrates Court that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning rather than prosecuting him. In response to that argument, the Prosecutor, Marianne Ny, provided a statement dated 11 February 2011 explaining the Swedish procedure. (The High Court quotes from this statement at para.142 of its judgment.) She concluded as follows:
"Subject to any matters said by him [in the second interview] which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
The Senior District Judge found against Assange on this point and Assange did not pursue it in the High Court. At para.131 of the High Court judgment: "It was accepted in oral submissions made on behalf of Mr Assange that the surrender of Mr Assange was sought for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (satisfying 2(3)(b)), as the Senior District Judge had held. That concession was made because it was accepted that the words 'for the purposes of being prosecuted' were broad enough to encompass a prosecution that would commence in the future." [Emphasis added] Rather, it was argued that as an additional safeguard the proceedings must already have commenced. As already indicated, Assange lost on that point.