Assange to UN: 'It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks'

[sabrina 1]

96. Again, the Swedish Prosecutor refused to do her job when this case was handed to her.

She turned down his many requests to speak to her in Sweden, and later to return to Sweden where she could have and should have interviewed him and could easily have arrested him when it was her duty to do so. But she refused to do so, even going so far as to tell him he was free to leave.

She blew the case, many people think on purpose. Because the minute she files charges, the world gets to see what exactly she has as evidence, evidence she has refused to show even to the Defense. So long as she does not file charges, she can hide the evidence from the public.

You are refusing to answer the question again. This was a simple matter. Suspect is right there in your jurisdiction, he is asking to speak to you. YOU have emphasized over and over again how important it is to speak to suspects as quickly as possible yet, you go against your own beliefs and refuse to interview and arrest and file charges in a case that has been given to you.

Explain please why she refused to do her duty. Anything that happened after she failed in her duty, is irrelevant. That is WHY Prosecutors are supposed to interview suspects right in the very beginning. Because of what can happen when they do not.

She KNEW the ramifications of failing to do her duty, yet she failed to do so.

I am only interested in your explanation of why a Prosecutor would fail so spectacularly to interview a suspect who was right there asking to speak to her and then file her charges. If you still refuse to answer that question, I have no interest in anything else you have to say because all of it is merely a distraction. And it is not relevant to her actions in this case.