STOCKHOLM/LONDON (Rixstep) — The world is in a deadlock. Julian Assange has been granted diplomatic asylum in Ecuador because Ecuador found Marianne Ny intractable. And Marianne Ny has long claimed it's 'illegal' for her to question Julian Assange in the UK. This was the same 'desafinado' tune sung by minister of foreign affairs Carl Bildt to Jennifer Robinson this past summer in Sweden.
Marianne Ny went so far as to tell Time Magazine back in December 2010 that it was illegal not only under Swedish law but under British law too.
But that's a prevarication of course - nothing's illegal and the Mutual Legal Assistance system is used all the time for precisely these circumstances. And yet the whole world has waited for two years now.
It's only weeks ago one first saw definite cracks in Marianne Ny's claim. Her office was contacted after she'd refused Ecuador's offer to question Julian Assange at the embassy in Knightsbridge. The claim - as published then in the Swedish media - was still that such an interrogation was illegal.
But when asked to cite which specific statutes made it illegal under Swedish law (no one wanted to burden the Swedes with also digging into British law, of which they ostensibly know very little) Marianne Ny's office came up with nothing and began to blame the Swedish media for 'getting it all wrong'.
Fredrik Berg at Marianne Ny's office instead let slip that what Marianne Ny has consistently described for the past two years as something 'illegal' was merely 'something we're not interested in'.
So Martha Kearney contacted Marianne Ny's media contact Karin Rosander for another gem of an interview. Rosander is of course infamous for her interview back in August 2010 with Al Jazeera.
Marianne Ny reopened a closed case against Julian Assange on the merits of a broken condom which was part of an investigation Eva Finné had already closed, a case she pointedly ordered the police to not touch anymore.
But Mats Gehlin, working in collaboration with Claes Borgström, snuck off a condom to the state forensic lab under the pretence it was connected to another case. The condom was returned one month later with negative results: the condom was indeed torn, and it did not appear to have been torn by mechanical means, but it also showed no traces of genomic DNA, meaning it hadn't been used for sex.
And yet this is purportedly the 'legal fiction' Marianne Ny used to reopen the case against Julian Assange at the behest of her buddy, colleague, and fellow state feminist Claes Borgström.
The condom wouldn't prove anything anyway. None of the parties involved in the case denied having sex. The condom was merely a bit of 'legal fiction' used to reopen a case Eva Finné had already closed because 'no crime was committed'.
Marianne Ny has been playing 'cat and mouse' with Julian Assange ever since. And the world waits and the world's patience is running out.
KR: The prosecutor has stated that, according to circumstances in the investigation, her opinion is that it's necessary that he is present in Sweden, and she hasn't stated exactly what circumstances, but that's her statements [sic].
MK: But isn't it the case that Swedish prosecutors have gone abroad to question defendants in serious cases at other times?
KR: Yes, that's true, it has happened. And it's for the individual - it's for the prosecutor to decide which measures to take. So it's... it's all about what the prosecutor decides to do.
MK: But what you're saying is there are circumstances in this case that make it very different. It's hard to understand what they might be!
KR: Yeah. And the prosecutor hasn't stated exactly what kind of circumstance - what circumstances - but that's her... her decision.
MK: Would it be possible to reach some kind of agreement with Julian Assange that he wouldn't be extradited to United States, because that's what he says he's frightened of if he were to agree to travel to Sweden?
KR: Well that's not exactly for the prosecutor to decide because that's uh... a decision uh... that has to be made by the Swedish government.
MK: Wouldn't it be possible to interview him by video link, by some kind of video phone?
KR: The prosecutor has uh... stated that it's... it's necessary for him being present in Sweden. And that's uh... all she can say at the moment.
MK: One other form of compromise that has been suggested is that he would be interviewed in the Swedish embassy, so technically on Swedish soil.
KR: Yeah. But that doesn't really uh... change it because the prosecutor's opinion is that it's necessary he is actually present in Sweden, according to the circumstances within this investigation.
MK: Given what's at stake here - it's now become a great international question now, hasn't it, with Ecuador, the UK, and Sweden all being involved - shouldn't the Swedish prosecutor spell out more clearly her reasons for taking this stand?
KR: No. Her decision is that at this stage of the investigation she does not want to specify.
MK: So how is the deadlock going to be resolved then?
KR: Uhhh... I have no idea really.
Karin Rosander has been described on YouTube as 'the worst prosecutor ever' but that epithet has to be reserved for Marianne Ny. Karin is only a media contact. To her credit however, she does belong to the Facebook group 'Intelligent classy well-educated women who say 'f*ck' a lot'.