Hej allihopa, sverige samtal (Hello everyone, Sweden calling) [waves]
Assange and his legal team are playing the media like a good'un. They know full well the legal processes in Sweden and are exploiting them something chronic to make it look like there is something sinister going on. Like offering to be interviewed in the UK and then in the embassy. He has Swedish lawyers on his team too, he knows the Swedish legal system is such that this can't happen. That's why the offer is made, knowing the Swedes can't accept it. Sneaky little toad that he is.
The most serious charge he is facing is rape. Rape with it's most basic definition. The statement given to the police by the victim says that he pinned her down by her arms, she tried to stop him having sex with her by squeezing her legs together and twisting her hips but he forced her legs apart and penetrated her, even though she was on the verge of tears and in the end she 'just wanted to get it over with'.
His current legal status in Sweden is häktad i frånvaro or 'detained in absence'. This means that the evidence has been presented to a court who have ruled there is sufficient evidence to detain and charge him.
Swedish law does not follow the same principals as UK law. UK law is adversarial, the prosecutor vs the accused, and so the accused has no obligation to help the other side. The Swedish system is inquisitorial, an enquiry to get to the truth, the accused is legally obliged to assist in the investigation.
So what happens is that the police investigate, collect evidence and interview everyone involved. This can be done in another country if necessay, just like with many other legal systems. This has been done and Assange has been interviewed by the police (I have full copies of all the interviews if anyone wants them). This part of the process is pretty much the same as the UK.
The completed file of evidence is then given to the prosecutor to decide whether the case can be taken further. This is where the systems diverge because of it being an inquisitorial system.
The prosecutor carries out a second 'interview'. This is where the full evidence is laid out, the charges are laid out, the accused has a final chance to respond with new evidence and formal indictment takes place. This step in the process does not exist in the UK, but it's closest relative would be the formal reading out of charges in court and the entering a plea of guilty or not guilty. As you can see from the UK sort of equivalent, that would never happen outside of the country. Assange's team know this, which is why they can make empty offers to be 'interviewed' in another country and be seen as the good guys.
Assange had no fears about being extradicted to face a death sentence while in Sweden. He attended the first stage police interview without crying. Surprise, surprise, he had business outside of Sweden immediately after hearing that the prosecutor was taking the case forward to the second 'interview'. He knew full well that his goose was cooked. He is trying to evade just, that's all.
As for the extradition nonsense. The UK has an extradition treaty with the US, Sweden doesn't. If that was his genuine fear he would be better off in Sweden. Plus the terms of the EAW mean that Sweden cannot extradict him to the US without prior agreement from the UK.
As for the assurance that he won't be extradicted, that is plea bargaining and is unlawful in the Sweden. Again his team will know that, so they are publicly requesting something they know full well can never happen to create a smoke screen for a rapist trying to escape justice.