>What I think is a shame is that you are accusing these two women of being part of a smear campaign and/or a secret conspiracy to frame Assange when there is exactly zero evidence for that theory.

Those women appear to be an unwilling part of the smear campaign, it is not a shame to call attention to this fact. The records provide ample evidence for this theory, such as their direct statements, the ordered rewrite of their complaints, and the media reporting statements the day before they were made.

Even if they have legitimate complaints against Assange, theiy are being used as part of a smear campaign.

>The two women's stories are out in the open while Assange instead opted to flee the country and has not commented on the allegations.

People that flee the country don't typically wait until they are denied a visa, and then check in with the authorities immediately before leaving the country. Assange has repeatedly opted to comment on the allegations, he just wants assurance they wouldn't send him to the US. Sweden refused to let him.

Are you that naive? Evidence and witness testimony can be easily fabricated by authorities (happens all the time), especially when the authorities are out to get someone and have political and personal reasons to do so. What's your reasoning for believing these women's testimony other than made up fact by police?

What is your reasoning for believing they WERE made up?

It certainly isn't evidence of any kind.

The interview in the top-level comment seems to cover that.

The interview with the guy who is making a claim that it's all a conspiracy based on... him not knowing how the Swedish justice system works?

"Why would a person be subject to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges ever having been filed?"

Because in Sweden, the suspect is first interviewed, and then charges are filed, and Assange himself has chosen to not make himself available for interview?

That is not a great way to establish credibility, and the tone he says this stuff in is entirely that of someone who is pushing an agenda with little regard for truth.

>Assange himself has chosen to not make himself available for interview

*Except for the appearing at the police station and giving an interview with a policeman, then spending three weeks scheduling multiple meetings that the prosecution deferred, getting written permission to leave the country, agreeing to return if assurances would be made that he would not he sent to the US, offering to conduct the interview in the UK or over video link as allowed by Swedish law.

Besides, why would they organize such a grand conspiracy case only to drop the investigation shortly after a US ally obtained custody of Assange?

I was thinking of the bit where he says

"Now the supervisor of the policewoman who had conducted the questioning wrote her an email telling her to rewrite the statement from S. W."

and then provides physical evidence of that.

That, as far as I can tell, is a misrepresentation.

I don't understand what you mean. The women who have testified against Assange are alive and well. One (Anna Ardin) is a public figure and both are active in Swedish left-wing politics. The idea that these women would be part of a conspiracy to frame Assange is ludicrous as they both supported Assange's cause. Their testimonies are public knowledge and if they didn't agree with what is written in the records, it would be easy for them to protest it.

Also, you have to offer me some evidence that Swedish authorities can easily fabricate evidence and witness testimony and that it happens all the time. Not that I know how it is relevant since the witness testimonies in Assange's case are clearly not fabricated.

You can not prove that the evidence is not fabricated or that witnesses are being truthful or were not pressured into their statements, you chose to believe in what the authorities put out there (that is your choice, it does not prove anything except that you believe the authorities). People say things all the time, that does not make it true, just because two women said something does not make it more true than if only one said it and looking at the circumstances it seems like a lot of powerful forces are at work against Assange. You think it is not possible at all for "evidence" like this to be untruthful and that damaging Assange's reputation would be of benefit to some? You chose to look at the world in a certain way, that things are good and that authorities can be trusted however if Assange and Wikileaks have taught us anything it's that that premise is not true. It's not a conspiracy, it's what's happening, you just don't want to see it.

Wow... I couldn't disagree more with your EDIT. This is flat out untrue. I didn't say they were smearing him, and neither does Melzer. Did you read the article?

If you carefully read Nils Melzer's report(s), you'll see that both women are unwilling victims of what's going on.