My understanding of the above link: The accusation that police changed the statement from the witness may be false or even deliberately exaggerated. Not extac

My understanding of the above link: The accusation that police changed the statement from the witness may be false or even deliberately exaggerated. Not extactly that he is blanket full of shit or did i miss something? But Nils onky asked Sweden to respond to the question, which they didnt do.. not even a short: sorry you got the wrong end of the stick there. Which given the attention of the case seems weird. It also doesnt really say anything about his treatment in the uk the lack of gurantee not to be extrodited, the leaking of accusations to the press, lack of aninimity for the accused etc. And to be clear sweden didnt respond to any of Nils' questions, why? Is the UN really just a joke? If so isnt that still really bad? Please feel free to expand on why you dont trust a single thing he says, but at the moment your comment doesnt seem justified.