Long, aggressive, and vague comments like this are very difficult to respond to because it's hard to understand what you are actually saying. > "They prevented

Long, aggressive, and vague comments like this are very difficult to respond to because it's hard to understand what you are actually saying. > "They prevented him from seeing a lawyer at all before the case starts, and before he faced the courtroom" What do you mean by this? Are you saying that before his first hearing regarding the US extradition, he had not met with his lawyers at all? Regarding the rest of your comment, it appears that you think there is some kind of IFTTT list of things that somehow "get the suspect to go free, whatever the crime". That's not how it works. You can have a prosecution stayed as an "abuse of process", but there's no single law covering this, just a patchwork of precedent. The definitive legal textbook on this (Abuse of Process in Criminal Proceedings) was actually co-written by one of Assange's lawyers. If this avenue was open to him they surely would have taken it.