It appears that Ms Ny is operating at peril of her losing her job; she blatantly ignoring due process; suggesting that she has been offered some attractive incentive as compensation in return for her conducting what amounts to a high risk malicious prosecution; though it is also entirely possible; at least in part; that she is somewhat ignorant of proper judicial due process to begin with. She has a reputation as a maverick; in that she is obsessed with altering and reinterpreting the Swedish Penal Code to have such accord with her own personal prejudices; they haling from radical feminist ideology.
(1) She acted arrogantly; beyond her authority as a prosecutrix; and contrary to Swedish law by obtaining an EAW; whereas that prerogative was not hers; such being the sole responsibility of Sweden’s Police Board. The EAW as such was not valid; that raising the matter of liability for civil damages.
(2) She was involved in reopening a case maintaining that there was ‘new evidence’; but that claim appears to be false; in that a contradiction of former testimony; namely, ‘asleep’ VS ‘half asleep’, amounts to mere embellishment of the original complaint.
(3) She lied about her office not being in contact with Julian’s lawyer as regards Julian’s attempts to have his testimony entered into the record. She behaved in a most dodgy fashion and evaded every reasonable course of action to accommodate her ostensible desire for additional information.
(4) It appears that she avoided committing anything to trial to avoid providing full disclosure; there being cause to believe that such would reveal grievous malfeasance, inexcusable breaches of due process, there being exculpatory evidence withheld that renders void the prosecution’s allegations.
(5) She violated Julian’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights; [Article 5, section 2] namely: “Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and the charge against him.” and that she did even under protest.
(6) She tried to have him held incommunicado; there not appearing to be any justifiable reason for that request; that oddity suggesting that she was acting to accommodate US interests; to have him cut off from corresponding with the other members of Wikileaks.
It is my opinion that she is operating under the impression that she will be afforded immunity from repercussions concerning her callous disregard for proper judicial procedure; and her contempt of the law suggests that she is counting on the justice department to bail her out of difficulties; and that not altogether in keeping with reality; for normal procedure is to cut off the offending agent that the real instigators not bear the brunt of the damage; it being common practice in politics to eject the embarrassing underling to save face; that the careers of the higher echelon not be adversely affected.