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.