"“I can conclude, based on the evidence, that probable cause for this crime still exists,” she said on Friday, the deadline for prosecutors to respond to a court-ordered deadline in the case.
But prosecutors felt that they had no choice but to abandon the investigation because they had concluded that Ecuador would not cooperate, and because all other possibilities had been exhausted."
I don't understand this terminology. In the US, probable cause is a set of circumstances that can lead to a stop or an arrest. "Probable cause for a crime" makes no sense, unless it has a different meaning in Sweden. If the Swedish prosecutor thought she could win the case, why did she not press on with it? Hypothetically, if Assange had shown up in Sweden but refused to answer any questions, how would her case have changed? Was the issue that Assange was not present and a judge had to rule in absentia? If so, why did the prosecutor drop the case instead of allowing the judge to rule on it?
From https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/world/europe/julian-assan...
"“I can conclude, based on the evidence, that probable cause for this crime still exists,” she said on Friday, the deadline for prosecutors to respond to a court-ordered deadline in the case.
But prosecutors felt that they had no choice but to abandon the investigation because they had concluded that Ecuador would not cooperate, and because all other possibilities had been exhausted."