A few points about your post...
investigation into the rape (Sweden's legal interpretation of the term) allegations
This seems to be a common fallacy about the Assange story - that the Swedish allegations wouldnt be valid in any other country.
Not just Swedens legal interpretation - under UK law, unless specifically excluded by treaty, there has to be "dual criminality" involved in the extradition charges for the warrant to be valid in the UK. At every stage of Assanges extradition hearings, each judge found the charges to meet the dual criminality requirement in full - what the Swedes called "rape" is also rape in the UK under UK law.
So its not just Swedens legal interpretation of the term, its the British legal interpretation of the term as well. You can go and read any of the extradition judgements against him, they all affirm this decision.
During that time, there have been repeated requests for the Swedish prosecutor to question him in the embassy as a guest of the Ecuadorians. She refused every single one and never gave a reason why, something that got her censured by her own people for basically fucking around over what, on the face of it, was a simple and straightforward case.
Also what seems to be ignored is the following:
1. Assange has been "arrested in absence" and under Swedish law cannot be charged before being interviewed. The prosecutor has repeatedly stated that the intention is to charge Assange, which is why he hasn't been interviewed in the Ecuadorian Embassy - it wouldn't achieve the goal that the prosecutor has.
2. There was a scheduled meeting between him and the prosecutor that Assange failed to return to Sweden for - it was at this interview that Assange was to be arrested and formally charged by the prosecutor. The failure to attend this meeting triggered the EAW application.
3. Why should any prosecutor interview a suspect on the suspects terms?