Condom used as evidence in Assange sex case 'does not contain his DNA'

[joshcryer]

267. Both women are pursuing charges. I'm not sure where you get that.

I think AA's case is much harder to prosecute given the events (she had sex with him multiple times after his alleged abusive behavior, etc).

But SW broke it off with him after the "surprise sex" encounter. The condom with DNA only proves that Assange and her had an encounter. It doesn't prove nor disprove that Assange inserted himself into her without a condom violating the terms of consent (though his lawyers admitted that he had done that already it probably can't be used in court and Assange may argue that he in fact did not do that, thus making the case even harder to prove).

The timeline is often distorted and the various actions of the women are in dispute, of course, as is common with rape allegations.

Anyway, if your sexual consent is predicated on various rules, then it's rape if those rules are violated. For instance, if someone says "no anal" and there is anal penetration, that is rape. In this case consent for penetration was predicated on a condom being worn. It would be rape in the UK and it would be rape in the United States. It's quite clearly a violation of consent if true and if it can be proved in a court.

I have my doubts it can be proved though because these women seem like their character can be dragged through the mud. Already, outside the courts, their name is being dragged through the mud by suspicious innuendos and the like.

It remains the case that they are still pursuing charges.