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

[freshwest]

287. I don't see that it changes anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the story was that Mr. Assange...

Two happy ladies had consensual sex one night, together. Condoms were used some of the time or not used. Only the people in the bed knew what happened or how. The story is conflicting. There's also a photograph of one of the ladies and Assange the next day with friends and they seem relaxed and happy. Unfortunately, the other lady is not in the picture, and we can't know all that went on between them. We don't know if this the lady making the complaint, but if it is not her, that may show her unhappiness or perhaps she was busy, meaning nothing. I note it because the picture is mentioned as a sign of the people being happy.

This is the complaint here:

In the report, the first alleged victim, now 33, claims she was sexually molested by Mr Assange at her flat in Stockholm on several occasions.

That sounds like rape, and it doesn't say when it happened. This was originally reported as one affair with the three, not 'several occasions.' Did he leave and return? Was this all at the same time period, and she felt coerced in some way to stay there with him?

She also claims that Mr Assange deliberately ripped a condom before wearing it so that he could have unprotected sex with her against her will.

That sounds crazy on everyone's part. It sounds like rape. Was the sex against her will or was it only unprotected sex she was unwilling to have with him? If he ripped a condom before he was wearing it, but still wore it, hy bother to wear it if he was intent on unprotected sex? Why would he do that, because of the consequences to his health and life, of disease or a child?

Earlier on, one of the ladies who already had intercourse with Mr. Assange willingly, says that she was awoken by him having sex with her but that would be rather weird. Maybe they were all three of them on drugs or drunk and not really paying attention the whole time.

Some of the earliest threads on this story, if I remember correctly, the reason the lady or ladies went to the police was that after he left, they could not get ahold of him to see if he'd been tested for HIV. They were worried about disease and that was the reason for the concern about the broken or torn condom.

This indicates they weren't thinking straight to begin with, none of them knew or could prove their sexual history or it didn't matter when they were in the throes of passion or drugged, etc. All of a sudden, they begin to worry about diseases.

The reason for disclosure is that condoms break with the best of intentions of all parties. Thus the worry of exposure at that time is valid. If the issue was as stated before, that they did not mind him having sex with a condom, but that he either broke one or didn't use one, and they didn't have control of themselves at the time, due to sleep or other vulnerabilites, he could be found at fault right there.

But if the question isn't just about the condom, it's more about the possible contraction of a disease than rape. That could be settled by medical tests no matter where Assange is. And the ladies themselves, could have had AIDS and passed it to him. All three people could be at risk for disease here.

But this story is saying that at least one of the ladies is saying she was forced to have sex. That doesn't have anything to do with condoms. Or DNA. That's what she said. The fact that the three of them indulged in consensual sex that turned into something else, or as the one woman now says happened several times, is troubling. But they may have all been under the influence of some intoxicant. We really haven't heard what Assange's specific defense is other than he denies the force. Ripping the condom to wear a broken one doesn't sound like anything that a person in their right mind would do.