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

[TorchTheWitch]

288. Doesn't mean anything really

Assange had already admitted to having sex with the women on the days in question. There being none of his DNA in either of the condoms really only could possibly mean that he either didn't wear them or took them off before ejaculating. If anything at all it only marginally helps both women in that it could possibly be used as evidence that he didn't want to use condoms. However, I'm not even really seeing that as evidence in their favor or whether or not it could be used as evidence of anything as it certainly could be argued that they could be condoms that he never came into any contact with at all. But seeing as Assange already admitted to having sex with the women on the dates in question, I'm really not seeing how it's evidence of anything either for or against him or for or against the women. There is no need for any DNA evidence of his because there is no argument as to whether or not he had sex with the women - he already admitted that he had sex with them on the dates in question. The argument is solely on the nature of the sex and whether or not it amounted to consensual sex or rape/sexual assault, therefore, his DNA (or lack thereof) on condoms just isn't relevant to the case.