[droithomme]

> In the case of the allegation in Sweden that did fall through the statute of limitation, the accusation was that during the act of consensual sex Julian Assange deliberately split the condom with his fingers, without consent. ... But the split condom given to Swedish police as evidence had none of Assange’s DNA on it – a physical impossibility if he had worn it during sex. And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA.

Interesting, this is the first I heard about the DNA evidence, which is compelling. The prosecutor's dropping of this charge is reasonable given the lack of any DNA present on the sabotaged condom.

Also should mention that Craig Murray is a personal friend of Julian Assange, something his blog readers are well aware of. Murray is the one who testified he personally collected the DNC email leak from a disgruntled DNC employee in Washington DC and hand couriered it across the Atlantic where he handed it over to Assange. This leak origin account contradicts the Russian hacker narrative regarding the DNC email leak.

[novaleaf]

Regardless of the allegation's basis in fact (or lack thereof)...

Based on all the problems Assange has faced in the last 8 years, it's pretty much "mission accomplished, total victory".

[foldr]

This is not a quote from the article? It seems to be taken from Craig Murray's website. Murray is no expert on forensics. See for example his embarrassing analysis here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib...

[droithomme]

Presumably the staff of the two separate forensics teams that found no DNA on the split condom were quoted in the 100 page police report are qualified.

They did find DNA in the other woman's condom, but that condom was not split and there was no claim by her of condom sabotage.

[foldr]

No, I mean, he's not qualified to interpret the findings. It's far from obvious that a negative DNA test result means "definitely didn't wear the condom". (And more broadly, such a test is only informative if you can be sure that no other condom was used, which you probably can't.)

[bberrry]

Why are you quoting a sentence that's not in the article? Nice way to appropriate BBCs credibility to your conspiracy theory.

[dang]

I'm guessing that droithomme meant to reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19796933, but posted a top-level comment by mistake. That is not uncommon.

With that in mind, I've moved 19797118 to be a child of 19796933. Even if the guess is wrong, it makes more sense in that context anyway.