Julian Assange torn condom lacks DNA evidence

www.smh.com.au...

rt.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

A ripped condom given to Swedish police by one of Julian Assange’s accusers does not contain the WikiLeaks founder’s DNA, forensic scientists have reportedly found.
In a 100-page document shown to Assange’s lawyers, it was revealed that the torn prophylactic, having been examined by staff at two forensic laboratories, did not bear conclusive evidence that Assange had ever worn it, the Daily Mail reported on Sunday.

and a quote from the Mail.

Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have revealed that a key piece of evidence does not contain his DNA.
A torn condom given to Swedish police by one of the alleged victims was examined by staff at two forensic laboratories but they could not find any conclusive evidence of Mr Assange’s DNA on it.
The same forensic teams found DNA thought to belong to the WikiLeaks boss on another condom, which was submitted by the second alleged victim.

So there you go. At least one piece of evidence is flawed.

What does this mean now?

This whole case is a joke to begin with....

that being said, isn't this "rape" charge all about him NOT using a condom and having consensual sex?

Already posted Mr L

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by woogleuk
Already posted Mr L

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry, did a quick search. Must have missed it. Cheers Woogle.

Mods, do as thou wilt.

reply to post by mr-lizard


who the hell keeps used condoms in the first place. is there really people out there with a draw full of them just in case they are needed in court.

It does not make any sense to me, surely people dispose of them shortly after having sex.

reply to post by mr-lizard


He must be a reptilian.
only alpha reptilians have viable sperm.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

who the hell keeps used condoms in the first place. is there really people out there with a draw full of them just in case they are needed in court.

It does not make any sense to me, surely people dispose of them shortly after having sex.

Why did Monica keep the dress with the stains on it from Clinton?

Because she knew that was her evidence and it would bring him down.

Mickierocksman

Look at it this way...doesn't that prove he didn't wear it,hence the charge?

Any and all evidence that proves him innocent will be dismissed in some way. He has already been declared guilty, so he will be sent to jail. He embarrassed the government, and the powers don't like that, so they must punish him and make an example out of him for the rest of the peons to follow.