"1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
Well, that's very clearly rape (unless she had actually agreed to this kind of borderline BDSM sex, which he never said she did, afaik, so that likely means she didn't).
So why are we talking about condoms then? Seems largely irrelevant except in a legal context of bringing on as many charges as possible...
I'm willing to give the Swedes the benefit of the doubt that offense 2, the only one that depends on this condom condition, is a legitimate crime. It very possibly goes hand in hand with 1, in that if the two offenses were together, "AA" couldn't visually confirm he was wearing a condom.
For offense 4, it's explicitly "an aggravating circumstance".
Well, that's very clearly rape (unless she had actually agreed to this kind of borderline BDSM sex, which he never said she did, afaik, so that likely means she didn't).
So why are we talking about condoms then? Seems largely irrelevant except in a legal context of bringing on as many charges as possible...