What makes you think that there was any evidence at all, to begin with?
I can only point to the order of events: A woman walks into a police station. She doesn’t want to file a complaint but wants to demand an HIV test [from Assange]. The police then decide that this could be a case of rape and a matter for public prosecutors. The woman refuses to go along with that version of events and then goes home and writes a friend that it wasn’t her intention, but the police want to «get their hands on» Assange. Two hours later, the case is in the newspaper. As we know today, public prosecutors leaked it to the press – and they did so without even inviting Assange to make a statement. And the second woman, who had allegedly been raped according to the Aug. 20 headline, was only questioned on Aug. 21.
Not a single trace of DNA from Assange or A. A. could be detected in the condom that was submitted as evidence.
> I would like for someone from the Swedish prosecutors' side to explain that, though.
Yes, the UN special rapporteur wanted that too. He was ignored. What makes you think you'll fare better?