As documented by judicial procedure (Swedish equivalent to FOIA), the "stealthing" was a pure invention by the police. It was added days later _as ordered by email_ by the hierarchical superior of the policewoman who typed the statement of the second woman. This was done against the original wishes of both women, and contrary to what they originally said. Even calling it a statement is a misnomer (read more further on that subject).
That happened after tabloids had published that a rape had allegedly happened, somehow with the name of the victims. The changed was annulled later, after the fact, when this was found out.
Proof/source : you can see said email in full as part of the interview by Republik.ch of the UN Special Reporteur of Torture. Link https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...
---
What the story actually is, as documented as a matter of judicial procedure :
The first woman had had consensual relations with Assange, knowingly without a condom, as she herself witnessed; the second woman had consensual sex one day after; she found out after he left the condom was broken; they found out about each other a little later.
Before asking Assange directly, they wanted to know if they could make Assange take an HIV test. They went to ask a policewoman friend of the first if that was possible. Neither didn't want to make a statement, nor sign one, nor report a crime.
The policewoman wrote it down just in case. Two hours later Swedish tabloids report Assange raped somebody. The condom, as tested later on, somehow contained no DNA of Assange's.
There was lot more fishy happening on the prosecutor's side, but it's beside this comments' points.