Yes, miss W's case is founded on the allegation that after having had consensual sex together a few hours previously, Assange initiated a second sexual encounter with her while she was (quote) "half asleep" she asked him if he was wearing a condom, to which he replied he was not, but she says she couldn't be bothered to get him to put one on, so they continued to have (evidently consensual at this point) sex together and he ejaculated inside her. Assange and W proceed to have sex together at another later point.

Initially both women only sought Assange to get an HIV test. Which he rejected. That to my mind is the biggest offence he committed.

Initiating sex with a sexual partner while they are half asleep, is a muddy area in my mind. It may technically constitute rape, but on the basis that sexual foreplay can take a variety of forms while a couple are naked and (both literally and metaphorically) sleeping together, some women may feel assaulted, while many others (me included) will not and instead experience it as a normal part of sexual foreplay (or in the words of Ian Dury "It's lovely when you're sleeping, but wide awake is best!)

I think the fact that when W asked if he was wearing a condom or not, she did not ask him to withdraw, did not ask him to put a condom on, or even shift her bum a few inches away from the pokey thing. And also the fact that she proceed to have sex with him again after this alleged incident, would tend to indicate that she didn't feel assaulted at the time.

The rape allegations only arose subsequent to A & W discussing their experiences with a journalist and each other. And we are told there are (unreleased) electronic messages between A & W discussing the money they could make in selling their stories to the press. Which would tend to cast doubt on the motives of A & W making such allegations at all.