This may be true, especially if there is a condom used or that there is a delay in reporting the crime or the accuser has taken some action that destroys the evidence. In this case, however, the presented facts clearly dictate that there should be DNA evidence and its absence says a lot about the viability of the case and the veracity of the AV. Therefore, Nifong statement and its repetition by others is totally spurious given the facts of this case.
The whole point of my post 104 was NiFong and the media avoiding the time element....as if he can change the world clock.
Exactly.