Ummmm...that misstates the facts. The Panties she wore to the Hospital THE NEXT DAY, have the
would seem to suggest that if a woman had consensual sex with one or two other partners within a day or two of the alleged rape, then the sex with the alleged rapist must also be consensual. We are talking about Sex, Immediately AFTER the alleged rape
Blood from the Alleged tearing, and an Unknown third parties DNA in the Panties she wore to the hospital the next day.
No Blood in the Panties worn immediately after the alleged incident.
No one is saying she was definitively NOT Raped.Only Her God and Kobe know for sure.But there is more than Reasonable Doubt in this case.
In reading the article several times, I don't find where anything gives a timeline as to when the other substances from other sources were contributed. The defense said within three days (it didn't say after so the within three days could be before). I can't find anything that suggests she was having sex after the alleged rape, simply the suggestion that she appears to have worn the same panties during a period where she appears to have had multiple (at least 2) partners - consensual or not. The panties she wore to the hospital the next day are probably the same panties she was wearing at the time of the alleged rape.
Bottom line is this is NOT "compelling evidence of his innocence" as the defense claims, but rather an indication that she probably had a sexual encounter with someone else the same day.