That is a good summary.
While reading your summary a possibility popped into my mind. It would be somewhat supported by the defense attorney saying he did not know of the 1996 rape claim.
We know in 2006, she claimed she was raped by the 3 men. We know in 1996 she claimed that three years earlier at maybe age 15 or maybe 13 she was raped by three men.
Maybe just maybe the cousin is refering to another time she claimed she was raped at age 16 that that time she promptly reported it to the police?
If they were talking about two separate events, it would square what the cousin is saying with what the parents are saying. If there is another claim of rape out there, it would square the 1996 claim about 1993 being new to the defense attorney, but their request of information suggesting that she had possibly claimed rape before.
Now "Occum Razor" suggests that the family is confused/lying is the more likely explannation. But a third claim of rape while age 16 in high school also fits how people are responding to the report of the 1996 claim.
Your theory was suggested by one or more freepers up thread. The cousin/family member's accounts varies from mom and the ex. (Sadly, I don't think dad has a clue.)
It makes no sense why three years later she would report a gang rape, vendetta maybe. Later that fall she enlisted in the Navy and somewhere within that time frame married her ex. What role does he play in all of this?
I read that the family was upset when the AV married McNeill. It's been reported they were married two months and divorce in a year, but on Rita he says 4-5 years. Oh yeah, and they're still friends.
There's more there, IMO.
But, somehow it makes sense.