You read my mind. The article says:
Outside experts say it is possible for a rapist to leave no DNA evidence.
We need to find out who these unnamed outside experts are, and put your questions to them.
Outside experts say that the NY times reporters have an agenda!!
Okay, here is another point about the DNA that relates to the article. It is common knowledge that a rape will likely leave DNA evidence--even the unnamed outside experts would agree to that. If you committed a rape on a prostitute, you would not declare BEFORE the dna came back that there was no sex, because if a match ocurred you would lose the ability to say that you had consensual sex and fo to jail for a long time. At the time the players said publicly before the results came back that they had no sex, the "experts" said they made a mistake. But it was brilliant. They could only commit themselves if they knew the results in advance, and they could only know those results if they were telling the truth. How does this related back to the article? Well, unlike Gottlieb, who creates his story after the fact, the players provided contemporaneous accounts that match the evidence collected later. Why is that not in the article.
Just shoddy shoddy work.
Well the ho said she was raped by 3 guys. What do they say about 3 rapist not leaving DNA? ;)