1.) I have no idea if she was raped or not. 2.) The case you state may be true but 3.) The people I was responding too did not say anything about the evidence of rape, only that she was passed out drunk, as if that was proof that she was lying and I say that is BS. If she was lying and there is evidence, or no evidence in the case of DNA, of the fact, fine, then rip her a new one, BUT the people making the remarks that I responded too were stating their case simply on her being drunk and that makes them jerks.
As to my "reading" about the case before I post, I propose that you read people's post and understand them before making replies to them, this will save you from incuring people's wrath needlessly. As for me, I just put you down as another idiot who fails to understand what they are reading.
Do you really think it is probable, or even plausible, that three guys, all under the influence, within the close confines of a bathroom, vaginally, anally, and ORALLY raped AND beat a woman without leaving a single trace of DNA in or on her?
The pundits all like to talk about them maybe using condoms, maybe using a broom on her (ridiculous), and suggest that explains the lack of DNA, yet holler about how drunk they were, how much they drink, and how arrogant they are. No. One of them would have left SOMETHING in or on here somewhere.