[shhrubbery!]

the possibility that the lacross boys wore condoms when they raped her. This would not be the first time such a thing happened, you know. These are smart kids;

That statement truly stretches credulity.

The accuser claims anal, oral, and vaginal rape. Even with condoms --and I must say the notion of oral "rape" with a condom borders on the laughable-- all the forensic experts I've heard agree that some genetic evidence would have been left behind in at least one of those orifices.

If there had been oral, anal, and vaginal rape, there should've been plentiful material left behind; if not semen, then other cells or fluids or hairs. Condoms definitely do not prevent such transference.

The fact that ZERO DNA evidence from the lacrosse team players was found in or on the accuser is pretty darned exculpatory for them. No, not 100% "conclusive." But exculpatory (look it up if you mistakenly think exculpatory = conclusive).

[curiosity]

The accuser claims anal, oral, and vaginal rape. Even with condoms --and I must say the notion of oral "rape" with a condom borders on the laughable--

Why? It's happened before.

all the forensic experts I've heard agree that some genetic evidence would have been left behind in at least one of those orifices.

And other experts say not necessarily.

If there had been oral, anal, and vaginal rape, there should've been plentiful material left behind; if not semen, then other cells or fluids or hairs. Condoms definitely do not prevent such transference.

Other cells or fluids might have been left behind (in fact they were), but it's perfectly plausible that there wouldn't be sufficient quantities to get a conclusive DNA match. And in fact, that's exactly what happened.

The fact that ZERO DNA evidence from the lacrosse team players was found in or on the accuser is pretty darned exculpatory for them.

In the absence of other evidence, yes. However, we do not know what other evidence the prosecution has. All I am saying is that we wait and see. If nothing new comes out, then I agree, these guys should be acquitted. If the DA takes this case to trial without more evidence, he should be impeached. But I'm withholding judgement until I see what he has. I suggest you do the same.

No, not 100% "conclusive." But exculpatory (look it up if you mistakenly think exculpatory = conclusive).

I know the difference between the two words, thank you very much.