[Sarah]

I still don't get it, why was his DNA on 3 of the cigarettes? If he smoked there she had to know him, and know that he wasn't the rapist, otherwise it should have been easy to clear him. Did the other guy steal his used cigarettes and plant them there? and then repeat this other guys name so she would name him? This is pretty weird.

[MeanWestTexan]

You're a victim of bad writing by the reporter.

The VICTIM's DNA was on the cigs. The guy in prison's DNA was on NONE.

ANOTHER guy --- a covicted rapists, in fact --- DNA WAS on one or more of the cigs.

[Strategerist]

I still don't get it, why was his DNA on 3 of the cigarettes? If he smoked there she had to know him, and know that he wasn't the rapist, otherwise it should have been easy to clear him. Did the other guy steal his used cigarettes and plant them there? and then repeat this other guys name so she would name him? This is pretty weird.

Wow, people are still confused on this.

There was NO DNA from the guy that was released from jail on ANY of the cigarettes. Two of them had the victim's DNA, and one had the DNA of the real rapist (who turned out to be in prison on other charges.