I just don't really get it. If you think she was raped, then who by? Every single white lacrosse player was asked to submit DNA samples and not a single one matched and we know there were 5 different semen samples on/in her. Do you think she was raped before the party and then simply threw a wobbler later and had to accuse someone so pointed the finger at three random lacrosse players? It's almost impossible for her to have been raped after the party based on the timeline involved and the fact that Kim Roberts was around the entire time and would have had to be in on it.

I'm just not sure where the belief that she was assaulted is coming from. I asked previously what evidence you felt was produced that indicated there had been a rape and I haven't seen a response yet. What troubles me about this whole situation is the fact that there is no physical evidence that a rape occurred, ecspecially if we take the accuser at her word. She said she was beaten and medical reports and photos taken that night and 2 days later by the police show no injuries like what she described (blows to the face). She said it was a violent 30-minute oral/vaginal/anal assault and yet the only evidence that a SANE nurse found was difuse swelling in the vagina and no damage at all to the anus. I simply cannot manage to connect the dots in any fashion to come to the conclusion that she was assaulted and I'm really curious as to how you're constructing your belief she was.