All that proves is that she had sex with her boyfriend at some point before she danced in front to the lacross team. It doesn't rule out 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; it's very plausible that they took steps to cover their tracks.
Also as evidence for rape, there's that SANE nurse's report -- the one that's been brayed about incessantly by Wendy Murphy and the other talking-head feminazis. It's been quoted as stating findings "consistent with rape..."
I agree, it doesn't prove rape, but it gives reason to suspect it.
The evidnece available to the public now is clearly not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was raped. However, you don't have access to all the evidence. Rational people, unlike you, wait until they see all the evidence before forming an opinion when the evidence they have in front of them is not conclusive either way.
Did you, O Rational One, "wait to see all the evidence" before even forming an opinion in the OJ case?
And btw, even superior people like you occasionally jump to unfounded conclusions. For example, you conclude that I was "conclusive" about this case. Read the post again.
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).