Wow:

DNA testing failed to connect any members of the Duke University lacrosse team to the alleged rape of a stripper, attorneys for the athletes said Monday.

Citing DNA test results delivered by the state crime lab to police and prosecutors a few hours earlier, the attorneys said the test results prove their clients did not sexually assault and beat a stripper hired to perform at a March 13 team party.

No charges have been filed in the case.

“No DNA material from any young man was present on the body of this complaining woman,” said defense attorney Wade Smith.

This doesn’t prove anything (they could have used condoms), but it doesn’t look good. Mike Nifong (the DA) is going to have to put up or shut up very soon…

Update 4/10 9:10 PM: Nifong says he’ll continue to investigate:

[Nifong] did not dispute the defense lawyers’ account of the test results and said Monday evening that his faith in the accuser’s account was undeterred.

“I believe a sexual assault took place,” he said.

He said he would continue his investigation, and said most rape cases do not depend on DNA testing.

“I’m not saying it’s over,” he said. “If that’s what they expect, they will be sadly disappointed.”

Update 4/10 10:07 PM: In comments, hcq and phil point out that the condom theory appears to be undermined as well:

Sorry, the condom argument doesn’t work. Read the rest of the story:

[A]uthorities took DNA samples from all over the alleged victim’s body, including under her fingernails, and from her possessions, such as her cell phone and her clothes.

“They swabbed about every place they could possibly swab from her, in which there could be any DNA,” he said.

No. DNA. Anywhere. In other words, if “a sexual assault did take place,” it occurred without any of these guys even touching her.

Posted by: hcq | April 10, 2006 at 09:26 PM

Of equal (or more) significance than the absence of the player’s DNA was, if the words from one of the players’ attorneys are to be trusted, the absence of *any* DNA whatsoever.

Cheshire said even if the alleged attackers used a condom, it’s likely there would have been some DNA evidence found suggesting an assault took place. He said in this case, the report states there was no DNA on her to indicate that she had sex of any type recently.”

Even more troubling, the next paragraph, also taken on the attorney’s word, says there was none of the residue from a condom, either.

“The experts will tell you that if there was a condom used they would still be able to pick up DNA, latex, lubricant and all other types of things to show that — and that’s not here,” Cheshire said.”

So from the way this attorney characterizes the report, it not only fails to implicate the lacrosse players, it suggests that there’s no discernible physical evidence for tracing the alleged attack to some other person. Ought we to start wondering about the competence of whoever did the initial rape examination?

Posted by: phil | April 10, 2006 at 09:36 PM

So what are the odds that Nifong will back away from this case given that he’s up for reelection in a month?

Update 4/11 6:38 AM: The Herald Sun’s article on the test results today includes a vague suggestion that further results may be forthcoming from tests now being performed at a second lab:

Meanwhile, a lawyer close to the case, who declined to be identified, said the DNA tests returned Monday afternoon from the State Bureau of Investigation crime lab were not all-inclusive. Another lab also is analyzing the DNA samples and those results are not available yet, the lawyer said.

Update 4/11 3:00 PM: More from Nifong:

The district attorney said at an N.C. Central University forum today that there are additional DNA tests to be done in the investigation of a reported rape at a party attended by Duke University lacrosse team players.

One day after lawyers representing the team’s players held a press conference to say state DNA testing exonerates the players and helps prove that no rape occurred, District Attorney Mike Nifong said at the forum that all of the DNA tests are not in and that the woman who said she was raped in a bathroom by three men can identify her attackers.