Now, check me if I'm wrong but aren't there some fairly serious problems with believing that a crime occurred here when the DNA tests all come back negative? If they had used a condom in the assault, wouldn't the 'victim' have mentioned that fact when she was initially interviewed by police and staff at the hospital? We can dismiss for the moment the more CSI'like aspects that would make even condom wearing a half defense at best. (For those interested, I found this little tidbit on Condom Trace Evidence all the back from '94. It seems that forensics is advanced enough that they can detect the presence of condom powder, lubricant, and spermicide)
Of course, it's not like I expect something like facts to deter the feminazis and their take back the night protests or the rampaging racists at the NAACP and affiliated organizations. Obviously they have too much invested in this case and are out to prove a crime committed even if up to this point there's no solid evidence. All we need at this point is Al Sharpton in a track suit running around saying that not only were the players involved in the rape, but the university president came down and gave her a dicker too. Then the Tawana Brawley circle would be complete.
If the DA has other forensic evidence that does prove that a crime occured in his pocket somewhere, he had better consider exposing it to the light of day or enpaneling a grand jury. So far it just seems he's floating along on a sea of zilch.
I just realized that some people not from the Northeast of the US might have no clue who the heck Tawana Brawley even is or the link between the cases. Here is a summary from wikipedia that seems to do a generally good job of recapping.