Nothing is more vital in our justice system than the idea that an accused is innocent until proven guilty, and I am not trying to violate this idea. However, the penultimate paragraph of this NYTimes piece is noteworthy:The police affidavit says the woman was examined by a forensic sexual assault nurse and a physician shortly after the attack took place. "Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally," the affidavit said.
I guess this is brand new information due to unsealing of the affidavit, but isn't this really the biggest piece of news? I.e., usually when rape allegations are false there isn't medical evidence that the accuser was raped. No one, and correct me If I am wrong, has claimed that there was consensual sexual activity. In that case, it seems to me that the physical evidence is pretty damning.