DaveFrat made a very important observation earlier in this thread, and he's experienced in this sort of case. Prosecutors don't press for prosecution, by whatever route is appropriate in their states, based on having a probable conviction, as this prosecutor states. They prosecute on the basis of "probable cause." What we have are the following elements: The victim alleges rape and promptly reports it as such and goes to the hospital. There is a DNA match, showing penetration has occurred. In nine out of ten cases, this is enough for probable cause and the prosecutor leaves it up to the trier of fact - the jury - to determine whether the offense has taken place. At a trial, many other pieces of evidence would come into play - why was she there; were they inebriated; what did the witnesses say (not many rape cases with eyewitnesses); what was her condition at the hospital when she reported the rape - many other facets. Prosecutors don't normally worry about all that. All cases have their pros and cons, strong points and weak points. The prosecutor is not a judge. He's an advocate for the state and a seeker after the truth, to be determined by the jury. This has to be the most timid prosecutor I've ever seen. Normally, the tendency is to err on the other side. The only, again, only, thing I can see which would cause a delay in bring a case would be if there were no physical signs of forced penetration. I must say that I would be very surprised if she went to the hospital if there weren't any. So, count me, along with the other members in this thread whom I know are lawyers, as being mystified that probable cause hasn't been found. The whole matter reeks of special handling, or "home cooking," if you prefer. He has had a couple of other "difficulties" which have not come into the public eye. This one was too big and the victim's parents too persistent for that to work this time. At this point in time, I haven't much faith in the rule of law in Tallahassee. I would never want this black eye happening in Tuscaloosa...