Maybe so. Technically, he's right, in a sense -- you don't need DNA evidence to prosecute a rape case from a legal perspective. But once a jury finds out about the DNA test, his case goes bye-bye for all intents and purposes. I don't think he'd want to subject himself to that.WolverineSteve wrote:I think he's probably trying to save face.
Not to mention that if he brings this case to trial, he cannot then credibly go back and charge the woman with falsely reporting an incident. Of course, we're still a long way away from this.