I understand that prosecuutors decided that the maid wasn't credible because her versions of events changed. What I didn't understand was the comment I heard that the DNA evidence supported that sexual contact occurred berween the maid and DSK but did not support that it was non-consensual. What were they looking for? -- his skin cells under her fingernails?? I would think that evidence of sexual trauma would be an important indicator, but unless she scratched him, how would there be DNA evidence of rape?