Legal standards for a criminal conviction are set exceedingly high (and rightfully so). There needs to be evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" to get a criminal conviction. That does not exist in AJ's case, especially after the victim refused to testify, but that is definitely not the same as saying there is no evidence at all. There is evidence, umm, DNA evidence. The issue with the criminal case is that they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the DNA got there from a nonconsensual interaction, especially without the victim's testimony that that's how it got there. The only thing that you can objectively say about this case is that AJ should not be convicted in a court of law, not that he didn't do anything or he is definitely innocent.