I think this overstates the case for TSJ's innocence. The state has the testimony of the alleged victim. There is also the testimony of the friend who was with her that night. She says her friend burst into tears just as soon as they left the bar and said that she was assaulted.
Video cameras did not cover the entire bar, and they were both off camera at times, so video proves neither guilt nor innocence. Witness testimony that they did not see any bad acts committed is not proof of no bad acts. It is merely proof that they did not see the alleged bad acts.
To my mind, this leaves us with little more than "he said, she said". I am a retired lawyer who never tried a criminal jury trial. The closest I got was a rape suspect who was never charged. IOW, I AM NOT AN EXPERT on this.
My decidedly non-expert opinion is that he said, she said, without more, is enough to get the case to a jury. And if a Kansas jury has to choose between a woman who says she was sexually assaulted, and a very large black man from far out of town, there is a very real risk that the jury could find him guilty. I'd like to think that won't happen. But these DNA reports do not mean that TSJ is out of the woods. He is far better off than he would be if the reports had proved positive, but he is not out of the woods yet.