I think you need to recalibrate your definition of "proven." Kane has not been proven innocent. He also won't be proven guilty.
From the investigative findings:
* There are significant material inconsistencies between the complainant's accounts and those of other witnesses
In other words, she is lying - or at least very confused.
* The DNA results lend no corroaboration whatsoever to the complainant's claim of penetration, a required element of proof for a rape charge.
In other words, she says something happened but the evidence shows it didn't, unless something changed between the time of the alleged incident and when she was examined.
* The physical evidence and the forensic evidence, when viewed in tandem, tend to contradict the complainant's claim she was raped on Kane's bed
In other words, it's not that they can't prove she was raped - the evidence shows she wasn't raped. It didn't happen, according to the evidence.
There is no evidence to show she was, and there is evidence to show she wasn't. But if you want to hold out that she still could have been, in the name of sensitivity to rape victims or whatever, I suppose that is your prerogative. However, this is not the case on which to do that. Based on all the evidence she lied about what happened and the evidence proves she lied. This woman has hurt the cause of real victims of rape by lying about hers.