Need some help with a question about DNA evidence in an elected official rape allegation case

I am a reporter working on a story and I have a question I thought I'd bring to the smart folks here at ATS.

First, a little background on the case I'm writing about. It's a high-profile rape case involving an elected local official. He's been accused of rape back in February. There were no original charges brought against him and nothing came out of the sheriff's department so everyone assumed there was a cover-up going on. I interviewed the victim and the elected official and published the first breaking story on it. After my story was published, three other women contacted me and accused him of the same thing. A background investigation led to the fact that he had previously been charged six times in his past with either domestic abuse or child abuse, one charge even being a false imprisonment. So, I published another story revealing all of this.

The sheriff's department made a lot of early mistakes in their investigation, but my question revolves around DNA. There is a backlog of DNA kits at the state crime lab, so the results took four months to come back, further leading the people of my community to believe there was a cover-up going on.

The results came in and eventually the district attorney from a nearby county (because of conflict of interest) chose not to prosecute based on the DNA. Here's the thing... the suspect lied several times during his interviews with the sheriff's department. It was clear that some type of event occurred because of tracks in the snow where the incident allegedly occurred, but he denied going to that side of the vehicle where it occurred. When the sheriff's report on the investigation was released recently because they are not charging him, her story was very detailed and graphic. There is no doubt in my mind that something did occur, but yet, the DNA says otherwise.

Before I go on... In her statement to police she said that he pinned her against the vehicle, had a cast on his left hand which he used to hold her back and that he pulled her pants (she was wearing spandex type pants) down to her ankles and that she felt him against her inner thigh and privates, but never penetrated. He tried this about four or five times but failed and gave up. During this event, she didn't fight him by scratching or anything like that, she simply kept pulling back from him.

What was sent to the state crime lab was as follows - From her: swabs of her fingernail, waistband of her underpants and interior crotch panel of her underpants, all for any possible cellular/biological material. There was also genital area swabs and oral swabs. her clothing was also sent to the state lab. She said he was also trying to kiss her on her right side neck, so swabs were taken of that area as well and around her mouth and lips. Also pubic hair combings and standards were taken. From him: A buccal standard and a swab from his cast because he had the cast against her to hold her back, but the bruised area where the cast was against her was just above her breast -which would have been under her clothing.

The suspect/elected official drove himself to the sheiff's department the next day after the alleged rape, which occurred at bar time around 3:00 am on a Saturday night. More background info - she knew him as an elected official, was going to take a cab home but he offered to give her a ride, drove to another location, a public building which he had a key for and told her it was part of his job to inspect the building - police asked him if he had ever done this before and he hadn't ever inspected it before - back to it... police failed to apprehend him that night, further leading to a cover-up, because if it were anyone else, they would have been arrested immediately upon these allegations, there was even bruising evidence on her. Anyways, he turns himself in the next day and they asked him if those were the same clothes he was wearing the night before - he says yes and turns them in for evidence. They never even sent the clothes in to state lab.

Back in February, the family of victim told police there was a video from the bar showing the clothes he was wearing and they failed to retrieve video. The family submitted the video after the DNA evidence cleared him and it showed that he had lied and was wearing different clothes.

Anyways - back to my question and the purpose of this thread. In regards to the DNA - the pages of the report about the DNA are technical and beyond my grasp - but basically, they cleared the suspect of any DNA contribution and that the DNA of sometimes two and even four male individuals could be detected. She lives with her boyfriend and several small children, sons - So, I assume it is their DNA because they share things in their home such as bathroom and kitchen supplies.

My question - is it possible for the suspect to have somehow cleared his DNA from being present, dirtied it somehow, or any other way that he could have hidden himself? Could wearing a condom have excluded himself? She was drunk at the time and there could have been some things that she didn't notice that may have occurred during the assault. Also, he was very confident all along that DNA would clear him of this.

The first day when I interviewed her, she said the nurse didn't seem to know what she was doing. Is there anyway the nurse could have screwed it up?

Despite his lying during the investigation, such as having no contact with her whatsoever, but the padded down snow showed there was activity right where she said there was, and he turned in different clothing and other things, could it be that he really is innocent?

I'm no DNA expert and I was hoping that some of the smart folks here at ATS who are familiar with the science of DNA could help me out on this one. Thanks in advance.

Perhaps someone at the state crime lab owes him a favor?

Sounds like a cover up to me.

Be careful.

a reply to: CharlieAtTheGap

Or maybe someone at the sheriff's department. The local police department that he is a member of the council for had immediately called in the sheriff to take the case because he was an elected official. It was suspected among people in the community that a high-ranking public official was contacted that night as well and his influence may have steered the police into making so many mistakes in the beginning, like not apprehending him right away and getting the DNA evidence from him then.

sounds like an interesting article

Side question:

If he turned in different set of clothes, then what purpose would it serve, why not send them to get tested? Like you said, not sending them in, makes it look like a "cover up".

This was the problem with the OJ case.
DNA investigation and identification was still pretty new and the jurors were convinced by the defense that the blood sample having been stepped in had been compromised somehow.
It doesn't but DNA was little understood by the average person because it was new.
Now we know and understand much more about how exclusive DNA is in identifying a person. It's use in some very high profile murder cases and it's wide spread use in crime tv shows has given the common man a workable understanding of it.
Now we need even less of a sample to ID someone. They can now pick up DNA from a person having simply touched an item. They can even separate two different people if their blood becomes mixed.
If DNA evidence didn't match this man than short of corruption along the chain of command I'd say he was not guilty.

a reply to: Rezlooper


If the (V)-victim feels that nothing is being done maybe go with a "Civil Trial" seeing that there are actually multiple victims, also the 'rules of evidence' is different in a Civil Trial so different things can be submitted.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
This was the problem with the OJ case.
DNA investigation and identification was still pretty new and the jurors were convinced by the defense that the blood sample having been stepped in had been compromised somehow.
It doesn't but DNA was little understood by the average person because it was new.
Now we know and understand much more about how exclusive DNA is in identifying a person. It's use in some very high profile murder cases and it's wide spread use in crime tv shows has given the common man a workable understanding of it.
Now we need even less of a sample to ID someone. They can now pick up DNA from a person having simply touched an item. They can even separate two different people if their blood becomes mixed.
If DNA evidence didn't match this man than short of corruption along the chain of command I'd say he was not guilty.

Thanks for this overview. It helps. There's definitely no denying they had some sort of contact by the padded down snow. So, you believe something would have showed up then, somewhere, somehow?

a reply to: Rezlooper

To answer the DNA question...to be so cocky and confident about DNA evidence clearing him, he obviously had made plans in advance of the alleged rape...which of course makes the crime even worse, as it would now become premeditated.

However...

If I were planning to rape someone, and i knew in advance that i may become a suspect...DNA could literally divert attention away from myself, and essentially eliminate me from Police enquiries...the easy way to do this of course, is to substitute the DNA.

What's required?

A Patsy. A semen sample (best), failing aquiring a semen sample, blood, hair (pubic if possible) and saliva.

How does one obtain someone else's 'samples'? Use your imagination.

A prostitute could easily aquire sperm, nicely contained in a condom which can very easily be planted inside the Woman intended to be the victim after the rape, especially if that victim is drugged or / and drunk. Literally, the 'patsy' DNA can be left for the Police rape team to find and retrieve during the physical / medical examination of the Victim and their underwear and bed linen etc.

Since that wonderful Human being you speak of has a what we could call a checkered history regarding his narrow escapes from justice, having been charged with numerous violent assaults, and allegations of sexual assaults..it's certain his actual DNA is on file.

What do you think a Police investigator is going to think, when the DNA, found within the victim's body and on underwear and sheets etc, doesn't belong to the local official?

He will immediately be eliminated from the enquiries...and will probably get away scott free...while the poor sap who had his 'sample' stolen during an encounter with a Prostitute (for one example..there are many ways of course) may at some point be fitted up for the rape, if and when he has his DNA randomly taken at some point in the future, if it's not on file already.

This is one way to get away with a crime, who's detection relies heavily on DNA evidence. There are other ways.

One simply has to become creative in one's thinking, and get your mind out of the box labelled 'normal life'.

And you say this guy has been elected? With all of those criminal charges hanging over his name?

What the hell is wrong with you Americans...ok, some of you Americans?

Good luck with your story.

originally posted by: thinline
sounds like an interesting article

Side question:

If he turned in different set of clothes, then what purpose would it serve, why not send them to get tested? Like you said, not sending them in, makes it look like a "cover up".

That's what I was wondering too. Why did they not send in his clothes in the first place. It wouldn't have mattered because it wasn't the right clothes, but maybe they suspected that from the beginning and that's why they didn't sent them in.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Rezlooper

To answer the DNA question...to be so cocky and confident about DNA evidence clearing him, he obviously had made plans in advance of the alleged rape...which of course makes the crime even worse, as it would now become premeditated.

This is what I was tossing around. He's a professional based on his past and that three other women came forward, two of which did provide statements to police in this case. One of the women said that several people went to her apartment after bar, they all left but him, she passed out and woke up with her pants around her ankles and a used condom on the floor.

He was very cocky about the DNA. I wonder if he already didn't have a way in mind of how to commit this crime and get away with it.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Rezlooper

If I were planning to rape someone, and i knew in advance that i may become a suspect...DNA could literally divert attention away from myself, and essentially eliminate me from Police enquiries...the easy way to do this of course, is to substitute the DNA.

What's required?

A Patsy. A semen sample (best), failing aquiring a semen sample, blood, hair (pubic if possible) and saliva.

How does one obtain someone else's 'samples'? Use your imagination.

A prostitute could easily aquire sperm, nicely contained in a condom which can very easily be planted inside the Woman intended to be the victim after the rape, especially if that victim is drugged or / and drunk. Literally, the 'patsy' DNA can be left for the Police rape team to find and retrieve during the physical / medical examination of the Victim and their underwear and bed linen etc.

Since that wonderful Human being you speak of has a what we could call a checkered history regarding his narrow escapes from justice, having been charged with numerous violent assaults, and allegations of sexual assaults..it's certain his actual DNA is on file.

What do you think a Police investigator is going to think, when the DNA, found within the victim's body and on underwear and sheets etc, doesn't belong to the local official?

He will immediately be eliminated from the enquiries...and will probably get away scott free...while the poor sap who had his 'sample' stolen during an encounter with a Prostitute (for one example..there are many ways of course) may at some point be fitted up for the rape, if and when he has his DNA randomly taken at some point in the future, if it's not on file already.

This is one way to get away with a crime, who's detection relies heavily on DNA evidence. There are other ways.

One simply has to become creative in one's thinking, and get your mind out of the box labelled 'normal life'.

Thanks for all this. Quite possible all this was. There was no semen detected in the DNA kit, but she said in her interview that he never penetrated.

Could him wearing a condom protect him from them finding his DNA?

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Rezlooper

And you say this guy has been elected? With all of those criminal charges hanging over his name?

What the hell is wrong with you Americans...ok, some of you Americans?

Good luck with your story.

He grew up here and after high school moved away where this dark and checkered past occurred. He moved back here several years ago and painted himself as some sort of saint in the public eye. He was just elected to his office last year. He was put on administrative leave from his duties pending the charges, but is back at work now and the community is disturbed by all this.

First off, there is no way on God's Earth that someone grappling with someone else in close proximity and partially unclothed would not leave DNA on that other person or their clothing. Period. People have been identified by leaving a single droplet of sweat at a crime scene, see for example: www.telegraph.co.uk...

So you can abandon that speculation straight away. If he did it, then this guy's DNA was on the woman, and hers was on him, and quite probably in significant amounts. And that's the end of that.

This bit of your OP isn't clear: "they cleared the suspect of any DNA contribution and that the DNA of sometimes two and even four male individuals could be detected."

"Sometimes" four? It was either four or two, there's no 'sometimes' involved.

The assumption that the other DNA sources (however many there were) were the victim's children is probably unsound. If the report doesn't explicitly state that the kids were identified as the sources, then they almost certainly weren't. But you need to verify this with the Sheriff's office and preferably with the victim herself too.

My feeling on this (a professional hunch) is that the case was dropped because the (x) number of other males who left DNA on the victim were non-family and therefore strangers. This could (n.b.) indicate other sexual partners on the same day, and if the victim has said in her statement that this is the case, then the solution is obvious.

That is to say they don't think they have a chance of obtaining a conviction due to the victim's perceived (n.b.) promiscuous behavior muddying the evidential waters. Yes, it's unfair, and horribly so, but this often happens.

So yes, his DNA was on her. But DNA on its own isn't enough to convict. Ignore the evidence of him being at the scene, that's redundant. He didn't admit to rape (well, he wouldn't would he?) but said they'd had consenting sex, and she had to admit having sex with other men the same day. The totality of the evidence mitigates against obtaining a conviction and that's why the case was dropped.

That would be my working theory, and the only way to finally substantiate or exclude it would be to speak to the arrestee, the victim, and the Sheriff's office. Perhaps also the DNA laboratory. You might find that simply talking to these people wraps everything up neatly in a very speedy fashion... which makes me wonder why you haven't already taken those steps.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
I am a reporter working on a story

Let's start with this.
Prove it.

originally posted by: audubon
First off, there is no way on God's Earth that someone grappling with someone else in close proximity and partially unclothed would not leave DNA on that other person or their clothing. Period. People have been identified by leaving a single droplet of sweat at a crime scene, see for example: www.telegraph.co.uk...

So you can abandon that speculation straight away. If he did it, then this guy's DNA was on the woman, and hers was on him, and quite probably in significant amounts. And that's the end of that.

This bit of your OP isn't clear: "they cleared the suspect of any DNA contribution and that the DNA of sometimes two and even four male individuals could be detected."

"Sometimes" four? It was either four or two, there's no 'sometimes' involved.

The assumption that the other DNA sources (however many there were) were the victim's children is probably unsound. If the report doesn't explicitly state that the kids were identified as the sources, then they almost certainly weren't. But you need to verify this with the Sheriff's office and preferably with the victim herself too.

My feeling on this (a professional hunch) is that the case was dropped because the (x) number of other males who left DNA on the victim were non-family and therefore strangers. This could (n.b.) indicate other sexual partners on the same day, and if the victim has said in her statement that this is the case, then the solution is obvious.

That is to say they don't think they have a chance of obtaining a conviction due to the victim's perceived (n.b.) promiscuous behavior muddying the evidential waters. Yes, it's unfair, and horribly so, but this often happens.

So yes, his DNA was on her. But DNA on its own isn't enough to convict. Ignore the evidence of him being at the scene, that's redundant. He didn't admit to rape (well, he wouldn't would he?) but said they'd had consenting sex, and she had to admit having sex with other men the same day. The totality of the evidence mitigates against obtaining a conviction and that's why the case was dropped.

That would be my working theory, and the only way to finally substantiate or exclude it would be to speak to the arrestee, the victim, and the Sheriff's office. Perhaps also the DNA laboratory. You might find that simply talking to these people wraps everything up neatly in a very speedy fashion... which makes me wonder why you haven't already taken those steps.

The sometimes two or sometimes four was referring to different parts of the tests, for example, genital area or mouth and lips area. One would have two and one would have four.

They told her that they would have to do a DNA test on her children at her own cost to say if it was indeed her own family's DNA.

And, there is no doubt that they grappled in the snow. There is no other explanation for the two tracks coming out of the building and coming together on the passenger side of the vehicle, which he originally denied. He said he had no reason to go to her side of the vehicle, and yet tracks prove otherwise.

This definitely wasn't a case of her being with other partners. Doesn't fit the woman's character and no one can come forward or has come forward ever claiming that she is this sort of girl. But, you never know. Anyways, yes, it could be her family members because they haven't ruled that out stating they would have to do a DNA test on each one of them.

He claims that he never had any physical contact with her at all. No sex consented or non-consented. She said he never did penetrate her. There was no semen at all on her from the rape kit test results. There is no question of there being other partners or promiscuous behavior.

I have talked this people. I have investigated this story and wrote multiple stories on it. I have interviewed other council members, attorneys involved, sheriff and investigator, the suspect, the victim, the victim's family members, other victims of his alleged past rapes and I've read the entire 25 page sheriff's report. I've done my due diligence on this.

a reply to: Rezlooper

I don't know much about the science of DNA, but I am familiar with the all the things that can be done to hide, destroy, or simply mishandle evidence while in the hands of law enforcement. The simple fact that evidence that some one points to is not even considered by law enforcement, leaves me thinking that your politician is going to have some big favors called in soon at his expense.

For me the clues as to what is going on is the amount of witness testimony and prior offenses, and how other similar cases have been treated. How many arrests and prosecutions have happened in your neck of the woods based on what you have concerning this elected official? Are there conviction patterns? If you find cases that resemble his and they are dropped based on the same criteria you won't have much to go on absent some physical evidence.

Interesting case you have. I worked with folks in the Texas prison system that were appealing Pro Se, and I learned to look at patterns in prosecutions. It paid off for a couple of inmates, and I got to see what really goes on behind the curtain of the Texas Just-Us system. I shall keep an eye on your thread.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Rezlooper

I don't know much about the science of DNA, but I am familiar with the all the things that can be done to hide, destroy, or simply mishandle evidence while in the hands of law enforcement. The simple fact that evidence that some one points to is not even considered by law enforcement, leaves me thinking that your politician is going to have some big favors called in soon at his expense.

For me the clues as to what is going on is the amount of witness testimony and prior offenses, and how other similar cases have been treated. How many arrests and prosecutions have happened in your neck of the woods based on what you have concerning this elected official? Are there conviction patterns? If you find cases that resemble his and they are dropped based on the same criteria you won't have much to go on absent some physical evidence.

Interesting case you have. I worked with folks in the Texas prison system that were appealing Pro Se, and I learned to look at patterns in prosecutions. It paid off for a couple of inmates, and I got to see what really goes on behind the curtain of the Texas Just-Us system. I shall keep an eye on your thread.

Thanks for your contribution. The one thing that was immediately found to be controversial was the fact that an allegation of this magnitude occurred with some evidence, like the bruising on her chest, and the tire and foot tracks in the snow, and there were no initial charges. Everyone pretty much agreed that he got special treatment right from the start. Hell, it's the law in Wisconsin that if there is any call for domestic abuse, someone is going to jail and they can sort it out later.. but in this rape case with obvious signs of something - he wasn't even apprehended and allowed to come in the next day on his own terms, give his own statement and leave.

Yea, with three other women coming forward and six past domestic and child abuse charges with several convictions is a serious red flag about the type of person he is. I tried to remain non-bias when I wrote the first story, but as i saw the preferential treatment and the history, it became real difficult to stay neutral.

Maybe the evidence was contaminated and they dont want to admit they made a #### up. Look at who did the sampling...Join the dots.
Was the correct protocols for keeping DNA free from contamination followed.? Ask for the DNA report. There must be one.

a reply to: Rezlooper

If the victim can site a case that is similar that resulted in a prosecution, the investigation could be taken out of the hands of the offices that have refused based on lack of DNA. I know that some states allow for state agencies to take over when counties fall short.

Perhaps the business with the security camera footage would be kind enough to make a copy in order to discover the truthfulness concerning the clothing that he was wearing.

Unfortunately the system, nationwide, is so corrupt that it often takes a trial by public opinion to see any justice.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Maybe the evidence was contaminated and they dont want to admit they made a #### up. Look at who did the sampling...Join the dots.
Was the correct protocols for keeping DNA free from contamination followed.? Ask for the DNA report. There must be one.

The victim said right from the start in my first interview with her that she was worried about the nurse who performed the test, such as failing to put on gloves during a couple of the procedures. She even was mumbling to herself about whether she did this or did that, like she couldn't remember if she had performed a certain test. There were a couple of other things she said but I can't recall right now.

Here is some of what the sheriff's report results said:

A Y-STR DNA profile that is a mixture of DNA from at least three male individuals was detected from the swabs from the left side of the neck. A major contributor (male 1) could be determined at 18 genetic markers. SUSPECT is excluded as the source of the major contributor profile, as well as to the overall mixture profile. The Y-STR data obtained from the minor component is suitable for exclusionary purposes only due to the limited amount of genetic information available.

A Y-STR DNA profile that is a mixture of DNA from at least four male individuals was detected from the swabs from the right cheek / outer mouth / lips. A major contributor (male 1) could be determined at 23 genetic markers. SUSPECT is excluded as the source of the major contributor profile, as well as to the overall mixture profile. The Y-STR data obtained from the minor component is suitable for exclusionary purposes only due to the limited amount of genetic information available.

A partial Y-STR DNA profile that is a mixture of DNA from at least two male individuals was detected from the swabbing of the fingernail evidence, right hand. The Y-STR data obtained from this item is suitable for exclusionary purposes only due to the limited amount of genetic information available. Based on the Y-STR DNA types detected, SUSPECT is excluded as a possible contributor to this Y-STR DNA mixture profile.

A Y-STR DNA profile that is a mixture of DNA from at least three male individuals was detected from the swabbing of the waistband of the underpants. A major contributor (male 1) could be determined at 15 genetic markers. SUSPECT is excluded as the source of the major contributor profile, as well as to the overall mixture profile. The Y-STR data obtained from the minor component is suitable for exclusionary purposes only due to the limited amount of genetic information available.

A Y-STR DNA profile (male 1) was detected from swabbing of the interior crotch panel of the underpants. A single Y-STR DNA type from an additional possible trace contributor was detected in this profile, however, no conclusions will be made regarding the trace contributor. SUSPECT is excluded as the source of the male DNA detected from this item.

And there were several more interpretations like these above on the other tests. Then it ends like this:

All paternally related male individuals should share the same Y-STR DNA profile. Unrelated male individuals may also share the same Y-STR DNA profile. Please submit appropriate biological standards from any individuals thought to be involved for further DNA interpretations to be made.

So, what I gather is that the main male contributor is her boyfriend and the other mixture is probably from her children possibly cuz they share kitchen utensils, bathroom hand towels, etc.

But, as one poster said above, if there was any contact, his DNA should be there, but it's not. And there's no doubt that there was some sort of contact outside the vehicle in the padded down snow, which fits with her description of events.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
Is there anyway the nurse could have screwed it up?

Yep.

could it be that he really is innocent?

He is innocent ... until proven guilty. You know that.

I'm no DNA expert and I was hoping that some of the smart folks here at ATS who are familiar with the science of DNA could help me out on this one. Thanks in advance.

IME, the Sheriff's office is rarely a wellspring of investigative talents. A LOT of them are simply flying by the seat of their pants. You should honestly consider this in your journalistic approach. What you're gonna want to look for is extensive experience. If it's not there ... what can you do about it? Sometimes, law enforcement simply isn't up to the task. Your Sheriff's office might have had this investigation thrown to them simply because they are known to be inept.

Sounds to me like there was no DNA evidence collected. If that's what it takes to make the case ... there's no case.

Also, you might not want to overlook an opportunity to engage JimNasium on this topic. I carried a badge just long enough to collect a pension. He went more than twice my distance (if memory serves).

-Cheers