"sexually assaulted"-forensics

[tali122]

this is not a pleasant question, however, i dont quite understand how police/forensics know that a victim has been "sexually assaulted"- as opposed with rape which would be easy to tell, but with sexual assault i can't understand what forensically would tell them that

[kempie]

How is it "easy to tell" rape?

[tali122]

i mean in the context of say a child or dead victim- but whatever at least there is bodily fluid that has forensic value in cases of rape- but what is there in sexual assault?

[kempie]

Sorry that this does not help you with regard to sexual assault but I must clarify this supposition that rape is easily identifiable.

There is not necessarily bodily fluid for forensic examination after a rape - what if a condom was used.

In the case of a dead (or live) adult, you cannot forensically prove that the victim was raped, only that sexual intercourse had occurred. The intercourse may have led to 'abnormal' trauma but none of this in and of itself would indicate that the encounter was non-consentual.

You may conclude that all this points to rape but that is only opinion, not fact. Other evidence would need to be considered.

[tali122]

i dont think many rapists would be considerate to use a condom- but granted the possibilty exsists.
ok-if we use a child scenario-where there cannot be the issue of consent muddying the waters-then how do they forensically discover and determine sexual assault as opposed to (non -condom) rape?

[KT84]

tali this isnt fact, but i think the way they know is if there is any "trauma" for example brusing etc.  But lack of this evidence i would not know how they would no.

[ursula62]

tali - as far as women victims are concerned, anal sex is considered sexual assault, not rape - so in theory there could be plenty of evidence.

Sexual assaults can often be more damaging to the victim than rape, particularly if glass bottles are involved.

[kempie]

I have to correct ursula62 - in UK law from 1994 the definition of rape was "penetration of the vagina or anus by the penis without consent" and was amended in 2003 to include "penetration of the mouth".

A new offence was also introduced in 2003; Assault by penetration � penetration of the vagina or anus by other body parts or objects.

These all constitute 'Serious Sexual Assault' but there is also 'Minor Sexual Assault', such as indecent exposure, touching, and sexual threats.

[twiglet4frog]

signs of sexual assault are varied from bite marks and scratches and bruising or cuts in genital areas that show signs of sexual contact.

It isnt all that easy to determine as much as rape is because there needs to be actual signs of the assault in some way. someone resisting an assault would fight the assailant and would therefore suffer bruises in many areas such as wrists from being held, underwear cutting into the flesh when it is removed violently etc.

With Rape it isnt easy to determine if it is actual rape or consensual which is where a lot of women get away with crying rape a lot to just get revenge on an ex or something although actual intercourse/rape is a quite evident with there being signs of puffyness, signs of friction, trauma, bruising, cuts, blood and semen samples inside a female. Remember the more the girl resists the easier it is to causes these signs. These signs will only last for a matter of hours, couple of days at best probably unless obviously they dont wash which many vicitims feel they have to do before admitting whats happend. As for the condom? There would be signs of the condom lubricant on a swab test and would still cause all the other signs except the semen sample. The only effect a comdom would give is a very good chance of not obtaining a DNA sample from any semen as it would be collected by the condom. However other DNA samples can be collected from hair and skin samples, even blood under a victims nails from scratching his arms in struggle. The tell tale signs of sexual activity dont always proof rape over consensual although it offers more evidence towards it the more signs are there and again thats what courts have to decide.

Hope this gives a few ideas without going too deep into the details.

[jamie15]

i agree but would they get forensic evidence off of fingers or garments if no rape happened but sexuall assault

[almcd007]

It can also be a forceful crime and damage and/or injury to the surrounding areas including bruises/scratches etc are common but not always present. I think it's obvious with children what the results of rape can be without going into too much detail.

[Mollusk]

Usually, there is bruising and or tender skin where violence has taken place.
These are still visible on a dead body. They can also tell from the type of bruise (the shape, the colour, the patterns etc) when and how it happened.
If a condom was used, then latex residues can be found. These can be traced back to the brand of condom, and to the retailers, who check the security cameras, to track the suspect.

Also, in a struggle, skin and other DNA are often gathered underneath the finger nails of the victim (and the rapist) and so a quick swab and test will be able to identify everything from who race to sex, even telling the forensics team where the rape took place

Sometimes in a struggle hair can be pulled from the head of either victim or rapist. This can also give huge clues to whether it was consensual or not. (hair, when shed has a little tiny "blob" on the end - check your own when you find some next. This is skin. This isn't present on hair that is yanked.