Advertisement

Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 182–188 | Cite as

Investigative strategy for the forensic detection of sperm traces

  • Heidrun Evers
  • Frank Heidorn
  • Christin Gruber
  • Gabriele Lasczkowski
  • Manfred Riße
  • Reinhard Dettmeyer
  • Marcel A. VerhoffEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

In a retrospective study, the results from 786 samples of alleged sexual assaults during a 5-year period were evaluated. Of the samples, 758 were from female victims and 28 were from male victims. The material examined during this 5-year period consisted of 561 cotton swabs with swabs taken from the genitals, mouth, anus, or skin surface. In addition, textile products were examined 191 times, paper products 23 times, and other evidentiary materials 11 times. The acid phosphatase (acP) test was performed as a preliminary test for all samples, followed by microscopy after Baecchi staining. DNA analysis was performed on 74 samples following individual court orders. The retrospectively evaluated results from this period indicate that additional tests for the detection of sperm on textiles and paper products are dispensable after a negative acP test. This is different for genital swabs, since sperm could be found microscopically in 3% of cases with a negative acP test, and DNA analysis was also successful. However, an individual investigative strategy has to be determined for each case, as, depending on the structure of the case, the evidence of male DNA on a female victim, or on her clothes, for instance, can also have evidentiary value without microscopic proof for sperm.

Keywords

Sperm detection Sexual assault Acid phosphatase test Baecchi staining Forensic DNA analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Herrn Wolfgang Pabst from the medical statistics workgroup at the Medical Department of the Justus-Liebig-University in Gießen for his support during the project.

References

  1. 1.
    Ingemann-Hansen O, Brink O, Sabroe S, Sørensen VAV. Charles, legal aspects of sexual violence—does forensic evidence make a difference? Forensic Sci Int. 2008;180:98–104. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.07.009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baltieri DA, de Andrade AG. Alcohol and drug consumption among sexual offenders. Forensic Sci Int. 2008;175:31–5. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.05.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boland CA, McDermott SD, Ryan J. Clothing damage analysis in alleged sexual assaults—the need for a systematic approach. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;176:110–5. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.06.038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patzelt D, Baur MP, Bertrams J. Forensische Serologie/Hämogenetik. In: Madea B, Brinkmann B, editors. Handbuch Gerichtliche Medizin, vol. 2. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2003. p. 1010–1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leithoff H. Neue Methoden der Gerichtsmedizinischen Untersuchung an Spermaflecken. Fortschr Med. 1964;82:493.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walter JT. A new test for seminal stains. N Engl J Med. 1950;242:110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greiling H, Gressner AM. Lehrbuch der klinischen Chemie und Pathobiochemie. 3rd ed. Schattauer: Stuttgart, New York; 1995. p. 1250–1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tamaki K, Fujisawa K, Okajima H, Sato KY. Katsumata, identification of semen in stain by determination of the specific activity of l-tartrate-inhibitable acid phosphatase. Z Rechtsmed. 1989;102:429–36. doi: 10.1007/BF00204073.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Madea B, editor. Praxis Rechtsmedizin. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, New York; 2003. p. 486–509.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schneider V, Smerling M. Gerichtsärztliche Untersuchung im Rahmen fraglicher Sexualdelikte. Kriminalist. 1984;7(/8):323–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wiegand P, Rolf B. Analyse biologischer Spuren. Rechtsmedizin. 2003;13:103–13. doi: 10.1007/s00194-003-0230-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tröger HD, Albrecht K. Vergewaltigung. In: Madea B, Brinkmann B, editors. Handbuch Gerichtliche Medizin, vol. 1. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2003. p. 1131–53.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scheithauer R, Luta C. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur praktischen Anwendbarkeit verschiedener Spermavorproben. Arch Kriminol. 1988;181:40–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papsidero LD, Kuriyama M, Wang MC, Horoszewicz J, Leong SS, Valenzuela L, et al. Prostate antigen: a marker for human prostate epithel cells. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1981;66:37–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simich JP, Morris SL, Klick RL, Rittenhouse-Diakun K. Validation of the use of a commercially available kit for the identification of prostate specific antigen in semen stains. J Forensic Sci. 1999;44:1229–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sato I, Barni F, Yoshiike M, Rapone C, Berti A, Nakaki S, et al. Applicability of nanotrap Sg as a semen detection kit before male-specific DNA profiling in sexual assaults. Int J Legal Med. 2007;121:315–9. doi: 10.1007/s00414-006-0084-z.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pang BCM, Sato BKK. Identification of human semenogelin in membrane strip test as an alternative method for the detection of semen. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;169:27–31. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.07.021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Penning R. Forensische Traumatologie. In: Penning R, editor. Rechtsmedizin systematisch. 1st Edition ed. Bremen, Lorch/Württemberg: UNI-MED; 1996. p. 171–2.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baecchi B. Über eine direkte Untersuchung der Spermatozoen auf Zeugflecken, Vjschr. Ger Med. 1912;43:1–27.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gill P, Jeffreys AJ, Werrett DJ. Forensic application of DNA “fingerprints”. Nature. 1985;318:577–9. doi: 10.1038/318577a0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoste B, Verlinden N, Leonard D, Marcotte A. DNA Profiling of azoospermic semen after detection by a new rapid strip-test for prostate spezific antigen. Prog Forensic Genet. 1998;7:55–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jobling MA, Pandya A, Tyler-Smith C. The Y chromosome in forensic analysis and paternity testing. Int J Legal Med. 1997;110:118–24. doi: 10.1007/s004140050050.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hall A, Ballantyne J. Novel Y-STR typing stregies reveal the genetic profile of the semen donor in extended interval post-coital cervicovaginal samples. Forensic Sci Int. 2003;136:58–72. doi: 10.1016/S0379-0738(03)00258-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gusmao L, Butler M, Carracedo A, Gill P, Kayser M, Mayr WR, et al. DNA commission of the international society of forensic genetics (ISFG): an update of the recommendations of the use of Y-STRs in forensic analysis. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;157:187–97. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.04.002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Park MJ, Lee HY, Chung U, Kang SC, Shin KJ. Y-STR analysis of degraded DNA using reduced-size amplicons. Int J Legal Med. 2007;121:152–7. doi: 10.1007/s00414-006-0133-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ballantyne KN, van Oorschot RAH, Mitchell RJ. Increasing amplification success of forensic DNA samples using multiple displacement amplification. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2007;3:182–7. doi: 10.1007/s12024-007-0017-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Butler JM, Coble MD, Vallone PM. STRs vs. SNPs: thoughts on the future of forensic DNA testing. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2007;3:200–5. doi: 10.1007/s12024-007-0018-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andréasson H, Nilsson M, Budowle B, Frisk S, Allen M. Quantification of mtDNA mixtures in forensic evidence material using pyrosequencing. Int J Legal Med. 2006;120:383–90. doi: 10.1007/s00414-005-0072-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bauer M, Patzelt D. Identification of menstrual blood by real time RT-PCR: technical improvements and the practical value of negative test results. Forensic Sci Int. 2008;174:54–8. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.03.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Anslinger K, Bayer B, Mack B, Eisenmenger W. Sex-specific fluorescent labelling of cells for laser microdissection and DNA profiling. Int J Legal Med. 2007;121:54–6. doi: 10.1007/s00414-005-0065-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gill P, Brenner CH, Buckleton JS, Carracedo A, Krawczak M, Mayr WR, et al. DNA commission of the international society of forensic genetics: recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;160:90–101. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.04.009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schneider PM, Fimmers R, Keil W, Molsberger G, Patzelt D, Pflug W, et al. Allgemeine Empfehlungen der Spurenkommission zur Bewertung von DNA-Mischspuren. Rechtsmedizin. 2006;16:401–4. doi: 10.1007/s00194-006-0411-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hammer K, Rauch E, Anslinger K. Nachweisbarkeitsdauer der verschiedenen Samenflüssigkeitsbestandteile in Vaginalabstrichen post coitum. Rechtsmedizin. 2006;16:313–6. doi: 10.1007/s00194-006-0400-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sensabaugh GF. The quantitative acid phosphatase test—a statistical analysis of endogenous and postcoital acid phosphatase levels in the vagina. J Forensic Sci. 1979;24:346–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heidrun Evers
    • 1
  • Frank Heidorn
    • 1
  • Christin Gruber
    • 1
  • Gabriele Lasczkowski
    • 1
  • Manfred Riße
    • 1
  • Reinhard Dettmeyer
    • 1
  • Marcel A. Verhoff
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Legal MedicineUniversity of GießenGießenGermany

Personalised recommendations