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.
Sperm detection Sexual assault Acid phosphatase test Baecchi staining Forensic DNA analysis
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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.
Greiling H, Gressner AM. Lehrbuch der klinischen Chemie und Pathobiochemie. 3rd ed. Schattauer: Stuttgart, New York; 1995. p. 1250–1.Google Scholar
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
Madea B, editor. Praxis Rechtsmedizin. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, New York; 2003. p. 486–509.Google Scholar
Schneider V, Smerling M. Gerichtsärztliche Untersuchung im Rahmen fraglicher Sexualdelikte. Kriminalist. 1984;7(/8):323–6.Google Scholar
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
Scheithauer R, Luta C. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur praktischen Anwendbarkeit verschiedener Spermavorproben. Arch Kriminol. 1988;181:40–9.Google Scholar
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
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
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
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
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