I’ve seen these statements several times before, what exactly are they looking for? Semen, condom chemicals/residue?
The medical examiner is looking for bruising and tears on the vagina/vulva indicative of sexual activity. The nature and location of these also provide information relating to the consensual nature of the sex, or the forcefulness of activity. Such exams are commonly called the “clock exam”, as the hour markings of a clock are used to indicate the locations of injuries. The nature of such analysis can (and should) be challenged in court, as should all forensic evidence.
Additional information can be gained from the presence of semen, lubricants etc.
Si
As a forensic pathologist who is a medical examiner (NOT a coroner - and as an aside it is very important to know that there are major differences between coroners and MEs), I do not know how they made that determination, and I do not know of any method by which such a determination could be made to any degree of certainty more definitive than dead reckoning…
Are you specifically referring to the 24 hours claim?
I wonder if that is more the result of reporting, rather than a specific claim.
Si
Yes,the 24 hour claim. Per my reading of the OP, that was the question asked.
I was wondering about the specific claims(I’ve seen other variations hour/day) but also what specifically they were looking for if the sex was consensual. I’ve seen statements before about anal sex occurring long before the death also that seemed kind of strange.
The sorts of microdermal abrasions they are looking for (using visual examination, tissue staining and Colposcopy) are minor, and become undetectable after some period of time - given that there is physical evidence to be gathered up to 72 hours following sexual assault, one might suspect that this is the sort of timeframe for injuries to be identifiable. However, it could well be the case, when asked, that a M.E. would not commit to a statement of “no sexual activity” within 24 hours just because they don’t want to overcommit.
As for the difference between consensual and forced sex (vaginal) - the markers seem to be (from a quick reading)
consensual sex may not produce any injuries at all, whereas sexual assault may produce injuries
lack of pelvic tilt causes injuries towards the perineum, avid vigorous sex tends to produce injuries towards the clitoral surface
lack of lubrication/assistance for penetration produces surface injuries
All the above also apply for anal penetration, with the proviso that the anus/rectum is more sensitive tissue and does not lubricate, and so is more likely to be damaged in both cases. However, consensual anal intercourse is more likely to involve lubrication, although that is a bit of a guess on my part.
I found this link to a Word document discussing the processes and methodologies of forensic sexual assault examination that discusses these issues - it may answer your questions, or it may raise more - but it looks well referenced.
Si
Another way of saying “don’t want to overcommit” is “striving to remain objective”.
To my mind, there is no objective way of determining consent (or “no sex within X hours”) by looking at physical findings. I haven’t been around every block, but I do know that people may consent to all manner of things. Likewise, people may behave in all manner of ways when they are not consenting to an assault. And the more minute the physical findings are (such as “microdermal abarsions” - not sure what those are, but they sound very small), the more equivocal their significance.
I don’t disagree with you, entirely - as I said upthread, the evidence has to be tested in court and debated by expert witnesses. And I also agree that people choose to do things in ways that are surprising and odd (to me, at least).
There is a continuum though, and taken with additional external evidence…
No evidence of penetration, no evidence of semen or lubricant -> probably no sexual activity
No evidence of penetration, evidence of semen or lubricant -> sex probably occurred, probably consensual
Evidence of penetration, clock exam 10-2, evidence of semen or lubricant -> sex probably occurred, probably consensual
Evidence of penetration, clock exam 4-8, evidence of semen or lubricant -> sex probably occurred, possibly non-consensual
Evidence of penetration, clock exam 4-8, no evidence of lubricant, with or without semen -> sex possibly occurred, probably non-consensual
It is entirely possible that there are people for whom dry rough sex is an element of their sexual practice - thus producing evidence that looks non-consensual when it was by choice. But it is outside of the normal curve of behaviour, and so the burden of proof would have to be higher if that was your defence (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). This is very common - “She wanted it rough, and I accidentally hit her too hard/choked her/etc”. Such claims of consensual acquiescence to sexual violence require extraordinary levels of evidence. This is difficult in court, as it results in a public discussion of the victims prior sexual habits and behaviour, something that many find distasteful. But it is the only appropriate way to allow a determination of whether the defense is credible.
Likewise, in the case that the OP referred to (which I would classify as No evidence of penetration, no evidence of semen or lubricant), the claim that “semen destroying maggots ate my sexual assault evidence” is out of the normal range of experience and should have been challenged by the defense in the initial trial, as it was (successfully) in the later appeal.
Si
Well, allI can say is when you start making conclusions about states of mind based on the presence or absence of things like micro dermal abrasions, to my mind you’ve gone beyond the purview of the ME and, again, to my mind, you are approaching the edges of scientific validity and are stepping into the realm where assertions begin to sound like they are based as much on dead reckoning (or singing for one’s supper) than anything else. But then I admit I’m not an expert in that field.