The latter. It's a tell-tale sign of sexual abuse. It was used as a DNA source, which urine would not provide.
The latter. It's a tell-tale sign of sexual abuse. It was used as a DNA source, which urine would not provide.
Sorry, Steve, this was not the case. URINE in itself may not contain DNA, but the crotch of the underwear would contain skin flakes, sweat, urine, all kinds of material which would provide a source for DNA.
The LE that took the sample said it was a stain.
It was not identified as VAGINAL DISCHARGE except in the terminology that urine is discharged from the vaginal area in general.
If you go back and read the testimony, you will find that the same was taken because the LE could tell the panties had recently been worn. NOT BECAUSE of ANY PARTICULAR STAIN.
NOW, having said that, is it possible that the stain could have been a vaginal discharge? That Danielle could have been a victim of sexual abuse? YES,YES.
BUT IT WAS NOT STATED IN TESTIMONY, and we are trying to stick to the TRUTH.
Wrong about this too. We found information stating that DNA can be garnered from URINE.