Replies

What if he really did commit the rape, but knew that he had never ejaculated? After all, someone saw him committing the act and banged on the doors -- that might stop someone from 'finishing' his deed.

So -- he could be reasonably certain that the DNA would not link to him. And he'd be a perfect prospect for the so called Innocence Project. And he'd be guilty of the crime.

The fact that he had been charged with rape before, which was not used to convict him, BTW, suggests that he was the guy. Eyewitness testimony by the victim, of a guy on top of you and in your face, would seem to be strong evidence. And corroborated by the second witness, who interrupted the crime.

Whereas many women carry sperm (from a husband, or boyfriend) in their body for days. S the presence of another person's DNA is NOT exonerative in any definitive way.

What if he really did commit the rape, but knew that he had never ejaculated?

That's what seems to have happened in that story I posted (see the link in #53 above) about the Philadelphia "Center City Jogger" who was raped and murdered, and DNA evidence released the guys, after they confessed.

This man, Thomas Doswell, is probably truly innocent. I just read that he has maintained his innocence from the beginning. And, because he insisted from the start that he was innocent, he was denied parole over and over again.

Still, I always wonder about the other cases, especially after the Center City Jogger case in Philly.