So no DNA testing is done, correct? Would the swabbing show saliva? I am just wondering if the assault was from a female if the same type of testing is done? What signs of a female assault would or could they look for in such cases?
This case has opened up new possibilities for other cold cases.
I didn't say no testing for DNA was done. I assume some of the swabs were tested for biological materials, and if they found semen or blood there would have been more extensive DNA testing. Saliva does not show up as saliva "DNA", as I understand it, but simply leaves skin cells from mouth membranes. Skin cells are already found in the vagina, so perhaps you're right about there being no testing done when skin cells are present on a swab--that's expected. Only a DNA test would determine of those were not the victim's.
Testing was still expensive in those days, so unless there were other signs of vaginal injury, the absence of semen might have precluded any DNA testing of swabs. I don't know, as we were not allowed follow up questions nor input. We were there to assist victims at the point of contact with the sexual assault center. All I know is a number of swabs were taken during the kit exam.
Obviously, in a child, as you stated, bruising, abrasions, bleeding, injuries to the hymen--as well as biological samples--would be documented and used as evidence of abuse of some kind, if not self-inflicted. Younger children aren't good at communicating what has happened to them, so without solid physical evidence and no witnesses talking, it's a hard case to make.
Children who are as old as Sandra and the child in the January incident, however, can talk well enough to say what happened to them. So their testimony, as well as physical evidence, will put a pedophile away--if the abuse is reported. Many times it is not. Shame, guilt, coercion, incest...all can lead families to cover up abuse.
I'm sure you know this. But just to be clear....