- Joined
- Oct 1, 2015
- Messages
- 4,740
- Reaction score
- 25,453
This could be one of those fake "facts" that accumulate with a case, but my understanding is that she was believed to have been raped by an object, at least partially due to the lack of semen at the scene. If there was a bite mark, it could have been swabbed for saliva, but I'm not sure how common that sort of thing would have been in 1980.
She had raped in multiple orifices with a blunt object. She had not been raped by a genital. I think that conclusion had to have had other sources rather than just the lack of semen.
I assume they did not collect saliva from the bite mark, but they did study the dentals from the bite mark which they compared to Henry Lee Lucas.