A complex infidelity case requiring reading between the lines.

The divorce was due to the husbands continued infidelity.  The wife needed to prove that he was sleeping around with prostitutes.  A Private Investigator was hired and excess of 50 DNA tests were performed on samples ranging from the husbands underwear to the trash from the suspected prostitutes house.  Tested items included trash items of tissue, hair, and an envelope.  Items that were tested of the husband included a mattress pad, a bath mat, a pillowcase, and his underwear.  Upon completion of the initial testing, the focus was directed to prove that there was female DNA in his heavily semen stained underwear.  Seven pair of underwear were tested. One test matched a female stain in his underwear to a coffee mug from a private house but the test was not crucial because that pair of underwear were obtained after their legal separation and he admitted to that escapade during a deposition. Focus was then placed on the 5 pair of underwear obtained before the separation.

Six PowerPlex DNA extractions were performed on a pair of male underwear marked 2009489E and the DNA profiles obtained are shown below (extraction 1 and 2 produced no useful data) in Table I and Picture 1..  Ordinarily, a Differential Lysis (DL) is performed on a semen sample.  However, with the known male contributor being vasectomized, the DL cannot separate the male and female cells.  There is no DNA in semen and when the contributor is vasectomized the male DNA found in ejaculate matter (semen) is from the epithelia cells (tissue cells) shed during the ejaculation process

 TABLE I

 Extraction 3 yielded an imbalanced amelogenin allele (sex identifier) indicating that it was primarily female DNA as shown by the electropherogram output below. Extraction 3 and 4 DNA profiling was repeated with identical results. The small Y is most likely result of a few male epithelia cells contaminating the female profile.

A YPLEX test was performed to determine if the contributor of extraction 3 was female or male by attempting to determine if one or more male contributors were present.  YPLEX DNA extractions often produce profiles when PowerPlex extractions fail because the YPLEX profile will amplify with less DNA present.  The YPLEX extractions 3 and 4 (shown in Table II) displayed one male profile with signs of a degraded sample (shown below).  Extraction 5 produced a clear profile of one male.  With the close similarity of Extractions 3, 4 and 5, it is highly probable that Extraction 3 and 4 are from the same contributor as Extraction 5 and the mismatch is most likely due to a degraded sample.  Extractions 3-5 are from one male contributor and Extraction 6 was badly degraded and should not be used for identification purposes.

TABLE II

The following conclusion is drawn from the DNA evidence shown above.

1. Extraction 3 (Table I)  is primarily one person’s profile without degradation and most likely consists of minor contamination.
2. Extraction 3 is most likely a female profile due to the following analogy:
1. Small “Y” indicating male contamination.  Since the Amelogenin allele is one of the smallest alleles (sensitive) it normally displays the sex type of the contributor even if the majority of the remaining alleles fail to type due to lack of sample. 
2. YPLEX extraction 5 is clearly identical to Husband.  Extractions 3 and 4 are nearly identical to extraction 5 and are most likely slightly degraded.
3. Powerplex extraction 3 is clearly not husband.
3. PowerPlex extraction 3 does not match husband or wife's DNA profile.
4. It is therefore concluded that extraction 3 is a female DNA profile that is not from the wife.

The information was provided to the husband's attorney.  Settlement was achieved without a lengthy trial.  The following statement was received from the customer: "She said to tell you thanks for what you did and the testing was a major factor in the settlement."