Re: Jameis Winston investigated for sexual assault - update: DNA match found
Just a couple things that have been nagging at me.
Firstly, there's plenty of room for inconclusive "rape-kit" test results. Just because someone has tearing etc. doesn't mean they were definitely raped, although it's remarkably likely if it is reported as such. Secondly, just becasue someone doesn't have tearing or other damage doesn't mean it was consensual. Sometimes we have physiological responses that aren't congruent with our intentions. "No" means "no" even if you have a physiological response to what is going on. That really gets to me how we often assume that if someone's body accepted the act, it must have been consensual. It certainly improves the odds, but doesn't guarantee anything. I also remember reading someone say "That's why we have KY jelly."
Next issue, potentially related: drug screen. Urine (and often blood) tox screens are called "screens" for a reason. They're cheap and pick up a lot of substances, but they are neither as specific (bad false positive rate) nor as sensitive (bad false negative rate) as we would like. Frankly, if one of my patients is getting Xanax (alprazolam) or Klonopin (clonazepam) and they test positive for benzodiazepines, they're probably using something else that I'm not prescribing. If I really need to get a positive test for those, I have to specially request much more expensive quantitative benzodiazepine tests specifically looking at alprazolam and clonazepam, and that's poor system utilization for a guy who came into the ER with suicidal ideation and is denying use of substances.
Take these pieces of information as you wish, but they may be helpful in understanding the case.