In layman's terms, what would've happened forensically if a person had deposited fresh semen at the locus, on Jodi's t-shirt or body? Given the way the crime scene was managed (i.e., the clothes & body being left uncovered for a full 8 hours, exposed to the open elements and periodic rainfall), would it have severely degraded the semen to the extent that it wouldn't have been able to be detected at all? I presume rainfall would degrade the semen to some extent, but not to the extent that no profile could be obtained, partial or otherwise?
Incidentally, I don't think the semen on the t-shirt was transferred from another item of clothing during a washing machine cycle; rather, I think it was transferred onto the t-shirt directly by SK (SK and Janine were in an intimate sexual relationship) and it survived the washing cycle. Jodi borrowed the laundered semen-stained t-shirt (she was obviously oblivious to the fact it was semen-stained) and the rainwater spread more of the semen to other clothing (her bra, for example) and parts of her upper torso as it lay there uncovered for hours. Likewise, LM's partial profiles could easily have gotten there innocently as he was in an intimate relationship with Jodi (this explains why his partial profiles from semen were present on Jodi's bra and body).Who's to say that Jodi wasn't wearing a laundered bra with LM's semen still embedded in it (it's well known that LM had sex with Jodi on Saturday 28.06.03)? Like I said, they were in an intimate relationship and having sex regularly. So many hypotheses and variables to consider. And there's the fact that her clothes were all bundled together in one big heap as opposed to the items of clothing being bagged separately. But, as I said, SK had a solid alibi for that evening (well, between 1600-2030 that evening) from his father and Janine herself (both Janine and SK were at SK's father's house for dinner netween 1600 - 2030 on 30.06.03). It's absurd that certain people think it's possible that Janine had anything to do with it.
Btw, what size was the semen stain where SK's full profile was obtained?
Let me confine myself to general comments for now. One, tests for body fluids or DNA do no give any indications about the age of the stain. With DNA one can say whether or not it is degraded by whether the peak heights are the same or slant downward moving left to right on an electropherogram, but the time that passed from deposition to sampling cannot be inferred. I do not recall having read information about degradation and body fluids offhand, but I worry about the risk of overinterpreting the data. Faintness of color might indicate some degradation, for example, but it might also indicate that not much of a given fluid was deposited in the first place. Taking blood as an example, luminol can detect blood that was poured onto the ground years later, even when there was no protection from the elements, including rain. Ideally one would study semen and clothing using controlled tests with and without rain, for example.
There was a partial (meaning that not all alleles were represented) profile from the bra, but it had at least three contributors. Under these circumstances and given the state of the art in 2004, I strongly doubt that this profile could have been resolved into three (or more) individual contributors, and Ms. Ure's words in this matter are ambiguous.
Let me make one other general point. Detection of DNA, detection of sperm, and detection of semen are separate tests. They have different sensitivities and different limitations. The results have to be assessed for each one individually. In addition, there are at least two classes of tests for semen, those that look for acid phosphatase and those that look for a protein called p30.
