Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat
Didnt Rothlesberger provide DNA the last time he was accused of sexual assault? If so, having his DNA on file with the government shouldnt be a concern. Hasn't he already admitted to having contact of some sort with his accuser? So how would any additional prejudice be created by providing a DNA sample here.
I can only think of a few possibilities:
1) His lawyer simply doesnt want to be overly cooperative. If they really want his DNA and the feel they have evidence, then the prosecutors SHOULD get a warrant. (However, I personally feel if you have nothing to hide, then why not be as cooperative as possible in an effort to clear your name?)
2) Rothlesberger admitted to having contact that did not constitute intercourse with the woman. If the woman shows evidence of being raped, then Rothlesbergers argument could be that someone else did it. However, if he provides his DNA and it matches, it would prove Rothlesberger is either lying about the nature of his encounter or he actually committed the crime he's being accused of.
3) Rothlesberger's DNA has never been taken by the government before. He doesn't want it on file because it could end up being a match to some other, as yet unprosecuted crime.
|
well said, those seem like the 3 most likely options, only #1 would be possibly favorable for BR.
I doubt he had to give DNA in the last one since no criminal charges were filed, only civil if they even were.