• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • News Main Page
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • A&E Main Page
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Opinion Main Page
    • Endorsements
    • Blogs
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
    • Obituaries
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Living Main Page
    • Outdoors
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • Food & Drink Main Page
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Sports
  • Outdoors
    • Outdoors Main Page
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Obits

    Frimpong's DNA Not on Victim, Criminalist Testifies

    Detective, Dentist Expected on Stand as Case Winds Up


    Monday, December 10, 2007
    By Chris Meagher (Contact)
    Article Tools
    Print friendly
    E-mail story
    Tip Us Off
    iPod friendly
    Comments
    Bookmark This
    del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
    Digg! Digg!
    furl furl
    google google
    newsvine newsvine
    reddit reddit
    technorati technorati
    Facebook Facebook
    Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

    There was no DNA of former UCSB soccer player Eric Frimpong—on trial for allegedly raping a 19-year-old UCSB student—found in or on the alleged victim in the case, a criminalist with the state Department of Justice testified Monday.

    The victim’s DNA was found on a swab taken of Frimpong’s penis, as was DNA from another girl, although the victim’s DNA was more prevalent. On a scrotal swab taken of Frimpong, his DNA, along with two different women's DNA was found. Criminalist Lillian Tugado couldn’t rule out the alleged victim’s DNA as being one of the two. There are different sources of DNA Tugado said, including skin cells, hair, saliva, mucus, semen and vaginal fluids. She testified at the preliminary hearing that it was impossible to tell what sort of cells the DNA found on Frimpong came from.

    It would also be impossible to tell when semen found in the alleged victim’s underwear after the alleged rape incident occurred could have been deposited, although Tugado verified Tuesday that that semen was indeed that of her “intimate partner,” Benjamin Randall. The young woman had earlier testified that the two had last had sex on February 13, and that Randall had worn a condom. Randall had testified the last intimate encounter had taken place about a week before the incident. The defense is alleging that Randall could be the culprit in the case—not Frimpong—and that, while they hung out the night in question, Frimpong was not present on the beach, where the victim was allegedly raped. None of Frimpong’s DNA was found on her face either, where she suffered some sort of trauma, either from a hit or a bite.

    Coming out Tuesday in the testimony of lead investigator Detective Daniel Kies were Frimpong’s phone records. According to the records, he didn’t make any phone calls between 11:56 p.m. and 1:10 a.m., when he checked his voice mail. He did receive multiple phone calls within that time span, but it isn’t clear by the records whether or not the calls were answered. The alleged victim first contacted her friends around 1 a.m. telling them she had been raped.

    Kies will take the stand tomorrow at 10 a.m., followed by a local dentist, who is expected to give testimony about whether the injury the victim suffered to her face could have been a bite and, if so, who could have bitten her. The prosecution is expected to rest Tuesday, with Frimpong’s fate expected to land in the hands of the jury by Friday.

    Story Help (Click-ability)
    Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

    Comments

    Discussion Guidelines

    What am I missing Chris? Your headline says, "Defendant's DNA is not on Victim." Then you write that the victim's DNA is on his penis. Why isn't your headline, "Victim's DNA on Defendant's Penis." Also, you use of bold print also appears to intentionally de-emphasize that evidence. I would say that is a pretty "Meagher" attempt at objectivity.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    sfoley (anonymous profile)
    December 15, 2007 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Post a comment

    Username:
    Password: (Forgotten your password?)

    Comment:

    EVENT CALENDAR

    Previous Month | Next Month

    Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

    Local Weather

    Currently:
    Clear Sky
    Temperature:
    55.9°
    Wind:
    5 SSW

    Surf Report
    • Specials
    • InPrint
    • Top Emails
    • Best Of 2009
    • 2009 Election Coverage
    • Wedding Guide 2009
    • Blue Green Guide 2009
    • SBIFF 2009
    • Tea Fire 2008
    • Local Heroes 2008
    • Calendar of Fundraisers
    • Local Bands
    • High Noon in the Garden of Controversy
    • CAMA Presents the Shanghai Symphony
    • Elings Park Expansion Shot Down
    • Before I Be Your Dog …
    • Flobots Return with New Record, New Vision
    • Autism Attacked Alternatively
    1. Eating Animals
    2. Montecito Pet Shop to Sell Only Rescued Dogs
    3. Producer Must Pay Landscaper
    4. High Noon in the Garden of Controversy
    5. Teacher in Trouble
    6. My Swine Flu Experience
    • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
    • LOG.IN
    • CONTENTS
    • CLASSIFIEDS
    • ARCHIVE
    • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
    Google
     
    Independent.com Web
    Copyright ©2009 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
    This is our Privacy Policy.