What forensic tests were performed in the Ashley Sarazen autopsy and police investigation, and where do reported gaps exist?
Executive summary
The public record and press coverage show that Ashley Sarazen underwent a full forensic autopsy that documented extensive blunt and penetrating trauma and that a separate forensic sexual-assault exam informed added rape charges; police crime-scene processing included extensive photography and seizure of clothing, phones and a coin, while defense attorneys have publicly questioned why some evidence (notably hotel bedsheets) apparently was not tested [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting does not publish a complete inventory of laboratory tests or chain-of-custody logs, leaving important forensic gaps in the published record [1] [5] [6].
1. Autopsy findings and the forensic pathologist’s role
Media accounts report that the forensic autopsy revealed 76 separate injuries to the inside and outside of Sarazen’s body — including 22 rib fractures, a destroyed liver, a left lung lacerated by a displaced rib, brain swelling with intracranial hemorrhage, and a torn and bruised heart — findings attributed to forensic pathologist testimony during the case [3] [1]. Those descriptions are consistent with a complete medicolegal autopsy as described in forensic literature — an invasive examination of organs, tissues and body cavities intended to determine cause, manner and mechanism of death — but the published articles summarize the pathologist’s conclusions rather than listing each ancillary laboratory test performed [6] [5].
2. Sexual-assault examination and evidentiary basis for rape counts
Local prosecutors added rape and involuntary deviate sexual-intercourse charges after a forensic exam showed injuries “compatible with sexual assault” and “consistent with forced penetration,” according to court filings and news reports that reference the forensic pathologist’s examination [2] [4]. The coverage notes the forensic exam informed charging decisions, but the reporting stops short of detailing the forensic sexual-assault kit results, DNA testing outcomes, or whether swabs and biological samples produced probative matches — information not published in the cited articles [2] [4].
3. Crime-scene processing, physical evidence collected, and contested choices
Harrisburg police photographed the hotel room extensively and collected men’s and women’s clothing, both phones, wallets and other personal effects; a sex-themed coin found near Sarazen’s body was highlighted in testimony and photo exhibits [1]. Forensic photographer Brandon Shetterly documented the scene; defense counsel publicly asked why investigators did not seize the hotel bed sheets and test them for substances other than Sarazen’s blood, raising an evidentiary gap that prosecutors and police have not publicly addressed in the cited reporting [1]. The articles do not provide a complete inventory of trace-evidence tests (latent prints, fibers, or bed-linen DNA assays) or their results.
4. What the public record does not show — laboratory testing and procedural transparency
The available reporting omits explicit confirmation of common ancillary autopsy tests — toxicology panels, histology, microbiology, radiology (postmortem imaging), and detailed DNA or serology results — even though forensic standards expect many of these analyses in suspicious, violent deaths [5] [6] [7]. Independent critiques of forensic practice warn that autopsy reports and ancillary testing can vary by jurisdiction and that gaps in public disclosure (and in some cases in methodology) can fuel defense challenges or public concern; those systemic issues are raised in broader forensic scholarship cited by the sources but are not tied to specific omitted tests in this case [8] [9].
5. Credible gaps and where follow-up reporting should probe
Based on what is publicly reported: (a) the autopsy produced extensive injury descriptions supporting homicide and sexual-assault charges but published accounts do not supply a checklist of laboratory tests or DNA/serology results [3] [2]; (b) defense counsel’s question about untested bed sheets signals a tangible investigative void in the published record — either in testing choices or in disclosure — that warrants clarification from prosecutors or the medical examiner [1]; and (c) broader forensic literature warns that variations in testing, certification and report transparency can meaningfully affect case interpretation, a context missing from courtroom summaries but relevant for assessing the completeness of the investigation [8] [6]. The cited news pieces provide strong injury and scene documentation but do not resolve whether every standard ancillary test was performed, nor do they publish laboratory reports that would answer those gaps [1] [3] [5].