What evidence did prosecutors present to link Travis Collins to sexual-assault allegations in the Harrisburg Hilton case?

1. Forensic-pathology findings the prosecution emphasized

Prosecutors pointed to the medical examiner’s autopsy as the core forensic basis for calling the encounter a sexual assault: court records and reporting state the autopsy showed injuries “consistent with forced penetration” and other trauma to the sexual and lower-body areas, findings that led to added rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse charges against Collins ^{[1] [4]}.

2. DNA, bite-mark and physical-injury evidence cited at trial

In opening and testimony, prosecutors asserted that evidence from the victim’s body tied Collins to the sexual contact: reporting describes Collins’ DNA being present on Sarazen’s body and a bite mark on her buttocks that prosecutors attributed to him—physical results they argued corroborated the autopsy’s conclusion of non‑consensual sexual contact ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Crime‑scene photography and a “sex-themed” coin as corroboration

Investigators photographed the hotel room extensively, and prosecutors introduced those photos and small on-scene items to corroborate their narrative; Dauphin County prosecutors specifically presented a sex-themed coin they believe belonged to Collins, which appeared in crime‑scene images taken by a Harrisburg forensics investigator, arguing the object placed him at the sexualized scene of the assault ^[3].

4. Scene evidence of sexualized violence and the layout of the room

Prosecutors described the room’s condition as consistent with a violent sexual attack: news accounts relay that there was evidence of anal penetration across the bed and on the walls, and significant trauma to Sarazen’s sexual organs and lower body—details used to argue force and to link the nature of the injuries to the defendant’s actions rather than an innocuous altercation ^{[4] [1]}.

5. Presence, conduct and contemporaneous statements prosecutors used to establish opportunity and culpability

Surveillance footage showing Collins and Sarazen entering the hotel together and appearing familiar, Collins being found with blood on his hands, and his immediate 911 contact and subsequent statements to police were all presented to establish Collins’ presence, opportunity and comportment at the time of the assault; prosecutors also used his account that he had pinned and strangled the victim to explain both lethal and sexual-contact timelines ^{[4] [6] [7] [5]}.

6. Defense position and evidentiary limits noted in reporting

The defense contested circumstances and, according to reporting, Collins denied consensual intercourse even as prosecutors relied on the autopsy and forensic findings; his lawyer did not call witnesses at trial, leaving prosecutors’ physical and forensic evidence largely uncontested in testimony published during the trial ^{[2] [8] [9]}. Reporting across outlets varies in detail and emphasis, so some descriptive language—especially about the most graphic scene elements—reflects prosecutors’ courtroom framing and media selection from trial testimony ^[4].

7. How the pieces fit together and what reporting does not establish

Taken together in prosecutors’ presentation, the autopsy’s findings of forced penetration, the claimed presence of Collins’ DNA and a bite mark, the crime‑scene photographs and the alleged personal effects (the coin), plus Collins’ presence and actions at the scene, formed a multi‑layered evidentiary picture linking him to the sexual‑assault allegations; reporting shows prosecutors relied on convergence of medical, trace‑evidence and circumstantial indicators rather than any single smoking‑gun document ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. Available sources do not provide full forensic reports, chain‑of‑custody records, or the defense’s cross‑examination details in full, so public accounts cannot confirm every evidentiary nuance beyond the trial summaries and news excerpts cited here ^{[9] [8]}.