What evidence did Las Vegas police collect in the 2010 Ronaldo-Mayorga investigation?

1. What police publicly sought and tested: the DNA request and reported “match”

Reporting says Las Vegas detectives requested a DNA sample from Ronaldo during the reopened investigation and, through U.S. Justice Department channels in Rome, obtained a swab; emails quoted by ESPN and other outlets record a detective writing “DNA is back and is a match,” indicating police compared Ronaldo’s DNA to biological evidence collected earlier in 2009 ^{[2] [7]}. The New York Times and CNN likewise note police requested DNA evidence from Ronaldo as part of the nine‑month reinvestigation ^{[1] [8]}. However, while some outlets cite internal emails describing a match, prosecutors later concluded the totality of evidence would not support a criminal charge ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Medical/hospital documentation from 2009: what reporters say was recorded

Multiple reports say Mayorga underwent a medical exam in 2009 and that “evidence of the alleged rape was documented and photographed” at the hospital shortly after the incident; those medical records and photographs are described in press reports as part of the original investigative file investigators reviewed when the case was reopened ^{[4] [9]}. The sources describe these materials as present in police files, but do not reproduce or enumerate their contents in detail in the reporting available here ^{[4] [9]}.

3. Chain-of-custody and lost or missing evidence: admitted gaps in the file

Reports indicate that key pieces of evidence had issues: police said the initial 2009 probe was hampered by lack of cooperation from the accuser at the time and lost or missing materials such as video surveillance; some news stories state video showing interactions before and after the alleged incident was lost, and prosecutors cited lost evidence and delays as obstacles ^{[2] [5]}. The New York Times and others also note the original 2009 investigation was closed because investigators could not conduct a “meaningful investigation” then ^{[1] [9]}.

4. The settlement and confidentiality agreement as evidentiary and legal focal points

The 2010 settlement — a payment Mayorga says was $375,000 in exchange for a confidentiality agreement — is repeatedly identified in reporting as central to later civil litigation and to public understanding of the case; prosecutors and judges weighed the settlement and related documents when evaluating whether to press charges or allow documents to be unsealed ^{[8] [6] [3]}. PBS and The Guardian note police sought to include the confidentiality agreement among materials under scrutiny in court fights about unsealing records ^{[6] [3]}.

5. How prosecutors evaluated the evidence: “not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt”

Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson declined to bring criminal charges in 2019, saying too much time had passed and the available evidence failed to show that the allegation could be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; multiple outlets quote that prosecutorial conclusion even while reporting police had sought DNA and reviewed medical documentation ^{[3] [1] [2]}. That prosecutorial judgment is the key legal endpoint reported across sources ^[3].

6. Competing narratives and limits of public reporting

Journalistic accounts diverge on emphasis: outlets like ESPN and Metro highlight internal emails and the reported DNA match ^{[2] [7]}, while others emphasize prosecutorial discretion and evidentiary gaps that led to no charges ^{[3] [1]}. Several reports note source limitations: police files remain partly sealed and courts have limited public disclosure, so reporters and litigants rely on leaked documents (Football Leaks), internal emails, and summaries rather than a fully public inventory of evidence ^{[10] [6]}.

7. Bottom line for your question: what evidence did LVMPD collect?

Available reporting identifies at least these items in the LVMPD file or under active investigative review when the case was reopened: biological evidence from a 2009 medical exam that police sought to compare with Ronaldo’s DNA and which internal emails describe as matching; medical/hospital documentation and photographs from 2009; the 2010 settlement/confidentiality agreement as a key document; and references to lost or missing video surveillance and other gaps that complicated the case ^{[2] [4] [8] [5]}. Available sources do not list a full, itemized evidence log released by police, so a comprehensive catalogue of everything collected or examined is not found in current reporting ^[10].

Limitations and caveats: public reporting is constrained by court orders sealing parts of the police file and by reliance on leaked emails and documents; therefore, while DNA testing and medical records are repeatedly reported, the exact contents, chain‑of‑custody details, and prosecutors’ evidentiary assessments beyond published summaries are not fully disclosed in the sources reviewed here ^{[10] [3]}.