What evidence did Las Vegas police collect in 2009 and during the 2018 reopening of the Ronaldo investigation?
Executive summary
Las Vegas police collected a medical forensic kit and an initial incident report in 2009 after Kathryn Mayorga alleged a sexual assault, but at the time she did not identify a suspect or location and the investigation was closed [1] [2] [3]. When the case was reopened in 2018 investigators confirmed the department still retained the 2009 rape kit, sought Cristiano Ronaldo’s DNA through foreign authorities, and later reported a DNA match to material from the 2009 examination, even as other physical and video evidence could not be located and prosecutorial review concluded the case could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt [1] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. The 2009 collection: police report, medical exam and a preserved rape kit
Police records show that after Mayorga made a complaint to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in June 2009 she underwent a sexual assault medical examination and a rape kit was collected and retained by LVMPD, and an incident report was filed; contemporaneous detectives said the victim did not provide a suspect name or the location of the alleged incident at the time [1] [8] [2].
2. Why the 2009 inquiry stalled: lack of identifying information and closed case
LVMPD and prosecutors closed the initial 2009 inquiry because the complainant did not identify the alleged attacker by name or the location where she said the assault occurred, a procedural gap cited by law enforcement as the reason no suspect was pursued at the time [2] [3] [9].
3. What investigators said they still had in 2018: the kit and follow‑up materials
When Mayorga and her attorneys asked LVMPD to reopen the matter in 2018, department spokespeople confirmed the agency still possessed the rape kit from the 2009 medical exam and that detectives were following up on information being provided as part of that reopening [1] [2].
4. New steps taken after reopening: foreign DNA request and investigative work
As part of the reopened inquiry, Las Vegas investigators formally sought a DNA sample from Cristiano Ronaldo via Italian authorities to compare with genetic material from the 2009 forensic kit, and correspondence later obtained by reporters indicates detectives obtained a DNA sample and that it matched DNA evidence from the kit [4] [8] [5].
5. Missing or degraded evidence and prosecutorial decision
Despite the DNA developments, Clark County prosecutors said unspecified forensic and video evidence from 2009 had been lost over time and concluded that, given those gaps and other investigative limitations, the allegations could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; the district attorney therefore declined to file criminal charges [6] [10] [7].
6. Conflicting accounts, courtroom fights and limits of public record
Reporting reveals disputes about whether Mayorga identified Ronaldo to police in 2009 and about the completeness and provenance of leaked documents used in civil filings; investigators and prosecutors have contradicted defense and plaintiff accounts at times, and courts subsequently sealed portions of the police report and related materials, so public records remain partial [5] [9] [11].
7. What cannot be fully confirmed from available reporting
Public reporting documents a preserved rape kit, a police incident report, a request for and receipt of a DNA sample, and loss of some video/forensic material, but the precise contents of the rape kit, chain‑of‑custody details, the full scope of evidence that was lost, and the full investigative file remain under seal or unreported in the sources provided, so those specifics cannot be affirmed here [1] [6] [9].