The complainant stated that, during the course of the rape, penetration occurred without ejaculation. These details were later confirmed by a suspect who was identified by the complainant, confessed, and was convicted. Laboratory findings, however, indicated the suspect could not have been the source of the semen found on the complainant's underpants. Further, a vaginal swab taken from the complainant contained intact sperm cells, an indication of recent sexual contact. Despite the presence of semen on the underwear which could not have come from the suspect and the nonoccurrence of an ejaculation during the rape, the complainant maintained she had not had sexual contact for a month prior to the rape. The reason for the complainant's denial of apparent sexual contact, apart from the rape, was not evident. Possibly, such an admission may have been viewed as an invasion of privacy or as entering into matters of an intimate nature which were not considered relevant to the rape. On the other hand, if the victim was under the influence of alcohol or drugs or was otherwise unconscious, it might have been possible for sexual contact to have occurred without the woman's knowledge. For both forensic science and legal purposes, it may be important to establish the validity of a complainant's denial of having had sexual contact prior to being raped. 4 references and 1 table (Author abstract modified)