assault suspects could associate a male suspect with a female victim reliably within 1 to 24 hours following physical contact. Caain (Caain, 2002) reported the results of a research study involving the analysis of forensic laboratory results of suspect kits from 77 sexual assault cases involving known suspects. The study revealed that in cases involving an adolescent victim, 44% of analyzed suspect kits identified the victim’s DNA during sample analysis. The most common source of DNA for 39 victim identification was epithelial cells found on penile swabs collected from the known suspect during the suspect examination. In cases involving an adult victim, up to 30% of the analyzed suspect kits identified the victim’s DNA. With adolescent victims, DNA analysis of epithelial cells found on penile swabs of the known suspect were the most common source for victim identification. The findings from these studies illustrate a key principle from forensic science, Locard’s exchange principle. According to Dr. Edmond Locard (1877-1966), "It is impossible for a criminal to act, especially considering the intensity of a crime, without leaving traces of this presence" (Morrish, 1940). Today, this concept is described in terms of an exchange principle. Anytime a person makes contact with another person, place, or thing, there is an exchange of physical materials. Transfer of these biological and non-biological materials is not unidirectional. Items can be transferred from perpetrator to scene, scene to perpetrator, victim to scene, scene to victim, perpetrator to victim, and victim to perpetrator. In addition, with the advent of modern technologies, investigation of sexual offenses must also take into consideration video or digital evidence corroborating or contradicting the detailed report of a crime. Video-recorded accounts of a sexual assault may be the only proof that a crime occurred. For example, recently incapacitated victims did not know they had been sexually assaulted until videos of the assault surfaced. In some instances, the recordings surfaced within a few days of the assault and the victim received a forensic medical examination. One high profile case revealed no physical injuries at the time of examination, no DNA evidence from forensic analysis of samples collected, yet video evidence of the assault revealed 40 instrumentation with a foreign object. This video evidence contributed to convictions related to the assault. This case illustrates the possibility of evidentiary items that can be collected even when a victim declines sample collection for forensic analysis or is unaware that an assault occurred and did not receive a timely examination. Who provides the forensic medical examination and on whom? When sample collection from suspects or the accused occurs, it is typically done by law enforcement officers or forensic nurses. In some jurisdictions, law enforcement officers are taught by their local sexual assault nurse examiners to collect these samples. In jurisdictions where law enforcement personnel are expected to collect the samples, officers may view the necessary actions as inappropriate considering the intimate nature of the examination or they may be concerned about their lack of expertise related to anatomical collection sites and techniques. Unfortunately, regardless of who collects the samples, collection kits often used for suspect examinations may be missing elements necessary for a thorough examination and sample collection. When collected by law enforcement officers, documentation is less detailed and critical information may be missed (Archambault, 2007). Hence, perhaps the key question to ask is who should provide forensic medical examinations rather than who is providing these examinations. Joanne Archambault, Retired Sex Crimes Detective, continues to state during trainings, “To obtain the best forensic evidence possible, I believe suspect exams must be conducted by examiners with specialized training and clinical experience such as forensic nurses” (2014). In reference to forensic medical exams for victims or suspects, Newton (2013) states these examinations, “should only be conducted by doctors and nurses who have received relevant, up-to-date specialist theoretical and practical training. Clear evidence shows that few 41 other criminal offences require as extensive an examination and collection of forensic evidence as that of a sexual assault.” There are assumptions regarding sexual offenses and resulting forensic examinations that are worth challenging. The first is the overarching assumption that people committing sexual offenses are men and their victims are women. This assumption appears in the literature and is inferred by the contents of sample collection kits developed for suspect exams. Suspect collection kits often are labeled “Penile Swabbing Evidence Kit” or “Suspect Kit” with a limited number of identified anatomical collection sites, specifically male genitalia, perpetuating this assumption. It also perpetuates the myth that the focus of collection should be the penis rather than hands, fingers, or mouth. Whereas, especially in cases of child victims, fondling or oral contact with the victim’s genitalia should be considered. Furthermore, women also commit sexual offenses against men, women, and children. While less common than male assailants, women commit