In the process of routine casework in our laboratory, a piece of evidence yielded conflicting results. The evidence was a blood saturated article of victim’s clothing. Analysis using the RFLP method and chemiluminescent detection was performed. The results of three of the six probes (D1S7, D4S139, D5S110) were consistent with the victim’s type. The other three probes (D2S44, D10S28, D17S79) contained the victim’s type, however, there were extra bands seen in the profile. These extra bands were inconsistent with the profile obtained from the suspect. Calculations utilizing referenced information obtained from Elizabeth Benzinger¹ of the Illinois State Police Crime Lab (via TWGDAM) were all consistent with the extra bands being due to partial digest products. PRC performed on the evidence showed both DQA1 and Polymarker (PM) genotypes were consistent with the victim’s type. However, the PM results at GYPA, HBGG, and GC contained a very minor secondary component that was consistent with the suspect’s profile. The amount of DNA in this secondary component was too minute for the RFLP detection process. Partial digestion of the victim’s blood standard produced the same pattern as observed with the evidence sample for both D2S44 and D10S28. The pattern observed from D17S79, however, was inconsistent. The amount of partial digestion observed with the blood standard was not as extensive as was observed with the evidence sample. To achieve partial digestion with the blood standard 1 mL of enzyme was added and incubated at 37°C for 15 minutes. A second restriction of the evidence sample using 5 mL of enzyme and overnight incubation resulted in complete restriction in which the extra bands were no longer visible. Therefore, the extra bands seen initially at D2S44, D10S28, and D17S79 for the evidence sample in this case appear to be due to partial digestion of the DNA. The possibility exists that the evidence was contaminated with a substance which prevented the enzyme from completely digesting the sample.