No DNA evidence linking Rowe to alleged rape, forensic expert tells court

A United States-based forensic expert testified on Monday that she found no sperm or DNA evidence linking parliamentarian Neil Rowe with the alleged rape of a woman on September 18, 2022.

Dr Katherine Cross, a DNA analyst with over 30 years’ experience, appeared virtually before the No. 5 Supreme Court and told the jury that testing revealed no presence of semen on the alleged victim’s underwear. The items submitted for analysis by the Barbados Police Service included a pair of panties and a blood sample from Rowe for comparison.

“All of the testing for that was negative,” said Dr Cross, who works with Guardian Forensic Sciences in Pennsylvania. She presented her report, dated March 20, 2024, to the court.

“I selected two samples from the crotch and from the waistline of the underwear to receive DNA analysis, on the basis that there may be skin cells from the…individual from this item,” the forensic scientist told presiding Justice Pamela Beckles and the nine-member jury when the trial of the former Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly and MP for St Michael North West continued.

“Neil Rowe was excluded as the source of the DNA and both of the samples from the underwear.”

Principal State Counsel Olivia Davis asked whether the absence of semen was unusual in alleged rape cases.

“No,” Dr Cross responded.

Davis also queried whether DNA is always found.

“DNA is usually found . . . but the degree and significance vary from case to case,” the expert witness replied.

Under cross-examination by defence counsel Saffiya Moore, Dr Cross said that finding sperm on the body of the alleged rape victim would depend on if there was an ejaculate.

“If there was an ejaculate, then, yes, semen would more than likely be found on whatever items put on the body after that sexual encounter,” she stated.

Dr Cross also said it was possible that “any saliva from oral sex would transfer in the underwear that was put on immediately after the incident”.

Asked why she tested the waistband of the underwear, Dr. Cross explained: “That was on the chance that . . . during the alleged assault, that the perpetrator [may have removed] the underwear itself, and so, we did a touch DNA sample.”

However, she noted that detecting touch DNA depends on several factors, including the amount of contact and the number of skin cells shed by the person.

“That could go either way, depending on how long or how aggressively the items were touched,” she said. “It is not always the case that we would find something in that particular scenario.”

In re-examination, Davis asked whether any vaginal swabs were submitted for testing. Dr. Cross replied, “No. In this particular matter, the only thing that was submitted to me was the one pair of underwear and the reference sample.”