The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE investigator of an alleged sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl at vacation Bible school dismissed an attorney’s suggestion that she did a “lousy job” with the investigation.

The suggestion was put to Detective Constable Tiffany Crawley after she admitted that she had not inquired, up to yesterday, about the results of a rape kit examination.

“You really don’t care, do you?” Romona Farquharson-Seymour asked.

“I don’t work in the lab,” the investigator replied.

“If nobody calls, what you do you do? Nothing, is that it? You do nothing?” the attorney asked.

“I don’t know,” the investigator answered.

“You don’t know but yet you charge a man for a sexual assault? And you don’t find out the results of the analysis? Is that acceptable in 2013 in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas?” the attorney asked before suggesting to the investigator that she did “a lousy job”.

“That’s your opinion,” Constable Crawley answered.

Justice Vera Watkins told the investigator that she either had to agree or disagree with the suggestion by Leroy Adderley’s attorney.

“No, I do not,” the investigator answered.

The accused, also known as Rolly Adderley, faces a charge of unlawful sexual intercourse, alleged to have been committed on July 30, 2007.

It is claimed that the 48-year-old sexually assaulted the complainant, who was 12 years old at the time.

Adderley, who is represented by Farquharson-Seymour, denies the charge. He pleaded not guilty.

On Monday, the now 18-year-old claimed she was asked by Leroy Adderley to go to the receptionist’s desk of the church to answer phone calls.

She said she followed him from the youth activity centre and downstairs towards that area, before being told they would go through the sanctuary and then the kitchen.

Then, the complainant said, Adderley pulled her from the kitchen into the woman’s rest-room and sexually assaulted her.

When asked by prosecutor Uel Johnson if she screamed when being pulled into the rest-room, she said: “I was too fearful to.”

Mrs Farquharson-Seymour suggested to the complainant that she was not telling the truth.

The complainant disagreed.

In yesterday’s proceedings, Constable Crawley said she interviewed Adderley on August 1.

The officer said the record of interview was conducted with the then-suspect under caution.

“The suspect was asked a series of questions and he denied the allegations,” the witness said.

When the prosecution attempted to have the record of interview exhibited, the defence objected, leading to legal discussions in the absence of the jury.

Fifteen minutes later, the jury and the witness returned to court, where she said the record of interview was the extent of her involvement in the case.

Prosecutor Johnson then concluded his examination of the investigator, who then underwent cross-examination.

The attorney asked the investigator if she knew whether a rape kit was sent on for analysis.

“I can’t speak to that,” the investigator said, adding that she did not work in the police force’s forensic lab.

She also said she did not know the contents of the kit or if samples were collected from the scene of the alleged incident.

“Weren’t you the investigator in this matter?” the attorney asked.

“I did not do the initial investigation. The case was assigned to me,” the witness answered.

“At any point, did you contact the laboratory to see if they were analysing anything in your matter?” Farquharson-Seymour then asked.

“No,” Crawley answered.

“Do you agree that would’ve been important?” the attorney further probed.

The investigator agreed.

The trial resumes today.