By DENISE MAYCOCK

Tribune Freeport Reporter

dmaycock@tribunemedia.net

AN Abaco man accused of unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl allegedly told police he knew it was wrong to have feelings for a child but said he loved her, a Supreme Court jury heard yesterday.

Jeffrey Grant, 35, is on trial in the Freeport Supreme Court for unlawful sexual intercourse and possession of child pornography. The alleged offenses occurred between April 22 and July 22, 2022.

Lead investigator Constable Tabitha Forbes testified that during a police interview, Grant admitted to being physically and sexually attracted to the girl and said they exchanged nude photos via WhatsApp.

Although he denied having sex with her and refused to sign the record of interview, he allegedly told officers he touched the girl’s breasts and vagina “but was only playing”.

The girl, accompanied by relatives and a social worker, went to the Marsh Harbour Police Station on July 25, 2022, and reported that Grant had sex with her multiple times. She turned over her Samsung cellphone to police.

Constable Forbes said the device contained nude photos and a video of the girl that had been sent to Grant.

The complainant was later examined at the Marsh Harbour Clinic. A doctor, who testified virtually, said her hymen was not intact but found no signs of bruising, lacerations, or other trauma. Blood tests for pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections were negative. The girl was given an anti-HIV medication and a birth control pill.

During cross-examination, the doctor acknowledged that a ruptured hymen is not definitive proof of sexual activity and that other factors, including physical activity or tampon use, could cause such a condition.

Grant was arrested on July 27. The following day, police showed him a black Samsung Galaxy phone, which he identified as his. However, Constable Forbes said the device appeared to have been wiped and reset.

On July 29, Forbes transported the device to Freeport and handed it over to Detective Constable 2955 Rahming. She later received a CD from Detective Rahming, which contained an extraction from the phone, including a number of nude and explicit photos and videos between the virtual complainant and the defendant. As a result, Grant was charged.

The device was presented in court and admitted as evidence.

During cross-examination, defence counsel Brian Hanna questioned Constable Tabitha Forbes whether she had shown the extracted photos and videos stored on a CD to either the virtual complainant or the defendant.

Constable Forbes responded that she had not, explaining that she had already compared the materials to content found on both the complainant’s and the defendant’s phones and found them to be the same.

When asked why the virtual complainant’s phone was not brought to court, the officer said she did not believe it was necessary, asserting that the images and videos retrieved from the girl’s phone matched those that were sent to the defendant.

Mr Hanna also questioned why Grant had been charged with unlawful sexual intercourse despite no medical evidence being presented. Constable Forbes replied that the charge was based solely on the complainant’s statement, in which she alleged that Grant had sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions.

When pressed about the extent of her investigation, Constable Forbes admitted that she had not interviewed any witnesses other than the virtual complainant. She also said she did not personally visit any of the locations where the alleged acts occurred, though a crime scene officer was dispatched to those sites.

Asked why Grant was charged with child pornography, the officer said the charge stemmed from photos and video recovered from his phone.

The court viewed several pieces of the digital evidence. One video reportedly showed a woman’s hand touching her genitals, though the person’s face was not visible. Another image depicted a woman lying down with her arm across her bare chest, while Grant appeared in the background. Again, the woman’s face was not shown. Mr Hanna pointed out that the people could not be positively identified.

While photos of the complainant’s face were also extracted from the device, none of those were nude or sexually explicit, the court heard.

The prosecution has closed its case. The trial is scheduled to continue on Monday when the defence is expected to present its case.

A jury of five women and four men has been empanelled. Justice Petra Hanna-Adderley is presiding.