A predictable verdict of not guilty was handed down in the rape case of Neil Rowe, member of parliament for St. Michael North West. It was a high-profile rape case that had tongues wagging across Barbados. The case unearthed deeper issues around justice, politics, gender standards, and possible betrayal within Rowe’s political circle in the Barbados Labour Party (BLP).
While the court found Rowe not guilty, his claim that he was “set up” and his disappointment over the testimony of government minister Wilfred Abrahams have dumped fodder into the court of public opinion.
One of the keys of Rowe’s defence was the lack of forensic evidence. Dr. Katherine Cross, a United States.based forensic expert, testified that there was no semen or DNA evidence linking Rowe to the complainant. Rowe was at pains to highlight during the trial that he voluntarily submitted a DNA sample.
The point should be made – confirmed by BU Internet research – that rape does not always leave behind DNA. Many sexual assaults occur without ejaculation. Condoms may be used. The victim may shower or change clothes before reporting the crime—especially if there’s a delay, fear, or confusion. In this case the complaint came forward days later and it was revealed during the trial that she took a shower at Rowe’s [parents] home after the alleged rape..
Bottomline: the absence of DNA created reasonable doubt but it does not prove rape didn’t occur. All It means is that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial saw Minister of Home Affairs and Information, Wilfred Abrahams testify for the prosecution. He told the court that he saw the complainant at a party the night of the alleged assault and later received a phone call from her in which she confided that Rowe had sexually assaulted her.
Interestingly after the no guilty verdict Rowe publicly expressed disappointment in Abrahams’ decision to testify for the other side. Rowe deemed it as a betrayal. His statement hinted at political fractures, raising questions about party loyalty and whether the case exposed deeper divides within the ruling administration. It is interesting this issue has not raised its head on the political campaign in St. James North so far. It is an easy observation to make that Abrahams participation in the trial had the full approval of Prime Minister Mia ‘big works’ Mottley.
Was Rowe setup has he claimed throughout the trial?
Another issue to the case discussed in this space many times is the double standard how rape cases are handled publicly. Rowe’s name, face, and political title were exposed to public scrutiny from the outset. In contrast, the complainant’s identity remained protected by law – notwithstanding her police statement and other personal identifiable information was leaked before the case the commencement of the case. It feels like a man’s reputation can be publicly skewered based on an allegation, while the woman remains untouchable, even if the court finds the man not guilty. If it is unfair why not give the male the same potection? Barbados is a small and oftentimes insular society lest we forget.
Following Rowe’s acquittal the Prime Minister publicly expressed support for Rowe, the endorsement has significant political implications with a general election looming..By backing Rowe it appears to signal the party does not intend to abandon him.. Time will tell if it turns out to be a polarising issue during the next general election and importantly how the female vote responds.
The Neil Rowe case has concluded but its social and political consequences are far from settled. The court may have cleared him, but the court of public opinion continues to have its say. Somethings stinks to high heavens in Denmark!
The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.