first day of his Supreme court trial yesterday.

Crown Counsel Mr. Stephen Harrison told the seven-woman, five-man jury that prosecution evidence in the case would show that the 25-year-old woman came home in the early hours of February 15, 1992 and found her alleged father asleep on the living room floor.

They spoke, then she fell asleep in a chair. She was awakened by the man whom she reported was grabbing her and then forced her to have sexual intercourse on the floor. She eventually submitted, Mr. Harrison said.

Evidence yesterday centred on testimony from forensic witnesses who detailed how testing procedures showed the accused is "highly likely'' to be the woman's father.

Dr. John Bowden, a hair and fibre DNA specialist, and biologist Ms Isabelle Trudel, both of whom work for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Forensic Centre in Ottawa, explained how DNA tests work.

With the aid of transparencies, they explained that DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a chemical found in almost every cell of the body. Dr. Bowden said it carries the information that is essential for life, and it determines whether a being will be a plant, a human, or an animal.

He added that all people pass on characteristics to their children via DNA; half the information comes from the mother the other half from the father. He explained that DNA will differ from person to person, though each person has their own unique code.

These explanations did not convince defence lawyer Mr. Archie Warner who questioned the reliability and accuracy of the testing procedures.

"If this system is so fail-safe,'' Mr. Warner asked,"why do you have so many checks and balances?'' The doctor admitted that while the testing procedure is not 100 percent foolproof and human error was always possible, it "was a fairly robust system in the hands of trained and highly qualified persons''.

Mr. Warner said: "Would it be true to say that if you know where you are going it is easier to get there? I mean you knew you were trying to prove the defendant is the woman's father.'' "Not really,'' Dr. Bowden said. "It's hard to change facts. Either there is a match or their isn't one. It's difficult to introduce biases given the fact that we also use a computer backup.'' Mr. Warner also questioned the population pool that formed the basis for Dr.

Bowden's conclusion that the accused was "highly likely'' to be the woman's father.

"Did you carry out a population study on Bermuda?'' Mr. Warner asked. "No, it's not necessary,'' Dr. Bowden said, "because there is not much difference between different racial or ethnic groups. The genetic variation is greatest between humans not racial or ethnic groups.'' Ms Trudel, who performed the first series of tests, confirmed the doctor's testimony and stood by her conclusion that the accused was very likely the woman's father.

She said she looked at the samples of DNA taken from the blood samples of the complainant, her mother and the accused and found that they matched.

She said her observations were confirmed by the computer image analysis test she did afterward.

She said she used three population databases. They were from the United States, the Bahamas and Trinidad. Each sample used black men. Using a mathematical formula she then calculated the probability that the accused was the woman's father. She said a match ratio of 400 to 1 was considered almost proven paternity.

Taking the most conservative estimate, she calculated that the accused had a match ratio of 5800 to 1.

The trial continues today before Pusine Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward.

Under reporting restrictions which came into effect on June 1, 1993, it would be illegal for The Royal Gazette to print the defendant's name in this case.