The trial of a 17-year-old charged with aggravated burglary continued yesterday with the Crown and defence putting forward closing statements.While Crown counsel Nicole Smith emphasised the DNA evidence which linked defendant Leo Burgess to the scene, defence attorney Shade Subair argued police had failed to fully investigate the case."They robbed Leo Burgess of a fair investigation in this case," Ms Subair said to the jury. "Here we have this defendant offering four names and the explanation that was given to your faces was they put the names in the computer but there were no surnames. You're kidding me."Mr Burgess, of Cambridge Road, Sandys, has been charged with aggravated burglary of a Southampton home on December 6, 2010, and possessing a firearm while being under the age of 18 on the same date. He has pleaded not guilty to both charges, telling the court that he was at home with his mother on the day the incident took place.Alleged victim Gregory Smith told the court during the trial that four men had entered his home, two wielding guns, demanding money and jewellery.They escaped with jewellery estimated to value $65,000 and a sum of cash, running towards the abandoned Sonesta staff quarters. Making her closing statement, Ms Smith told the jury that it was more than coincidence that latex gloves and a red bandanna, as described by Mr Wilson as being worn by the ringleader of the robbers, was found with near the scene with Mr Burgess' DNA.While Mr Burgess had told the court that the items were taken from outside his home before the incident, Ms Smith called his version of events "bogus and fabricated". "We say the evidence is clear that the defendant participated in the burglary," she said.She also argued that the defendant's mother and sister, who took the stand testifying that he was at home on the day in question, were lying to protect him.Ms Smith said Mr Burgess was light skinned and light voiced, matching the description of the man Mr Wilson identified as the ringleader while on the stand.But Ms Subair said that description was completely different than the one he gave police on the day of the incident, describing the leader as dark skinned and left handed. She also noted that Mr Wilson failed to identify Mr Burgess in an identification parade, despite claiming in a second statement that he would be able to identify the culprit.Regarding the DNA evidence, she noted that while Mr Burgess was the major donor of the DNA found on the gloves and bandanna, his was not the only DNA on the items."Two donors. Disposable gloves, but two donors,?"she said. "You cannot explain it. Where is the explanation for that? It's not for [the defence] to come up with that explanation. We don't have the Bermuda Police Service at our beck and call."And while the officer in charge of the investigation Detective Constable Emerson Donald, had told the court that he didn't expect to find evidence during a January 21 search of the defendants home, Ms Subair said that officers could only get a search warrant without a reasonable expectation something would be found.She said that while Mr Burgess had lied to police about his relationship with the victim's son, she said it didn't automatically mean he was guilty.