Forensic evidence alleged to link a visitor to the island to heroin found in a safe in his hotel room was branded too flimsy to secure a conviction at the close of his defence yesterday in the Supreme Court.

David Osadebay, 38, came to the island for a holiday during Cup Match in 2023.

The hip-hop and rap artist who performed under the stage name “C Biz”, testified this week that someone else had placed the drugs in his safe, minutes before he was arrested for entering the country illegally.

His defence counsel, Marc Daniels, argued that the evidence offered was not enough to connect the accused to the plastic-wrapped capsules, which were found to contain more than 160 grammes of heroin with a purity of between 9 per cent and 11 per cent.

The British national has denied possessing the drug, known as diamorphine, with intent to supply on August 4, 2023.

He was arrested that day on suspicion of using fraudulent documents to enter Bermuda under the name Joshua Webb.

Mr Osadebay accepted that he had travelled under the alias but said that he had used a false name on occasion to throw off the media.

The performer was visiting the island from the US and the jury heard that a Bermudian known as Jay had shown him around the island — and arrived at his room in the Royal Palms Hotel on the day in question with another man, whom he did not know.

He maintained that one of the men had asked, while in his hotel room, if he could leave something in his safe. He agreed to it and provided the combination.

Mr Osadebay told the jury that he was keen to get to Cup Match and was unaware of what had been placed in the safe.

He was arrested shortly after setting out from his hotel.

Earlier, DNA evidence from two of the 12 capsules found by police in the hotel safe was presented at the trial by Valerie Blackmore, a forensic biologist.

The court heard that out of the 12 samples sent to her for testing, Ms Blackmore was able to identify two genetic profiles, which she referred to as Male A and Male B.

The defence admitted that Mr Osadebay had been the former but the witness was unable to say for certain how the DNA might have been transferred to the capsules.

While direct transfer was said to be a more likely scenario, the witness conceded it could have been transferred from an intermediary surface such as a hotel duvet or personal items.

Closing his defence case yesterday, Mr Daniels told the jury that the DNA evidence fell too short to convict the accused.

Asking them to examine the facts, he said: “Are you doing anything more than flipping a coin in the air to determine the answer?

“If that’s all you can do with the quality of this evidence, then you know there is only one just outcome, and that outcome is to come back and say ‘not guilty’.”

Mr Daniels said the Crown in the case faced “a difficult job based on the circumstances that police had put these items on the bed” when they were photographed.

He highlighted that the forensic evidence could not speak to the source or type of DNA or how it had been deposited.

“She can’t describe any circumstances that can assist you in making the determination, to answer the question of, how did it get there?”

Although Mr Daniels added that he was “not suggesting that this prosecutor has done anything untoward”, he insisted the jury had been left with “speculation, innuendo and guesswork” that could not establish whether actual handling of the evidence or secondary transfer had occurred.

He reminded the jury they had been given descriptions of how the defendant made his living as a performer.

Mr Daniels added: “But he is a real person facing real consequences and that’s why I implore you to focus on the facts and nothing else.”

He likened the evidence to an incomplete jigsaw puzzle that might hint at a scene, but not the location.

“What’s the full picture?” he told them. “In this case, you probably have more question marks than you do exclamation points.”

The trial continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case