Police officers admitted yesterday that they missed out vital pieces of information while investigating an alleged rape last March.

And while the defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted to having drunk about three quarters of a case of beer just before the incident, it was revealed that Police failed to take steps to confirm this with routine blood tests.

A six-man, six-woman jury heard evidence from three detectives during the third day of the Supreme Court trial, which is looking into charges of serious sexual assault and stealing.

After examination by Crown counsel Sandra Bacchus, the officers were questioned by defence attorneys Patricia Harvey-Burch and Graveney Bannister in regards to how they carried out their investigation of the alleged incident, which occurred on March 27 in Sandys Parish.

Transcripts of interviews with the defendant, taken shortly after his arrest, were read to the court as evidence.

They revealed that the Sandys resident had said he was drunk on the night in question, and said that he had taken the complainant to be a "whore looking for some drugs'' when she drove up to him on Bob's Valley Road.

Earlier she testified that she was not looking for drugs, but had approached the defendant because he had flagged her down and asked for a lift.

One of the officers called to the witness stand, Det. Con. Richard Tempest-Mitchell, was grilled by Mrs. Harvey-Burch as to why blood tests of the defendant taken after his arrest were not sent to a Government analyst for examination.

In addition, she questioned him about why a third party, who was allegedly on Bob's Valley Road when the defendant and the complainant met, was not interviewed and given the opportunity to present his side of the story.

Answering Mrs. Harvey-Burch's queries, Det. Con. Tempest-Mitchell, who was in charge of the investigation, admitted: "If this person was mentioned in the complainant's statement as a third party, then it was amiss of me not to take steps to interview him.'' Also giving testimony was Det. Con. Trent Lightbourne.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bannister, he was asked to account for why certain key allegations by the complainant had not been put to the defendant in any of his three interviews.

They included both claims that the defendant had threatened to shoot her if she did not have sex with him and that he said: "Remember, if you go to the man (the Police) about this, I'll find you and kill you.'' The defence put forward a case that stabbed at how routine Police work is carried out.

Transcripts of the defendant's side of the story painted a different picture to what the jury had already heard from the complainant.

In his interviews, the man described how he had spent the whole of the previous day drinking with friends at various locations around the Island.

He said when the complainant approached him, he "thought she was a whore''.

Asked why, he said: "She asked if I had any `fifties' (crack/cocaine)''.

The defendant explained that he realised he could "get a f*** out of this woman'' and lied that he would give her some drugs if she went where he told her.

He continued to describe how he got on the back of her motorcycle and directed her to a darkened patch of grass off the Railway Trail.

It was there, according to the defendant, that he had had sex with the complainant and that, although she did not consent to it, he did not threaten her or use any physical force either.

He added: "After that we just talked and smoked and she took me back and dropped me off. I never thought she'd go to the Police. If I had, I wouldn't have gone home and I wouldn't be here now.'' The complainant testified that the defendant not only forced her to have intercourse three times, but threatened her also.

The trial continues today before Puisne Judge Philip Storr.