Parents explain father’s DNA on child’s underwear in Worcester rape, bridge attack trial
A jury is weighing the fate of Worcester man Joshua Hubert , who stands accused of rape despite no DNA evidence linking him to the crime — only that of the victim's father.
"You will hear that despite testing seat belts, seats of the defendant's car and [her] clothing, there is no forensic link to the defendant," prosecutor Emily Meyers said in Worcester Superior Court on Monday morning during opening statements.
"There is, however, a forensic link to her father ... and you will hear from her father about why these sperm cells were found in his daughter's clothes," Meyers said.
Hubert, 43, faces several indictments in connection with the attempted murder and rape of a 7-year-old girl in Worcester in 2017, which are being combined into one case for his trial. He has been charged with two counts of attempted murder and two counts of the rape of a child, along with strangulation and kidnapping charges.
Prosecutors say Hubert — a childhood friend of the victim's father — kidnapped the girl from her grandparents' home after a party, then raped and strangled her in his car before throwing her from the Interstate 290 overpass into Lake Quinsigamond.
Despite the lack of DNA evidence against Hubert, Meyers and fellow prosecutor Mark McShera pointed to surveillance footage of him cleaning his car the next morning in their opening statements on Monday.
They also said the jury would hear from the girl and review physical evidence collected at the time, including a ligature mark and broken capillaries on her face.
But Hubert's attorney, Kevin Larson, called the entire crime "unbelievable."
"For eight years, I have been screaming into the abyss ... It's unbelievable, the pieces, the puzzle pieces that the Commonwealth are going to try to jam together to support the unbelievable testimony of [the victim]," he said, repeating the word "unbelievable" about 12 times in his opening statements.
The jury heard from the girl and her father, mother and grandfather on Monday, all of whom were present at the family party in 2017 before she was kidnapped.
Both parents gave reasons why the father's DNA might have been on the underwear. Her father is expected to continue his testimony in court on Tuesday.
Mother on DNA: 'I can't say with 100% certainty'
After the girl took the stand — describing the night she says she was kidnapped, raped and nearly killed with the man accused feet away — her grandfather and mother testified next.
Her mother lives with her children and boyfriend in Spencer, and is a psychiatric nurse at a local hospital.
The girl's mother and biological father filed for divorce in 2020 after 12 years of marriage, and the mother testified that her relationship with her daughter's father is "tenuous."
During the girl's testimony, she said she no longer speaks to her father due to his problematic behavior, like not respecting her boundaries or privacy and drinking issues.
But despite their hard feelings, neither the girl nor her mother accused the girl's father of any inappropriate sexual actions towards the girl, even though prosecutors say his sperm DNA was found on her underwear following the attack.
"Do you know how the sperm got on the underwear?" asked Larson.
"I can't say with 100% certainty, but our laundry hamper was in the bathroom, and everybody's clothes went into it," the mother replied.
The mother denied she put "dirty" underwear on her daughter, but said that the child had worn the same pair that morning and into the night.
She was wearing that pair after she changed into pajamas to sleep over at her grandparents' after the party that August 2017 night, she said, and it was the pair on the child's body when she showed up soaking wet in pink pajamas on a stranger's doorstep by Lake Quinsigamond.
The girl vehemently denied her father ever assaulted her or ever would, and told the jury he had done "nothing" inappropriate with her in her life.
Father gives reasons why DNA showed up
When the girl's father — a 42-year-old who works as a carpenter and lives in Worcester — took the stand, he told the courtroom he'd known Hubert since the two were children, and considered him almost family.
Of his relationship with his daughter, he told the jury, "I love her. She's my daughter."
And when Larson asked if he would ever sexually abuse his own child, he replied, "No, I would never do that."
While the girl's father acknowledged his DNA was found on her underwear, he had two different scenarios on how it could've ended up there.
One was the same laundry theory his ex-wife gave.
"We had multiple laundry baskets around the house ... Clothes would just get mixed into one basket," he said.
"[The laundry] would be brought down to our basement, where we had the laundry [machine], and it would all be washed together," he said.
Additionally, clothes would often be left on the floor of the family's bathroom, the father testified.
"What — if anything — have you ever done in that bathroom that could have resulted in your sperm getting on some of the laundry?" asked McShera.
"I have masturbated and I ... also, [the mother] and I have had sex in the bathroom and things like that ... even just cleaning up and things," he said, and trailed off.
The father is expected to continue his testimony on Tuesday with cross-examination. Jurors will also be taken on a field trip to view the bridge that prosecutors say Hubert threw her off.
More joshua Hubert
Read the original article on MassLive .
