A man accused of attempted murder declined to take the stand in his own defence, but his lawyer called a DNA expert to cast doubt on the case against him.Noet Barnett, 25, is accused of shooting Jeremiah Dill, 28, in Pembroke last October in what police classed as a gang-related act of vengeance.Mr Barnett is now on trial at Supreme Court, and denies charges of attempted murder, using a gun to commit attempted murder and handling a firearm.Invited to take the witness stand to testify in his own defence yesterday, Mr Barnett told Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves: “I’m not taking the stand sir”.The prosecution called evidence earlier in the trial from US-based DNA expert Candy Zuleger.She indicated that Mr Barnett’s DNA was found, along with other peoples’, on the gun used in the attack.It was also discovered on a pair of gloves and a drawstring bag the items were found in.However, the defence called UK-based forensic scientist Michael Appleby yesterday, who suggested Ms Zuleger looked at samples that were “unsuitable for meaningful comparison” .He explained this is because when you test an item that has DNA from multiple people on it, as in the Barnett case, you end up with “sub optimum” and “less than perfect” DNA to work with.“All the profiles obtained (by Ms Zuleger) were incomplete, complex and mixed, indicating the presence of DNA from a number of individuals,” said Mr Appleby.“All the profiles were, in my opinion, for the most part unsuitable for meaningful comparison and interpretation.“It is my opinion that comments made (by Ms Zuleger) suggesting Mr Barnett could be included, or not excluded as a possible contributor to the DNA present are inconsistent, confusing, and not based on any sustainably objective statistical assessment.”Mr Appleby further suggested that Ms Zuleger examined samples that were contaminated, as the gun and gloves in question were found inside an “extremely well used bag”.He suggested that because DNA can be transferred by items touching each other, the DNA could have been transferred from the bag as it came into direct contact with the gun and gloves.And, he said, he had additional concerns that the DNA samples from multiple suspects in the case were “processed through the majority of the stages involved in DNA profiling” together in Ms Zuleger’s lab.According to Mr Appleby, it would not be acceptable in the UK to work on samples like this “in tandem” and “next to each other,”. He said the results would be ruled inadmissible due to the possibility that contamination had occurred.However, prosecutor Carrington Mahoney questioned both Mr Appleby’s expertise and accreditation.“You said you were qualified. Who qualified you?” he asked Mr Appleby, who used for work for the British Forensic Science Service and now works for a private firm.“My 32 years in forensic science,” replied the witness.He agreed with the prosecutor that he does not have specific training in the method of analysis used by Ms Zuleger, but said his own expertise in another method is “equally applicable” when it comes to interpreting the evidence in the case.In reference to his contention that the results in this case would be “inadmissible” in the UK, he admitted he does not know about procedures in the US.Mr Mahoney suggested Mr Appleby was merely inviting the jury to speculate about whether the DNA evidence was contaminated during the laboratory process.“I’m just saying processing samples together increases the chances of contamination,” replied the witness.The case continues.