The defence team in the Aaron Easton murder trial yesterday claimed that key evidence had been contaminated before it was sent off for DNA testing.

Defence lawyer Mark Pettingill claimed that a concrete block used to fracture the skull of Mr. Easton may have been “cross contaminated” both at the crime scene and at the office of the senior Government analyst, Dr. Kevin Leask.

Mr. Pettingill claimed that the block, which broke into pieces on impact with the victim, may have been moved at the crime scene.

And during the trial yesterday he also said that Dr. Leask, may have contaminated them while touching the pieces.

However, two forensic experts who took the stand yesterday in the Supreme Court said they would never have touched the evidence for fear of cross contamination.

Stanford Archibald, 39, formerly of Somerset, denies killing Mr. Easton in a brutal murder 18 years ago. The body was found with a fractured skull caused by a concrete block and 49 stab wounds, which were inflicted all over his upper body.

Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Kulandra Ratneser had already told the six-woman, six-man jury that his case was based on both DNA and circumstantial evidence. He has already presented forensic evidence which showed that Archibald's blood was found on three pieces of block.

In cross-examination of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) serologist and forensic biologist Gary Verret, Mr. Pettingill asked if he had seen a photo which was taken during Dr. Leask's examination of the block.

The photo was in question when Dr. Leask was being cross-examined earlier this week. He was asked why were visible red stains around the base of the block and on the protective material that they were set on.

Although, Dr. Leask had said he thought the substance was “rubble”, Mr. Pettingill had asked whether the block was dry when tested.

Mr. Pettingill asked Mr. Verret whether the block was dry when he tested it and he confirmed it was.

Mr. Verret was asked if he recalled the photograph, and he immediately said: “That is not my photograph - I do not recognise it.”

Mr. Ratneser jumped to his feet and said: “He (Mr. Pettingill) has no right to ask this witness about the photograph - he doesn't know.”

Mr. Pettingill asked if they had the same sort of markings when the blocks were examined at the RCMP lab and Mr. Verret said no.

RCMP blood splatter specialist, Insp. George Neil Fraser then took the stand. In cross-examination, Mr. Pettingill asked Insp. Fraser why he was reluctant to touch the pieces of block. “You are dealing with a biological fluids and I would not deal with them unless I was wearing a mask, protective clothing and surgical gloves,” he replied.

Insp. Fraser explained the physics of splattered blood in layman's terms and then proceeded to identify for the jury the blood that was found on the evidence.

Crown counsel Cindy Clarke led the inspector through the pieces of evidence. He identified the blood stains on the block, a vinyl window shade, drips on the toilet, couch, cushions, walls, the window seal, an upturned coffee table and other items.

Insp. Fraser said some of the blood had been swiped, splattered, large volume droplets, drips, been transferred, pooling, low velocity and passive staining, and gave an idea how the stains occurred.

He said a patch of blood found to the left of the body showed that Mr. Easton had bled there, but said: “I can see no visible swipe marks where it would indicate that Mr. Easton was pulled into the current position - so we don't know how he got there.”

Mr. Pettingill asked whether spots where no blood was seen near the other block pieces might indicate that other pieces were there and Insp. Fraser said: “It's quite possible. It's what we would call a void.”

Insp. Fraser also could not understand how a piece had landed in the flower bed to the right of the body and also that a print on one piece looked more like a lower palm print, than several fingers together.

The case continues today before Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller.