Rebecca Middleton if prosecutors had waited for forensic evidence before making a deal with Mundy.

That was the testimony on Friday of Solicitor General Bill Pearce before the Serious Crimes Commission about his role in Smith's unsuccessful prosecution for premeditated murder.

Mr. Pearce also defended his career in the face of a suggestion by former Attorney General Elliott Mottley that he was not an experienced trial lawyer.

Mr. Pearce cited his more than 30 years of experience as a civil and criminal prosecutor, defence lawyer, and magistrate in Canada.

And he said that despite the difficulties, he could have gotten a conviction against Smith without Mundy's testimony had the case gone to the jury.

But he admitted he had never prosecuted a murder case before, only defended people early in his career on charges of murder, attempted murder, and other offences where his clients "were exposed to very heavy time''.

Mr. Mottley would have been "well aware'' of this fact when Mr. Pearce was hired, he said, and would also have known about his "extensive'' experience in dealing with expert testimony.

"Mr. Mottley expressed at no time any dissatisfaction with my taking the case,'' he said. "Any evidence (about my experience) is a red herring,'' he said. "Because at the end of the prosecution's case the prosecution had done what any prosecution team would be expected to do.

"We achieved the optimum. It was made difficult because he (Mr. Mottley) made charging decisions in July 1996 and he was attacked ferociously by (Mr.

Smith's lawyer) John Perry QC.'' He called the deal an "albatross'' that hung up the Smith case -- which he said was the most difficult of his career.

"If we had had a joint trial we would not have had these difficulties,'' Mr.

Pearce added. "Experience was not an issue. We made up our case (proved Smith's guilt) and we made up our case in spades.'' He also admitted discussing with Mr. Mottley who would take the case before it was as he said, "dumped in my lap''.

Pearce defends his role in Smith case an overseas Queens Counsel being brought in was also on the table but it was decided Mr. Pearce was the "best option available''.

Mr. Pearce accepted Principal Crown counsel Brian Calhoun's request to not be the trial prosecutor -- despite having extensive experience in big cases -- for "personal reasons''.

Mr. Calhoun never had to give his reasons to Mr. Pearce, only his word.

"We had a meeting and I said `Brian you have to take the case','' Mr. Pearce added, explaining he also offered to be a co-counsel responsible for the forensic evidence which was his expertise.

Mr. Calhoun told him "no, I can't take it for personal reasons'' and "I can't tell you why, Bill, you have to take my word for it''.

"I said `Brian that does not please me, but I'm not forcing you to take the case','' Mr. Pearce said, adding that later Mr. Mottley implored him to order Mr. Calhoun to join him in the trial.

"I didn't feel comfortable,'' he said. "I'm prepared to take his (Calhoun's) word.'' When Mr. Justice Moore questioned the "culture'' of a prosecutors officers that would allow Crown counsel to decline a case, Mr. Pearce agreed a lawyer would have to "do what you've got to do''.

He later said: "I agree with you Mr. chairman, that normally one would ask for another's personal reasons. Mr. Calhoun asked me to take his word for it and I did.'' Mr. Pearce said there were two questions about the case that still "baffle'' him; Why prosecutors believed Mundy's story about consensual sex and why the decision was made before all the possible evidence was in.

If Mr. Mottley had "done his job'' Mr. Pearce concluded, "there would be a very good prospect that there could be two people behind bars in this tragedy of a case''.

Mr. Pearce also struck back at Mr. Mottley's "parting shot'' in which the former AG said the Solicitor General said if unsuccessful in prosecuting Smith "he could always blame him.''