Pathologist Dr. Keith Cunningham blamed his own "sloppy note taking" as a reason for the dates on the blood samples being mixed up yesterday in the Aaron Glen Easton murder trial.

The blood specimens that were taken from both accused murderer Stanford Glenfield Archibald and the late Albert (Poochy) Jerome Smith, who was a murder suspect, were supposedly sent to the Government senior analyst on the same date.

However, both blood samples had a range of dates on them. Mr. Smith's were dated July 25 and 26 and Archibald's samples were taken on July 20, 25 and 26.

The Archibald samples state they were also delivered to the Government analyst on August 7, 9 and 14, all the dates being in 1996 when the 18-year-old murder investigation was reopened.

Archibald, 39, formerly of Somerset, denied murdering Mr. Easton, whose body was found in a pool of blood on Laffan Street, Pembroke, on May 4, 1985.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Kulandra Ratneser said the case was based on circumstantial and DNA evidence.

Yesterday afternoon, the blood samples that were taken from Archibald - on one of three dates in 1996 - were presented to the court.

Defence lawyer Mark Pettingill reminded Dr. Cunningham of Friday's evidence that there was a possibility of three vials of blood taken from Archibald.

"The two vials that are here are purple capped and have a blood preservative in them, and is it a possibility that the third vial was a whole blood sample?" asked Mr. Pettingill.

Dr. Cunningham said: "The third sample would determine serology for the serum expressed from the blood clot."

Mr. Pettingill asked: "When we speak of a blood clot, would it be liquid blood - would it be dried up - in layman's terms?"

Dr. Cunningham said that the blood would dry depending on how long the blood was in the open air, since once it has left the blood vessel it will clot.

Dr. Cunningham also told the six woman, six man jury that he was "yanked away" from his lab to attend the Government lab with Crown counsel Cindy Clarke, Mr. Ratneser and Christine Quiggley last Thursday afternoon.

The doctor said that Ms Clarke wrote down the dates and times of the blood samples, and they were dictated to her by the three of them.

Mr. Pettingill asked if he had cross referenced his notes and he said he had not and did not expect to see them in court.

Dr. Cunningham said: "Frankly I ascribe no weight to that (the dates) - the notes on the vials are what's important."

Mr. Pettingill said: "It is incorrect on the label."

Dr. Cunningham said: "That we have established. It isn't the case that it is not factual, but correct in the sense that that was my information at the time."

When Mr. Pettingill asked Dr. Cunningham if he could state which date on the samples was correct.

Dr. Cunningham said: "I can only say that I wrote the date of work - which incidentally corresponds to the date I thought was the ninth (August 9, 1996).

"The page on the official statement is erroneous and it is a fault of my sloppy proofreading for which, I offer an apology."

"Mistakes happen in all or professions," said Mr. Pettingill.

Mr. Pettingill is being assisted by defence lawyer Larry Mussenden.

Representing the Crown is the DPP Mr. Ratneser, Crown counsel Juan Wolffe and Ms Clarke.

The case continues today before Acting Chief Justice Norma Wade-Miller.