murdering James Caines last summer, its presence alone does not prove that either man fired the fatal shot.

All it proved is that Sheldon Franks and Teiko Furbert may have been in the vicinity when the gun was fired or had contact with a person who had gunshot residue on his hands or clothing.

These conclusions were contained in a report that Robin Theriault, a Canadian firearms expert, prepared last year.

Franks 32, of Dundonald Street, Pembroke and Furbert, 25, of Rocklands Estate, Warwick, have pleaded not guilty to charges of murdering Caines on July 6, 1996.

The Crown alleges that Franks and Furbert murdered Caines when a bullet was fired through a rear door into a home on Curving Avenue.

At the time Caines and three other people were inside when they heard an explosion.

The next thing they saw was Caines bleeding profusely. The Crown allege that Franks was seen in the area because he ran after Caines armed with a stick.

However, Caines managed to run home where he died shortly afterward from a single bullet that entered his left cheek, travelled downwards through his neck and lodged in his right shoulder. Along its path, it damaged several vital arteries and he died.

Franks' right hand tested positive for the presence of gunshot residue and the Crown alleges that this is one fact that supports the conclusion that he could have fired the shots that killed Caines.

Similarly, a blue T-shirt taken from Furbert tested postively for the presence of gunshot residue.

However Mr. Theriault, a civilian firearms examiner at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police laboratory in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, said that this was only one of several possible conclusions that could be drawn.

And he said that it was possible that either Franks or Furbert may also have been near to a recently fired handgun or been in contact with a firearm that had not been cleaned since it was last fired.

Mr. Theriault told the two-man, eight-woman jury that if either man were near the place where the handgun that killed Caines was discharged, it was reasonable that their arms, legs or face could be covered in gunshot residue.

He said the residue was capable of falling six to ten feet in front of the barrel after the bullet had been ejected or two to four feet behind the firer.

The amount of residue that could have been deposited, he said, was dependent on how close either accused was to the firer and the state of the wind at the time.

If there was a crosswind at the time that the bullet was discharged, then he testified that he would expect more residue to fall "downwind'' than "upwind''.

But Mr. Theriault said that gunshot residue was easily transferrable, which means that anyone who handled the clothes or shook the hand of a person who had been in proximity to the handgun at time of the shooting, would test positive for its presence on those parts of the body that was exposed to the contamination.

And because of the minute nature of the residue -- a particle is estimated to be less than one thousandth of a millimetre in size and must be looked at through an electron microscope -- the particles cannot be seen by the naked eye.

However, if the hands are rubbed together or washed, the residue can be removed quite easily.

Also yesterday, the jury briefly visited the scene of the crime.

The case continues today before Puisne Judge Richard Ground. Attorney General Elliott Mottley and Charlene Scott appear for the Crown while Franks is represented by lawyer Mark Pettingill and Archie Warner and Renee Foggo appear for Furbert.