William Adamson comes up during Lacy's cross-examination of Smith. Asking about his decision to send a July 12 swab of the sink in the washroom located outside the victim's office to RCMP lab for testing, even though he knew several officers had used the washroom before testing

Const. George Prosser, who guarded the scene on July 9, testified on Nov. 30 he used the washroom likely more than once during his 12-hour shift and that William Adamson also used the washroom that day

Still, Smith knew several officers had used the washroom and the risk of contamination didn’t preclude him from sending sink swab to lab, notes Lacy. Smith agrees.

Smith has previously testified he didn't test the back door (which the defence contends would have been the preferred exit route of the "killer or killers") because it had been opened and therefore contaminated before he got to it.

Lacy also challenges Smith's testimony about the RCMP lab limiting the number of exhibits Saint John police could send for analysis. Smith told the court he could send only 5 items in the first batch, partly because he was seeking a faster than usual turnaround time

"I wanted to get your thoughts on how to possibly pare this submission down to the most essential items...If we cut down the number of samples for processing, then a 25 day turnaround time could be possible," says Tucker

Lacy suggests the reason police wanted the results so quickly was they considered Oland to be a flight risk. He refers again to Tucker's email.

Dennis Oland retrial is on lunch break. Back at 1:30 p.m.

Dennis #Oland retrial is back in session. Defence lawyer Michael Lacy continues cross-examination of head of forensics, Sgt. Mark Smith

In a case like this isn’t it important to make the crime scene as large as possible to catch all of these important areas and look at them closely? Yes. You can always make the investigative area smaller but with people coming and going you can’t make it larger? Agreed

And you acknowledge if you had this to do over again you would do it differently? Yes. Limiting the crime scene to the 2nd floor office was a fundamental error you made? Yes.

You should have started your investigation out by the exits and worked your way into the office where the body was rather than start in the office? Yes

Smith is making no excuses for himself. He’s not blaming others. Where there were problems he is acknowledging them directly.

No quality controls were in place in terms of processing a crime scene in 2011? asks Lacy. Correct, says Smith. But you don’t offer that as an excuse because you knew better from your training, correct? Correct.

He’s even polite about it. “I appreciate your candor,” he tells Smith who is accepting the criticism and agreeing with it where appropriate.

No swab of the deadbolt lock? No. No swab of the door handle? No. You have suggested there was no point in testing the door because the RCMP would not agree to test a contaminated site. Yes.

But you tested other heavily contaminated sites - like the office bathroom used by officers for days - and RCMP labs agreed to take that material? Yes. “I made a call and it was the wrong call,” Smith says about his decision not to test the back door.

Smith, who has been calm and polite throughout the searing cross-examination says: "I don't wish to argue with you sir. I made a call on the 7th. It was wrong. I was just trying to explain to you my thought process."

It's "such a basic thing, I'm going to suggest to you, there’s absolutely no excuse why you wouldn’t have done that, do you agree?" asks Lacy. "I guess so."

Prior to unveiling the picture Lacy had Smith agree that wearing protective clothing outside of a crime scene would be poor police practice.