Mr Yovich has asked how often it was that items could not be located, to which Mr Bagdonavicius has replied, "I can't give you an exact figure" but added the item would have been somewhere in the secure storage area. 

Another email from Mr Sanderson to Mr Bagdonavicius showed, in relation to Jane's case, it had been decided a Telecom knife found at the scene would be "routine DNA tested" after being swabbed in 2003. 

The state alleges this knife was owned by Mr Edwards. 

The emails revealed police also wanted the lab to test a "bloodstained brick" that was in their possession, although no further details were given of this item, and why it was on the priority list. 

Of Ciara's fingernails, Mr Sanderson queried, "I know that we intend to look at sending these items overseas for Y chromosome testing. Have they been recently looked at for routine DNA, especially the ones that showed damaged?"

The two damaged fingernails were Ciara's left thumbnail (AJM40) and right ring fingernail (AJM50).

Despite the request, AJM40 - one of the state's most crucial exhibits in this trial - was not tested, nor was it sent for the overseas testing referred to in the email the following year. 

It was eventually tested in 2008 and the alleged DNA breakthrough in the case occurred. 

Mr Bagdonavicius said he believed the yellow top container which held AJM40 did not have any fingernail clipping within it, just debris. 

Earlier evidence from mortuary technicians revealed the fingernail was torn, and was awkward to cut during Ciara's post-mortem, but that a sample was taken, and captured on film. 

Mr Yovich has asked a series of questions to determine why Mr Bagdonavicius never considered the item worth testing or photographing.

 Mr Bagdonavicius has agreed his decision not to test AJM40 was in the context of police attempting to solve "at least one, possibly three murder cases".

He maintained his assessment of the nail sample was made carefully and with consideration. 

In signing the hair mass out, Mr Bagdonavicius used the wrong form, and therefore it was not detailed how the hair was stored or transported - although he states he believes it was in a billy bucket (a bucket with a sealed lid).

Mr Yovich has highlighted that in his 2019 witness statement, Mr Bagdonavicius does not mention how the hair was transported.

When the item was returned two days later, Mr Bagdonavicius then recorded it back into the lab freezer under the wrong batch number. 

The hair mass was then returned to the mortuary, which was in the same building as Pathwest but on a different floor, in August 2001. 

Ciara's hair mass is an important piece of evidence for the state as it alleges fibres found in the hair link her murder to Mr Edwards through his Telstra work pants and vehicle make and model. 

The defence is seeking to uncover opportunities for the hair mass to have been contaminated with micro-fibres from outside sources, such as police and forensic staff. 

In 2008, the sample was combined with AJM42, Ciara's left middle fingernail, and Mr Edwards' DNA profile was allegedly detected using low copy number testing. 

Mr Bagdonavicius also marked AJM48 as 'debris only' and the exhibit hadn't been tested to 2003. 

Mr Yovich is now going through the errors in Mr Bagdonavicius' DNA matrix. 

For AJM48, he wrongly states the fingernail had been DNA tested in 2001, when it had never been tested at all, and he questioned the result on the D17 loci - a loci Pathwest didn't test at the time. 

He made the same D17 error for AJM42. 

Mr Bagdonavicius also mistakenly wrote AJM50 as being from Ciara's right index finger, when it was her right ring finger. 

Mr Yovich: So the draft contains a number of mistakes, the final version corrects some but not all of those mistakes, and so although you sought to do this work carefully, you did not all together succeed did you? 

Mr Bagdonavicius: That's correct, yes. 

It is not clear whether the contamination occurred in the Pathwest lab or ESR lab. 

One of the contaminated blanks was first introduced into the Pathwest lab testing process by Denise Downe when she undertook DNA extraction on AJM41 and AJM46 samples on August 25, 2003. 

The second contaminated blank was first introduced into testing during a Qiagen purification test carried out on a DNA extract taken from an item of clothing on August 5, 2003.

The third contaminated blank was first introduced into testing during a Qiagen test prepared by Louise Taylor on August 14, 2003 carried out on vegetation collected from Jane's crime scene. 

The fourth contaminated blank was first introduced into testing in an EPG on August 17, 2003. It is not clear what was tested during this run. 

The blank returned a number of alleles from a female profile. 

Mr Yovich: In your experience, how often did you see blank controls at Pathwest with this may reportable alleles in them? 

Mr Bagdonavicius: Very rarely. 

Mr Yovich: We've seen four blanks in which detected DNA was found, at least one of which we can tell from the EPG, was detected in your lab, and so the contamination occurred in your lab? 

Mr Bagdonavicius: Yes. 

Mr Yovich: Are you able to comment on whether that is a very high percentage of blanks with DNA in them in your experience? 

Mr Bagdonavicius: Recently the lab assessed the number of quality incidents we have and according to international standards, we are approximately half of the international standard.

Mr Yovich has queried what is the international standard, and Mr Bagdonavicius has said he believes the figure is "somewhere between 3 to 4 issues detected for every 100 results". 

Mr Yovich: Significantly lower than four in 21? 

Mr Bagdonavicius: Yes. 

None of the items tested with the contaminated blanks relate to the state's key pieces of evidence in this trial. 

Mr Bagdonavicius has agreed with Mr Yovich that a high finding of contaminated blanks may reveal "findings in a general sense for the quality of work in the lab".