Expert gives evidence about blood spatter found on Samuel Worthy's T-shirt and shoes

​​EXPERT evidence about 19 blood spatter marks on the T-shirt and shoes worn by a murderer was given in a Warrnambool court on Wednesday.

Samuel Worthy, 21, ​of Hamilton, ​has pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court sitting at Warrnamboo​l​ to murdering ​his friend Josh Kane on January 23 last year.

 Issues revolve around exactly who did what with an 18-inch machete which led to Mr Kane's death. 

Victoria Police forensic officer Mark Gellatly, a blood spatter expert, gave evidence that he examined a pair of grey jeans, brown shoes and a T-shirt worn by Worthy.

He said the grey jeans had transfer blood stains caused by contact with another ​bloody ​object.

Mr Gellatly said blood spatter was caused by a force other than gravity.

He said on Worthy’s left shoe there were seven near circular one millimetre spatter stains and it was Mr Kane's blood.

The forensic officer said the right shoe had four blood spatter stains and there were another eight on a T-shirt – one on the left shoulder and the rest on the lower shirt.

Under cross-examination ​by defence barrister Stewart Bayles, Mr Gellatly said he had examined the blood spatter under high magnification and stood by his findings.

Blood spatter was not found on the clothes of two co-defendants.

The case was adjourned part-heard with Worthy expected to give evidence when it reconvenes in Melbourne on Friday.

Co-defendants Lanie Snell, 35, and Stuart Campbell, 20, have already been sentenced to lengthy jail terms although Campbell received a significant sentencing discount when he agreed to give evidence against the others.

​Campbell gave chilling evidence on Tuesday that Worthy had alone wielded the machete, attacking Mr Kane from behind.

"​Josh was screaming and begging, he was holding the side of his neck where he had been hit. Josh was screaming and begging for Sam to stop. It continued for a while," he said.

On Wednesday Campbell came under rigorous cross-examination from Mr Bayles but stuck to his third version of events.

In that cross-examination it became clear that Worthy claims Snell attacked Mr Kane with the machete hitting him several times to the back of the head.

Campbell rejected that.

Mr Bayles said his client’s instructions meant Worthy could not agree to the prosecution case as it was presented.

Judge Dixon said even if she accepted Worthy wielded the machete, the prosecution was not claiming much difference in the culpability of Worthy and Snell.