ELLSWORTH — The dirty consequences of environmental law enforcement oozed into Hancock County Superior Court Thursday as attorneys and witnesses were forced literally to wash their hands of evidence admitted in an illegal waste dumping case.

Alerted to the hazard of thick, black, oily sludge seeping from a cellophane evidence bag, Justice Margaret J. Kravchuk initiated remedial action by ordering the court bailiff to the witness stand with a roll of paper towels.

Tom Maleck, a Maine Department of Environmental Protection Agency hazardous-materials specialist, wiped the gunk from his hands and continued his testimony for the state in its case against Namir Halabi and his employer, Eastern Technical Enterprises of Norfolk, Va.

The incident failed to prejudice the proceedings since during the course of the trial, defense attorney Steve Langsdorf and Assistant Attorney General Leanne Robbin both managed to get smeared with the oily substance.

The state rested during the second day of testimony in the case that was highlighted by Justice Kravchuk’s decision to dismiss charges of waste dumping against Halabi. The charges still stand against his employer, ETE.

The company was indicted after bags of construction debris from the ship and oil sludge from the bottom of the vessel’s fuel tanks were discovered in Prospect at the scenic turnout on Route 1, off the Frank George Road and near Route 174. The same type of refuse also was found about a mile from the Orrington town line in Bucksport at the Riverview Cemetery off Route 15.

Halabi has been charged additionally with witness tampering in connection with a telephone call he allegedly made to Luisito Gantolin, a Filipino who formerly worked for ETE.

Gantolin claims Halabi asked him to falsely tell Maine detectives that he had been paid $200 by ETE to dump some of the waste. Kostas Redas, an ETE supervisor, told the court that Gantolin did leave the Castine work site with some bags of trash that were supposed to be dropped at a waste facility out of state.

Obviously encumbered by his difficulty in speaking and understanding English, Gantolin contradicted his testimony Wednesday with statements later described by Langsdorf and Robbin as “inconsistent” and containing “discrepancies.”

In addition to about 7 cubic yards of tile, bricks and other construction debris derived from ETE’s work on the ship, a large amount of black oily sludge that testimony indicated existed in the bottom of the vessel’s fuel tanks was found at the illegal dump sites.

ETE subcontracted the tank cleaning job to Clean Harbors of Maine, a company that specializes in hazardous material mop-up jobs.

Witnesses, including those employed by Clean Harbors, have identified some distinctive blue absorbent pads, disposable overalls, boots and gloves also found at the dump sites as belonging to Clean Harbors.

Maleck testified Thursday that Clean Harbors is used routinely by the DEP for emergency cleanup jobs. The DEP investigator said he called Clean Harbors immediately after the first dump sites were discovered and hired the company to truck away the trash and sludge.

State officials were alerted to the possibility of ETE’s involvement in the case, Maleck said, by Jack Vallely, Clean Harbors’ general manager who arrived at one of the dump sites and said he was working on the job where the material originated.

Even though the materials found at the site were consistent with those being handled by Clean Harbors and the protective disposable clothing obviously belonged to the company, Maleck said he never once considered Clean Harbors as a potential suspect in the illegal dumping.

“What appears to be might not necessarily be,” Maleck countered, adding that although he characterized the material as possible tank bottom sludge, he had not proved its origin.

Margie Berkovich, a detective with the Attorney General’s Office, also said she never considered Clean Harbors as a suspect. She said no attempt was ever made to perform analytical tests to determine what kind of oil was found at the dump sites.

Attorneys for ETE have offered that faced with hefty costs associated with the disposal of oily sludge, a Clean Harbors employee could have allegedly dumped the material and planted some of the ETE construction debris to implicate ETE. In the process, Clean Harbors could have pocketed the costs for sludge disposal, while knowing the DEP would call the company and pay it to remove the waste found in Prospect and Bucksport.

Testimony in the case is expected to conclude Friday.