One aspect, the absence of forensic findings in critical places.
In this regard, it was emphasized that on the coats, which were allegedly worn by the murderers, the defendant's genetic profile was not found in any of the fourteen samples taken. The prosecution's expert, Dr. Nurit Bublil, who conducted an opinion, confirmed that a genetic profile was found on the coats, but not on the defendant's. The defense expert, Dr. Plutzky, argued that although it cannot be categorically ruled out that the defendant wore one of the coats, the fact that his genetic profile was not found on any of them clearly supports the defense's scenario that the defendant did not wear the coat and in any case did not commit the offense.
It was mentioned that the scene of the murder was brutal and bloody, yet no human blood was found on the coats, and this ostensibly proves that none of the murderers were wearing the coats. It was claimed that no human blood was found on the shoes either. The Bluestar test was positive for blood, but the Hexagon test, which is a test specific to human blood, was negative. It was claimed that the accuser misled the court (including in the arrest proceedings) with repeated references to the "blood of the deceased" found on the shoes. The absence of human blood is a forensic finding that is inconsistent with the accuser's claim that the shoes were worn by one of the killers at the time of the murder.
The second aspect dealt with the issue of secondary transfer and contamination of evidence.
It was claimed that the defendant's genetic profile that was found on one of the shoes was transferred to her by secondary transfer, contaminating the exhibit. Dr. Plutzky, who presented articles and empirical studies on the subject of dispersal and transmission of genetic profiles (primary, secondary, and even tertiary), argued that even if a single profile of the defendant was found on a sample from the shoe, secondary transmission could not be ruled out. The location of the profile on the shoe indicates that a profile of a fixed shoe should be found in the inner parts of the shoe, in both shoes, while a profile located on the outer parts (such as the tongue or outer heel, from which the shoe was sampled) tends to be of environmental origin or the result of secondary transfer. The fact that the defendant's genetic profile was detected in only one of the seven samples taken from the same shoe, and more on the outside of the shoe, supports the secondary transmission scenario.