When it comes to the possibility of secondary transfer, in view of the way the exhibits are perceived, transferred, packaged and preserved before they arrive at the laboratory, Dr. Bublil said that the two processes need to be separated. According to her, "There could be a situation in which there was a secondary transfer on an object, there was a secondary transfer. And the object that is sitting at the moment, [...] it doesn't matter where it carries DNA that came in secondary transfer. This happened long before anyone caught him. Then they caught him, packed him, moved him, it had nothing to do with the transfer, a secondary transfer happened sometime in time. [...] If the defense wants to ask about the possibility that during the packaging of the exhibits, during the seizure of the exhibits, as a result of the seizure of the exhibits, this transfer occurred a different claim." However, she agreed that the way it is seized, packaged and stored is important. At the same time, she clarified that a secondary transfer exam depends on the scenario being examined, and when presented with a number of scenarios, she could relate to them.
In terms of the location of the samples, she thought there should be an explanation of how the profile got to the places where it was located.
In her words, "The places where he usually leaves his DNA , he doesn't leave his DNA on the sole. And so these are the places we are looking at. When the result is obtained, I say the most likely option for me without knowing any additional information, the most likely is that the person who is in the wearer is the original, probably the owner of the shoes. On the other hand, there will be another explanation, there may be another explanation, I don't know, I don't pretend to determine it."
On the second shoe, Exhibit 21 (B-21) in the right corner above the lace (as stated at p. 1187, s. 17, and p. 1188 s. 1), "Here came the deceased, a full profile of the deceased. [...] From this sample comes a full profile of the deceased."