Dr. Bublil, who examined the shoe, said (1215, s. 21), "I say with certainty and unequivocally, there is the DNA of the deceased on this shoe." However, in her fairness, she clarified that she could not determine with certainty that it was the blood of the deceased, since one test (Blue Star) indicated a possibility that it was blood, but another test (the hexagon) did not give such an indication. This is contrary to the accuser's initial claim that the deceased's blood was found on one of the shoes (February 21, 2022, p. 24, paras. 8-9). It should be noted that one of the shoes was sent for re-examination, following a meeting between Yoni Hagag, the head of the faction, and expert Dr. Nurit Bublil as part of a professional conference, and in light of a conversation that took place between the two (see: P/11, P/34). The expert even confirmed that she had not examined the exhibit necklace.
In her cross-examination, Dr. Bublil clarified that there is an intensive working relationship with the DNA Database Laboratory at the National Headquarters (of the police), but there is no relationship of subordination or authority. It receives profile information from the database and cannot know whether it is true or false. To the extent that it is aware of it, and in light of what is stated on the relevant website on the Internet, the laboratory at MATAR works according to approval from the National Authority for Laboratory Accreditation. The Blue Star test that was done indicates the presence of blood, but it can also come from an animal and not necessarily from a human. The hexagon test left a question mark regarding the existence of blood, but "the genetic profile is a genetic profile of the deceased, there is biological material of the deceased here. There is no question here at all [...] not necessarily blood." She confirmed that there was a certain mixture, but that the main ingredient in it was a profile of the deceased. As she put it, "I say with certainty unequivocally, there is the deceased's DNA on this shoe." In response to the court's question, she said she was aware that the exhibits were found on an "escape route." She did say that they were picked up "outside", she was not interested in the way they were perceived.