The defendant believes that after taking his shoes in the detention center, his genetic profile was transferred to one of the shoes that was located in Daliyat al-Carmel, and the shoes themselves were also implanted in the place where they were located. As he put it, "Ask who brought these shoes, Shai brought the shoes, that's how we understood here in court, how can you find such a shoe?" In addition, "As I said, a shoe is not mine, so how can there be DNA in shoes that are not mine?" When he was told that his own shoes (from which he said the genetic profile had been removed and implanted in the shoes that were found) had been seized while he was in custody only on 27 April 2021 (a month after his arrest, P/470), he claimed, "It's a blatant lie, a few days after my arrest it's a lie. [...] A few days, a few days before my first interrogation, a few days, how is she lying here in court?"
Here it is appropriate to refer to the initial detention hearings (for the purposes of interrogation, "detention for days") (P/507) in which it was claimed that trousers were seized from the defendant, but contrary to his version, it was not claimed that shoes were also seized.
As noted above, the defense submitted an expert opinion prepared by Dr. Plutzky, in which he addressed the issue of the genetic profiles found on the shoes (P/68), as well as the plausibility of the possibility that the defendant did not wear the shoes at all and did not wear one of the coats. On June 29, 2025, the defense expert testified before us (p. 4802, paras. 6 onwards).
He explained that in his opinion, alternative scenarios presented to him by the defense team were required. Oral statements were also made that were not recorded. According to him, he is not interested in the question of whether there is any factual feasibility for a possible scenario that he referred to in his opinion. In his words, "In the opinion, I see the results of DNA tests. [...] And I'm asking the question, if such results could have been accepted assuming if there had been a scenario A or assuming that there had been a scenario B, I have no attempt to determine if there was such a scenario or such a scenario, I have no idea, I wasn't there, it's not in my area of expertise, it's not in my field of knowledge, I'm looking at these things through one prism, I have DNA results, Would such DNA results have been accepted assuming that scenario A would have occurred, would such DNA results have been accepted assuming that scenario B would have occurred, whether any of these scenarios would have taken place, I have no idea, I don't care. [...] In the framework of an opinion, I answer only the question, what the results of the DNA test are suitable, I am devoid of reference to which of the scenarios are more likely or less likely. [...] I am devoid of any reference, from any aspect of the question of what is more reasonable according to what the defendant said or did, etc., no, not my field, it doesn't interest me, my field." As for the defendant's version in the interrogation, he said, "I don't, the truth is I have no idea what was there, what the circumstances of the case were, nothing, I didn't ask, I don't care either, [...] What is outside the realm of DNA really doesn't interest me in what he said, what he did, it's really a waste of time."