Regarding the shoes, he testified that in his opinion it was necessary to examine a number of alternative scenarios that led to the detection of the genetic profiles on the shoes. His conclusion was that a scenario in which the defendant's genetic profile reached one of the shoes by secondary transmission could not be ruled out, and this is a more reasonable conclusion than the possibility that the defendant wore the same shoe. As to the genetic profile of the deceased, he ruled that it could not be ruled out categorically that this was a secondary transfer. However, in his cross-examination regarding the profile found in the shoe, he said, "Always always when you find DNA inside a shoe, the default is always and the way to go is that the DNA profile found inside the shoe originated from the shoe's shoe." However, according to him, "[...] As an expert, it seems much more logical that if a person were to wear his shoes, I would expect to find profiles of him in more samples and in both shoes."
He also clarified that there is no scientific test that can be used to determine whether the DNA reached the display in primary or secondary transmission, but there are situations in which there are indications of secondary transmission, such as "low RSU strengths in partial profiles." He also referred to various parameters that make it possible to obtain a genetic profile from an object, and among other things, he said that a profile can also be derived from a garment that has been washed.
In his opinion, in terms of the tests that were performed and their conclusions, in view of alleles that were observed and defined as "background noise" (staters), his conclusion is that it is not possible to rule out the possibility that a mixture that was not properly tested was discovered on the shoe in which the defendant's genetic profile was found, inter alia, due to the fact that one swab was used to locate the profile from two different sites in the same shoe. The expert also claimed that the analytical threshold set by the laboratory that tested the profile was too high (far beyond what is customary in other laboratories), so that if it were lower, it is not impossible that it would be possible to detect more than one person's profile in the same material. In addition, he explained that if the defendant drove the car and later another person drove it, it is possible that the genetic profile could be found on the other person's shoe (as a result of saliva, for example, but the matter was not examined).