With regard to the coats, he noted that the lack of a genetic profile of the defendant on one of the coats supports the conclusion that he did not wear one of them at all. At the same time, he did not completely rule out the possibility that the defendant was indeed wearing one of the coats. In his words, "There is definitely the possibility from the point of view of the scientific point of view, there is a possibility that the defendant wore the coat and no DNA profile of the defendant was found on the coat, there is a possibility that the defendant did not wear the coat and therefore no DNA profile of the defendant was found on the coat, on a completely theoretical level, both of these possibilities exist."
He later clarified, regarding what was stated in his opinion according to which the scenario according to which the defendant did not commit the offense is more likely than the other, saying, "I am comparing here two situations of work assumptions, I was not there, I have no idea whether he committed the offense or not." He also added that he was not interested in how the shoes and coats arrived at the places where they were found, and that the fact that they were removed from the same vehicle did not interest him either, since "I only look at things from the perspective of the results of the DNA tests, I don't look at anything else, I write an expert opinion. [...] I won't write in my opinions things that are outside my area of expertise."
The defense made many difficult arguments, regarding the manner in which information about the vehicle was stopped at the scene, about the way the coats were found, about the necklace of the exhibit, and about the "contamination" of the coats by police officers who were also present at the scene of the murder. In addition, the witness Oshri Abuksis claimed that he was the one who sent the detective team, and not Anatoly Shklyar who invited them to the scene. The defense pointed to additional contradictions between the statements of the police officers involved in locating the coats. We did not find any of these, for the coats were found, located and seized. The defense's arguments, which relate to their admissibility as evidence, have implications, in our opinion, at most on the weight of the evidence and not on its admissibility. It should also be recalled that Anatoly Shklyar noted that he had received an indication from intelligence officials that the vehicle had stopped near the place where the coats were located as early as March 25, 2021. On this issue, it was clarified, the weakness of the certificate of privilege, and as was made clear despite the intentions of the defense (see: p. 353, p. 354, p. 357), no petition was filed for the disclosure of confidential evidence.