In the context of the defendant's claim that the shoes were "implanted," it should be noted that Shai Peleg even located and seized, as he put it, a corona mask (in black), which can even be seen in the video he filmed. This did not yield incriminating evidence. If he had asked to "plant" evidence, he would have certainly made sure ahead of time that a relevant genetic profile would also be found on the "transplanted" mask. It could also have ensured that the defendant's genetic profiles would be found on both shoes at a number of sites. In fact, the shoes and the mask were documented in a video he filmed before he grabbed the shoes, and without knowing if they would yield evidentiary fruits.
The shoes were caught while Shai Peleg was wearing gloves on his hands, so that the genetic profile was preserved, even though they were not packed on the spot (but only later at the station), and although they had apparently gotten wet earlier due to the rains that fell in the area. In this context, it should be noted that even according to the defense expert, it is possible to locate a genetic profile on an object even if it has undergone a washing procedure. After the seizure, the shoes were filmed on asphalt, and later placed separately, one away from the other, on a back seat in Shai Peleg's car, with their soles facing down, as they are locked. Before they were packed and left in Yoni Hagag's room at the station's offices in Haifa, Shai Peleg consulted with a mobile laboratory officer and acted according to his instructions. Even before that, he placed it on a table in another room and examined the size of the shoes, No. 44, which later turned out to be suitable for the size of other shoes used by the defendant.
At the end of the day, the genetic profiles were found in very limited places on the shoes. Even if we accept the defense's argument regarding "contamination" and the possibility of receiving the profile by means of secondary transfer, the shoes themselves are very similar to those used by the defendant. The fact that these were old shoes is consistent with the possibility that the defendant was in possession of several pairs of shoes of the same type (and the same size) and he chose to wear old shoes for the purpose of his activity at the time of the incident. It should also be noted that to the extent that any member of the investigative unit had chosen to implant incriminating evidence, it can be assumed that he would have chosen various pieces of evidence, such as a corona mask with a genetic profile of the accused, a bloody knife with a relevant genetic profile, and so on, evidence whose quality and evidentiary weight far exceeded the objectified evidence that was actually found.