In her testimony, Dr. Israelzon elaborated regarding the kits by which the samples are performed and the manner in which they are performed, and noted that the particles are microns that cannot be seen with the eye and are therefore sampled in a "blind manner" (p. 452 of Prot.) and also provided an explanation of the examination process using a microscope that performs a scan to locate the particles that contain all three heavy metals: lead, barium and antimony, and then examines one of the "suspicious" particles in another scan. longer, which is carried out by the expert in order to examine whether it is a remnant of a gunshot or not (p. 453 of the protégé).
Dr. Israelzon noted that more than 90% of the gunshot remnants fall from the human body in the first hour after the shooting, as a function of the actions he performed, such as shaking hands, wiping hands, washing his body, or immersing himself in water, so that it is possible that even 10 minutes after the shooting action, no remnants of gunfire will be found on the shooter, or the chances of finding remnants of gunfire on the shooter are greatly reduced (pp. 452-453 of the shooter). Dr. Israelzon stated that according to the sample form, the samples were taken from the defendant about 3 hours and 40 minutes after the shooting was carried out (p. 454 of Prot.; P/68).
Dr. Israelzon was asked about what was written in the appendix to the opinion, according to which the detection of one or two gunshot remnants in the sample is of limited significance in this type of test, and she argued that gunshot remnants can pass through the test environment, and although the chances of this happening are low, a test is done in control samples in order to rule it out. According to her, no remnants of gunfire were found in the inspection samples, which indicates that the work environment was clean. She also stated that the fact that the remnants of gunfire were sampled from two samples of the defendant's hair, one sample from his hands, two samples of his pants and one sample of the shirt associated with him negates the possibility of contamination of the samples. And so it goes on below: "As I said, the reason for this sentence is that the same particle or two may come from an unclean environment, in this case the control samples collected came out clean. Again, I repeat, although if I had one sample I would say limited meaning, in this case if each sample stands on its own maybe a limited meaning but such an amount of pollution that would reach both the hair and one to the hands and two to the shirt and one to the pants, is less logical" (p. 456 of Prut).