When Rosengarten was told that, according to the professional literature, the chances of contamination of the remnants of gunfire by way of secondary transmission were low, he replied that it was a matter of conjecture when it was not possible to know by what means the remnants of gunfire reached the defendant's hair and hands, and whether the gunshot remnants found on his body and clothes belonged to the shooting incident, since it is not known whether the ammunition at the scene was suitable for the gunshot remnants that were found (p.  685 of the protégé).

Rosengarten stated that the findings of the gunshot wounds found on the defendant and his clothes in comparison to the gunshot remains found on the helmet were unreasonable, since clothes made of fibers trapped bullet remnants to a higher degree than a helmet made of plastic (p.  685 of Prut).  He later stated that both the helmet and the shirt were shaken and that the chances of bullet remnants falling from the helmet were higher (p.  686 of the note).

Gunshot Remains - Conclusions

127. After reviewing the expert opinions on behalf of the parties and listening attentively to their testimonies, as well as to the testimonies of Police Officers Cohen, Sardes and Balalo and the documents submitted through them, I found that the expert opinion on behalf of the prosecution regarding the presence of gunshot remnants on the defendant's body (hair and hands), on his clothes (shirt and pants) and on his belongings (helmet and delivery bag) was orderly, coherent, reasoned and reliable. Dr.  Israelson's opinion and testimony were not contradicted in her cross-examination, and her findings and conclusions were not challenged even by reading his opinion and hearing Rosengarten's testimony.
128. In fact, I found the expert opinion on behalf of the defense to be based on claims, hypotheses and assumptions without any real anchoring, and without presenting a real confrontation with the findings of the remains of the shooting at the defendant, his clothes and his belongings. Thus, for example, it was argued that the small amount of gunshot remains found on the defendant's body has limited evidentiary value, to the extent that it means that these findings can be ignored.  Rosengarten sought to reach the same conclusion with regard to the remnants of the gunfire found in the defendant's clothes.  However, no reference was made to the total number of gunshot remnants identified both on the defendant's body, on his clothes, and on the helmet and bag he was carrying on his bicycle.  After ten bullet remnants were found on the helmet and twelve bullet remnants were found in the shipping bag, the claim that this was a negligible quantity should be ignored was no longer heard, but then a thesis was heard, which was not supported by evidence, according to which these items were contaminated by the policemen, either because they were carrying weapons themselves, without any reference to whether they shot or not, or because of the hypothesis that the policeman who collected the bullet and the backpack from the scene came into bare contact with the helmet and the bag and thus transferred those remnants to them Shooting.  This hypothesis is inconsistent with the police officers' testimonies about the manner in which the exhibits were collected from the scene, as detailed at length above.
129. As stated, "blind" samples taken from the defendant, his clothes and the seized ones, more than three and a half hours after the shooting incident in the playground, about 3 hours after the defendant made his way on the electric bicycle to his home, climbed the stairs to the apartment, changed his clothes while turning his shirt, 28 gunshot remains were still found in the samples, as follows: 2 bullet remnants on the defendant's hair, 1 gunshot wound on his hands, There were 12 gunshot remnants in the shipment bag, one of which contained a mixture of modern Western ammunition plus aluminum, 10 bullet remnants on the helmet, two bullet remnants on his shirt and one bullet wound to the defendant's pants.

The composition of the materials in the remains of the shooting corresponds to the composition of the materials associated with modern Western munitions, sometimes with the addition of aluminum, and is the composition of the materials associated with the cartridge according to the symbol that appears on the base of the pod of the backpack found at the scene of the shooting.  The expert on behalf of the prosecution explained in her testimony that the backpack seized at the scene was known from previous cases as having a mixture of modern Western ammunition and that there was no need to re-examine its composition.  She also clarified that it can be concluded that the ammunition associated with the backpack is modern Western based on the symbol that appears at the base of the pod.  Rosengarten disagreed, arguing that since the type of ammunition in the backpack found at the scene was not examined, it is not possible to establish a connection between the gunshot remains found on the defendant's body, clothes and belongings and the backpack, given the number of types of Western ammunition.  Rosengarten did not base his position on this position, including not explaining what types of Western ammunition exist and did not specify the composition of the elements in them, in a way that would undermine the prosecution expert's determination that the symbol on the cartridge is sufficient to be associated with a modern Western ammunition cartridge.