With regard to the cause of death, the witness replies, that it is clear from the counsel's opinion that it was the stab wounds that led to the death of the deceased, and this, through a number of possible mechanisms. He agreed with the defense attorney that most of the stab wounds, and there were dozens of them, were superficial, and they did not damage major or main blood vessels. Even so, according to him, "120 stab wounds and cut wounds along a large section of skin that receives a good blood supply can eventually cause sub-volumetric shock" (p. 604, paras. 5-6). The other mechanism is the respiratory deprivation mechanism, which was a contributing mechanism or a significant mechanism, but the witness cannot assess its extent. In any case, according to him, the injury to the lungs, in itself, was not a significant stabbing, but only superficial.
To the defense attorney's question as to whether the insertion of the Trocker was supposed to open the problem of the respiratory fold and the sub-volumetric pressure, the witness replied that it depends on the pulmonary embolism, the degree of pressure on it, etc. In addition, sometimes a spontaneous pneumothorax develops, and it is not enough to insert Drucker once to improve it. The witness added that in the present case, the Trocker was inserted into the right lung, where there was no penetration into the paternal cavity.
The witness was asked to refer to the defense attorney's hypothesis, according to which MDA's unsuccessful treatment, together with the drugs, contributed, to a major extent, to the death, since, on the face of it, it was a superficial stabbing incident that was not life-threatening, on an immediate level. The witness objected to this assumption, explaining that when MDA found the deceased, he was already in "uncompensated shock" (p. 606, para. 20). At this point, he was pale and his consciousness was poor, and he probably could not be rescued by MDA. In other words, according to him, the further deterioration in his condition, while he was being treated by MDA on the way to the hospital, was minor and insignificant, and should be taken out of the equation. The cocaine in this case was supposed to help the deceased, like adrenaline, but in practice, it was not enough. The witness agreed, who wrote in a hearing that cocaine causes euphoria and arousal, and to the defense attorney's question, he replied that the laboratory findings did not indicate alcohol use, and that if there was, he was evacuated from blood and urine.