P/73J - Correspondence of Lawrence Basel, regarding the transfer of a DNA sample of the defendant for the purpose of comparison.
P/75 - An inspection report prepared by Commander Ziv Grimberg, relating to the exhibits received at the Exhibits Office, including a secure bag, including the folding knife that was seized at the scene and sent for examination. Sent to develop a TA on the exhibits.
P/76 - Memorandum by Sgt. Meir Hadida, dated 25.0.2021, regarding the chain of exhibits - knife, swab saves, samples of the defendant's clothes and shoes, which were seized at the hospital. They were transferred to the exhibits runner.
P/77 - Application for a consolidated order, dated 25.03.2021 - Search of the source and penetration of computer material, in relation to two cell phones seized at the scene, and covered in blood.
P/78A-C - Receiving exhibits for examination, and sending them to the T.A. Development Laboratory, dated April 5, 2021.
P/79 and P/79A - A report on the seizure of exhibits dated 24 March 2021, and a forensic report on a photographic testimony, respectively. Police video footage - Photographic testimony on the roof of the refrigeration building in the yard of Y. A, dated 24 March 2021, by Sergeant Elad Avraham.
P/80 - Memorandum of Elad Avraham, on the transfer of exhibits (the knife) to the Negev District Police. - Transfer chain.
P/81A-B (not available) P/81 - Confirmation of receipt of exhibits from laboratory worker Irit Altshuler, at the National Center for Forensic Medicine (police bags signed and marked).
P/82 - "Release directly to the interrogator" form, by Daniella Shahar, 25.03.2021.
P/83A-C - Certificate of a public servant of Erez Shmueli, regarding the reception of exhibits for examination.
It should be noted that in the testimony of Sgt. Neil Copperly, Negev District Commander, A.T. 16, which was heard in court, at the hearing of December 12, 2022, the witness clarified that although he was at the scene, he did not model swabs or seize exhibits, because it was the job of a forensic investigator. His role, in this context, was limited to receiving them the day after the incident (on March 24, 2021) from a forensic investigator.
- Inspector Orit Daniel, A.T.30 - Submitted an expert opinion of the Signs Laboratory in the Forensic Identification Division of MATAR, dated April 7, 2021 (P/17 that was scanned, as well as a color copy of P/17A - for some reason this copy is not in the physical exhibits file); and a supplementary form to the exhibits (P/71).
This is an expert witness who works in the Forensic Division of the MATAR. According to what was stated in the opinion, a pair of black shoes (the deceased's, although she was not aware of this detail), a pair of socks, and a CD with traces found at the scene were given for examination. She was asked to compare the shoes that were sent for her examination with the traces in the photographs that were duplicated from the CD. The findings of the examinations raised three main conclusions: One is that in the expert's opinion there is a match in all the progenitory characteristics (model, size, degree of abrasions and their location), between the shoe (the left) that was given for her examination and the footprint (p3). The second is that in the expert's opinion, the shoes that were sent for examination could not have left the traces appearing in the photographs (p2, p4, p5 and p6). The third is that the expert is unable to determine whether the shoes that were sent for examination left the "faint" marks, as she puts it, which may be shoe footprints (p1 and p7).