She testified in court, at a hearing on January 23, 2023. According to her, the exhibits were received, according to the record, by an employee, who was a student at the site at the time, and from there they were transferred to her, to a laboratory in the field of shoes, by Erez Shmuel. As a rule, the exhibits arrive in a secure bag, and in the specific case - the shoes came in a plastic bag with a zip tie, while the CD - in a secure bag. She was the one who opened the secure bags and described their contents. The witness confirmed the findings of the experience of moving the venue of a hearing she held, and replied to the court that the trace examined was a "trace in blood", which imprints a mark of blood in the place where it was created, as opposed to a "trace on blood", which detracts from the blood on the spot. Her expertise is in the formal-visual aspect of the drowning, and not in the aspect of the material from which it is made. She also replied that she does not deal with the question of whether the blood was before or after the drowning, and that she cannot determine the age of the heel, or whether it was at the scene before the incident, and her role is limited to making a comparison between the heel and the shoe (p. 546, paras. 20-21).
Also in the context of the traces, a memorandum prepared by Commander Ziv Grumberg, dated 31 March 2021 (P/72), containing documentation of the transfer of a CD, containing 36 original photographs of traces, developed and photographed at the scene, was submitted to Policeman Jan Levitt (P.A.32).
Given that the defendant does not deny his presence at the scene, and since he himself, like the deceased, and later - members of the rescue forces and the police, left footprints and shoes throughout the scene - we see no implications for the purpose of deciding the focused disputes before us, to this opinion and to the expert testimony. A review of the summaries of the parties' counsel - it appears that they too do not claim otherwise.