His testimony in court was heard at the sessions of 9 January 2023, 20 March 2023, and 14 May 2023.
The defense raised procedural arguments regarding the propriety of permitting the preparation of a supplementary opinion - in fact clarifying - during the trial. These were rejected by us, after some deliberation, and after hearing the arguments of the parties for the hearing. Finally, we permitted the proceeding. The conduct surrounding this, and the reasons for it, are anchored in the minutes, and we will not repeat them at this time. The main point is that the original hearing was not sufficiently clear, in the sense of the connection between the findings on the ground (mainly blood splashes, blood stains, their characterization and precise location), and the conclusions and insights derived from it. The clarifying purpose of the supplementary opinion was not to add data and facts, or, to change the expert's conclusions, but rather to "translate" and mediate between the raw factual findings and the conclusions and professional opinion, which would include and summarize the insights derived from the factual picture of the arena.
In his initial interrogation, the witness clarified that he had arrived at the scene twice, on the day of the incident and the next day. He gave the samples of the blood swabs from the street to investigator Niv Copperly. The shirt was left to dry and then handed over to Gadi Hadad - and this is the chain of exhibits. The decision of which exhibits will be examined and in what order is the decision of the investigative unit (p. 700). According to him, this was a scene with a great deal of blood and blood formations, and the purpose of moving the hearing was to analyze the blood stains found at the scene, and the mechanism of their formation, and to give meaning to the various formations, to whom they belong and what they originated, and in general to reach a better understanding of what happened there.
Superintendent Barkan's testimony extends over several days of hearings, and consists of hundreds of pages of transcripted transcripts. In my opinion, the bulk of his cross-examination, which is very long and detailed, is not relevant to our decision, and therefore does not require presentation and analysis in the present chapter. The reason for this is that there is no room to give weight and delve into a line of interrogation that strives (and this does not mean that answers were given confirming this) to yield products that are inconsistent, and even contradictory, to the defendant's defense and his version. The exception, which is anchored in case law, to justify such a delusion, is not found, as will be explained below.