If the defense had been able to establish, according to the witness, as a realistic possibility, and not only a distant and theoretical one, that the attack was completely opposite, and that the deceased had died as a result of the defendant's efforts to defend himself from him, then it is possible that it would have been necessary to delve into the existence of the doctrine of an "alternative scenario", which was formulated in the wake of the "Katzav" judgment (Criminal Appeal 3372/11, Katzav v. M.I. of 10/11/11). In a long series of later rulings, it was held that in order to require an alternative line of defense, which contradicts the defendant's version, it is necessary to be convinced that this is a reasonable line of defense, which has a basis in the evidence that was clarified at trial (e.g., Criminal Appeal 5964/13, Peretz v. MI, dated June 1, 2015). It is not enough that Superintendent Barkan, in his fairness, confirmed to the defense attorney that not every blood stain he can determine who created it, or, he does not know how to say, positively, how many people were in the house (pp. 831 and 839 respectively). This does not create an alternative scenario, not even urgently, that requires in-depth consideration and examination.
The defense also does not claim, and rightly so, that this expert's testimony established a minimal, positive foundation to corroborate the line of defense of unknown attackers from the outside. Nor is there a claim, with a minimal level of persuasion, that his testimony founded, in any way, the hypothetical alternative thesis of a "counterattack."
Indeed, the defense tried, apparently against the background of the case law presented, to present to the expert the thesis of "reverse assault", according to which it was the deceased who tried to attack and stab the defendant, but (p. 859 and below), Barkan finds no confirmation of this.
If so, and we will return to the main point of our review - pointing to a defect or refutation, or lack of omissions, in the content of the opinion, or in the collection of the raw materials that underlie it, can only affect the adequacy and strength of the evidentiary support for the prosecution's case - reinforcement, which, in any case, is not necessary or necessary for a determination as to whether the accuser meets the standard of proof imposed on her. The confirmation of an alternative acquittal scenario to the line of defense - also does not arise from the testimony, at all.