Superintendent Barkan argues, when it is necessary to quantify the degree of certainty of his thesis, that we are dealing with a "high level of probability" (p. 842). If we are dealing with the central incriminating evidence, or one that is critical to the decision, there would be room for the question of whether this definition leaves room for doubt, when the meaning is clear. However, where at most, the expert opinion constitutes some evidentiary reinforcement - this deliberation does not need to be clarified.
The defense attorney, in his summary, complains extensively that according to him, the expert, who was not aware of the defendant's version and line of defense at the time, "locked" in advance to a certain narrative, in which the defendant attacked the deceased and caused his death, and refrained from conducting an in-depth examination of the existence and likelihood of additional scenarios.
In my opinion, this complaint cannot assist the defense in establishing an assumption that reasonable doubt has arisen because no additional scenarios have been examined by the expert. A number of points lead to this:
First, Chief Superintendent Barkan reiterated several times, in similar formulations, that his conclusions were derived from the totality of the positive findings that he faced, and that they were what led him to the conclusion regarding the scenario that was in its reality. His approach is not that of rejecting hypothetical alternative scenarios (as he puts it, at p. 847 - "infinite scenarios"), and this is not the method of work, in the light of which the arena is examined and conclusions drawn from the content of the test.
Second, the defense, as its wisdom and thoroughness, indeed challenged the expert in the feasibility of the existence of other possibilities, which might explain, perhaps, the factual finding in the field of blood stains and their characterization. The expert's cautious statement about the inability to completely rule out a certain possibility does not make a distant and almost imaginary scenario more real. Thus - in an extreme example - that the explanation for the blood stains, and the spray, which originated in the blood of the defendant and the deceased, is in a completely different event and was preceded in time, even weeks or months, by the object of our discussion. Without any basis, in the evidence, of such a puzzling narrative - this hypothesis has no weight. Barkan himself defines such possibilities as "negligible."