Thirdly, when the expert was confronted with the version of "multiple participants", i.e., external attackers, the same version of defense, which at the time was not yet known to him (because it had not yet come into existence at all), he did not retract it, nor did he change his position, regarding the lack of indication in the findings of the scene of the existence of such additional unknown persons (p. 845 onwards). Had the expert, in the cross-examination, and after a confrontation with the defendant's version, confirmed the feasibility of the case, it should have been examined whether doubt had been raised here, and what its reasonableness was. The expert remained firm in his conclusions, and as will be recalled, a counter-opinion of the defense was not submitted (rather, it was withdrawn by it).
Fourth, the defense, in its summaries, attributes an erroneous meaning or interpretation, in my opinion, to the words of the expert (at p. 871), which the defense attorney defined as something "amazing". The witness referred to one of the variations of "reverse attack", and said that he had no way of ruling out what happened up to the point in time that he examined at the scene, he did not know how the incident began, and whether there was any preliminary event, in another place or in the house. In this - in my opinion, there is no perplexity. Certainly, the expert examined the occurrence at the scene of the apartment, in itself, completely detached from the background and from any event that may have preceded it. This should not concern him, and to the extent that a previous event had an impact on what developed in the apartment, it could have been brought before us in the framework of the defense case. To remove any doubt, Barkan reiterated that his conclusions are based on the findings of the scene and the blood stain formations that were found, and that he stands behind them.
Regarding what happened after the incident in the apartment, when the people involved went out to the balcony, it should be noted, in parentheses, that the expert told the defense attorney (p. 896) that if he wished, he could also offer a scenario of what happened in the yard, but the defense attorney politely refused ("No thanks"...).