As stated above, there is no need to detail the full content of the thorough and lengthy cross-examination in which this witness is confronted. What is important, for our decision, is his continued insistence on his conclusions and the scenario that he concluded from the findings of the scene, along with the lack of confirmation, on his part, at a minimal level of probability, of an alternative scenario - whether that which the defense currently claims (external involvement) or one that contradicts the line of defense but still raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt (reverse assault).
Dr. Nurit Bublil, from the National Center for Forensic Medicine, A.T.23 -
- Biological laboratory opinions were submitted on April 11, 2021 (P/16); follow-up opinions, dated October 28, 2021 (P/16A and P/16B - continued); as well as certificates of receipt of exhibits and supplementary forms (P/67).
She testified in court, on December 25, 2022 and January 1, 2023.
According to her, the need for three opinions arose, after a request was made to examine samples that had not been tested according to the priority in the first hearing that was prepared. In each opinion there is a prioritization and there is no sample of all the exhibits that arrive. The third hearing was moved after a special approval was received, for the examination of many exhibits. The defense opposes the continuation of the primary investigation, beyond the submission of the opinion. The plaintiff explains the necessity of the testimony - to clarify the conclusion presented on page 8 of the opinion, in relation to the analysis of the mixture. Although there is an explanation on page 10, the plaintiff wants the witness to explain it to the court. The court notes that it was correct to submit the matter in the framework of a memorandum. The plaintiff explains that this is a technical translation of what is written in scientific language, into a simpler explanation, and the defense attorney confirms.