A dispute arose between the parties regarding the need to attach a statistical opinion to the experience of Dr. Bublil, and in relation to the work method applied in his regulation, as well as in the other cases that were under her treatment.
The clarification relating to these disputes, which extends in its ramifications, over the course of dozens of pages of transcribed transcripts, does not carry any significant weight, at this time, and given our findings and conclusions in the previous chapters, and therefore the continuation of the testimony will be brought in a very brief manner.
To the extent that the defense wished to establish, with the help of an expert on its behalf, the existence and involvement of other figures in the struggle that took place - the burden was on it to do so.
The focus now is only on the question of whether, through the interrogation of Dr. Bublil and her words, it is possible to derive any evidence, even if only at the level of raising reasonable doubt, of the feasibility of such a scenario of other figures. (In this regard, I will refer to the review in the chapter on the testimony of Superintendent Barkan, in the context of an alternative defense scenario, which is examined even if it does not match the defendant's version.)
If and to the extent that this is established by her, and even though the expert is a prosecution witness, of course - the defense is entitled to be built upon it.
In view of the above, the essence of her words, later in the testimony, will be brought in connection with this question, and in the presentation of her answers in "unscientific" language, in order to understand the "bottom line", which is relevant to our discussion.
Dr. Bublil maintains that the blade of the knife seized at the scene contains a mixture of two people (the deceased and the accused) and that it is not a mixture of three items (p. 544). There is a complete and "strong" match with respect to the deceased, and a much weaker component for the defendant. The same is true of the knife handle. In the handle - there is a stronger indication of the defendant than on the blade. There is no indication of a third person in the mixture. In addition, if the defendant had been ruled out as one of the components of the mixture, it would have stated this explicitly, since the software that was applied would have indicated a "minus" finding, which did not happen (p. 551).