As for the fingernails of the defendant's left hand - here too, the mixture indicates that there is a very high probability, apart from the defendant (of course) that there is biological material associated with the deceased.
The expert examined additional samples brought from the scene - shoes, a broken tooth, other items of clothing. She located the presence of the defendant and the deceased, without any other person (p. 562).
To the defense attorney's question regarding additional items that were taken from the scene, but were not examined by her - due to considerations of priority - if necessary, it is still possible to examine (p. 569). Thus - an answer to the question of whether it is possible that any item that has not been examined will raise biological material of a third person (and the expert is adamant that everything that has been examined - points only to the two). The sample expert - if there are "piles" of exhibits, such as a sequence of samples of a substance suspected to be blood from the same incident and along a certain route - the working assumption is that the same results will be found in all the samples - the same partners in the mixture.
It is important to note that Dr. Bublil is of the opinion that the exhibits still exist, there is no problem in examining any item that the defense believes has the indication of the "third person" (p. 575).
The continuation of the testimony of January 1, 2023 begins with the transcript on page 530 (even though the transcript of December 25, 2022 ended on page 586. The reason for this is unclear).
A significant part of the expert's interrogation deals with those basic assumptions that are fed into the software used by the expert. To what extent is the possibility that one of the potential contributors to the mixture is a relative of one of those about whom a comparison is made, so that the DNA characteristics are similar? This may skew the probabilistic statistics that are at the basis of the method of work. The issue may be interesting - but irrelevant in our case, for the simple reason that the defendant is a family member of the defendant and knows the entire family. He does not testify to his acquaintance with any of the "unknowns" and does not identify them, and he cannot provide any description of them from his memory. If so, even according to his opinion, these are not family members. It is important to remember that we are not dealing with the question of whether it has been positively proven here that the defendant was present at the scene and involved in that brawl - "a chaos with many participants" - according to his approach. He did not deny presence and involvement. The question is whether he was a third person or other people - complete strangers, according to his version. Therefore, (very) significant parts of the continuation of the testimony are irrelevant in our opinion. Thus, to illustrate, on the academic level, it is interesting to brainstorm around the question of whether the biological material in a blood stain from the scene can be associated with a twin brother, whose profile is identical to that of the suspect. On the practical level of the trial - this has no significance.