In response to the defense attorney's question, Officer Rafaeli replied that the alibi's claim had been examined and found to be incorrect. The defense counsel himself addressed the issue of the respondent's release as an alternative to detention, and even argued that even if the respondent did what was attributed to him or there is prima facie evidence to do so, this was a one-time incident that took place very close to his home, and that there was no claim of any other danger to public safety or of any attempt to impeach. The police objected to the release of the respondent as any alternative to detention.
In its decision to extend the respondent's detention, the court ruled that "by any standard there is evidence against him and also grounds for his continued detention in light of the severity of the acts, it appears that this is a person who endangers the public." The court added that the hearing regarding the respondent's detention until the end of the proceedings will be conducted before the court in which the indictment will be filed, i.e., the District Court. It was also noted that the decision did not stem from the fact that the respondent did not formulate an alternative to detention, since in the circumstances of the case it is not possible to accept an alternative.
The respondent's detention was therefore extended by an additional five days in order to complete the investigation and file an indictment.
- At the time of the court's decision to extend the respondent's detention for a third time, the respondent had accumulated the following additional findings:
(-) The respondent's brother stated in his interrogation that the respondent does not wear sunglasses but very rarely, contrary to what is implied by the respondent's statements.
(-) The respondent's alibi was refuted – in the activity report that the respondent filled out at the time in his handwriting, it was stated that on the day of the incident he held a four-hour "double meeting" at the camper's home, between 15:30 and 19:30, when a test drive proved that the distance by car between the camper's home and the respondent's home was about 13 and a half minutes. Since the respondent did not ask for travel expenses for the day on which the offense was committed, this testified to the fact that on that day he traveled by car and not by bus.