The court further addressed at length the substance of the respondent's arguments. It was determined that the alibi claim was examined by the investigators with the appropriate speed, in particular in view of the first alibi claim raised by the respondent, which led the investigators in a different direction; that the manner in which the cell phone location checks were carried out and their timing did not harm the respondent in a manner that justifies his compensation; that the respondent's claim that no comparison was made between the results of theDNA that was prepared for him and the material taken from the minor's body is incorrect, as is his claim that the state misled the judicial courts that heard his case in this context; that there is no substance in the respondent's claims to the existence of an "investigative concept" and the reluctance of police officials to investigate in other directions; that although one of the memoranda submitted to the court contained a detail that was inaccurate, it cannot be said that the motive for this was an attempt to charge the respondent with false accusation, and in any event, the weight of the matter was minimal, since the basis of the court's decision was the (partial) body of evidence that was in the hands of the investigators at the time, and not one statement or another.
In its decision, the court criticized the respondent, for some of his arguments were baseless, and were even made in vain without presenting the court with the full picture. As to his claims that he was a victim of abuse by the police interrogators, it was determined that apart from his statement to the informant that he had been beaten and his answer in one of his detention hearings that one of the interrogators had kicked him from behind, there was no mention in the evidence of a long list of acts of violence claimed by the respondent, who did not even bother to submit an affidavit on his behalf. In addition, the respondent did not file any complaint against the policemen, and in his appeal against the decision to detain him until the end of the proceedings, he referred only to statements made to the informant. The court concluded that it would be possible to fully examine the respondent's arguments only in the framework of a comprehensive factual investigation, in a separate proceeding, which the respondent may initiate.