Indeed, while we are still looking (as far as possible) at the state of affairs "in real time", we find that the respondent's positive version at the time, which was supported by external evidence in the form of the Perach report that he himself filled, was that he was at the camper's house between 15:30 and 19:30. Thus, not only is it that according to this version – and there seems to be no dispute – that the respondent was allowed to be present at the scene of the incident at the time of its occurrence, but the output of flash calls (according to which a call went from the respondent's home to the camper's home at 17:23) did not at all satisfy the respondent's alibi claim.
With regard to the output of the cell phone calls, I insisted that the phone was registered in the name of the respondent's mother, and that the investigation was conducted more than 13 years ago, when the removal and location of cell phone outputs were not routine. My colleagues argue that even if it is correct to assume "because in those days it was not customary to carry out regular tracing ... This is still not enough" (paragraph 10 of his opinion). In this I share his opinion, and I have even explicitly stated that "In retrospect, it can be said that the police should have conducted additional examinations on the issue of telephone outputs" (section 92 above). However, as stated, one must guard against the wisdom of retrospect, and in my opinion, taking into account the state of the investigation as it was being constructed in real time, does not lead to the conclusion that the conduct of the police amounted to negligence in this context.
III. Failure to catch the diary - My colleague believes that the police were negligent in not seizing the diary. My opinion is different. As I have detailed at length above (the summary of the matter in paragraphs 83-85), the respondent raised two alibi claims – working at the office depot and staying at the camper's home. Both were examined by the police, and one of them – a stay at the camper's home – sat down with the Perach report that the respondent had filled out. The respondent himself also claimed in his reply to the indictment that he was at the camper's house until 7:30 p.m. In addition, let's not forget that the diary was not seized during the search of the house; that the respondent's mother did not bring the diary to the defense attorney; Because among the transcripts, notices and summaries – the result of many hours of interrogation by the respondent – there are One incidental mention only of the respondent in relation to his diary; that the defense attorney himself did not ask to present the diary at the hearings in the detention proceedings, even after the indictment was filed; that even in the appeal before the Supreme Court, in which the respondent's words in his interrogation regarding the diary were mentioned, the defense attorney did not complain that the diary was not seized or was not presented to the respondent. In short, the great importance of the diary, as claimed today in retrospect by the respondent, was not reflected at all in all the many proceedings that took place in the case of the respondent, who was represented all along.