The deceased's charred body was left in the car with limbs amputated, with fractures in bones, missing skeletal bones, missing skin and soft tissues, while his internal organs were reduced to the point of complete charcoalization.
In light of all the above, it was argued that by their actions, the defendants together deliberately caused the death of the deceased, after they decided to kill him and killed him in cold blood, without prior to the provocation of the act frequently, in circumstances in which they could have thought and understand the consequences of their actions, and after they prepared themselves to kill him and prepared a device with which they killed him. In addition, the defendants together deliberately fired at something that was not theirs, did something with the intention of preventing or impeding a judicial proceeding or causing a miscarriage of justice, whether by concealing evidence or otherwise, and carrying a weapon without legal permission to carry it or transport it.
The Response to the Indictment
The defendants did not respond to the allegations in the indictment, and the hearing of the evidence in the case began without receiving a response.
In the hearing held on December 13, 2018, counsel for defendant 2 requested that the defendants be allowed to deny a general heresy only, without this being considered to their detriment, and clarified that he did not make an alibi claim. He also argued that "the first confession made by Defendant 2 during the interrogation, including everything that was done in conjunction with the interrogation, should be disqualified, and this is because he is a young man with no past, without a police officer who did not receive counseling at all before the interrogation. He was summoned to a drug case, interrogated as if he were on a drug case, and in the middle it turned into a murder case... This is a violation of the rights of a defendant." Counsel for defendant 1 at the time (Attorney Felix Partok), joined the discussion, arguing that defendant 1 also did not have an alibi claim, and that at this stage he also did not have a "trivial" claim.