She was also confronted with the argument that "the deceased cannot come on his own because he is with diapers" (p. 139, s. 23) and responded:
"Both according to the invoice and according to the drafting of the will, on 8/1/17. This functional evaluation indicates that he can't, so to speak, get up from his chair when he needs to be served food. In order to reach me, he had to climb the stairs to get to me physically. Therefore, only on the face of it, I can learn that this assessment is intended for the purpose of receiving the long-term care allowance and does not describe his condition. I will emphasize again, this is the first time, I make wills and many, at least ten every year, at a minimum. And this is the first time I've been invited to be questioned about a will. And I repeat again, for 1,400 shekels I wouldn't make a will for a person who is not fit. And if it says in the will that I made the will in Migdal HaEmek, it should have reached the second floor, in the office" (pp. 140, paras. 19-27).
- According to her, she is particularly careful when a person wishes to bequeath his property to only one child out of several children, to understand the motives behind his decision. In this case, the attorney clarified that it was the deceased's words that led her to include the reasons in the will itself. (p. 133, paras. 6-23).
- She also confirmed that she had no prior acquaintance with the defendants (p. 119, paras. 9-14).
- The attorney was asked by the panel why it was written at the end of section 4 of the will: "But for the avoidance of doubt, if the agreement is cancelled, I order that I want to bequeath the apartment to them only."
She replied: "Many times the transfer does not end, let's say, until the person passes away. So the drafter of the will always wants to do some kind of duplication, to do it, to write it in the will as well.
The Honorable Judge Gurevich: But here I linger. You didn't write that the transfer would take place.