These locations indicate that the defendant was not at all in the area of the city of Ramle and the family compound during the hours he claims to have met with Udai, and later with Samer. Thus, at 4:07 P.M. on Thursday, August 25, 2022, the defendant's telephone subscription, 401, was installed in the Tivon area in the north of Israel. Later, at 18:56, it is stationed in the area of Moshav Bnei Zion in the Sharon, at 19:01 in Kfar Saba and at 20:07 in Tira [P/73 - from a small plaintiff, subscriber 401]. IN ADDITION, AN INTRUSION INTO SUBSCRIBER 401 DURING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE INVITATION REVEALED THAT AT 20:46 ON THE SAME DAY, THE TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBER WAS FOUND, ALONG WITH THE DEFENDANT, LOCATED IN THE AREA OF BEIT ITZHAK - SHA'AR HEFER [EXHIBIT 187 - ASSISTANCE 1156 - SUBSCRIBER 401 - PARAGRAPH 4 - DEVICE LOCATIONS]. In fact, the defendant is prepared for the first time on this day with an antenna that covers the family compound only at 10:10 p.m. [P/73 - from a small prosecution, subscriber 401]. It is possible, of course, that he arrived at the compound a little earlier and did not have any conversations, but in view of the information in the locations, it can be determined with certainty that the defendant was not in the compound or in the vicinity of the city of Ramle throughout the day, including the relevant hours for our case, from around 16:00 until after 21:00, and therefore he did not meet Udai or Samer during these hours in the compound. In addition, and in a manner that contradicts the defendant's version, no communications were found in the DCCs or in the infiltration of the telephones on August 25, 2022, between one of the telephones used by Udai and those of the defendant [P/187 - Part One - Section 11]. As described above, the defendant was confronted with all of these findings in the investigation of the conspiracy, and was unable to provide any explanation for them.
In view of the above, in my opinion, the conclusion is necessary that in practice that the tripartite meeting between Udai, Samer and the defendant did not take place on the date reported by the defendant, and accordingly there is no basis for the suppressed and false claim regarding the delivery of the 685 subscription to Samer on that occasion. This is a critical element in the defendant's version of innocence, since there is no dispute that subscriber 685, which is directly connected to Mitsubishi and directly involved in the murder, was in his possession until that moment, that is, until the night before the day of the murder, and if it was not transferred to anyone, it was probably left in his possession and used on the day of the murder. As may be recalled, an evidentiary basis of considerable weight has already been presented linking the defendant directly to the possession of the 685 subscription on the day of the murder, and now the evidentiary layer related to the denial of the claim regarding his transfer to Samer on the night of 25 August 2022 is being added. We will now expand our perspective and refer to the evidence in relation to the 685 subscriber over the weekend, up to the date when the defendant claims that the phone was returned to him on Sunday night in Haifa.