Examination of additional defense arguments regarding the defendant's stay in Mitsubishi on the day of the murder
As the dedicated reader probably understood, the accuser was unable to present direct evidence that substantiates the defendant's presence in the Mitsubishi on the day of the murder, and the evidentiary basis presented before us seeks to establish this on the basis of circumstantial evidence, at the center of which is the 685 subscription and the close connection between him and the defendant. Against this background, the learned defense attorneys raised a number of questions and perplexities, which, according to them, may raise doubts regarding the defendant's presence in the Mitsubishi and the robustness of the conclusions that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence presented. I will now address these perplexities and their weight.
The first question, which was already briefly mentioned at the beginning of the verdict, relates to the question of how the defendant arrived in the morning hours of the day of the murder from the family compound to the Mitsubishi, given that the gas station videos did not identify the Mitsubishi's exit from the direction of the family compound, through the gas station, to Route 44. The parties agree that all the access and exit routes for vehicles from the family compound are covered by the gas station cameras [transcript of November 5, 2025, at pp. 317-318], and therefore if the defendant had left the compound with his Mitsubishi, on his way to those rounds that began at around 7:05 a.m. in the area of the deceased's home in the center of Lod, his exit would have been documented. In the absence of such documentation, according to the defense, it is not clear how the defendant could have arrived at the Mitsubishi and how it can be determined with certainty that he was there, at least in the morning round.
There is indeed no unequivocal answer to the question of how the defendant got to the Mitsubishi in the evidence material, and it is a lack of evidence that often exists within a complex evidentiary body, especially one based on circumstantial evidence. However, for our purposes, another question is relevant, namely whether there are possible ways for the defendant to arrive at Mitsubishi within the framework of the relevant timetables, and whether the lack of knowledge as to the exact route of arrival harms the strength of the evidence linking the defendant to Mitsubishi on that day, which is essentially the connection with the 685 subscription. In my opinion, the first question should be answered in the affirmative, and in the absolute negative to the second, and I will reason.