First, as to the manner in which the defendant might have arrived at the Mitsubishi that morning, beyond the theoretical possibility that the defendant left the compound on foot, so that it was not recorded by the cameras, and joined the Mitsubishi in a nearby parking spot and unknown, there is the possibility that he left the compound in a Toyota, which is recorded leaving the area at 7:04, or in a Mazda, which left at 7:00, in which two different figures are clearly visible, which cannot be identified. In the front seats. To complete the picture, I will note that when the Mazda returns, at 8:23, it is not possible to identify in the videos whether there is only a driver in it, or if there is another person next to him, so there is certainly a possibility that the defendant left the Mazda, with another person who drove him to the Mitsubishi parking lot, and that person later returned alone to the compound.
I will admit the truth, these are possible explanations, but not conclusive, and it would have been better if the investigation team had conducted a comprehensive examination of the movements of the Mazda, as it did with the Mitsubishi and Toyota, knowing that it was a vehicle used by the defendant and that he might have taken part in the events of that day. However, this issue is of secondary importance in relation to the question in dispute, which concerns whether the lack of certain information regarding the manner in which the defendant arrived at the Mitsubishi actually severs the connection between him and the 685 subscriber and raises doubt regarding the determinations that the defendant was the one who held the 685 subscription on the day of the murder, and therefore he is the person who was in the Mitsubishi throughout all the relevant hours. In relation to this question, the answer is no, since that morning a 685 subscription was prepared as part of a conversation that took place at 6:56 a.m., on the "Judges Substitutes Ramle" website, that is, on the site that controls, among other things, the family compound. The next call, at 7:10 a.m., is already scheduled on the "Neve Alon" website, which is near the deceased's home, and there is no longer any dispute that from that date onwards the Mitsubishi 685 subscription was already held. The result is that between 6:56 and 7:10 a.m. (in fact, 7:05 a.m., by which time the Mitsubishi was already seen by cameras in the center of Lod), the A32 with a 685 subscriber made its way from the family compound to Mitsubishi. Since telephones do not have the ability to move independently, but are carried by the people who use them, it is enough for us that the device came from the family compound to Mitsubishi in order to determine that the person carrying it also found the way to Mitsubishi, even if the exact way is not known to us. And if it is determined, as I have indeed determined, that the only person who could have made use of the 685 subscription is the defendant, then the defendant and the subscriber together made their way from the family compound to Mitsubishi in those few minutes. The timetables indicate that leaving the Mazda compound is the most likely option, but there is no need to determine this with certainty, and it is sufficient that it has been proven that a way was found to transfer the phone, and the defendant also arrived at the Mitsubishi in the same way.