Similarly, the defense raises a question as to how, according to the accuser's thesis, the defendant returned to the family compound after the murder, since there is no dispute that the Mitsubishi did not enter the family compound after picking up the Toyota passengers from the point of ignition, just as there is no dispute that the defendant himself left the compound shortly after 14:00, in a Mercedes, in the direction of Haifa. Moreover, at 1:43 p.m., the activity of the 401 subscriber, which had been silent since the previous night, resumes, and it is assumed that the defendant is the one who made the dial attempt at that time, i.e., he was already back in the compound at that time. Against this background, the question arises as to how the accuser's claim that the defendant took part in the murder is reconciled, i.e., he was in the Mitsubishi at around 1:00 P.M. in Lod, and a short time later he was already in the family compound again, without the Mitsubishi returning to the compound. According to the defense, there is no way to resolve the aforementioned perplexity, and therefore the conclusion is necessary that the defendant was not in fact in Mitsubishi at the time of the murder.
Indeed, even on this point, there is a lack of evidence, which does not allow for a definite and positive determination as to the manner in which the defendant returned to the family compound after the murder. However, this time, too, the relevant question is different from the one presented by the defense. The question is not whether it was proven how the defendant returned to the family compound, but whether the fact that there is no definitive evidence in this matter negates the possibility, taking into account the existing evidence, that the defendant was in a Mitsubishi at the time of the murder. In my opinion, since the evidence collected points to the existence of a possible way for the defendant to return to the compound within the timetables that have been proven, and since his presence in the Mitsubishi is well anchored in the evidence relating to the connection between him and the 685 subscriber, this perplexity also does not harm the circumstantial evidentiary infrastructure that complicates the defendant, and I will explain.