As you may recall, the murder itself took place a few minutes before 1:00 p.m., and a very short time later, the Toyota was set on fire and the move to Mitsubishi took place. Later, at 13:02:05 and 13:02:28, the Mitsubishi is documented by Ein Hanetz cameras at the Ramla Traffic Junction of Route 44, on its way to Jaffa. This trip, on Route 44, is also documented in the camera footage of the gas station near the family compound [P/46 - Assistance 1287/22 - Camera 11 on the 1:49 counter, Camera 9 on the 1:46 counter], where a vehicle, which matches the Mitsubishi in appearance, is seen driving at approximately 1:02 p.m., driving continuously and quickly in the left lane on Route 44 in the south. The defense relies on what appears in these videos in an attempt to substantiate its claim that there is no reasonable way in which the defendant could have arrived from the Mitsubishi to the family compound within the time frame defined above, and therefore it is not possible that the defendant was in the Mitsubishi at the time of the murder.
In my opinion, the data that emerges from the video actually leads to a different conclusion. As mentioned, the Mitsubishi made its way after the murder to the Jaffa and Tel Aviv areas, where it was put "cooled" in the parking lot, but for this purpose it was supposed to get on Route 44 in the direction of the north. In practice, as described above, the Mitsubishi first took Route 44 in a southbound direction, and as a result, the Mitsubishi passed on its way very close to the family compound, located south of Route 44, west of the gas station [see note other N/24]. The Mitsubishi could, therefore, have stopped for a brief moment on the side of the road and dropped off the defendant, who in these circumstances would not have been required to cross the busy and wide Route 44, and could have returned to the family compound on foot in just a few minutes. While there is no documentation, visual or otherwise, of such a move, it is a reasonable possibility, which is supported by the choice to first turn onto Route 44 to the south, even though it is a case of driving in the opposite direction from the planned one, and only afterwards, at the next interchange, to turn back and get on Route 44 to the north, in the direction of Jaffa. The visual footage in the video, which testifies to a continuous and rapid drive, does not rule out the possibility that a few seconds earlier, the Mitsubishi stopped for a moment near the compound, and the defendant, and possibly others with him, got out of it. In these circumstances, this perplexity does not impair the conclusion that was reached in light of the totality of the evidence presented, according to which the defendant was in a Mitsubishi, constantly using the 685 subscription.