In summary, this chapter says that the learned defense attorneys left no stone unturned, and with remarkable thoroughness turned the spotlight on various evidentiary deficiencies in the circumstantial evidentiary foundation on which the accuser is based. However, after a careful examination of each of these deficiencies, the conclusion is required that even if the investigative materials do not provide a complete answer to every question and question, those deficiencies and those questions do not erode the central thesis that underlies the accusing evidence, the thesis that the defendant, and only he, made use of the 685 subscription on the day of the murder, and therefore stayed at all the relevant hours in Mitsubishi. This thesis, which is well anchored in the evidence detailed above, stands firm even after examining all the questions, and the investigative materials provide a reasonable, even if uncertain, explanation for each and every one of them. I will now discuss the main legal argument raised by the defense - the claim regarding the inadmissibility of all the camera products that were collected, due to a defect in the orders that permitted their seizure.
The Claim of the Disqualification of the Security Cameras Due to the Sweeping Orders
In the summaries of the defense, a very extensive chapter was devoted [see paragraphs 121-177] to the argument that the search warrants signed by the Magistrate's Court, by virtue of which a significant part of the security camera footage were seized, were "illegal" and therefore "essentially null and void", and as a result, all the products seized under them should be disqualified. According to the same claim, these search warrants, which allowed the seizure of cameras in a sweeping manner, within a radius of several kilometers from the various scenes of events, were issued "casually", were drafted in a general and broad manner, which is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's directives on this issue, and trampled on the rights of hundreds of thousands of third parties, while severely violating their privacy. In doing so, the court violated the provisions of the law, granted the investigative unit unlimited power to seize any camera within the boundaries of entire cities, without content and time limitations, and therefore the orders and all the evidence collected as a derivative of them should be invalidated. According to the defense, "as has often been determined in decisions of the Supreme Court," the panel hearing the main case is authorized to criticize the orders issued during the investigation stage, and even to invalidate them if they were issued in violation of the Guiding Rules. In order to substantiate these arguments, the learned defense counsel referred in their summaries mainly to the judgments in Additional Criminal Hearing 1062/21 Urich v. M.I. (January 11, 2022) (hereinafter: "the Urich Case") and in Criminal Appeal Authority 5334/23 Abergel v. M.Y. (July 14, 2024) (hereinafter: "the Abergel Case").