As I mentioned earlier, all of these data attest to joint and long-term activity between Toyota and Mitsubishi passengers throughout the morning and afternoon hours, as well as early and meticulous planning, which included a defined division of duties, advance preparation of the necessary equipment such as stolen vehicles with duplicate license plates, weapons, operational phones, black clothing, flammable material for igniting the vehicle, a pre-agreed close meeting point where the Toyota ignition, While the Mitsubishi will be used to evacuate the shooters from the area, as well as a good advance acquaintance with the deceased's daily routine, his place of work and the hours of arrival and return from it, as well as the ways to get to the meeting point and the ways to escape from it.
Up to this point, as stated, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the evidence that was brought and the factual findings derived from it. We now come to the fourth level, which is in fact at the core of the dispute between the parties, and relates to the connection between the defendant and the operational phone number 685, which was held in Mitsubishi, and in particular to the question of whether it is possible to determine with the required level of certainty that the defendant, himself and no one else, was the person who held this subscription at the relevant hours on the day of the murder and hence that he was in Mitsubishi during those hours. In my opinion, there is evidence that has been brought regarding this issue to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant who held the 685 subscription and used it on the day of the murder, and I will briefly mention the evidence that supports this conclusion.
First, the Samsung A32 device on which subscriber 685 was "sitting" in the weeks preceding the murder, was seized in the Mazda car used by the defendant at the time of the defendant's arrest on August 29, 2022, and the defendant confirmed in his interrogations that it was one of his three phones. Second, the findings of the phone intrusion clearly proved that this subscription was used by the defendant and was in his possession during the last few weeks prior to the day of the murder, at least from July 18, 2022. For example, a screenshot of his face during a conversation was found on the phone, voice confessions that were identified as matching his voice, correspondence in which he identified himself by name, and more. In addition, contrary to the defendant's claims, no indication was found that any other person used the same subscription during the aforementioned period, and no witness was brought in to support this claim of the defendant. While these findings do not relate to the day of the murder itself, their importance is not negligible in light of the defendant's failed attempt to distance himself from Subscribe 685 throughout his police interrogations. The defendant constantly claimed that he had nothing to do with this subscription, and only in his suppressed testimony in court was he forced to admit to the use he made of this subscription, after that use was clearly proven by the objective evidence presented by the accuser.