As explained at length above, the defendant was very far from providing a convincing and weighty alternative explanation for the conclusion required by the evidence presented. Initially, throughout his six interrogations with the police, the defendant remained silent regarding his actions on the day of the murder and on the day of his arrest, falsely claiming memory impairment. In addition, the defendant gave false answers regarding all the issues he was asked about, which could have incriminated him, such as his connection to Subscriber 685 and his part in the chain of acts of disruption that took place on August 29, 2022, including the replacement of the plates, the order of the tow truck and the loading of the Mitsubishi on it. The defendant was even willing to make baseless false allegations against the police, when he claimed, for example, that the police were the ones who planted the license plates that were dismantled from the Mitsubishi in the Mazda he was driving. His conduct during the police interrogation therefore establishes a first layer of considerable weight in the conclusion that no credence can be given to the defense's arguments that arose subsequently. It will also be emphasized that the defendant did not raise any alibi claim, even though he was given many opportunities to do so, and that at no stage did he raise any claim regarding the handing over of one of his phones to another person close to the day of the murder.
A detailed version of the events and his part in the acts was given by the defendant for the first time only in his suppressed testimony in court, about two years or more after the murder, and after all the evidence collected by the investigation team had been made available to him and the defense team. Accordingly, the defendant sought in his testimony in court to provide a convincing response to the incriminating factual basis, but in view of the broad and detailed evidentiary front that was laid out for his duty, not only did he not succeed in providing a complete version of the accumulation of circumstantial evidence for his obligation, but also the explanations he gave regarding each of the pieces of evidence separately did not hold water. I will not repeat the totality of the reasons detailed in the various chapters of the judgment, but I will mention the defendant's failure to provide explanations for a wide range of independent issues, including the screenshot with the details of the Mitsubishi dated July 8, 2022, (omitted)..., the fingerprint that protected the entry to WhatsApp, the response to the greeting received from Wasfi, the silence of the other phones, the internet searches regarding information about the murder and the paper clipping. The defendant's version in court, a suppressed version that raises an inherent suspicion of its reliability, did not in fact provide a reasonable and convincing response to any evidence presented to the defendant's obligation, and even strengthened the prosecution's evidence in light of the sweeping admission of giving false versions to the interrogators, without any justification, and contrary to the logic that requires the presentation of a full version of innocence at the first opportunity, insofar as such a version does exist.