Since the defendant's suppressed version has collapsed, both in relation to the general picture and in relation to each and every one of its components, I find it very difficult to locate an alternative version of innocence for him and on his behalf. The Supreme Court noted this in its remarks in Criminal Appeal 8606/22 Vardinian v. M.I. (September 8, 2024) (my emphases - H.T.), according to which:
"After we know that Vardinian suppressed his testimony and then told a fabricated story that was intended to present him as 'transporting according to his innocence' - we are forced to come to the conclusion that the refutation of this story does not only add weight to the prosecution's evidence (see: Criminal Appeal 365/81 Oshri v. State of Israel, IsrSC 38(1) 113, 129 (1983); Criminal Appeal 9141/10 Stuart v. State of Israel, Appeal Judgment on a Committee for the Judgment of Justice E. Rubinstein (April 28, 2014); Criminal Appeal 2132/04 Case v. State of Israel, paragraph 30 of the judgment of Justice A. E. Levy (May 28, 2007)), but also defines the scope of the dispute between Vardinian's version on the one hand and the state's version on the other. The collapse of Vardinian's version leads to one and only reasonable conclusion: Vardinian acted as an aide to Kahane, and not as an innocent convoy. My colleague, Justice Ronen, notes in her opinion that the range of possibilities still contains scenarios of innocence of one kind or another, and indeed this is the case. However, these are theoretical scenarios that have no basis in the evidence, which we are commanded to ignore after hearing Vardinian's version of innocence and ensuring its collapse. The rule is with us that "a defendant is bound by the version of innocence that he raised in his testimony, and if this version collapses under it, the court is not supposed to search far and wide to find for the defendant an alternative version of innocence that is not anchored in evidence" (see: Criminal Appeal 5736/22 Assasafa v. State of Israel, paragraph 36 of my judgment (May 18, 2023); See also: Criminal Appeal 261/83 Levy v. State of Israel, IsrSC 38(1) 570, 575-576 (1984); Criminal Appeal 417/83 Malka v. State of Israel, IsrSC 38(1) 670, 671 (1984); Criminal Appeal 3124/91 Cohen v. State of Israel, IsrSC 47(3) 406, 414-415 (1993); Criminal Appeal 3372/11 Katzav v. State of Israel, paragraphs 148-150 of the judgment of Justice M. Naor (November 10, 2011)).