In any event, in view of the proven close connection between the 685 subscription and the Mitsubishi on the day of the murder, which is not in dispute, any version of innocence must convince that it was someone other than the defendant who made use of the 685 subscription on the day of the murder. Not only was the specific version of innocence that the defendant chose to raise in his suppressed testimony refuted with respect to each of its components, and the investigation of the conspiracy that followed only strengthened the connection between the defendant and Subscriber 685 on the dates close to the murder, but there is, as stated, an accumulation of evidence of decisive weight that makes it impossible to draw a plausible alternative scenario in which the phone passes into the hands of another person, and he uses it on the day of the murder. The issue of the TA, the response to Wasfi's Friday blessing, (omitted...), the silencing of the defendant's other phones at the same hours as in contrast to the usual patterns of use, and the defendant's continuous possession of the 685 subscription from weeks earlier until the day of his arrest, three days after the murder, will be briefly mentioned.
In these circumstances, in my opinion, the defendant did not meet the tactical burden of providing a reasonable alternative exculpatory explanation for the circumstantial evidence presented to him, and this evidence does not even allow us to draw an alternative exculpatory thesis, even if we ignore the collapse of the specific version raised by the defendant in his testimony in court. Therefore, the prima facie conclusions drawn from the evidentiary evidence at the end of the second stage of the three-stage proceeding stand in full force, and I can only determine that it was the defendant who was in the Mitsubishi in the morning and afternoon hours of the day of the murder and took part in all the acts in which the Mitsubishi took part, while making use of the 685 subscription. Now all that remains is to discuss the question of what are the legal derivatives of these facts, and on the basis of which the defendant should be convicted.