I will preface the latter by noting that during the police investigation, after the Mitsubishi was seized, the video was sent from the security camera of the Shagrir company to the Forensic Signs and Materials Laboratory, in order to make a comparison between the vehicle documented in the video and the photos of the seized Mitsubishi. According to the expert opinion of Alan Tchaikovsky, in relation to the documentation of the vehicle passing in front of the entrance to the Ambassador garage at 8:01:01, a partial match was found in the characteristics of the Mitsubishi image, while in relation to the documentation from 8:04:32, a high level of conformity was found with the image of the Mitsubishi [P/52 - Expert Opinion - Alan Tchaikovsky]. Although this is not a conclusive determination of identity, the defense does not dispute, and in law it does so, that the vehicle that passed by twice around 8:00 a.m. was the Mitsubishi, and as we can see, a similar pattern of behavior was also documented in the afternoon, when a more conclusive opinion was received regarding the full identity of the vehicles.
After passing twice past the entrance to the Shagrir parking lot in Holon, the Mitsubishi headed back towards Ramla. At 8:18:12 it was recorded at Ein Hanetz at the Ramla junction north, C.44 to the south, and at 8:23:23 in Ramla, the traffic junction of Route 44 to the north [P/76]. At approximately 8:25 A.M., she is seen entering from the direction of Route 44 to the dirt parking lot near the "Paz Bypass Ramle" gas station and driving on the road that leads further to the family compound [P/46A - Camera 25, file 2818, 17:26].
If I summarize, with the necessary caution, what emerges from the evidence in relation to the first phase detailed above, then the Mitsubishi and Toyota arrive at the same time as the deceased's residential area, around the time when he usually leaves for his place of work, and drive in circles in this area time after time, passing many times on the street where the deceased lived. This pattern of activity changes in parallel with the departure of the deceased and his son in a Hyundai to their place of work in Holon. At that time, the Mitsubishi and Toyota changed their conduct and the two drove, one after the other, on the same route as the Hyundai, through San Martin Street, Hazionot Avenue and Route 40 north towards Route 1. The learned defense attorneys are correct in their argument that at this stage of the matter it is doubtful whether there was eye contact between the Hyundai and the vehicles that followed it, and therefore they protest against the use of the word "surveillance" to describe their actions, but the indictment does not use the word "surveillance" but rather the claim that the vehicles "followed" the deceased's vehicle, and this fact is certainly true. In addition, the footage shows that at least at one point, the Mitsubishi driver tried to reduce gaps from the Hyundai and made dangerous overtakings, although the footage shows that the gap between the vehicles remained significant.