In addition, an analysis of the communications studies of the defendant's three telephones shows that on many occasions, between July 6, 2022 and August 28, 2022, the subscriber shared 685 locations with at least one of the defendant's other two phones, meaning that the devices were located in close proximity to each other, and not only in the family compound, but also in Tel Aviv, Gedera, the Azrieli Mall in Ramle, and more [P/107 - Report on the Extraction of Insights from the DCO]. In addition, a cross-examination conducted by the investigators between the communication data of the 401 subscriber, the defendant's main subscriber, and the 685 subscriber in those weeks, shows that with the exception of two occasions of a few seconds of overlap, there are no overlapping calls between the subscribers, and the pattern of the calls corresponds to the possibility that the two phones were held simultaneously by the defendant [P/108 - Comparison Report from the Small Prosecutor Ayman Musrati]. In fact, the emissions of the plaintiff are small [P/73] and it is possible to identify many times on which the two subscribers are active, without simultaneous use, in a manner that corresponds to the conduct of a single user.
The learned defense attorneys argue in their summaries, in section 80 and in the table attached thereto, that it is possible to learn from the media studies that other people other than the defendant used the 685 subscriber during that period, because the data testify that engagements were made between the three subscribers themselves. Counsel for the defendant further argues that according to the locations, all of these communications were made while the devices were located on the antenna covering the family compound, and from this they seek to conclude that it was the defendant's family members who made use of the 685 subscription, as the defendant also claimed in his testimony in court. However, a review of the data detailed in the table on pp. 25-26 of the defense's summaries, as well as the raw data on the basis of which the table was compiled, lead, in my opinion, to a different conclusion, and at the very least, they do not substantiate the defense argument.