The reason for this conclusion lies in the fact that all the communications between subscriber 685 and one of the defendant's other subscribers (401 and 337) appear in the reports as unanswered calls. There is not a single conversation mentioned in the table, in which subscriber 685 is involved, in which the call was answered and there was an actual conversation between the defendant and another party. In all cases, it is a mere dial, which is not answered, between the 685 after the other subscribers, and in all of them both devices are located under the same antenna. This state of affairs, in which no call was answered, is more consistent with the possibility that the defendant attempted to dial from one of his devices to another, perhaps in order to locate him at home, or for any other purpose, than with the possibility that another family member used the phone, tried to call the defendant, but never actually spoke to him.
Moreover, of all the calls that appear in a small petition by subscriber 685, in which there was an answer and a call took place, the defense has no claim in relation to any concrete call that it was made by another person, other than the defendant. The defense also did not summon any witness, from the family members or in general, who claimed that he ever had a conversation through the 685 subscription or made any use of this device on the relevant dates in our case. In a closed article, I will note that in the framework of the written summaries, counsel for the defendant claimed that it was a telephone that was used, inter alia, by Siham, the defendant's minor niece, but it seems that in this context the defense attorneys made a mistake and the document to which they referred - P/116 - concerned another telephone that was seized during a search of the safe in the defendant's house, and not the A32 device. In these circumstances, the attempt to convince that there were other family members who used the 685 subscription, solely on the basis of those individual dialing attempts, which were not answered, with one of the defendant's other telephones, is subtle. To this must be attached the evidence that will be detailed immediately, which excludes the possibility that a person other than the defendant had free access to the telephone with a subscription number 685.