To summarize the information presented so far regarding the use of the 685 subscription, I say that the accuser clearly proved in the prosecution case the fact that the defendant used the 685 subscription in the weeks preceding the murder, and only after the prosecution affair ended and the defendant came to testify, did the defendant first admit his connection to this subscription, after he had denied any connection to the subscription until that date, during his police interrogations and throughout the prosecution's affair. The failed attempt to distance himself from the subscriber, which, according to the information detailed above, was used by someone who was in the Mitsubishi throughout the morning and afternoon hours on the day of the murder, and took part in the planned actions against the deceased, Darshani says, and in itself constitutes an additional component of the circumstantial evidentiary package of the defendant's obligation. I will now turn to the next body of evidence, which substantiates the accuser's claim that subscriber 685 was in the defendant's exclusive possession and use even on the day of the murder itself, an issue that is at the heart of the verdict.
The Defendant and Subscriber 685 - Exclusive Use, Including on the Day of the Murder
PIN and (omitted)
The defendant's three phones, which were seized by the police on 29 August 2022, only three days after the murder, were code-protected. The defendant was asked to provide the codes in order to enable the phones to be opened, and he refused [see, for example, his first statement of August 30, 2022, at pp. 21-23 of transcript P/149, his second notice of September 1, 2022, at p. 16 of transcript P/152]. When he was questioned on this subject again, he replied that each of the devices had a different code, and claimed that the codes were also known to other family members [his fifth interrogation, dated September 28, 2022, at pp. 12-13 of the transcript of P/161]. In the next interrogation, he continued to insist on the claim that the codes were known to the entire "family", but this time he claimed that he did not remember whether the same code was used to unlock all the phones [his sixth and final interrogation, dated October 6, 2022, at pp. 11-12 of the transcript of P/164].