Of course, the defendant's continued refusal to take the simple and necessary action, and to put his finger on the screen in order to substantiate the claim that he was not the person who corresponded with Waspi on the day of the murder, strengthens the solid assumption, anchored in life experience, that the fingerprint belongs to the phone holder, and in this case to the defendant. Today, however, no further assumption is required regarding the identity of the person whose fingerprint protected access to the WhatsApp application, when the A32 phone was seized by the investigators on August 29, 2022, because the defendant, in his testimony in court, completely changed his version and explicitly admitted that it was his fingerprint. This time, however, in order to evade the incriminating significance of this confession, in relation to the identity of the person who held the phone on the day of the murder and returned the blessing sent by Wesfi, the defendant raised a new factual claim, the memory of which was not known until that moment.
According to this new version, it is indeed his fingerprint, but it was only embedded in the device's WhatsApp settings on August 28, 2022, on the eve of his arrest, so that on the day of the murder, August 26, 2022, there was no TA protection for the app. According to him, after he received the phone back from his cousin Samer [full details of the defendant's latest version will be brought below] on Sunday, August 28, 2022, at night, he casually played with the phone, out of curiosity, discovered that it was possible to protect the possibility of accessing WhatsApp via TA, and as a result he performed the act of imprinting and locking two of the devices in his possession - the 337 and 685 [transcript of September 11, 2024, at pp. 568-571].
The defendant therefore confirmed in his testimony that the fingerprint that prevented others from accessing the WhatsApp application on the A32 device was his fingerprint, but that alongside this confession, he sought to persuade him that he had carried out the lock on the night of August 28, 2022, less than a day before he was arrested, out of sheer curiosity and after he discovered only then by chance, during a "game" on the phone, the possibility of protecting the privacy of the messages in this way. I will preface the latter by saying that in view of the defendant's conduct during the entire interrogation, in which he suffered from deliberate amnesia, he refrained from giving substantive answers to the most basic questions, he lied countless times, until in the end he gave a new and suppressed version, which also does not meet the tests of logic and the test of evidence, it is not possible to give any credence to the defendant's versions. In relation to this broad conclusion, see the future chapters in which the defendant's versions will be analyzed and his conduct in the interrogation will be described, but in the present context this is also true with regard to the suppressed claim that the defendant's fingerprint was installed in this way only by chance only on the night before his arrest, and not before and before the day of the murder. This is a claim that was made in vain, without any backing or confirmation from an external source, and it is understandable to any reasonable person that its entire purpose was to extricate the defendant from the incriminating significance involved in the conclusion that his fingerprint protected the WhatsApp correspondence of subscriber 685 on the day of the murder, and therefore he and none other than the person who held the phone and answered Wasfi at 11:40 that day.