It is no wonder that in the defense's summaries on this issue [paragraphs 103-110 of the summaries], the learned defense attorneys were required to go back about two full months from the date of the murder, in order to locate on Friday, July 1, 2022, limited telephone activity, which even then began at 11:33 a.m., much earlier than the date of the beginning of the use described above on the day of the murder. Attention will also be drawn to the fact that on that date all the calls were answered, and unlike the day of the murder and the defendant's version, no unanswered calls are recorded. In fact, in order to locate the Friday morning in which the defendant did not consistently respond to calls from the 401 subscriber, and made the first call at 12:13 p.m., the defense was required to go back in time for more than six months, until January 7, 2022 [paragraph 105 of the defense's summaries].
The result is that the defendant's explanations for the shutdown of his phones on the morning of the murder, and especially for the silence of the 401 subscriber, the refusal to answer calls from his brother and other parties, and the complete absence of outgoing calls, were not only suppressed, and when they were already given, were inconsistent and developed over time, but also clearly inconsistent with his usual pattern of using the telephone subscriptions in his possession. It is superfluous to add that in this context as well, no testimonies were brought to support the defendant's suppressed version by members of his family. Therefore, that silence, even if it does not contain conclusive evidence that he was in Mitsubishi at the time, far from his usual devices that he left behind at home, constitutes additional support with real weight to strengthen the accusing thesis, which is anchored, as explained at length above, in additional and conclusive evidence.
To summarize the present chapter, which deals with the defendant's connection to the 685 subscriber on the morning of the murder, and in this way also to the Mitsubishi vehicle, to the surveillance of the deceased, to the scene of the murder and to the escape of the murderers, there is no longer any dispute that the defendant held this subscription at least until the evening of the day preceding the murder, despite the fact that at the stage of the police investigation he denied any acquaintance or connection to this subscription. In addition, (omitted)... Therefore, the possibility that the defendant gave the code to another person, or that the code was known to all family members, as the defendant claimed, was not only not supported by the defense's evidence or in general, but it is denied by virtue of the circumstances detailed.