True, an examination of the appendices to Abu Khalifa's statement apparently testifies to the fact that the paper clippings were not presented to him, for some reason, when he was interrogated by the police, and therefore Abu Khalifa did not explicitly deny any connection to him. However, if the defense had sought to substantiate the claim that the paper clipping belonged to Abu Khalifa, it would have been entitled to present him with the document and request his response when he appeared to testify in court. In any event, while the defendant has a broad body of evidence linking him to the acts detailed in the indictment, there is no evidence whatsoever linking Abu Khalifa to those acts, and the absence of his explicit denial, of any connection between him and the paper clipping, does not undermine the close connection between the defendant and the aforementioned document.
If we now return to the body of evidence, then in addition to the sweeping confirmation that the defendant gave regarding all the other documents that were seized, every time he was presented with the piece of paper, which was seized as part of that very collection of documents, the defendant denied any connection and claimed that the document was not known to him and that he did not know how he found his way to Mazda. This was also his position in the framework of his testimony in court [ibid., at pp. 483, 582-586]. The investigation team of course sought to examine the connection between the defendant and the writing on the paper clipping, and therefore during the interrogation the defendant was asked to write down in his own handwriting letters and numbers that would be dictated to him, but the defendant refused, and insisted on his refusal even after it was explained to him that the lack of cooperation might strengthen the evidence against him [P/152 at pp. 6-7]. The defendant retracted his refusal only after he was presented with the paper clipping [ibid., at p. 9], but reverted to his refusal in the next interrogation [P/156 at p. 38].