As a result of the actions of the defendant and the others, Arpapan was hit by two bullets - one bullet penetrated the chest area on the left with passage through the heart, the vaginal arch and the right lung. A second bullet penetrated the left waist area, through the right kidney and intestinal loops - and led to Arpafan's death.
The Defendant's Response to the Indictment
At the court session on March 6, 2024, counsel for the defendant submitted a general heresy, and announced that they would file a written heresy. Subsequently, on April 7, 2024, they received a written response that included a sweeping and laconic denial of the facts alleged in the indictment, some of it due to lack of knowledge. As a result, a decision was made according to which "... Attention will be drawn to the fact that there is no positive version or reference whatsoever to the defendant's actions, even with regard to his stay at the time and place. If the defense is interested, an update or supplement can be submitted within 7 days."
In accordance with the possibility given to the defense, on April 15, 2024, a notice was submitted with a supplement to its response, according to which "on August 26, 2022, at 7:00 A.M., the defendant left his house together with another, in a Mazda vehicle. THE DEFENDANT AND THE OTHER DROVE TOWARDS THE CITY OF BE'ER YA'AKOV - THE WHOLESALE MARKET IN TZRIFIN, IN ORDER TO PURCHASE FOOD (HUMMUS, FALAFEL, TAHINI, ETC.) BY TAKE-AWAY FROM THE KHLIL RESTAURANT OF THE TZRIFIN BRANCH. After the defendant and the other received the food they had purchased at the Khalil restaurant, the two went out in the direction of the defendant's house, driving in the Mazda. The two arrived at the defendant's home between 8:10 and 8:15 a.m. The defendant did not leave his house until 2:00 P.M., when he went out with another, driving a white Mercedes."
In response to questions for clarification by the court at the meeting on May 2, 2024 [see the beginning of page 24 of the recorded transcript], the defense attorney clarified that the defendant claimed that he was not in the Mitsubishi at all, neither that morning nor at all, and that he was at home at the time of the murder. At that stage, the defendant's counsel was not interested in giving the name of the "other" who went out with the defendant to buy food in a restaurant.