Moreover,, The defendant's own argument (As he confessed to the informants) From it supposedly arises, Because after the fact,, He went home, Took a shower and stayed overnight at home, Stands in direct contradiction to the solid evidence in the case. This claim contradicts the mother's behavior on the night of the murder. In addition to this, The police officers themselves arrived at the defendant's home on the night of the murder and were present to know that the defendant was not at home at the time. This is also evident from the location of the phone and the text messages that took place between the mother and the defendant (As I discussed them above) who taught, Because the latter was not at his parents' house on the night of the murder, They also taught that the mother would not sleep at the time of the incident or in the hours following . And more, I will not skip the testimonies of the witnesses - A.Q &.VIII., I will refer to them later, From which we can also learn, that the defendant's argument in this context, There is no connection between it and reality and nothing.
Needless to say,, Because the defendant himself in his testimony before us, He admitted that he lied about this detail, And that night, He doesn't sleep at home.
- Murder Tools: As mentioned, The defendant stated to the informants, Because he used the knife to stab the deceased, He washed "Good good" (A/23A, pp' 19 Row 17) And put it back in a drawer in the kitchen. With the arrest of the defendant, His home was searched and knives were seized (See - A/17). The knives were taken for a laboratory test, And as it appears from the exhibit that is the object of the/32, No suspicious findings were found on the knives that were seized. Here is the place to refer to the defendant's words as reflected in his confession to the informants when he stated, Because it's an Arcos knife (Name, pp' 19 Between the Lines 20-10). Yes, He gave a description of the knife used in the murder, Describing the color of its handle. Hence, The question arises, The mother was inside the knife store seized by the police at the defendant's home, There is a knife that meets the description given by the defendant as part of his confession?.
As it turns out, he died./17, Among the many knives that were seized, Two Arcus knives were seized packed in a transparent box, and their examination also revealed negative findings.
- Details of clothing and clothes worn by the defendant at the time of the murder; Apart from the perplexity regarding the defendant's words, In front of the informants, According to them, his clothes were not stained with blood at the time of the murder, The defendant further stated to the informants, Because he was wearing a sweatsuit -Adidas at the time of the murder. At the same time, The figure who was seen ran after the deceased {See - A/207, Min (By Camera Time) 22:57:53 and real time 22:54 (When the defendant himself confirmed that he was the figure who was seen there)} She was wearing pants'Jeans and light coat. On the one hand, Based on the defendant's version before the informants, At the time of the murder, he was wearing an Adidas sweatshirt, Immediately after returning home, he changed his clothes and showered. On the other hand,, As can be seen from the version of A.8 And his friend, While the defendant was being driven, At his request, To his uncle's house, (After the incident that is the subject of the indictment here), He was dressed in an adidas suit. Meaning, There is a lack of clarity regarding the details of the clothing, Ambiguity that has not been clarified.
- The incident that was the subject of the car fire: As mentioned above, The defendant confessed on his own initiative to another incident of burning a car. According to him,, J', The defendant is in conflict with him over a debt of 250 NIS that the defendant owes him, Resin of a Subaru car belonging to the defendant's parents. In response, The defendant burned the car that belonged to Y.'s father' (A/23A, pp' 31, Lines 20-17).
Up Next, (See - pp' 52 Latt/23a), The defendant reiterated his descriptions of the car burning incident, stating that, Shay' He burned his father's car (Subaru Type) And in response to this, The defendant burned Y's father' Silverado car (Name, Lines 23-16).