Here is the place to note, that the act that is the subject of the burning of the minor's parents' car, Tested and not found correct. Police investigators searched but found no, that the Subaru car belonging to the defendant's parents was indeed burned. This is also evident from the facts of the indictment, where the accuser stated that the defendant's uncle's car was burned at some point, Without mentioning that the father's car burned down.
- The manner in which the deceased fell and whether there was a splash of blood: According to the defendant, The murder was not accompanied by shouting. According to his descriptions, The deceased was stabbed in the back and fell straight to the ground, When he didn't say a word (A/23A, pp' 41, Lines 7 -12). The informants went on to ask the defendant if there was a splash of blood as a result of the stabbings. Below I will bring relevant parts of the conversation, The way it was conducted between them:
"The Dubbed "From" 2: You know, he also squirts blood on you, too..
The Defendant: Anonymous.. He's on the floor..
The Dubbed "From" 2: Still
The Defendant: I'm far from him.
....
....
The Dubbed "From" 1: Publishing? Not squirting...
The Defendant: I'm not squirting, I'm telling you the truth, I'm not squirting. ... The squirt on the floor (Trial It's not clear) Puddles of blood."
(A/23A, pp' 47, Row 28 Up to pp' 48, Row 3).
- The defendant's descriptions in this context are inconsistent with the findings at the scene. Meadow"8:47"The same value Noam said. (Exhibit T/30) Together with D.'s opinion"R. Hadas Gipps, who examined the cause of death (See - A/125), Leaf, because there was a puddle of blood at the scene of the incident, which apparently symbolized the place where the deceased was lying. It was also noted that there were drips of blood along 55 meters to the point where the deceased fell. The witness Noam said he could not explain the meaning of the blood droplets, noting that he lacked data.... I received initial information when I arrived that the deceased was indeed lying on an electric bicycle in the area of the puddles of blood, and I still could not give information as to what had happened at the scene" (p. 95, lines 1-4). The same is true of Dr. Gipps, who in her testimony was asked to try and explain the finding of the dripping path when, according to her, "There is no way to know this, if you want I will explain, since the stabs penetrated blood vessels that are internal, blood vessels that are between the ribs and blood vessels that are inside the lung, a person begins to bleed both inside and outside the body, so it is impossible to know about a specific person what of the blood that flows out of him comes out and what flows in, so a drip can be one big squirt out that will leave a very long trail in a very short period of time or very, very slow drips When a person walks slowly and continues to leak and it will create exactly the same blood trail and exactly the same absorption in the pants at different intervals of time from the same bruises" (p. 443 of the transcript, lines 25-32). Therefore, the findings at the scene are inconsistent with the defendant's version that he did not spill blood at all, nor do they necessarily coexist with the defendant's confession that the deceased fell to the ground immediately after he was stabbed.
- Security Cameras: The defendant's remarks regarding the security cameras that were in his home, They were dim and surrounded by fog.
The defendant was certain that there were no security cameras that documented what was happening at the scene of the incident. In response to the informants' repeated questions, he reiterated that there were no security cameras there. Moreover, regarding the cameras installed in his house, he even "boasted" to the informants (see p. 46, lines 18 to 22 of L/23A) by saying: "No. There is no one who did not record... I did that it doesn't record." It should be emphasized that there is nothing between this claim and reality. As was proved, during the trial, the DVR device that was seized in the defendant's home on the day of the incident did not operate as of December 2016 (in this context, see P/132 of the action report of Superintendent Kobi Forleiter, summarizing the examination he conducted in relation to the DVR. It should be noted here that later in the conversation with the informants, the defendant noted that the cameras in his parents' home had not been operating for a long time and that their sole purpose was to deter (see P/20 min. 1:54:35). Therefore, even with regard to this issue, the defendant's words remain ambiguous, while he gives different versions regarding the same issue.
- Y's Electric Bicycle': Has the defendant's claim that, Me too', With which he is at odds were electric bicycles!. The question that arises is - What did the state raise when it investigated this issue?? I turned over every stone and looked for proof and/or a point of view regarding this issue. Hall, I didn't find, Any shred of evidence in this context. J' Not Brought to Testify, is not included in the list of prosecution witnesses and no evidence has been submitted that could shed light, Regarding this important point.
In this context, The learned defense attorney argued in his summaries, Section 266 II', Because "The police investigators did everything in their power to find indications that I' Electric bicycles, Shay' Ever ride an electric bike. This claim was contradicted during an interrogation when Y.'s home was searched' No electric bicycles found...". Ignoring this argument of the defense attorney, After all,, There is no dispute, Because no evidence has been brought before us that shows the existence of an electric bicycle in the possession of Y.'. In this context, I will preface and say, Because, According to the accuser's position, The defendant murdered the deceased (who was riding an electric bicycle at the time) After mistakenly thinking, Because it's about me' He also used to ride a bicycle. A place where, The factual element that creates a common denominator between the deceased and the deceased is omitted.' And after no such factual foundation was placed on our table (which supports and explains the accuser's claim regarding the mistake made by the defendant), It will be difficult for us, To a very large extent, Understand, What motivated the defendant to murder the deceased??.
- If all these perplexities are not enough; Another perplexity that should not be skipped has to do with the scope and degree of the informants' exposure to prepared details regarding the murder. The informants themselves claimed and testified so, Because, Moving on to the dubbing process, They were not disclosed in detail (General or Prepared) About the incident that is the subject of the indictment.
For example,, The informants were asked if they knew details regarding the location of the bruises and stabbings on the deceased's body, Number of, The age and body structure of the deceased. Yes, They were questioned about whether there was a splash of blood and more. Hearing the tape of the conversation that is the subject of/20 Clearly Rising, Because throughout the dubbing, The informants expressed questions about the version, As it was delivered by the defendant. For example, When the defendant stated, Because he stabbed the deceased 14 Stabbing, They expressed surprise at the number of stabbings and continued, Again and again, Interrogating the Defendant, While trying to lead him to another version. According to the informants, They acted this way, Since the defendant's version did not seem logical to them, they tried to clarify the matter in depth. But for example, And in this context, See the informant's reply to Seri (Ltd.' 310 For the protocol line 14) When he stated in this language: "I'm not here to analyze whether it's a false admission or not, I try to check the logic of the story".