According to the testimonies of A.S. and A.H.; Both were present nearby, close to the time of the murder. The defendant called A.H. At around 10:10 A.M., he asked him to drive him to his uncle's house. The two witnesses noted that the defendant was dressed in an Adidas suit. Yes, they both noted that the defendant behaved normally, during that trip, so that they did not notice anything unusual in the defendant's conduct.
To summarize this point, there is no dispute that the defendant, after the murder took place (this is contrary to what he claimed in his interrogations with the police, including his confession to the informants), was not at home.
- The Defendant's Chase of the Cyclist: The defendant confirmed that he was the character seen in the video (P/63) running after the cyclist. When he sought to explain this, in his testimony before us, he claimed that he was curious to know who was the person who rode the bicycle late (p. 511, line 28); This is in contrast to his version in one of his interrogations with the police, where he stated that he chased the masked cyclist because he was afraid of him. Yes, he thought he might be a terrorist. When the defendant was asked to reconcile the contradictions in his statements, he claimed that he had lied in his interrogations and as to the reason for this, he did not know how to provide a satisfactory explanation (see – p. 513).
- The defendant's phone calls on the night of the murder: According to the media studies submitted to the case, in addition to the defendant's conversations with his friend S. on the night of the murder, he also called his lawyer. During his cross-examination, the defendant noted that he made the call to his lawyer in the middle of the night under pressure.
Yes, he said, the situation he was in aroused his curiosity and even made him nervous. From there, he chased the cyclist. In addition, according to him, since his father was abroad at the time and his mother was sleeping at home, he called the lawyer (p. 514, line 31). The defendant added in his cross-examination that he had called his lawyer with the aim of "... Tell him about the same run and the same person and the same shouting". (ibid., p. 574 of the transcript, line 16).
- The Defendant's Reactions to the Mock Reconstruction; On February 10, 2016, the police conducted a "simulated reconstruction" exercise at the scene of the murder. See P/67, a memorandum by interrogator Gil Alon, which indicates that the interrogator performed a mock reconstruction exercise at the scene of the murder. The interrogator was masked and completely covered in a camouflage suit, the exercise was carried out as a planned stimulus to wiretapping stations. This exercise is intended to examine the defendant's reactions to that action. During the reconstruction, the defendant was present on the street *** and, according to the report, he called S. and asked to meet with him. However, at that time S. was busy and asked him not to come to him for business. Afterwards, the defendant called the lawyer representing him in this proceeding and met with him. According to the accuser, this behavior of the defendant strengthens the suspicions against him.
Is it true?. As the defendant testified, he and S. had both an employment and a friendship relationship, and they met frequently and daily (see, for example, the defendant's testimony at p. 483). The mere existence of a conversation between the defendant and S. on the day of the reconstruction, in and of itself, does not indicate unusual and unusual conduct between the two. At the same time, the defendant's explanations regarding the conversation he had with his lawyer on the night of the murder (according to which he held the conversation under pressure, as I noted above) do not hold water and are not acceptable to me. Nevertheless, there is no reason to base them on a factual finding that has the power to serve as a basis for an offense.
- Mochman Detail: "Stabbed"; Two aspects to this point – did the defendant express himself when he said "he was stabbed" already in his conversation with S. shortly after the murder? And second, what are the implications of using this word during dubbing?
As for the defendant's telephone conversation with S. on the night of the murder, during which, according to the accuser's claim, the defendant said that the deceased had been "stabbed"; the defendant stated, in this language: " How can I tell a detail that I do not know" (p. 534 of the transcript, lines 26-32).