In her response, the accuser sought to emphasize that the same article was published on January 21, 2016 at 4:48 A.M., i.e., a few hours after the defendant's conversation with S. regarding the murder during the incident, the defendant stated to S. (according to the accuser' s claim) that someone had been stabbed. Therefore, it is clear that at that stage (when the defendant spoke with S.), the fact regarding the act of "stabbing" was used as a well-known detail. In other words, according to the accuser, even if it emerged from the responses subject to P/102 that the deceased had been stabbed, the article came into the world after the conversation that took place between S. and the defendant. Moreover, the defendant confirmed in his interrogations in court that the wording of the article that was submitted to the court file was the same as the one to which he was exposed and it was not noted that he learned that the stabbings were from the responses that appear in relation to that article.
On the other hand, the learned defense attorney cast his hope on the content that arises from the responses that are the subject of the article (P/102). According to his approach, the contents, as detailed in the responses he addressed in the framework of his response, support the defendant's version and strengthen his credibility, especially when he argued all along that he was exposed to the fact that we were concerned with the act of stabbing/stabbing, from the article in Ynet.
According to him, the thesis that the state tried to cling to throughout the trial, according to which the fact that the deceased found his death as a result of an act of stabbing/stabbing, is a well-founded detail, has nothing to rely on. According to the defense's arguments, the content, as it emerges from the responses of that article, has the potential to affect both the conversation that took place in the morning (immediately after the night of the murder) between the defendant and S. (after the article was the subject of P/102 had already been published, according to the arguments of the defendant's counsel) and the conversations that came at a later stage more, between the defendant and the informants.