How the defendant was convinced that he would see the car again after it was handed over (by leaving the remote control on the rear wheel) we did not understand the son, and we even had difficulty accepting his version that he had just given a new car that he had just received (with a purchase that had not yet been completed) to the son of a neighbor, whose name he did not even remember (as stated in his statement to the police).
The defendant went on to say that when he met Aviel at the incident in question, Aviel asked him if he could get the car, and the defendant answered in the affirmative and told Aviel to leave the remote control on the rear wheel of the car for him, and the two said goodbye. Why did he not manually give Aviel the remote control during the meeting, the defendant did not know how to inform the court, except for the claim that Aviel asked for the car in the evening and "perhaps because of my custom" to leave car keys on the rear wheel. The defendant claimed that the street was networked with cameras and that if they had made an effort, they would have been able to locate the meeting with Aviel on that day, despite the fact that his version of the encounter was given for the first time about half a year after the date of the aforementioned meeting.
According to the defendant's version, he told Aviel Dadoun that if there was any problem he would contact him, and left him his phone number, which he wrote on a "chance note" (p. 4225, s. 8), that is, a lottery form of the National Lottery, which he had in his pocket, although he did not explain why Aviel did not "save" the defendant's phone number directly on his mobile phone. So it is easy to check (by penetrating Aviel's phone) that the phone number is indeed saved, while the chances of denying or confirming the 'chance note' version are slim. According to the defendant, he was in possession of a telephone at the time. This is a "kosher" phone with a sticker on the back with the number written on it. When asked if he remembered the number, he replied, "If I don't turn the phone over and copy the number, I can't know what the number is. [...] Only when I turn the phone over can I read the number." Despite the fact that it was claimed that the defendant did not have a telephone, and despite the fact that we heard from a large number of witnesses that the defendant did not have a telephone, which makes it very difficult to obtain it, and despite the fact that various witnesses said that he took a telephone from them in order to make a call or calls (Divrei Osher Vaknin, 7 December 2023, p. 3216 ff., Divrei Smadar Aharon, 13 December 2023, p. 3330 ff., Divrei Yitzhak Turgeman, 14 December 2023, p. 3469 ff., words of Yehudit Levkovich, pp. 3480 ff., 25 January 2024, words of Karin Levin, pp. 3644 ff.), and despite the fact that his ex-wife Sigal said in her statement to the police that as far as she has known for years that the defendant and their children do not have a phone and that it is not possible to keep in touch with him (P/508A, p. 19, s. 6, pp. 15, s. 36-37), and despite the fact that none of his associates could and could not contact him, The defendant claimed that he actually had a "kosher" mobile phone, one that could only receive calls and not take them out, and therefore he had to use the phones of others, sometimes unknown people, to make calls. As you may recall, the "kosher" version of the phone was conquered and unlikely joined by Emil Rafalov. Either way, of all those close to the defendant, according to him, only Aviel Dadoun received the "kosher" phone number, so that he could call him, if necessary, and if something happened to the Chevrolet.