In any event, it was argued that the defendant's version should not be accepted as it is unreliable and illogical, beyond being a suppressed version that was given after the evidence collected against him was exposed to him.
With regard to the motive, Attorney Moran Vaknin testified on behalf of the accuser that she worked in the office of the deceased and was a partner in the legal proceedings, proceedings which, according to the accuser, created the motive for the murder of the deceased by the defendant. Additional witnesses also testified in this regard, and many documents were submitted from the court files dealing with the legal dispute.
On the other hand, the defendant presented a version and presented various pieces of evidence and testimonies, the purpose of which is to deal with the set of circumstantial evidence that he is obligated to do, and to offer an alternative and reasonable explanation for that evidence, an explanation that indicates that he was not the person who was involved in the commission of the alleged offenses. In their summaries, counsel for the defendant asked for a complete acquittal. According to them, the evidentiary foundation laid by the accuser completely collapsed.
As for the motive, it was claimed that this was a shaky legal fiction, based on incorrect reasoning and forced and imaginary interpretation. At the basis of the alleged motive was Adv. Moran Vaknin's version, but it provided emotional, subjective testimony, saturated with unanchored reasoning and interpretations in the documents. The cross-examination revealed substantial discrepancies between the theory and the minutes of the hearings and videos she filmed herself. She admitted that the defendant was not an "active actor" in the civil hearings, and that she had never seen him threaten or act violently. Her testimony changed throughout the process, was tainted by the addition of new details in court, after "refreshing her memory." It was claimed that videos she took at the quarrel compound during a joint visit by the deceased and the defendant contradicted her version of events. These do not indicate tension, threats, or violence, and in practice prove the exact opposite. The defendant appeared calm, quiet and peaceful. The videos were filmed about two years before the murder, and there was no significant interaction between the defendant and the deceased afterwards. The minutes of the hearings also constitute objective written evidence, and portray the defendant as someone who hardly speaks at the hearings, does not contain any indication of making threats, harsh statements or verbal violence on his part. In any event, a considerable amount of time passed from the day on which the aforementioned photographic events took place until the day of the murder, and the defendant was not aware of some of the proceedings filed against him.