Attorney Arnon Savyon testified (December 29, 2024) that he did not intend to file the lawsuit immediately, contrary to the defendant's version, according to which he told him that he intended to file it immediately before the holiday, and therefore it was necessary to pay him on March 24, 2021.
We are not convinced that this was the case, it seems that the defendant used attorney Arnon Savyon in order to establish a reason and excuse for his stay at the place as a routine and innocent matter, not many hours after the murder was committed. It should also be recalled that Attorney Arnon Savyon claimed that he contacted the defendant by phone, but did not provide the court with any document attesting to the defendant's details as provided by the firm. In practice, it should be recalled that the lawsuit he took the trouble to file was filed only in July 2021. We will also add that Adv. Arnon Savyon did not know how to answer the question of when the meeting in question with the defendant was scheduled, who arranged it, and whether there is documentation of it (pp. 4682-4684). Nor could he say why a meeting was scheduled for the payment of an advance on that day, given that the claim was filed three months later.
We will admit the truth, we did not find a shred of truth in the defendant's fantastic version that cannot be confirmed or verified, that does not conform to the line of logic and common sense, which is not convincing and unreliable, and whose entire purpose was to deceive us while trying to find an explanation for the myriad of circumstantial evidence that was formulated against him. We emphasize that we are dealing with a suppressed version that weighs low from the outset in the absence of a reasonable explanation for its suppression. The defendant's explanations were not only unreasonable, but also false, since it was also possible to raise the version, even in the smallest part of the investigation stage and before the indictment was filed, so that it could have been examined whether it had an evidentiary basis, even a minimal basis. The defendant deliberately refrained from bringing it up, and published it, in a nutshell, only after about half a year, and for good reason. Of all those involved in his puzzling and bizarre version, the defendant remembered the full details of one and only person, Aviel Dadon, for whom the defendant left the Chevrolet license plate on the rear wheel. However, Aviel Dadoun was killed in a car accident a few months before the version was delivered, and thus the defendant could have blamed him for using the Chevrolet car used by the murderers, and in the colloquial language, "drop the case on him." Shai Peleg, the investigating officer, called this act a despicable act, we will not use this term, but we will make it clear that we did not believe the defendant's words, all of whom came to try to extricate him from the evidentiary entanglement he had to deal with. He chose to do so after examining the evidence, using a suppressed, unverifiable version that involves a person who passed away and whose details were known, as well as other people who have all remained unknown and disappear.