The Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Criminal Appeal 7567/22 Zagori v. State of Israel (January 5, 2025) and held:
"In the face of the body of evidence that incriminates and complicates the appellant from all sides, stands in isolation his suppressed version, which, apart from its absurdity in itself and the fact that it is inconsistent with the totality of the evidence, its weight has been eroded to the point of thinness. This is because, alongside the appellant's unconvincing explanations for suppressing his version, it fulfills the concerns that are inherent in a suppressed version (Yaakov Kedmi on the Evidence, Part 1 501 (2009)). Although the appellant confirmed most of the events of the evening, he was careful to distance himself from his involvement in the murder of the deceased and the shooting in the alley, in a manner that shows that his version was "well tailored" to the extent of the evidence for his duty. The claim that after the murder, he drove as planned to his friend's house - [...], was raised only at a "convenient" stage for him, since his friend [...] had been murdered in the meantime, so that it was not possible to verify the matter with him.
Against the background of what has been said so far, it is clear that the significant body of evidence for the appellant's obligation, which was compiled and formulated from the first moment of the investigation into the murder of the deceased, also takes the sting of his other arguments regarding a "tendential" investigation that was ostensibly intended to "incriminate" him. Therefore, there is also no concern that any alleged investigative failures or investigative directions that were not examined, deprived him of his defense or cast reasonable doubt on his guilt (Criminal Appeal 9284/17 Horesh v. State of Israel, para. 13 (March 5, 2020))."
The defendant's place of residence and its evidentiary significance
The defendant testified that he rented a housing unit at 28 Hatishbi Street, where he lived at the time of the incident.