The defense attorneys noted that the claim that the defendant invaded a plot that was not his in the dispute compound was refuted. There was also ample evidence that the defendant's rights in the compound were legitimate; Evidence was also brought that showed the manner in which the defendant acquired the rights in the compound in the form of testimonies of various witnesses who backed up the same evidence. No dispute arose between the defendant and the deceased, and certainly the proceedings that were conducted did not establish a motive for the murder.
It was emphasized, contrary to the accuser's claim, that there is one central direct evidence embodied in the version of Ruthie Arnon, the eyewitness to the murder. She consistently and in detail described the perpetrators of the murder as "young." This description cannot in any way reconcile with the age of the defendant, who was born in 1957. According to the defense, this evidence refutes the theory conceived by the accuser. In this context, it was claimed that incriminating evidence from the scene of the murder was concealed, first and foremost the body camera of the patrol officer (Ofir Baum), who arrived at the scene first. This camera documented the interrogation of Ruthie Arnon, in which she repeatedly repeated her statement that the perpetrators of the murder were young men. The body camera footage was exposed at a later stage of the proceeding, due to the court's intervention, and this disclosure illustrates, according to the claim, the desire to deny the defense and the court access to critical acquittal evidence.
It was argued that it was not proven at all that the deceased's murderers got out of the Chevrolet and returned to it, since their route was not fully documented and there are branches in it. It was argued that the main evidence in the form of the Chevrolet's travel route, which was prepared in accordance with the data received from Ituran, is inadmissible and full of failures.
It was also claimed that a defective chain of exhibits was presented with regard to blood and genetic profiles. Thus, while many police officers were not careful about the sterility of the scene and may have caused secondary transmission of genetic profiles found on the shoes. It was also argued that a genetic profile found on one of the coats does not link the defendant to them, since, contrary to what was claimed at the beginning of the proceeding, no blood was found on the coats that were found.