In our humble opinion, the "Aviel Dadon version" as a whole, beyond being a suppressed version, is a false, false, delusional, and particularly sad version of fabrics. Indeed, Attorney Charlie Sabag, who represented the defendant during the interrogation, claimed (December 2, 2024, p. 4521 ff.) that already at the interrogation stage, he heard from the defendant that he had given the car to another person, and that he was in Meron at the relevant time. However, contrary to all logic, the lawyer did not bother to recommend that the defendant raise this during the interrogation, but rather advised him to remain silent. Attorney Charlie Sabag did not raise the argument during the hearings that dealt with the extension of the defendant's detention for the purposes of interrogation ("days" detention), and even during the first hearing in the case itself (May 20, 2021), he did not argue before us any alibi claim, nor did he even mention or hint at the existence of this claim, contrary to other weighty claims that he saw fit to make. Attorney Charlie Sabag said that on the day of the hearing before us, he already knew that he would not continue to represent the defendant, but we were not persuaded that there was any impediment to arguing briefly that the defendant's basic claim was an alibi claim ("I would have been in a different place"), and that the Chevrolet car mentioned in the indictment (which was used by the deceased's murderers) was not in the defendant's possession at the time of the murder.
Attorney Charlie Sabag did not even teach us how he religiously kept to himself a version that could lead to the acquittal of his client and his release from detention, already at the interrogation stage. He believed, he testified, that the investigating unit acted in a tendentious manner against the defendant, and therefore reserved his arguments for the main proceeding. At the same time, he explained that he did not intend to represent the defendant in the main proceeding, both because of the nature of the offense attributed to the defendant and because of the great distance from his office.