Counsel for the defendant argued and reiterated in their summaries that the investigation sought to serve a single narrative according to which the defendant was the murderer of the deceased, but how can one complain about this, when attorney Charlie Sabag, who allegedly heard an exculpatory version from his client, consciously chose to remain silent and encrypt it? The defense sought to accept the words of Attorney Charlie Sabag as reliable, but no weight can be given to his words. As stated, he represented the defendant during the interrogation, he represented the defendant in a lengthy hearing before us, on May 20, 2021, and announced the termination of representation only on September 12, 2021. Attorney Charlie Sabag's remarks regarding the alibi claim and the claim of the other owner of the Chevrolet car are also suppressed, without giving a reasonable or concrete explanation for their suppression.
In our view, the defendant chose to apply prima facie guilt to a young man who passed away in a car accident a few months before the version was delivered, and about a month after the alleged murder, although it was possible to bring up his name already in the initial interrogation and to accept his version from him (which can be assumed that there was a denying version). Aviel Dadon's version, from beginning to end, sounded absurd in all its lines (leaving a car for Aviel's use, leaving the car key/remote control on the rear wheel, his anonymous friend who returned the car to the defendant in Meron, not checking whether Aviel had a RN and we learned from his father that he did not have a RNA, not checking whether the car is insured and if the policy allows Aviel to drive the car, not checking whether the vehicle passed the licensing test, not to mention his limited acquaintance with Aviel himself).
The defense argued that even when Aviel Dadon's version was given, even when the investigative unit realized that she had to seize his mobile phone, this was done only on the face of it, ignoring the possibility that Aviel had additional phones ("operational", as more than one phone was examined in the possession of the defendant's son). Let us reiterate that the defense's arguments against the interrogator who accompanied the interrogator Sharon Lanciano to the seizure of Aviel's phone, according to which he adhered to the investigative tendency that the defendant's version was false and therefore his words were not properly examined and willingly, were not in place (testimony of Alex Shatzman, starting at p. 160). The same is true of the allegations of non-implementation of the seizure order and the sufficiency of locating one mobile phone of Aviel Dadon, while ignoring the possibility of the existence of another (operational) phone, just as two phones belonging to the defendant's son were located. All this, since it was the defendant himself who created the complication that gave rise to the late trace of the mobile phone of a young man who was no longer alive, and even in court no explanation was given for the suppression of the version in its entirety, certainly not a reasonable explanation.