The defendant's explanations were immersed in extreme lies, unfounded inventions, and false versions. The defendant's false explanations constitute real support and reinforcement for the circumstantial evidence, and they did not give rise to any doubt as to the evidence that he was obliged to do, all of which led to a single conclusion that the defendant was the one who murdered the deceased together with another person.
Ruling, for example, in Criminal Appeal 2960/14 Hazan v. State of Israel (January 18, 2017):
"[...] As is well known, the absence of direct evidence does not necessarily lead to the acquittal of a defendant, and the court is authorized to convict a defendant of criminal offenses on the basis of circumstantial evidence only - insofar as it is sufficient to lead to the conclusion that his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As is well known, circumstantial evidence does not directly prove the facts that need to be proven, but its uniqueness lies in the fact that it serves to draw a conclusion regarding the possibility of the existence of these facts - based on logical principles, life experience, and common sense; And the main strength of the circumstantial evidence lies in its overall weight and its joining into a single fabric [...] Over the years, a framework for examining circumstantial evidence by means of a three-stage examination has taken root in case law, which has long been discussed by my colleague Justice N. Sohlberg in Criminal Appeal 6392/13 State of Israel v. Krief (January 21, 2015) (hereinafter: the Krief case), on which the appellant relied, inter alia, in his arguments before us. In the first stage, the court must examine each circumstantial evidence on its own and determine whether it is sufficient to establish a particular factual finding, while assessing its strength and reliability. In the second stage, the court is required to look at the entire evidentiary fabric and examine whether it is capable of complicating the defendant so that the natural conclusion that derives from the matter is that he committed the offenses attributed to him, according to life experience, logic and common sense. In the third stage, the burden is shifted to the defendant's shoulders in order for him to propose a logical alternative explanation that is consistent with the evidentiary fabric; An explanation that is capable of "undermining the element of logical inference from the circumstantial evidence to the incriminating conclusion" (Krief, para. 101; see also Criminal Appeal 3669/14 Golan v. State of Israel, at para. 14 (December 18, 2016)). It should be emphasized that the aforesaid does not change the basic rule according to which the burden of proving the defendant's guilt rests on the state: