With regard to the interrogation that was carried out after the defendant gave his version, there were indeed flaws in it, Aviel's girlfriend was not interrogated, even though Shimon Dadoun raised a claim that his son was in his girlfriend's company, even though he testified that his son had many girlfriends (see: P/251), the possibility that the son Aviel had additional (operational) phones in addition to the phone that was seized and dismantled was not examined, nor was the claim of Eyal Tsafrir (the deceased's son-in-law) who was the "neighbor" who cut the tires of the deceased's car (22 February 2023). Testimony of Shai Peleg, p. 2123, testimony of Eyal Tsafrir, December 11, 2024, p. 4607), it was even possible to ask Ruthie Arnon, the wife of the deceased, if she could identify the stabbers, and at least whether they wore hats on their heads at the time of the stabbings, and what their dimensions were (height, width, etc.).
Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the aforesaid, none of this leads to the basis of the defendant's version. Nor do we believe that as a result of the aforesaid omissions, the defendant's defense was impaired or he was subjected to a miscarriage of justice. The defendant, as stated, was entitled to raise the name of Aviel Dadon from the outset as being related to the Chevrolet car that is the subject of the indictment, but he decided and consciously chose not to do so, apparently because he knew that this version was not sufficiently substantiated. The version was given in a suppressed manner after we understand that the evidence was mainly revealed to the defendant, and after the death of Aviel Dadoun in a car accident. The suppression of the version was therefore not justified, and certainly unreasonable. In this context, the statements of those who represented them at the interrogation stage (December 2, 2024, pp. 4521 onwards) were extremely puzzling and difficult to understand, to say the least.
Beyond all this, our own impression of the defendant while he was giving his version before us was completely negative. It was clear that the defendant was sowing a factual fog that could not be examined and examined at all, so that he could later claim that not enough was done to examine and dispel that factual fog. In fact, the defense's arguments are speculative, and they do not at all substantiate the existence of an alternative scenario to the clear and unequivocal circumstantial scenario that has been proven by the numerous and high-quality incriminating evidence.