Eliran Sabag identified the defendant arriving on March 21, 2021 in the evening (around 6:00 P.M.) and independently opening the gate of the lot, meeting him (Eliran), getting into the Chevrolet and driving off.
In contrast to Eliran Sabag's reliable version, which there was no reason to doubt, and which was backed up by security camera footage, the defendant testified that although he had taken the Chevrolet car in the past for a "test drive", on March 21, 2021, the day the car was received, the person who handed over the car to him was not Eliran at all, but a worker working at the site. He also stood stubborn, repeating his words over and over again, that the car park was closed at an earlier hour (16:00 or 17:00), and therefore later, he claimed, on March 24, 2021, Murfi Abdeev asked to drive the Chevrolet to the parking lot before it closed.
We will briefly note at this stage that the defendant ignored the fact that he himself took the Chevrolet car from the lot at a later hour, meaning that if he wanted to, Vargas could have returned the car at a later hour than the one to which he had directed Rafi Abdeyev, but for some reason he chose not to do so.
The obvious conclusion from the defendant's action is that he had an interest, on the one hand, to take the Chevrolet and make use of it, and on the other hand, not to appear to be in possession of the vehicle during March 24, 2021, the day of the murder, after the deceased was murdered.
During the investigation, it became clear that the Chevrolet had an Ituran system installed.
With regard to the movements of the Chevrolet vehicle, representatives of Ituran (Engineer Yaakov Suet, 14 June 2023, pp. 2607 ff. (P/450), and Security Officer Leonardo Lanchevsky, pp. 2630 ff., 15 June 2023, pp. 2664 ff., supplementary committees, 11 February 2024, p. 3700 ff.).
It was reported that at the time of the incident, no malfunction was reported that could present incorrect data or not present it at all. It turned out that the data was stored in the company's database even after the customer was disconnected from the system, even if without payment or regular monitoring of the vehicle's location. In this context, Leonardo Lenchevsky initially contradicted the words of Yaakov Suet (p. 2640), but it is not impossible that he was not aware that the data continued to reach the Ituran systems and be preserved. An inquiry conducted by Leonardo Lanchevsky revealed that the data continued to be hoarded, even though the vehicle was reported as "disconnected", and on this he prepared another document (P/506) and was called to complete his testimony.