We therefore found no justification for disqualifying the data lists received from Ituran and we did not find any justified reason not to give most of them full weight.
The same is true of the products produced from the many security cameras that were disassembled and copied.
In this context, the defense claimed that the computer investigators who dismantled the security cameras had performed negligent, undocumented and unreproducible work. They avoided unpacking the most essential security cameras, and in many cases a few or only cameras were unpacked from a file of cameras that were located in a single compound. No discharge ranges were recorded, no device types were specified, and no validation trail remained. The original material was erased, memoranda were written retroactively, and their wording is exactly the same as other memoranda written by several people. In many cases, the owners of the cameras did not give legal consent to unpacking at all, but rather it was a surrender to authoritative pressure.
We found no substance in the defense's arguments; we determine that the actions of the investigators who focused on examining the cameras and copying their products were carried out professionally and in complete good faith, and in no way was anything done deliberately, with the intention of incriminating the defendant and deliberately ignoring other possibilities. We were persuaded that the search was for the Chevrolet vehicle that was seen on the security cameras, a vehicle that at the time of "taking down the cameras" was not connected to the defendant at all. Indeed, the material copied by the investigators was "trampled over" and cannot be recovered; Hence, the rule of best evidence seems to be flawed. However, in view of the amount of material that was copied, it was difficult to "store" all of it. After it was burned and transferred to a different media, there was no choice but to "run over" it in the original device in which it was kept.
It was even correct for the owners of the various cameras to sign the website and at the time of taking the digital media from the cameras in their possession on consent forms, and to explain to them their full rights, but none of them expressed any objection, and in their testimony before us, none of them claimed that they would have refrained from cooperating when asked to do so. Investigator Fouad Fares explained (7 December 2022, p. 1474, para. 27 onwards) that the cameras were "taken" (copied) with consent, but their owners signed forms retroactively. The owners were notified of their rights in this regard in real time, although they were not given the full details included in the consent forms. Certainly, this does not cause the invalidation of evidence where the entire process is done in good faith. We should regret this and learn lessons, but we have not heard from anyone that the security camera footage in his possession was copied in blatant violation of the law.