All of the above constitutes conclusive and unequivocal evidence, according to which the two people who were seen getting out of the Chevrolet and returning to it were the two who committed the murder. We establish this fact as proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is in view of the hours in which the Chevrolet arrived at its stop place before the murder, in view of the meager volume of traffic during these hours, in view of the way the two behaved before and after the murder (they ran to the Chevrolet and escaped by means of it), in view of the unusual and unique perfume, and above all, in view of the fact that they entered the yard of the deceased's home about an hour before the murder and left it minutes afterwards.
True, this evidence does not make it possible to determine the identity of the two bear coat wearers; The reason for this lies in the fact that no video was found that could show the passengers in the Chevrolet (testimony of Shai Peleg, February 15, 2023, p. 1952), but it is also possible to know that the defendant owned and drove the Chevrolet car, before and after the murder.
The defense claimed in its summaries that there was room to locate additional security cameras in the vehicle's lane (still on Tishbi Street), and even to examine who its passengers were, but the investigative unit deliberately refrained from doing so. In fact, this is an allegation of the existence of investigative failures that impaired the defendant's ability to defend himself. We are unable to accept this argument. In a reality whereby the streets of cities and the country's roads are strewn with security cameras in almost infinite numbers, it is impossible to demand that the law enforcement authorities "collect" every single camera that may be relevant to the investigation of the incident under investigation. Therefore, in our opinion, a determination that there may have been additional cameras that were not collected and in which evidence may have been found acquitting the defendant cannot be argued in vain and will not assist the defendant in his defense in accepting a defense argument from justice. Only where it is pointed out that this was done in bad faith by the law enforcement agencies (who practiced deliberate "turning a blind eye" to exculpatory evidence) or where it is pointed out that there is a real basis for the claim that the evidence that was not collected could have substantially proved, to prove the defendant's innocence, will the argument be accepted.