It should be noted that the visit in question took place in 2019 and the witness documented parts of it using her mobile phone camera (P/20A and P/214A). Among other things, she documented a number of conversations between the defendant and the deceased (some of which could not be clearly heard due to background noise. A transcript of the videos was submitted on behalf of the accuser - P/266, but it was also noted in the transcript that in some of the videos it was not possible to hear what was said in the conversation), the reactions of the defendant and his attorney who also arrived at the scene, as well as the statements of the police officers who arrived at the scene.
Viewing the videos revealed that in at least one of them, the defendant is seen shouting at the deceased and becoming angry, while not allowing the deceased to enter a building in the compound, and as a result, the deceased appears to be summoning the police to the scene. Another video shows what happened after the police arrived, but the name of the person who was angry was the defendant's lawyer, who frowned at the very fact of the photo and told the defendant not to cooperate because of it.
The next day, another visit was made to the site, during which the deceased and the witness entered the warehouse, and the witness documented on her mobile phone camera (P/139A), inter alia, the new wall that was allegedly built by the defendant illegally, during an invasion of Plot 50.
According to the witness's approach and reasoning, the deceased was "like a bone in the throat" for the defendant. He bothered him, because "everyone is afraid of him." The only one who was not afraid of the defendant was the deceased, and the multitude of proceedings made it difficult for the defendant, as did the fact that the deceased took the trouble to photograph the dispute compound using a drone. As to the defendant's attitude toward the deceased, she said (p. 2952, para. 27 ff.) that the defendant responded, "[...] He took it in a very harsh way, he was bothered by the fact that suddenly some very energetic lawyer came to the case and bothered him, the business owners there were all afraid of him, the only one who wasn't afraid of him was Attorney Arnon, all the business owners came to pay at the office, they came and took their cases back and said they didn't want us to represent them, when we tried to understand why we understood." She also said (p. 3099), "Surely one of them told us that he didn't want him to do anything bad to him that he was afraid of, that he didn't want him to do anything bad to him." Later on (p. 3100) it was mentioned that we are dealing with Hananya Piso, although his statements to the witness are not admissible as evidence of the truth of their contents.