According to Moran Vaknin, when the murder became known, she immediately suspected that the defendant was involved in the act, even if she did not tell it in her many interrogations. She also did not say that she had spoken by phone with a police officer who was at the scene, but wrote text messages about her suspicions, and later sent them to the investigator (except that this was an opinion testimony that was inadmissible as evidence).
The defense devoted a significant part of its summaries to undermining the testimony of Adv. Moran Vaknin, whose statements, according to the claim, were detached from reality, false, biased, tendentious and were not supported at all by the evidence. The witness, it was claimed, supported the theory presented by the accuser, and in the course of her long testimony the flaws in that theory were exposed: it became clear that the defendant was not angry with the deceased at all, and certainly did not act violently towards him, and that the defendant was entitled to assume that he would have the upper hand in the various court proceedings, since his claims were supported by documents. It was claimed that the witness was suspicious of other people, but in court she took the trouble to incriminate the defendant only, and the incrimination trend that came from her mouth was based solely on rumors, half-truths, gossip, and reasoning. She even changed her words time and time again when she was hurled with evidence that contradicted her words.
Moshe Einhorn (November 23, 2023, pp. 3179 ff.; November 26, 2023, p. 3151 ff.) inherited the property from his father about two decades ago, and when he knew the defendant and the deceased, he allegedly anticipated that the confrontation would lead to disaster, and even warned the deceased about it. His father received the property from the municipality and sold part of it to the defendant. The property accumulated various debts, some of which were sold to Nissim Abu Hatzira, and other parts were sold to David Shitrit and Hananya Piso. In 2001, the father sold part of the property to the deceased, who purchased it in trust for Rafi Dahan. The defendant was interested in purchasing additional parts of the property and "courted" the witness. At first he offered a price that did not cover the debts, later on, "in 2019", the defendant "pulled out a sale agreement document that in 2011 we sold the lot to him, of course on what basis his claim was in 2009 [...] We gave a power of attorney to a man named Dvir Amar, and with the power of attorney based on this power of attorney, he bought the lot from him." According to the witness's version, a certain power of attorney was indeed given to a man named Dvir Amar, in view of the debts that arose on the property, and he was "supposed to put things in order, his father was the chairman of the religious council, a person with the ability to move matters to settle matters." The power of attorney was given under the supervision of Adv. Shai Yativ, with the aim that Dvir Amar would act to remove the debts from the property and prepare it for sale. Dvir Amar was known to the defendant, his father was the head of the religious council, and his services were hired in order to settle the debts that were lying on the property and prepare it for sale. The defendant is not satisfied with the fact that the additional plots may be sold on the open market and not sold to him (p. 3168, paras. 13-14). In any event, according to the irrevocable power of attorney received by Dvir Amar, he could not sell the property without the approval of Moshe and Yosef Mandel (November 26, 2023, p. 3168, s. 12, s. 28-30, p. 3169, s. 2).