The defense argued that the statements of the present witness were also not based on evidence, but rather on rumors and reasoning, and that his statement that the deceased had seen the said e-mail message sent to him by the witness should not be accepted. It was argued that the witness made it clear that he had never been threatened by the defendant, and in fact, his statements also prove that this was a normal civil dispute, in which the defendant might have had the upper hand. Yosef Mendel's version does not establish the conduct of a violent conflict between the defendant and the deceased, and it certainly does not establish a motive for the murder.
It was further claimed that the appeal to Torah law was initiated by Yosef Mandel and Moshe Einhorn, and the denial of this indicates, inter alia, the unreliability of their testimonies.
The defendant's son-in-law, Eyal Tsafrir, who was registered as a prosecution witness and summoned as a defense witness (December 11, 2024, p. 4664 ff.), also addressed the issue of the defendant's activity in the compound, when it was clarified that in his interrogation he said that about a week before he was murdered, the deceased told him that the defendant had posted a sign in the compound even though he was not allowed to do so. The deceased even told him that the defendant was taking over areas in the compound, although the witness himself did not know anything about it personally.
Attorney Alan Asheret , who represented the defendant in some of the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, said (December 21, 2023, p. 3497 ff.) that in light of a dispute regarding the ownership of the land, the need arose to file a claim for a declaration of ownership in the District Court. The defendant did as he advised, although not on his behalf, but the heirs asked to litigate in Torah law, and the lawsuit was dismissed. In the end, the heirs did not agree to this, Yosef Mandel refused to litigate, Moshe Einhorn refused to come, but at the same time the defendant was charged with expenses in favor of the deceased for the dismissal of the claim, ILS 15,000 to be paid, and ILS 5,000 in case he requested to renew the proceeding (p. 3509). Then, after he did not appear for the hearing, the defendant "received a verdict, this judgment was a declaratory judgment that all the land he purchased, when he repayed, in the entire complex, all the purchases are erased, null and void, and here is an order for taxation, to refund him all the taxes he paid, purchase taxes and so on, they erase everything." According to Attorney Asheret, the verdict was "simply a disaster," although it was handed down after the defendant's arrest. According to his version, the defendant was not even aware that a lawsuit had been filed against him in the District Court, after which the judgment in the Supreme Court was annulled, subject to the payment of expenses (paid) in the sum of ILS 30,000.