Regarding the visit to the site, which was documented by Attorney Moran Vaknin, he testified that following her conduct against him, he sent a message to the Bar Association, although the defendant was not necessarily aware of it. In any event, the defendant did not riot during that visit, and the argument was actually between him and the defendant. The defendant was well acquainted with the relevant documents but was not a partner in the drafting of the pleadings. The deceased argued against every document that was submitted that we were dealing with a forged document (p. 3529, paras. 13 ff.). However, despite the disputes, things were done in a dignified manner and the legal battle was a "bending of hands" between him and the deceased. According to him, Adv. Moran Vaknin's statements about the defendant's behavior and conduct in the hearings are incorrect, especially since she was not present at some of them. If harsh words are written about him, it is because she waited for the end of the discussion and "scolded" him (p. 3549, s. 37).
The defense believes that the witness's statements are true and reliable, and that they accurately reflect what happened during the trial proceedings. The witness was summoned as a prosecution witness (according to the prosecution - in violation of the rules of attorney-client confidentiality), and the defendant's counsel was prevented from contacting him prior to his testimony. Either way, his words proved the defense's arguments, and his version supported these claims. The defense was furious at the accuser's request to split his statements (which were given during the interrogation) because he made credible and reliable statements that described the situation well, contradicted the alleged state of mind, and made it clear that the defendant was not violent, did not behave in an inflammatory manner, and in fact the witness was the one who cried out at one of the hearings, and not the defendant who was present but remained calm and peaceful.