In summary, we emphasize that the accuser is not supposed to prove a motive for committing the murder, and the existence of a motive is not one of the elements of the offense. However, we are dealing with significant circumstantial evidence that integrates into the fabric of circumstantial evidence that was laid out in this proceeding.
It should be clarified immediately that we do not intend to make a finding with regard to the factual and legal disputes relating to the rights of the parties in the dispute area. However, the legal dispute that was revealed to us, and the deceased's conduct towards the defendant, contained violent elements and, in an extreme case, could certainly have constituted a basis and motive for committing an act of murder. The defendant was "accused" by the deceased of being an "intruder", trespassing on a plot or plots that were not his own. The defendant claimed that all of his assets in the complex had been obtained lawfully, that he had invested a great deal of effort and money, and that he had worked extensively in order to actually purchase the complex as a whole. On the other hand, the deceased acted with various bodies, and in the courts, in order to "dispossess" these assets.
As described, the defendant, apparently, found it difficult to accept the stubbornness, stubbornness and meticulousness of the deceased, who did not show fear and fear, in contrast (for example) to Nissim Abu Hatsira. The defendant was also accustomed, it seems, to be represented as "responsible" for what happened in the compound, and to "help" to resolve disputes between the various business owners. On the other hand, the deceased acted to carry out enforcement actions and orders that had been issued in the past, through the local planning and building committee (see: testimony of Dubi Karniel, December 13, 2023, p. 3346). The deceased even summoned the police to the compound when he believed that the defendant was interfering with his activities. Moving on to this, the defendant is seen (in the video) agitating and behaving towards the deceased in a loud and aggressive manner. The deceased refused to accept the defendant's conduct, and according to what was stated in the court documents, he was determined to allegedly dispossess of some of his assets, assets that the defendant claimed he owned or lawfully held, by virtue of various evidence he presented. It also appears that it is not for nothing that the defendant bothered to instruct Moshe not to accept mail on his behalf (p. 3621).