The defendant was shown a video showing the face of the suspect in the shooting, as he removed his helmet and smoked a cigarette (P/58). The defendant confirmed that he did indeed smoke cigarettes, confirmed that he was familiar with the photographed place and that he used to walk around it, but denied that he was the one who was seen in the video (pp. 567-568 of Prut). When the defendant was told that Officer Adana Allin, who serves as the NCO of the Ethiopian community in his neighborhood, had identified him in the video, the defendant replied that Officer Adana was lying by saying that he knew him, and that he had never seen Officer Adana (pp. 572-573 of Prut).
The defendant confirmed that when the police arrested him, near the warehouse in his residential building, he was in possession of the keys to the warehouse and of his apartment (pp. 577-578 of Prut). The defendant confirmed that he returned home on a bicycle, which he stored in a warehouse. The defendant confirmed that he locked the warehouse and began to climb the stairs next to the warehouse (p. 579 of Prut). The defendant confirmed that the police took the keys from him and opened the warehouse to conduct a search. When the defendant was told that in the action report prepared by Policeman Emanuel Aviv (P/12) it was noted that during the search of the warehouse, the defendant pointed to the bicycle, the helmet and the bag as belonging to him, the defendant claimed that he had not been asked by the policeman at all and did not say what was attributed to him (p. 580 of Prut). He went on to note that this was a warehouse that was used by many people and had a lot of bicycles, bags and helmets (p. 582 of Prut).
The defendant stated that in the morning he worked in the installation of cages for recycling cartons until noon, and afterwards worked as a Walt courier (p. 576 of Prut). The defendant stated that he was in possession of a knife for the purpose of opening cartons (p. 577 of the protégé). The defendant stated in his testimony that since more than a year had passed, he did not remember where he was on the day of the incident (p. 593 of the protégé). Later, he stated that he had returned home from Bat Yam after working there in deliveries (p. 594 of the protégé). However, later in his testimony, the defendant changed his version and claimed that from the morning hours of the day of the incident until he was documented, he returned home and changed his clothes, from black clothes to orange pants, worked in the recycling shop, and after changing his clothes he worked as a courier (p. 602 of Prut). In the re-examination, he stated that on the day of the incident in question, he apparently returned from his work installing the recycling bins and began to make the deliveries (p. 622 of the protégé).