I will refrain from presenting in detail any alleged evidentiary failure, because no omission can be identified, insofar as it existed, which has the power to substantially change the course of things. Always, in such an investigation, which includes dozens and more actions, from a variety of fields, it is possible, with the wisdom of the fact, to find something that was not done in real time, or could have been done better. Some of those "omissions" - those that can be remedied by action on behalf of the defense (such as - the examination of blood samples that were collected but not examined, the testimony of M.A.'s son) thus lose their "omission" effect altogether, and the question is transferred to the defense, to explain why it did not fill in the gaps.
With regard to other investigative actions, such as those that the defense will find difficult to carry out, due to the passage of time, or for some other reason, these will be defined as an investigative failure, in connection with this line of argument, only when it is a serious and substantial matter, which creates a concern that the defendant's defense will be deprived of it, to the extent that he will find it difficult to deal with the prosecution 's evidence, and to establish his version, which in itself can lead to that reasonable doubt leading to acquittal (see Criminal Appeal 2076/21, Marwan v. MI, of July 30, 2023, and Criminal Appeal 8199/20 Ziadat v. M.I., of April 30, 2023). This condition is examined from a specific and focused perspective - what are the doubts that the defendant claims (Criminal Appeal 9201/18 Gurban v. M.I.P., dated June 8, 2022). The defense cannot point to a prima facie omission whose weight and intensity will be of the aforementioned type.
An examination of the defense attorney's arguments, from this angle, focuses us on the exclusive and decisive line of defense on which the defendant stands - the existence of unknown external persons involved, who harmed the deceased and attacked him as well. There is no claim of self-defense, or an alibi claim - I was not at the scene at all. How could the failures of the investigation, those that cannot be remedied later, have restored this line of defense in light of the high standard - the case law - set for this? My opinion is that there is nothing "dramatic" of this kind in the points raised in the summaries. To illustrate - let's say that security cameras were removed from the area, beyond what was actually done. Was the presence of other people in the neighborhood, even on the specific street, proof that the same passersby entered the house and stabbed the deceased? Obviously not, and given that there is no claim regarding the existence of a camera that directly records the person entering and exiting the door facing the street.