I asked the subject what he thought bothered us the most,
The subject replied that the files of the UAVs and the explosives.
I told Lendon that he was right.
I asked the subject what he received from Tamer,
The defendant said that about two months ago, Tamer sent him a file in this regard, but he does not remember exactly what its content was."
Similarly, from his interrogation with the police by Officer Haim, he already remembered the wording of the statement (which he claimed, he did not remember, according to Aya, during his interrogation).
The defendant also had opportunities before other interrogators to add or subtract from his words regarding the significance in general and in his own eyes of the "ba'iya" that he made to the leader of the terrorist organization, a different appeal, the depths of which he is well versed in light of many years of surveillance and obsessive consumption of its contents. The defendant did not do so, and for good reason.
- In contrast to the coherent and authentic testimony of Aya from the Shin Bet and the police, who left a reliable impression, the defendant left a bad impression. I have no faith in the defendant who oscillates between contradictory versions and answers that were usually clever and evasive, whether in a complete denial of his actions detailed in the indictment, or at the stage when he admitted to committing them but sought to paint them in shades of "laughter" (the use of ISIS terms and slang); with mere "curiosity" and/or accidental pressure – until his explicit confession that he made a statement at the time of his cross-examination.
The changes and the defendant's sharp transition between the versions continued to deepen the negative impression of him and his manipulative conduct, which was intended to allow him to move between contradictory claims and versions, to the point that it seems that the aforementioned argument – according to which in his testimony in court he changed his words during interrogation by the ISA and the police, in view of the fact that he was not given an opportunity to explain and elaborate on the meaning of the expression – is intended to justify the defense's sweeping abandonment, his denial of the facts of the indictment, and the arguments he raised in his response to the indictment and his testimony in court. which will come later in its oral and written summaries.
- The totality of the evidence, first and foremost the defendant's confessions to the ISA and the police, along with the agreed upon additional evidentiary basis, meet the required tests and clearly show that the defendant's confessions in all of his interrogations were made from his mouth and of his own free will.
The evidentiary basis, which is no longer in dispute, is well founded and clearly proves the defendant's extreme obsession with the ideological, ideological and terrorist activity of the terrorist organization ISIS.