It is evident that only the result of the will, which was not to the liking of the opponents, led to the raising of their claims that they were retroactive conclusions without a solid factual basis for the claims.
The objector herself testified that her claims regarding the plaintiff's influence or threats against the deceased are her own hypothesis and even noted that "... She didn't want to show fear, apparently she wanted to change, maybe I was just imagining it now" (p. 64, 2-6 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022), and later when she was asked to be precise whether the deceased's fear that the plaintiff would not be in contact with her was within the scope of the threat of return, "I don't know" (p. 64, paras. 26-30 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022).
The objector in fact did not present a clear version regarding the plaintiff's influence on the deceased in order to make the will and testified that she did not know how the will was made with the plaintiff "... The fact is that if she was silent all the time, it was already planned..." (p. 67, paras. 3-9 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022).
In a parenthetical article, it should be noted that the will was drafted in 2005, about 15 years before the deceased's death, and before the deceased's son passed away and at a stage when it was evident that the deceased was relatively independent in her daily functioning (she walked to visit her sons, arrived at the notary's house on Shabbat alone on foot, etc.). In their affidavits and in their testimony, the objectors raise general arguments without specifying dates and dates, so that in any case their arguments do not relate to the date of the drafting of the will, which is the relevant date for proving the objection's claims.
To this it should be added that among the deceased son's children, only the objector testified, even though the amended objection was also prima facie filed on behalf of the deceased's two other children. On the face of it, we are dealing with a clear lack of evidence that should be attributed to the obligation of the opponents.