Beyond the defendant's confessions, A.'s statementsA. 7, Officer Shadi Bashir, together with the additional objective evidence, including the location of the defendant's phone, data from Highway 6 about his travel, and photographs from the scene (although it cannot be said that the defendant himself witnessed them), all of these unequivocally link the defendant and his son to the entire affair. As a whole, the incident itself, the unraveling and theft, the defendant's presence in Beit Kama, his involvement, and some of it, are all corroborated by many external evidences, including documentation about guard times, vehicles entering and exiting the base, phone locations that were performed on the phones of Shadi, the defendant and his son. Security footage from the Beit Kama area where the weapons were transferred to the defendant's vehicle in his presence - all of these constitute objective evidence, some direct and some circumstantial, which supports Shadi's statements, and some of them also constitute direct evidence of the defendant's presence at the relevant scene at the time of the transfer of the weapons.
All of these will be detailed below.
In the face of the solid and clear evidence brought by the accuser, the defendant testified and in his testimony denied his involvement in the incident, and what was attributed to him in the indictment. The defendant's testimony is unreliable, tendentious, and is riddled with internal contradictions, contradictions against what he said in his statements, including in the framework of P/172, and contradictions in the face of external evidence and external testimonies.
Beyond the aforesaid contradictions, the direct impression of his testimony is that of an unreliable testimony, entirely tendentious and an attempt to evade the significance of his being part of the perpetrators. The testimony of the defendant is not one that can be trusted, and it is not one that can be determined on the basis of a finding.
The defendant's version also lacks internal logic, and the attempts to ask him to resolve the illogic in his version did not lead him to explain it. Thus, it is not clear how the defendant says that he will bring the stolen weapons, while on the other hand he claims that he knows nothing about its whereabouts.