The defendant claimed in response that according to the evidence, Eddy planned and carried out the theft of the weapons from the military base exclusively without the involvement of the defendant or his son.
The response also stated that the defendant did not know Shadi and had never had any connection with him or anyone else to commit any offense as described in the indictment.
In her opening remarks before the hearing of the evidence, the accused's counsel detailed the facts from the general part of the indictment and added details of the stolen weapons, and that an examination carried out by a forensic agent found a fingerprint on the inside of one of the stock exchange caps, metal boxes containing ammunition, which were inside the bunker, and a fingerprint that was deciphered to belong to Shadi, who had no legal access to this bunker.
The defendant's attorney announced that the dates of the theft were controversial and added, "The fact that ammunition was stolen from the bunker is not in dispute. In fact, there is no dispute about everything my colleague said, except for the dates of the theft." (Pro. March 19, 2017, p. 39, paras. 4-6) and added that there is also no dispute about the dates of the inventory counting of the ammunition, the date of the company's stay at the site and the fingerprint, and that the dispute is about the date of the actual theft.
In the rest of the indictment, the defendant is a ransom, and especially against determinations that he and/or his son were involved in the theft process.
In a written response, it was stated that the defendant did not have an alibi claim because he did not know the exact date of the offense even after reviewing all the evidence.
At the hearing, the defendant's counsel was asked whether the defendant had an alibi claim regarding the date written in the indictment, and he replied that it did not exist, and that he would give a clear answer in writing.
Such a written answer was not submitted, and at the subsequent hearing, after being asked, counsel for the defendant replied, "With regard to clarification to the alibi claim that I said I would deliver, I would like to declare that according to the defendant he was not at the Beit Kama junction on April 29, 2016. At no point that day was the defendant at the Beit Kama junction." (p. 27.2.17, p. 32, paras. 18-19). In this regard, the defendant's counsel added : "Our claim that the defendant was not at home was established on the day that is written in the indictment, April 29, 2016. The defendant cannot indicate where he was that day. The defendant will not point to a specific place he was in that day, he does not remember." (Prov. March 19, 2017, p. 37, paras. 13-15).