I do not find this circumstantial evidence to contribute in any real way to the understanding of the extent of the defendant's role in the affair, and indeed the defendant's unreliable testimony also in relation to his acquaintance with A.A. 43 And its failure to reconcile with the telephone data raises question marks, we are still a long way from drawing unequivocal conclusions regarding the proximity between them in relation to the incident of theft, and I do not find it necessary to give weight to this.
On April 16, 2016, the defendant and his son Ido drove to the Beit Kama junction
- II"The accuser raised an argument according to which the defendant and his son had planned in advance the supposed meeting at Beit Kama, And for this purpose, they met on the spot ahead of time on the 16.4.2016 In the evening. The defendant himself did not rule out the incident and notes that at the time he dropped his son to the scene (Bull' 8.5.2017 pp' 348 Shaw' 26-32) Later on, he was asked about the presence of other vehicles suspected of involvement in the affair, And he notes that this is apparently a case of (pp' 350 Shaw' 16-17), He stayed there for about 2 hours since he wasn't feeling well (pp' 135 Shaw' 25-27).
Although these are suspicious findings, and even though here too the defendant's testimony was not credible, there is no circumstantial evidence that can lead to a conclusion regarding a real connection to the incident that is the subject of the indictment, which took place on 29 April 2017.
I do not find it necessary to give weight to the data regarding the defendant's arrival and the meeting on April 16, 2016, since this is not a finding at a factual and substantive level close enough to enable us to reach a conclusion, not even to strengthen a conclusion.
Tying a knot
- Although I haven't found it at the event since 16.4.2016 as evidence to prove or strengthen the offense of conspiracy as claimed by"10 B"20 The Accuser, The rest of the evidentiary findings lead to a conclusion regarding conspiracy, A conclusion that derives directly from the totality of the aforementioned events.
The clear conclusion that arises from the schedule of the entire incident, which includes great precision and coordination between various parties, including the defendant, as well as with regard to the defendant's part in loading the weapons onto the vehicle, is that the defendant was a partner and part of the planning and execution of the break-in, the theft, and the possession and transportation of the weapon.