Serious Crimes Case (Beersheba) 20142-08-19 State of Israel v. Ibrahim Shehain - part 4

Counsel for the accuser regarding the preparation of the means for the commission of the murder and afterwards - in the continuation of their summaries, counsel for the accuser referred to the evidence relating to the bringing of the Mazda vehicle (in which the murder was later committed) by Muhammad and defendants 1 and 2 from the Occupied Territories to Israel, and it was argued that the evidence regarding the preparation of the means to carry out the murder by defendants 1 and 2 without providing a satisfactory explanation for those means, constitutes independent evidence of the defendants' part in planning the murder.  That it was carried out.  In addition, it was claimed that from the communications emissions that were submitted, it emerged that when Defendant 1 and his accomplice Muhammad were driving south for the purpose of committing the murder, Defendant 1 and Muhammad left their "legitimate" mobile phones in the city of Lod, beginning on the evening of 16 June 2019.  This is according to the respondent's counsel, in order to create a false representation that they are in Lod and not a girl.  According to the accuser's counsel, the phones of defendant 1 and Muhammad were in Lod together the entire time, from the evening before the murder until shortly afterwards, and this fact testifies to their attempt to disguise their activity on the dates described.  In this context, counsel for the accuser claimed that in his testimony in court, defendant 1 "twisted" in his answers, while replying that he had "forgotten the phone" and that it was a routine thing for him to forget his phone.  In addition, it was claimed that another statistic that emerges from the evidence and is consistent with the aforementioned media outputs is the documentation of the murder vehicle on the cameras of the Ein Hanetz editorial board as it drove south from Lod to the south on June 16, 2019.  Counsel for the accuser argued that it was proven that the said Mazda vehicle was the one that was used to track the deceased's vehicle until the murder was committed.  It was claimed that the vehicle entered Israeli territory from Judea and Samaria on 14 June 2019 at 23:41, and this was documented by the Fig Checkpoint cameras, and by the Hawk's Eye cameras.  At the same time, the vehicle was driving from the Fitanim crossing in the direction of Lod, and on 16 June 2019, the day before the murder, it was traveling south.  On June 17, 2019, the day of the murder, the vehicle was documented by the cameras of the village of Hura, while it was driving following the deceased's car until the murder.  With regard to the burning of a Mazda car after the murder was committed, the accuser's counsel argued that there is documentation of the exact coordinating point at which the vehicle was located after it was burned.  It was also claimed that the escape of the footage of Ituran from the vehicle of Defendant 2 showed that the waiting for Defendant 1 and Muhammad was at the point of the said fire.  Counsel for the accuser argued that the distance between the place of murder of the girl and the point of the fire is about 5.5 kilometers, according to the maps.  In addition, it was detailed that, in Muhammad's conversation with the informant, Muhammad said that the car had been burned.  Defendants 2-3 admitted that they had waited at this point, and noted that this was done under Muhammad's instructions.  Counsel for the accuser argued that given this evidence, regarding the location of the murder vehicle, the defendants' denial of any involvement in its arson shows that they sought to escape prosecution for their actions.  Counsel for the accuser argued with regard to the preparation of defendant 2's car as an escape vehicle for the city of Lod, that the defendants' plan was that after the murder and the burning of the Mazda car, they would all flee in defendant 2's car, from the point of the fire to the city of Lod.  According to him, this plan was also carried out, as emerged from the statements of the incriminating partner Muhammad to the informant, from the data of the Ituran company, and from the testimonies of the defendants and Mohammed, even though according to their version (in which they contradict each other), the basis of that escape was an alleged drug deal.  Counsel for the accuser claimed in the summaries that after arriving in Lod, Muhammad and Defendant 1 tried to create a false alibi, by taking the said mobile phones, and arriving at the "Yoseftal-Lod" gas station, where Muhammad photographed himself using his "legitimate" phone while presenting a triple finger to the camera.  It was claimed that in the footage of the gas station's security cameras, defendant 1 and Muhammad are seen entering the gas station in a Toyota car, at 9:33 p.m., more than an hour after the murder.  It was noted that later, after he was arrested and interrogated, and it turned out that his attempt to create the alibi was unsuccessful, Muhammad expressed his great frustration with the informant for his failure to produce the "alibi".