The case law held that in light of the difficulty inherent in tracing the intricacies of a person's soul, it is possible to use the "presumption of intention", according to which a person means, as a rule, the natural consequences arising from his actions. When we are dealing with the offense of murder, the presumption of intention is the assumption that the person who caused the death of a person by an act, which by its nature is intended to cause a fatal result, also carried in his heart the intention to cause this natural result...
Over the years, the rulings of this court have formulated auxiliary tests, which, in the absence of any other satisfactory explanation, can establish or strengthen, the assumption that the defendant intended to kill his victim. Among other things, it is the manner in which the killing was carried out; the means used to carry it out; at the location of the victim's injury; and the number of injuries to him...".
And in Criminal Appeal 2550/15 Shafa v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (April 7, 2017), it was held in this regard:
"The psychological element of 'intention first' includes, as is well known, three elements: a decision to kill, preparation, and the absence of a cantor... With regard to the decision to kill, it is necessary to show the expectation of the occurrence of the fatal result and the desire or aspiration that this result will be realized... In our case law, the "presumption of intent" has taken root, which is a factual presumption that can be contradicted, according to which it can be assumed that a person intended results that arise naturally and with a high probability of his actions... Drawing a conclusion as to the existence of a decision to kill is learned from the totality of the circumstances of the incident, and in its definition it is possible to give weight to the manner in which the murder was committed, the nature of the injury, the means of murder, or previous statements that were exchanged between the parties...".