Caselaw

Serious Crimes Case (Beer Sheva) 63357-03-18 State of Israel – F.M.D. V. Assaf Masoud Suissa - part 39

February 15, 2021
Print

Later, defendant 2 came to him and they sat talking and smoked, and the deceased sent a message that he would arrive in about half an hour; defendant 2 suggested that they should not meet in the apartment but in a neutral place, and he told him that there was no need, since the deceased would only take the money and leave.  When the deceased arrived, defendant 2 again offered to meet in a more neutral place and said "that way you will also see where you will meet me that I will want to get organized", they asked where there was a corner, and he himself suggested that they go to the enemies, where defendant 2 could also go by bus.  They were traveling in the deceased's car, with the deceased driving and they were sitting in the back (ibid. 33-39).

To the question of whether he had brought a sock with him from the house, into which he had put a stone and which he used to beat the deceased, defendant 1 replied in the negative; and when he was told that the interrogation material showed that he had hit the deceased in the head with a sock that contained a stone, he replied, "I did not hit him with any sock, I remember beating him with my hands and with stones that I had in my hands, but beyond that I did not come with anything from the house" (ibid., at paras. 74-79).  When asked who planned the murder, he replied, "Not that we sat down and planned it, it was just [Defendant 2] gave him a blow, he fell, I believe that [Defendant 2]  didn't really want to murder him either, but only to hit him twice and it continued like that."  To the question of why, according to him, defendant 2 said that they would not come with telephones, he replied, "According to what he told me, he did not want there to be wiretapping or eavesdropping on us" (ibid., at paras. 84-87).

Later on, defendant 1 confirmed that the drugs he had handed over were the drugs of the deceased, and to the question of whether they murdered him only because of the drugs, he answered in the affirmative (ibid., at paras. 93-96).  Asked if Defendant 2 intended to pay the deceased for the drugs, he replied, "I thought at first yes, but now I'm not sure...  Because he wanted me to change clothes before the murder, he told me to change clothes for just something because we're just sitting like that, after that before [the deceased] arrived, he told me to leave the phones, I asked him why he said wiretapping, so I told him don't worry, we're meeting with him anyway, you give him the money, and peace be upon Israel, no one will meet with each other.  So he simply repeated that they could know where we were and what we had done" (ibid. 97-103).

Previous part1...3839
40...202Next part