Caselaw

Serious Crimes Case (Nazareth) 22205-06-23 State of Israel v. Dennis Mukin - part 41

December 24, 2025
Print

"Interrogated, Dennis Mukin: and threatens me with murder.  No, God forbid, but from the moment he gets up and I recognize that he is going to come back to me and kill me, I had to neutralize him! I was sure he was going to come back to murder me if I knew the man was going to die a second.

            Interrogator, Gil Alon: You're talking about the you're going to die that you added in the second interrogation

            Interrogee, Dennis Mukin: No, he doesn't add anything there, all the details that were there are

            Interrogator, Gil Alon: No, not bad, you told me in the first interrogation that he told you that you were going to die

            Interrogee, Dennis Mukin: I may not have remembered to tell you that

            Interrogator, Gil Alon: You didn't say that either, you added it after you consulted with a lawyer for the second time in the second interrogation

            Interrogee, Dennis Mukin: No, I said from the beginning that he threatened me that he yelled at me

            Interrogator: Sameh Harb: No, after ten days you said that

Interrogator, Gil Alon: You said that after the second interrogation that you want to add and say that when he ran he also shouted at you you're going to die now now it's the first upgrade now suddenly everything turned 180 degrees on you You shoot him at close range you shoot him at close range He's already finished and when he flees for his life after being shot twice, including in the heart and left lung, it's also enough to tell you three seconds before he dies, collapses and dies.

            Interrogator, Sameh Harb: You will die

            Interrogator, Gil Alon: Wait, you're dead

            Interrogator, Dennis Mukin: That's right."

Thus, on the one hand, the defendant claimed that he did not remember to provide this important detail to the investigators, and on the other hand, he claimed that he had said this from the very beginning of his interrogation.

  1. In his testimony in court, the defendant also made contradictory claims in this context. In his main testimony, the defendant explained that after his first interrogation and after the reconstruction, he slowly recalled additional details from the incident, and therefore in his second interrogation he sought to be precise in the details and to give the correct sequence of events.  However, on the other hand, he said that he remembered this detail from the beginning and thought that he had mentioned it to the interrogators.  Thus, at p. 545 of Prut, paras. 4 onwards:

"The defendant, Mr. D.  Mukin :  All sorts of events that happened during this whole event, even here in the reenactment I didn't remember that the car was driving at all, I thought it came to me and there were two struggles on the floor and he went back and forth again, in fact I remembered all the details of the incident better and I told him the incident in the things I remembered about the shooting in the air that happened, two clusters of gunfire in the air, basically the whole event what happened.

Previous part1...4041
42...67Next part