Serious Crimes Case (Nazareth) 22205-06-23 State of Israel v. Dennis Mukin - part 6

The deceased's mother - Mrs. Zohor Omri:

95. See in this context pp. 32-41 of the minutes of the hearing of January 22, 2024.
96. In her testimony, the mother described the harsh consequences of her son's death on her and on the entire family. The mother said that on the day of the incident, after lunch, the deceased took the car keys and told her that he wanted to "go out a little towards the mountain."
97. During her cross-examination, the mother was shown a video filmed with the deceased, during which chants were heard that the deceased was martyred and flags of Palestine, Hamas and the Islamic Movement were raised. The mother confirmed that as far as she was concerned, her son died as a martyr, but explained that she was referring to someone who died through no fault of his own and as a result of discrimination.  According to the mother, she was not familiar with the flags that were raised during the funeral of the deceased and she was not fully aware of what was happening around her because she was in shock.
98. In her cross-examination, the mother stated that the deceased and his family had done business with both Arabs and Jews. She also stated that during his lifetime, the deceased was not identified with the flags and chants heard at his funeral.

Dr. Yariv Kanfi:

99. See in this context pp. 42-48 of the minutes of the hearing of January 22, 2024. The witness is the coordinator of the field of drugs and alcohol in the laboratory of toxicology and clinical pharmacology at Tel Hashomer Hospital.  Through the witness, an opinion P/9, a report of the results of laboratory tests P/13 and additional documents P/10 - P/12 were submitted.
100. As part of his main interrogation, the witness explained the manner in which the laboratory tests were performed. Regarding the results of the test, he explained that DHC is the active ingredient in cannabis, the product of which is broken down in the body is acid. THC.  Concentration of theTHC found in the defendant's blood is 5.7 nanograms per ml.  In this context, he explained that the presence of THC The blood indicates the use of the drug close to the time of taking the blood sample, i.e., a period of a few hours, although this also depends on the subject's consumption habits.  In a chronic user, as opposed to an occasional user, there are background concentrations of THC which is released in the body over time when the use of cannabis is stopped.  The sample taken from the defendant was taken two days after the defendant's arrest, and hence it is apparently a chronic user.  In the witness's assessment, in view of the high concentration found in the defendant two days after the incident, the concentration of theTHC The blood in his blood at the time of the incident was higher, but close to the concentration found in the test.
101. In his cross-examination, the witness confirmed that the strength and concentration of theTHC The substance consumed by the subject, the amount consumed in the last use, as well as the metabolic rate of the subject, have an effect on the test results. The percentage of fat mass in the body has an effect on the storage of fatTHC In the adipose tissues in the body.  These figures are not known to the witness.  Regarding chronic use, the witness noted that the intention is to use it at least four times a week.  The witness clarified that it is difficult to determine the exact time of the subject's last use, although in the present case it is possible to estimate roughly that the defendant consumed cannabis within a few days before the test.

Sgt. Jimmy Sarhan:

102. See in this context pp. 48-50 of the minutes of the hearing of January 22, 2024. The witness is a traffic patrol in the National Traffic Police in the Amakim Unit.  Through the witness, a report was submitted for a drunkenness test using an Owl device P/14.
103. In his testimony, the witness stated that he performed a health check on the owl device at the beginning and end of the shift.  He also stated that the 14-year-old had the result of the breath test that was conducted on the defendant.
104. In his cross-examination, the witness explained that the defendant did not receive a report for drunk driving because he was not caught driving. The witness performed a drunkenness test on the defendant because he was asked to do so.  The defendant was not subjected to a characteristics test because he was not arrested by the witness.  The witness noted that if he had smelled alcohol from the defendant, he would have stated it in the memo.  However, he emphasized that the owl device is more accurate than a test of characteristics, or from the witness's impression of the defendant.  The witness confirmed that the examination was conducted for the defendant at 21:08 and that he did not know the concentration of alcohol in the defendant three hours earlier.

Sergeant Bashir Shahin:

105. See in this context pp. 56-59 of the minutes of the hearing of June 30, 2024. The witness served during the relevant period in the Minorities and Homicide Division in the District Attorney's Office.  The witness submitted CDs containing documentation of the search of the deceased's car (P/23) and the defendant's car (P/25), as well as memoranda prepared by the witness P/41 - P/45.
106. In his cross-examination, the witness explained that he had conducted the searches of the deceased's car and the defendant's car on May 15, 2023, at the direction of the State Attorney's Office, or on the instructions of the head of the department. At the time of the search, the vehicles were in the parking lot of the Afula police station.  The witness noted that this is a closed parking lot with an entrance for police officers, but it is possible that there is access to civilians as well.  He does not know whether there are cameras in the parking lot.  The witness could not say when the deceased's car arrived at the parking lot.  He also concluded that the car was not locked, since a view of the search disc shows that he did not use the key to open the car.
107. In his re-examination, the witness clarified that he was not aware of the procedures regarding the entry of civilians into the parking lot of the station.

Sgt. Gil Alon:

108. In this context, see pp. 59-118 of the minutes of the hearing of June 30, 2024, pp. 161-173 of the minutes of the hearing of July 1, 2024, and pp. 297-359 of the minutes of the hearing of July 10, 2024.  The witness is an investigator in the Homicide Division of the Northern District Attorney's Office.  In this case, the witness was among the leading investigators in the case.  Through the witness, the defendant's interrogation dated May 6, 2023 (P/2, disc P/2A, transcript P/2B), a reconstruction conducted with the defendant on May 7, 2023 (P/3 disc, transcript P/3A, transport report and voting P/3B), and the defendant's interrogation dated June 6, 2023 (P/7, disc P/7A, transcript P/7B).  Orders were also submitted to Ituran (P/89), Viewing Report P/90 and Memorandum P/91.
109. In his testimony, the witness described the circumstances of the defendant's first interrogation. In this context, he explained that the interrogation was carried out at the Tavor station, which is adjacent to the Afula station, due to photography and recording constraints.  Investigator Hezi Ziv, whom the witness inaugurated at the time, was present at the interrogation.  At a certain point, the head of the division, Uzi Abutbul, also entered the interrogation and replaced the witness in the interrogation for a few minutes.  The witness noted that during the interrogation the defendant was upset and used unacceptable expressions.
110. The witness said that at the beginning of the interrogation, and based on the video of the incident, the investigators believed that it was a struggle, at the end of which the defendant got up and shot the deceased while the deceased was fleeing from him. This was also consistent with Dr. Kotik's initial opinion that the bullets hit the deceased from behind.  However, as the investigation progressed and delved into the video, it became clear to the witness that during the struggle on the ground, a shot was heard and there was a kind of recoiling of the deceased.  In light of this, the witness asked Dr. Kotik for a re-examination, and after consulting with other experts at the Institute, Dr. Kotik reached the conclusion that the injuries were in the front and not in the back, as detailed in his final opinion.  The witness explained that the initial explanation that the injuries were in the back was based both on the defendant's interrogation and on the reconstruction he performed.  In this context, he detailed that the defendant said in his interrogation that he fired in the air and also shot the deceased as he ran to the car.  The witness further stated that in the defendant's last interrogation, he slammed the defendant for the first time, because there was an opinion that he shot the deceased from the front and not from behind.  The defendant reacted immediately, because he may have been shot for the first time.
111. In his cross-examination, the witness confirmed that Kristina's statement was the first statement taken in the course of the interrogation. The witness stated that he did not know much about Kristina's involvement in the incident prior to her interrogation, beyond the fact that she arrived at the scene with the defendant after the incident.  During the collection of her statement, she said that she told the policewoman at the scene that she had driven the car and then regretted it, and therefore, her further interrogation was conducted under warning.  The witness clarified that it was clear that Kristina was not involved in the incident itself, in light of the video of the incident.  The witness emphasized that this was a complex incident, accompanied by disturbances of the peace, and therefore many details were not clear at that stage.
112. It was argued before the witness that while Kristina stated that the defendant told her that the deceased had overtaken him on the road, the defendant claimed that the deceased had not overtaken him. The witness did not recall whether he confronted the defendant, or Kristina, with this issue as part of their interrogations.  However, he explained that in an attempt to find a logical scenario for the circumstances that led to the incident, the defendant was asked to explain and demonstrate the conduct of the defendant and the deceased during their travel.  The witness clarified that there was no objective evidence of exactly what happened, but in the end, it was the deceased who stopped on the side of the road while the defendant stood with his car on the road.  Therefore, he does not accept as a fait accompli the scenario provided by the defendant for what happened on the road.  Based on the investigative actions that were carried out, it is not possible to determine whether the defendant's version that the deceased suddenly accelerated and braked while driving is correct.  The witness was referred to the fact that this data could have been extracted from the Ituran report.  In this context, he replied that nothing can be learned from this, because the data can also be reconciled with the opposite scenario, according to which the defendant was the one who accelerated and braked before the deceased.  Hence, even then, it was not possible to determine whether the deceased drove before the defendant, or vice versa.
113. The witness was referred to the fact that in her statement, Kristina said that the defendant told her that after he struggled with the deceased on the floor, he fired again in the air and then shot the deceased, which is inconsistent with what is seen in the video of the incident. In this context, it was argued before the witness that this was consistent with the defendant's version in his first interrogation.  The witness replied that Kristina was not a witness to the incident, but rather told what she heard from the defendant himself after the incident.  As for the defendant, the witness described that in his first interrogation he was wearing a torn shirt, scratches on his body and a smell of alcohol.  The witness rejected the claim that the defendant appeared exhausted following the struggle with the deceased, beyond the fact that it was natural for him to be tired under these circumstances.  The witness confirmed that at the very beginning of his first interrogation, the defendant said that the deceased had assaulted him and that he felt threatened and defended himself from the deceased.
114. It was argued before the witness that the defendant's version in all his interrogations was that the only shot he fired at the deceased was when he moved away from his car after the struggle on the ground. The witness replied that this was his version in his first interrogation.  The witness confirmed that the defendant claimed in his interrogation that the deceased got out of his car first and that the eyewitness testimonies did not indicate which of the two got out of the car first.  He also confirmed that he did not accept the defendant's version that he shot the deceased in the back because he feared that the deceased would take a weapon out of his car.  In this context, he also noted that nothing was found in the deceased's car, except his phone.  The witness clarified that the deceased's vehicle was examined by a forensic examiner at the scene and no weapons were found in it.  The witness was referred to the fact that the footage indicates that other people were present at the scene.  The witness replied that he did not recognize them, but that he could not answer as to the actions that were taken to summon witnesses.  He also noted that following the disturbances, many people had arrived at the scene.
115. The witness was referred to the fact that, according to the defendant, he was asked questions by another police officer, before his first interrogation and before consulting with an attorney. The witness replied that he did not know what questions were addressed to the defendant in this framework.  He also explained that he believed that this was an examiner who had spoken with the defendant for the purpose of performing an alcohol breathalyzer test.  Later on, it turned out that the policeman was the head of the homicide division, who had drawn up a memorandum regarding his conversation with the defendant.  The witness noted that the defendant did not maintain his right to remain silent and already at the scene he told the police that he had fired two bullets at the deceased.  In addition, the defendant was warned about his rights already in the field and consulted at length with lawyers prior to his first interrogation.  The witness stated that when he arrived at the station, the defendant was there in the presence of police officers from the station, who did not speak to the defendant.
116. The witness confirmed that in his first interrogation, the defendant claimed that he did not shoot the deceased at point-blank range, but only when he moved away from him after the struggle on the ground.  He also confirmed that the defendant claimed that during the struggle with the deceased he did not feel threatened, but only that the deceased ran to his car, because the defendant was afraid that he would take out a weapon.  The witness clarified that he asked the defendant whether he shot the deceased during the struggle on the floor, because the exact stage at which the defendant fired is important, and yes, because it is clear from the fact that the gun was empty of ammunition that there was another shot.  The witness confirmed that in the reconstruction that was carried out with the defendant, the defendant corrected his statement and added details regarding the events, beyond what he had given in his first interrogation.  However, the detail that remains consistent in the defendant's version is that the shooting was fired at the deceased only at the stage when he moved away from his car and was on his back to the defendant.
117. Following his cross-examination at the hearing on 1 July 2024, the witness stated that he did not know how the video of the incident filmed by Tomer Haimovich reached the media. According to the witness, he does not recall that the matter was investigated.  The witness confirmed that the working assumption at the beginning of the investigation was that the shooting that caused the death of the deceased was shot in the back at the last stage of the incident.  The witness was referred to the fact that in the MDA report it was noted that the entry wound was in the chest and the exit wound was in the back.  In this context, the witness replied that the report was written by a paramedic who lacked proper training to determine this, and that Dr. Kotik, who is a forensic doctor, initially determined the opposite.  After going back and delving into the video of the incident, he realized that there had probably been shooting from the front, during the struggle on the floor, so he turned to Dr. Kotik to have it re-examined.  The witness noted that in the video the sound of gunfire was heard during the struggle and it appeared that the deceased was reluctant.  A few days later, Dr. Kotik spoke to him and told him that after another examination at the institute, they had come to the conclusion that the shooting had been in front.  However, at this stage, Dr. Kotik's final opinion has not yet been received.
118. Later in his cross-examination at the hearing on July 10, 2024, the witness confirmed that there was nothing that could contradict the defendant's version that at the stage when the deceased returned to his car, was moving to the ground for a struggle, the defendant shouted at him to drive away and that he did not want to hurt him. However, he noted that the defendant's conduct later in the incident was inconsistent with this, and that the video showed that the deceased tried to close the door of his car and the defendant was hit by the car door.  The witness confirmed that the video does not show with which hand the deceased tried to close the car door and what his sitting position was in the car.  Thus, it is not possible to contradict the defendant's argument that the deceased sat with half of his body inside the vehicle and half of his body outside the vehicle.  It was argued before the witness that if the deceased had wanted to leave the scene at this stage, he could have done so, but instead he jumped out of the car and attacked the defendant.  In this context, the witness replied that the defendant fired near the deceased's head and that there were a number of possible scenarios for what happened there at that moment, whether the deceased got out of the car himself or whether the defendant pulled him out.  The witness clarified that in any event, there is no factual dispute that the deceased got out of the vehicle at that stage.  He also noted that as part of the investigation, various scenarios were examined and ruled out.  At the end of the day, during the defendant's interrogations, he was presented with the most logical scenario based on the findings on the ground.
119.  The witness was asked exactly where the defendant's hands were at the time of the shooting, which can be heard in the video during the struggle on the floor.  The witness replied that for this purpose it was necessary to analyze the video together with the sound.  He also noted in this context that naturally in videos of this type, there is no perfect synchronization between the image and the sound due to the distance.  The witness was told that the video showed that at a certain point during the struggle, the deceased held both hands in the defendant's right hand, which was holding the gun.  The witness replied, after watching the video, that it was not possible to determine with certainty.  The witness explained that the Glock pistol, which the defendant used, had to be stepped on in order to shoot.  When stepping, a ball enters the swallowing chamber and the trigger moves forward.  When firing, the trigger moves backwards.  For further firing, an action must be performed in order to pull the trigger back forward again and press it backwards again in order to fire again.  The witness noted that the defendant's pistol did not have an enhancement installed that would allow for easier pressing fire.  The witness was asked whether in a situation in which the defendant and the deceased are struggling on the floor, a situation can arise in which when the defendant held his finger on the trigger, sufficient pressure was created for the purpose of shooting.  The witness replied that there was difficulty in examining this.
120. The witness was told that after the defendant was accused of shooting the deceased during the struggle on the floor, the defendant replied that the bullets may have been fired from the gun and wanted to demonstrate how, but the witness prevented him from doing so. The witness replied that according to the defendant's version, he did not even know that bullets were fired from the gun during the struggle and therefore he saw no point in the demonstration in this context, since it would be based on speculation only.  It was presented to the witness that during the defendant's interrogation, the witness claimed to him that two shots were heard in the video during the struggle on the floor and that the deceased grabbed the defendant's hands only after he was shot for the first time.  The witness clarified that he heard only one shot in the video, and that it is possible that in the heat of the interrogation he said things that implied otherwise.  He also clarified that he meant that at the time the shot was heard, it appeared in the video that the defendant's hand was free and the deceased was not holding it.  If the defendant's claim that the deceased grabbed his hand is correct, it was after the deceased had already been shot by the defendant for the first time.  The witness noted that in the video it appears that the deceased's hand is being extended towards the defendant, but it is not possible to determine whether he actually grabbed the defendant's hand.
121. According to the witness, the defendant zigzagged between two versions in his third interrogation. The first was that two bullets were fired from the gun on the floor, which is consistent with the defendant's statement to the policeman at the scene that he fired in the air until he should have fired two bullets at the deceased.  The second was that he fired three bullets at the deceased from behind as he moved away to his car, but told the policeman at the scene that he had fired only two so as not to be portrayed as a murderer.  The witness confirmed that he had accused the defendant in his third interrogation that he had told the police officer at the scene that he had fired two bullets at the deceased, because, according to him, the defendant knew that he had fired two bullets at the deceased during the struggle on the floor, but later changed his version.
122. The witness was asked why the defendant's girlfriend was not brought for interrogation again after the results of the unloading of the defendant's phone were received, including the messages exchanged between her and the defendant. The witness replied that he saw no point in bringing her back for interrogation in light of the fact that she suffers from many personal problems, as well as in light of the fact that the messages between the two speak for themselves.

Dr. Andrei Kotik:

123. See in this context pp. 122-131 of the minutes of the hearing of July 1, 2024. The witness is a doctor at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Abu Kabir.  The witness submitted a document regarding preliminary findings from the deceased's examination (P/81), a letter of clarification regarding the autopsy of the deceased's body (P/82), an expert opinion (P/83) and a photo disc (P/141).

124. In his testimony, the witness explained that his initial opinion, which contained preliminary findings, was erroneous in terms of the direction of the shooting, when the bullet entry wounds described were in the back. However, after a second thought and consultation with his colleagues, the witness came to the conclusion that the bullet entered the front and the exit wound in the back, as stated in his final opinion.  The witness noted that in writing the initial opinion he was under the influence of the video of the incident, which caused cognitive bias.  The witness explained that around the bullet entry wounds there were clear secondary gunshot marks, such as blackening, burning, and spot abrasions that could settle with gunpowder grains.  He also noted that he could assess that it was a shooting at close range.  In this context, he clarified that the range was less than one meter, although he could not determine whether it was a few centimeters or tens of millimeters.  It also depends on the type of ammunition, the type of gunpowder, the length of the barrel, and more.  The witness emphasized that the assessment in this context was inaccurate and that a forensic estimate could have been made more accurately.
125. The witness stated that it is possible that a person will hurt his heart and be able to run the distance that the deceased ran to his car. In this context, he explained that there is evidence in the medical literature that even after a fatal heart injury, a person is still able to perform massive actions such as running dozens of meters, since there is still a blood supply to the brain from the previous heartbeat.  The witness further explained that in some cases it is difficult to distinguish between an entry wound and an exit wound, which led to his error in his initial findings.  For example, in a case where the subject is leaning on a hot surface, then a supported bullet exit wound is created, similar to an entry wound.  The witness explained that in the present case there are quite unequivocal findings that distinguish between an entry wound and an exit wound, as stated, which support his final conclusion.  Among these findings, the witness described blackening around the wound, tiny abrasion marks caused by the entry of gunpowder and peeling of the skin.
126. In his cross-examination, the witness confirmed that due to the cognitive bias caused to him as a result of watching the video of the incident, he ignored signs that he would not have ignored otherwise. He also stated that he could not know how much time had elapsed between the first bullet and the second bullet, although it could be determined that it was about the same firing range, since the two hits were similar in terms of the secondary gunshot marks.  However, he clarified that the angles of entry of the two bullets and the passages of the bullets in the body were different, since the bullets were fired during a struggle.  This is also consistent with the fact that the body position of the deceased when he was hit by the first bullet was different from the position of his body when he was hit by the second bullet.  The witness denied that he had found defensive wounds on the deceased's body.
127. In his cross-examination, the witness clarified that the fact that the directions of the bullet in the body of the deceased differ between the two bullets can be caused by both a change in the deceased's body position and a change in the body position of the shooter. However, although the defendant and the deceased were moving, the distance between the shooting and the entry wound did not change dramatically.  He also noted that if the deceased's shirt had been seized, it would have been possible to reach more accurate findings through forensic examinations.  In the context of the fact that no defensive wounds were found on the deceased, the witness explained that only abrasions were found that had settled with a fall or friction with the road.  However, even if there were a few scratches on the deceased's body, it would not have been possible to determine that these were defensive wounds.

Sgt. Ali Abd al-Hadi:

128. In this context, see pp. 132-161 of the minutes of the hearing of July 1, 2024. The witness is a shift leader at the Afula station.  Through the witness, body camera footage P/16, an arrest report P/133 and an action report P/134 were submitted.
129. In his testimony, the witness described the events at the relevant time of the incident. He explained that at around 6:00 P.M., a report was received of a shooting incident at the entrance to Gan Ner.  The reports stated that a blond man shot another man with a gun and that there was documentation of the incident.  The witness arrived at the scene of the incident and joined one of the informants who showed him the video.  The deceased was on the road at the entrance to the settlement, next to a white Toyota jeep.  The witness noticed that there were cartridges in the area and also noticed a laser with a gun aimed at it.  The community's chief of security arrived and reported to the witness that the suspect in the shooting was among the convoy of vehicles.  The suspect answered the description in the video and was therefore arrested by the witness.  According to the witness, at most ten minutes passed from the moment he received the report of the incident until he arrived at the scene.  The witness noted that MDA personnel were above the body of the deceased and it was clear that attempts were made to resuscitate him.
130. The witness further stated that the defendant was next to his car, which, according to his recollection, was a small dark Mitsubishi car. The defendant had bruises on his upper body and was accompanied by his sister.  When he saw the defendant, the witness informed him that he was under arrest, informed him of his rights and removed him from the scene in order to isolate him from other people.  The witness noted that since he was without a camera, he called one of the policemen to come to him with a camera, and from that point on he continued to document what was happening.  The defendant told the witness that the gun was in his car and the witness searched the car, found the gun on the front seat next to the driver, and seized it as exhibited.  The witness stated that the gun was alert and that the magazine was in the insert but empty of bullets.  In light of what appears in the video P/16, the witness explained that at first he thought there was a bullet in the barrel because the trigger was pulled forward, but after he dismantled the weapon it turned out to be empty of bullets.  The gun and the backpacks were seized as exhibits, put by the witness in an envelope and transported to the station.  The witness described that he identified the defendant using an identity card, verified his details and handcuffed him.  He also noted that the defendant was under the supervision of himself or other police officers when he received treatment from MDA.
131. The witness did not recall whether he also searched the deceased's car, or whether there was a search there by another party. In this context, the witness explained that since there were gatherings and disturbances of the peace, there were stages in which he was free to deal with the matter and left the defendant under the supervision of other police officers.  At these stages, the witness had no eye contact with the vehicles of the defendant and the deceased.  However, he stressed that the scene was closed, forensic personnel were present and civilians were not allowed to approach the vehicles.
132. In his cross-examination, the witness explained that he had arrested the defendant on suspicion of murder in light of what was seen in the video and in light of the fact that MDA personnel had reported that the deceased had died. The witness was shown a video of the incident and he pointed to the stage at which the defendant fired at the deceased's back as he moved away from his car, as the stage at which the shooting was carried out, according to him.  The witness was referred to the fact that in his action report it was written that he arrived at the scene about half an hour after receiving the report of the incident.  In this context, the witness explained that he had arrived earlier, but updated the system about his arrival at the scene only after he had been there for a few minutes.  When it was pointed out that there was a discrepancy between what he gave in his testimony and the time indicated in the action report, the witness clarified that he was not precise when he arrived, but that he did not know how to specify the exact time.  He also noted that the body camera footage showed that the filming began 10 minutes after receiving the report of the incident.
133. The witness described that at a certain point, disturbances and gatherings of residents from the village where the deceased lived. The crowd shouted, spoke out against the police, and threw stones in a way that created danger to those around them.  Under these circumstances, and in order to stop the stone-throwing, the witness fired two bullets in the air and even threw a number of stun grenades.  At this time, forensic officers were dealing with the scene, while the Special Patrol Unit arrived to deal with disturbances.  The witness confirmed that at this stage, as in other stages of the incident, he was not in continuous eye contact with the vehicles of the defendant and the deceased.
134. The witness was told that the body camera video showed that when he went down to deal with the disturbances, the defendant remained locked in a patrol car, unsupervised by police officers. In this context, the witness insisted that he did not know whether the defendant was indeed left unsupervised, or whether there was another policeman with him.  The witness was also shown that the video shows unidentified people present at the scene.  The witness could not say who they were, when they arrived at the scene, what they did there, and whether they touched the defendant's or the deceased's vehicles.  The witness noted that MDA personnel may have been in civilian clothes.  He also said that at this point the scene was already closed and that he was working to keep curious people and other people away from the scene.
135. In his cross-examination, the witness clarified that although he was not in continuous eye contact with the vehicles of the defendant and the deceased, this does not imply that the vehicles were not under the supervision of other police officers. He also said, after watching the body camera video, that the defendant was put in a car parked on the left side of the road, which was not the one in which the witness arrived at the scene.

Roy Ben Yitach:

136. See in this context pp. 177-182 of the minutes of the hearing of July 4, 2024. The witness is a paramedic at MDA.  Through the witness, medical documents P/78 were submitted.
137. In his testimony, the witness stated that as a paramedic, he is in charge of the ambulance, manages the team and the order of operations in the incident, constitutes the senior medical authority in the field and is tasked with making medical decisions regarding the sick or injured. Regarding the incident that is the subject of the indictment, he said that at around 6:00 P.M., a report was received of a shooting incident in the Gan Ner area.  As the witness and his team were advancing towards Gan Ner, they received an update that an MDA drive was at the scene and was performing CPR on the injured man.  When they arrived at the scene, the wounded man was unconscious, without a pulse and without breathing, and with two gunshot wounds, in the chest and shoulder.  The witness further described the medical actions performed during the treatment of the deceased, and after they were to no avail, the deceased was evacuated from the scene by ambulance to the hospital in Afula, while continuing to perform CPR.  The witness stated that during the treatment of the deceased, one of them cut off the deceased's shirt so that it would have access to his chest.
138. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not remember whether the shirt remained on his body or was completely removed after they cut off the deceased's shirt. However, he noted that usually in such situations, he does not remove the shirt from the patient completely.  The witness noted that the shirt was cut inside the ambulance.  Hence, even if the shirt was removed from the deceased, it was with him when he was taken out of the ambulance in the emergency room.  The witness clarified that at the time of receiving the report of the incident, they were not given details regarding the nature of the incident, its circumstances and its background.  Thus, they were not informed whether it was a criminal incident, a terror incident, or something else.  According to the witness, the deceased's appearance gave the impression that the bullet wounds were in front.

Raniel Shlomo:

139. See in this context pp. 183-186 of the minutes of the hearing of July 4, 2024. The witness is a resident of Gan Ner.  The witness submitted videos taken by the witness (P/38), a photograph from the camera at the entrance gate to the settlement (P/143), and a drawing drawn up by the witness (P/144).
140. In his testimony, the witness stated that at the time of the incident, he had left his home in Gan Ner in the direction of Afula. When he arrived at the gate of the settlement, a small black car came in front of him that was driving at a very high speed, which the witness described as "unusual."  About 200 meters after the gate, near the turn into the industrial zone, a car was parked and the driver told him not to continue because there were shots.  The witness went back to the village, but regretted it and went back, thinking it might be an attack and someone needed help.  A few meters ahead, the witness saw a man lying next to a white Jeep Land Cruiser and people began to help and help.  The witness noted that there was a child at the scene who shouted that there was an assassination there, that he had seen many of them and that he had filmed everything.  When the witness was standing next to the deceased, someone, apparently the same child, said, "Here he is."  Then the witness saw someone handcuffed, and inside the car he had seen before, which was driving in front of him at high speed, sat a woman who looked terrified and frightened.  The witness denied that he saw assault weapons at the scene.
141. The witness was asked why he initially thought it was an attack and explained that this is the country in which we live and that in their area there is no shooting by clans or criminals. The witness described that the face of the woman sitting in the car was very frightened, and she appeared to be in deep sorrow.  The witness stated that he did not know her.

Sgt. Sameh Harb:

142. See in this context pp. 186-238 of the minutes of the hearing of July 4, 2024. The witness is a police officer in a homicide division.  Through the witness, the defendant's interrogation dated May 16, 2023 (P/6, CD P/6A, transcript P/6B), a CD documenting the examination of the deceased's vehicle (P/34), memoranda (P/32, P/100, P/135, P/137, P/139), and a report on taking identification devices (P/101).
143. In his testimony, the witness stated that the statement of the defendant P/6 was taken by him on the basis of the findings of the investigation and that the notice was given freely and voluntarily.
144. In his cross-examination, the witness was referred to the stage at which the deceased returned to his car after the defendant fired in the air and was asked what prevented the deceased from leaving the scene at that moment. The witness replied that the door of the deceased's car was open and that the defendant was standing by the door of the car, in a way that prevented the deceased from driving.  The witness was asked if an examination had been conducted whether the deceased had tried to call the police at that stage, and the witness replied that it was possible that the deceased's phone had been checked and dismantled, but he himself had not checked it.  The witness claimed that during his interrogation, the defendant was accused that the deceased tried to close the car door, but the defendant prevented him from doing so.  In this context, the witness was asked and replied that he did not measure the distance between the place where the deceased sat in the car, assuming that he sat in the manner described by the defendant, and the handle of the car door.  He also stated that he did not know whether the door was fully open, or not.  The witness was presented with the fact that the defendant said in his interrogation that the deceased did not try to close the door, but that the door was moving due to the deceased's movement in the car, and that if the deceased had closed the door and drift, everything would have been fine.  In this context, the witness replied that the defendant was standing where the car door should be closed.  The witness denied that the deceased's car was taken by the police to the scene in order to put him on a slope and to check whether the movement of a person inside the vehicle led to the closing of the door.  The witness noted that a health check was conducted on the vehicle as well as a technical examination, but no data such as the type of suspension of the vehicle was examined.  The witness emphasized that the deceased sat inside the vehicle and did not move from his seat, and therefore, there was no reason for the movement he made to lead to the movement of the door.
145. The witness confirmed that he had watched the video many times during the course of the police investigation. However, he noted that the detailed observation report was prepared by researcher Gil Alon.  The witness confirmed that according to the defendant's version in his interrogation, he did not shoot the deceased at any stage of the struggle between them because he did not identify a weapon in his hands.  He also confirmed that, according to the defendant's version, he shot the deceased only when he moved away from his car, after the struggle.  The witness clarified that the video of the incident shows that while the defendant was shooting at the deceased, the deceased began to get into his car.  Therefore, he accused the defendant during his interrogation that he had shot the deceased while he was in the car.
146. The witness was referred to the fact that during the defendant's interrogation, the witness told the defendant that during the struggle, he fired in the air, while showing him the video. The witness explained that near the sound of the gunfire heard in the video, the defendant's hand was raised upwards, and therefore, apparently, in the first sightings, it still seemed that the shooting was in the air.  However, in practice, the shooting took place just before the wave of the hand and was not carried out in the air.  The witness clarified that he heard only one shot during the struggle and that he did not know at what point the other bullet that hit the deceased was fired.  The witness confirmed that the video shows that immediately afterwards, the defendant was on his back, his hands raised upwards, and the deceased was kneeling on top of him and holding the right part of the defendant's body.  The witness was asked whether in these circumstances, in which a person is lying in this position holding a gun with his finger on the trigger and someone is pulling his hand, is there enough weight left to allow a bullet to eject from the gun?  The witness replied that he did not have the expertise to answer the question and denied that such an examination had been performed.
147. The witness was also referred to the fact that after the defendant said in his interrogation of June 6, 2023, that he may have been fired two bullets during the struggle with the deceased, the witness asked him to demonstrate this. The witness explained that he wanted the defendant to demonstrate the situation and explain how two bullets could have been fired, while in the video only one shot is heard.  The witness could not say why Gil Alon prevented the defendant from performing the demonstration in the end.  The witness did not know how to explain why the defendant was handcuffed in this interrogation, as opposed to his previous interrogations, and noted in this context that Gil Alon conducted the interrogation.  The witness was referred to the fact that when the defendant was told that, according to the latest opinion, the shooting hit the deceased from the front, the defendant replied that the deceased had approached him with half of his body as he approached his car.  In this context, it was asked whether this was the first time that the defendant had raised this version.  The witness replied that he had not heard this from the defendant beforehand.
148. The witness explained that he had accused the defendant that already at the scene he had told the policeman that he had fired two bullets at the deceased, because this did not fit with the defendant's initial version that he had shot the deceased only from behind when he moved away from him. The witness confirmed that when he said this, he meant that the defendant knew that he had hit the deceased twice and had already said it at the scene immediately after the incident.  The witness was told that he did not ask the defendant in his second interrogation what shooting he meant when he said that he had fired two shots at the deceased, because at that stage the witness still believed that the shooting had been fired from behind.  The witness replied that he did not remember.
149. The witness denied that an examination was conducted to find the deceased's fingerprints on the gun, but he could not explain why this examination was not performed. The witness could not say whether the deceased met anyone in the park in Sandala before continuing on his way and reaching the access road to Gan Ner.  Nor could he say why the deceased returned to the village immediately after leaving the park.  The witness noted that since the video showed the lights of the deceased's car coming on, it was believed that the defendant fired at the vehicle again after firing at the deceased.  The witness elaborated that the defendant claimed that he could not fire because the magazine ran out of ammunition, but the gun distributor did not stop and a live bullet was found in the defendant's car.  The witness was referred to a reenactment that was performed with the defendant and was presented to him, because the defendant stated that he approached the deceased, even though this was a detail that was ostensibly to his detriment and despite the fact that the defendant already knew at this stage that this part of the incident was not documented in the video.  The witness replied that this detail also emerged from the testimonies of the witnesses and that the defendant had changed his version.  It was further argued before the witness that throughout the interrogation it was important for the defendant to be precise in the details, and therefore at certain points he changed and corrected his version.  The witness replied that it was not the full picture.

David Huli:

150. See in this context pp. 241-243 of the minutes of the hearing of July 7, 2024. The witness is an investigator at the Northern District Court.  Through the witness, reports of seizure of exhibits were submitted (P/60, P/61), memoranda (P/62, P/86, P/87), supplementary forms to exhibits (P/84, P/85, P/88).
151. In his cross-examination, the witness confirmed that he had taken the statement of Gaya Levy, Tomer Haimovitz's girlfriend, who filmed the video documenting the incident. In her statement, Gaia said that Tomer had sent the video to the police only.  The witness could not say how, then, the video was leaked to the media.  In this context, he clarified that he did not back up Tomer's statement and that he did not receive the video.
152. The witness was referred to a supplementary form to exhibits P/85 in connection with the pistol seized in the defendant's car. The witness explained that he did not know whether T.A. was found on the gun.  that do not belong to the defendant, because the results of the examination did not reach him, and that questions in this regard should be addressed to the head of the investigation team.

Tomer Haimovitz:

153. See in this context pp. 244-259 of the minutes of the hearing of July 7, 2024. The witness is an eyewitness to the incident, who filmed the incident on his mobile phone camera.  Through the witness, the video was submitted, both in its original version (P/112) and after it underwent various close-ups and tubes (P/27, P/33, P/97).
154. The witness said that at the time of the incident, Gan Ner left the village of Gan Ner in a car with his father, with his father driving and he was sitting next to him. The vehicle driving in front of them stopped and then the incident took place in front of their eyes.  The witness noted that the incident took place about 500 meters after the entrance gate to the settlement of Gan Ner.  He also noted that the vehicle driving in front of them was a white Kia and that it stopped a few meters in front of them.  The Kia began to turn back towards the village, and then the witness and his father saw two people fighting in the middle of the road.  The witness pulled out his mobile phone and began filming what was happening.  The witness further described that there were two other vehicles on the road, a white Land Cruiser and a black Mitsubishi.
155. After refreshing his memory, the witness confirmed that what he had said in his statement to the police regarding what he had seen during the incident was true. The witness denied that he had lied in his statement to the police.  The witness described that he first heard shots when the defendant fired in the air while standing next to the deceased's car.  The witness did not hear gunfire while the defendant and the deceased were on the floor.  Later, while the defendant was standing and the deceased was running, the defendant fired three bullets at the deceased.  The witness stated that, to the best of his recollection, he heard 4-5 shots fired at the business side during the incident.  The distance between him and the defendant and the deceased at the time of the incident was about 30 meters.  The witness stated that he had never heard gunfire before, and that he had not seen any other weapon during the incident, other than the defendant's gun.
156. The witness further described that after the deceased collapsed, the defendant drove towards the settlement of Gan Ner, while the witness and his father pulled over on the side along with other vehicles whose passengers called the police and MDA. The witness himself called MDA.  According to the witness, a policeman named Assaf Cohen arrived at the scene first, who, together with others, tried to provide a first aid to the deceased until MDA arrived.  The witness knew that Assaf was a policeman and therefore passed on the video he had filmed to him.  The witness stated that when he got out of his car, the deceased fluttered and was on the verge of death.  However, the witness did not see any injuries on the deceased's body.  The witness noted that after the incident ended, he filmed another video of several seconds of resuscitation attempts made on the deceased.  The witness clarified that additional videos related to the incident were removed from his mobile phone, which were not filmed by him and were transmitted to him by others.  The witness denied that he had made any editing or change in the video he had given to Assaf.  The witness was referred to the fact that in his conversation with MDA, he said that the deceased had been shot in the back.  In this context, the witness explained that he saw red dots on the deceased's back and therefore concluded that the deceased had been shot in the back.
157. In his cross-examination, the witness was asked whether it was possible that he had said that the deceased had been shot in the back because he had seen the defendant shoot at the deceased while the deceased was running towards his car. The witness denied this and replied that when the deceased was lying on the road, he saw gunshot wounds in his back.  The witness said that he did not know how the video he sent to Assaf was passed on to various WhatsApp and Telegram groups.  The witness noted that the video reached him in this way less than an hour after the incident.  The witness did not remember whether the windows of the car in which they were traveling were open or closed at the time of the incident.  He also confirmed that music was playing on the radio in the car.  The witness denied that he had heard the exchange between the defendant and the deceased.

David Haimovitz:

158. In this context, see pp. 259-270 of the minutes of the hearing of July 7, 2024. The witness is a resident of Gan Ner, the father of the witness Tomer Haimovitz.
159. In his testimony, the witness said that on the time of the incident, at around 5:45 P.M., he and his son Tomer left with the witness's car from the main entrance to the settlement of Gan Ner, in the direction of Afula. The witness was driving the car and his son Tomer was sitting in the passenger seat next to him.  About 200-300 meters after the entrance gate to the settlement, a Kia stopped in front of them, when two people fighting in the middle of the road blocked traffic.  The witness noted that at first he did not understand what it was, but Tomer told him that there was a fight on the road.  At some point, the vehicle in front of them turned back into the community and then they were exposed to the situation in front of them.  On the side of the road stood a white Land Cruiser, and next to it, a little in front of it, stood a small dark car.  The witness described that the two pushed each other, and then the Arab guy returned to the Land Cruiser and sat in the car.  The other guy, the defendant, came up to the guy sitting in the car, leaned over him, pulled out a gun, waved the gun in the air and fired.  The defendant moved away from the car and the Arab guy got out of the car and they continued to struggle.  The witness explained that when the young man was sitting in the car, the defendant stood next to him with the driver's door open, leaned over him as part of his body inside the car, and then pulled a gun from his waist and fired a shot in the air.  The witness did not notice at what stage Tomer began filming the video because he was concentrated on the road.
160. The witness went on to say that after the defendant fired in the air, he moved away from the car and then the young man got out of the car, attacked him, and the two began to fight again on the road. Since the road was on a slope, they both lost their balance and reached the other end of the road, where they fell near the guardrail.  The witness noted that during the struggle, objects fell.  According to the witness, the gun fell out of the defendant's hand and he managed to catch it back.  At that point, the witness heard shots and saw the Arab guy fold.  The Arab guy then ran back to the car and the defendant stood up and shot at him from behind.  The guy sat in the car and fell out of the car on the road face down.  The witness added that Tomer was hysterical and shouted at him to go backwards, but in the end the witness drove forward and passed the defendant.
161. The witness stated that to the best of his recollection, two shots were fired during the struggle on the road. In this context, he stated that he was not sure that he heard the two shots, but that he was certain that there was gunfire because he heard one shot with certainty and because he saw the young man fold after he was shot.  After refreshing his memory, the witness confirmed that while the two were near the railing, the defendant lay down and grabbed his gun, and when he was in a round motion while getting up, he fired in the direction of the other guy.  The witness noted that he had been suffering from undiagnosed hearing problems since his military service.  He added that he may have difficulty hearing in circumstances where the vehicle is closed and there is music on the radio.  The witness described that when the deceased ran towards the car, the defendant fired three shots at him, which the witness saw and heard.  The witness denied that he saw another assault weapon in the incident, in addition to the defendant's gun.  The witness did not hear an exchange between the deceased and the defendant during the incident.
162. The witness described that after the deceased collapsed on the road, the defendant advanced in front of them up the road towards his car. As stated, the witness drove forward and passed the defendant.  The witness stated that he feared that the defendant had fired at them.  The defendant got into his car and fled in the direction of Gan Ner.  The witness stopped and immediately called the police, while Tomer called MDA.  The witness noted that he was well acquainted with the sounds of gunfire, that he had held a pistol for many years, had served in a combat unit and knew how to use a weapon.  The witness denied acquaintance with the defendant and noted that he had the feeling that this was a struggle between criminals.
163. In his cross-examination, the witness confirmed that as he told the police, regarding the stage of the struggle on the road, he heard the first shot, while he identified the second shot by the folding of the young man who had been shot. The witness confirmed that the windows of the car were closed, there was music in the car and they were about 30 meters away from the incident.  He also confirmed that he did not hear the exchange of words and shouting between the defendant and the deceased.

Assaf Cohen:

164. See in this context pp. 271-280 of the minutes of the hearing of July 7, 2024. The witness is a resident of Gan Ner, a police officer who was not on duty at the time of the incident.  Through the witness, a CD was submitted containing a reconstruction made with the witness (P/31).
165. In his testimony, the witness stated that on the day of the incident, at around 6:00 P.M., he left his home in Gan Ner with his wife in the direction of Kiryat Tivon. When he left the entrance gate to the settlement, the vehicles driving in front of him slowed down.  When one of the vehicles in front of him made a U-turn, the field of vision opened and he saw a Toyota Land Cruiser standing in the middle of the road with the driver's door open and a man lying on the road.  Two other cars were parked on the side of the road and two women were outside their cars, one was next to the guy who was lying on the floor.  The vehicle in front of him drove forward, and the witness continued driving until he reached the young man who was lying on the floor.  The witness noted that at first he thought it might be the driver who had suffered a heart attack.  The witness described that the young man was large, dressed in black, lying on his stomach with his legs in the direction of the car and his face towards the middle of the road.  The witness got out of his car and saw that the young man was bleeding, had a gunshot wound in the back of his back, and it was heard that he was taking his last breaths.  The witness wore an identification hat and asked his wife to remove their car from the road.  Tomer Haimovich came to him and told him that it was a fight between two people, one of whom shot the other and that he had filmed the incident.  After watching the video, the witness realized that it was not a terror incident.  The witness stated that he asked Tomer to send him the video.  Afterwards, the witness called the 100 hotline and the station commander and, at his request, sent him the video.  At this point, MDA and United Hatzalah personnel arrived at the scene.
166. The witness described that he got into the Land Cruiser in an attempt to identify the shooting victim. Since there were blood stains on the driver's side beam, the witness got into the car on the passenger side, opened the glove compartment and found a wallet in the car with a driver's license, which, according to the photo, did not belong to the victim.  An MDA paramedic who treated the victim identified the driver's license holder as the victim's father.  The witness went down the road to close the scene and on the way found backpacks and collected them with a disposable glove.  The witness handed the cartridges to Officer Ali and showed him the video of the incident.  Family members and friends of the victim began to arrive at the scene, as well as military and Border Police forces.  The witness described that later, he saw a young man sitting on the guardrail at the end of the lane, who was agitated and appeared after a struggle, without a shirt or with a torn shirt, handcuffed.  Officer Ali told the witness that he was a suspect who shot the victim.  The witness noted that the suspect said that what happened in Mokibela two years ago would not happen again, or a similar statement.  A statement whose meaning the witness did not understand at that stage.  The witness crossed the scene, got into his car and drove away.  The witness stated that he did not see an assault weapon at the scene, or in the victim's vehicle, nor an innocent object that could be used as an assault weapon.
167. In his cross-examination, the witness was referred to the fact that in his statement to the police, he stated that he had identified an entrance hole in the deceased's chest. The witness explained in this context that at the point when the medical officials turned the deceased on his back and took off his shirt, he saw a gunshot wound very close to the deceased's heart.  The witness interpreted it as an entrance hole, because with the naked eye, as opposed to an expert opinion, an entrance hole is very similar in diameter to the size of a bullet.  The exit hole, on the other hand, is usually different, because the bullet makes some kind of move inside the body.  In addition, most of the barrels have a curl so the bullet enters the body with centrifugal force and when it comes out, an exit hole is created that is larger than the entrance hole and involves tissue and blood.  However, the hole that the witness saw in the deceased's chest was clean.
168. The witness was also referred to the fact that in his statement to the police, he did not mention that he had opened the glove compartment and said that he had found the wallet on the passenger seat of the deceased's car. In this context, the witness stated that his memory may have misled him and that he had indeed found the wallet on the passenger seat, but to the best of his recollection, he opened the glove compartment and the compartment was empty.  As to the defendant's mental state, the witness described that the defendant was upset.  Although he was not hysterical, swearing, or shouting, it is evident that he is experiencing a jolt, as is natural after a physical confrontation.  The witness confirmed that he had passed on the video of the incident to three officers – the investigation officer on duty, the VIP officer Tavor and the station commander.  The witness denied that he had passed the video on to another party and said that he did not know who passed the video on to the media.
169. The witness stated that when the deceased was treated at the scene, his shirt was on him, although it was torn. He does not know if the shirt was still on him when he was put in the ambulance.  The witness confirmed that he had told Officer Ali that the defendant would be evacuated from the scene by another route and would not pass through the deceased's relatives, because if they saw him handcuffed and scratched, they would kill him.

Chief Superintendent Noam said:

170. See in this context pp. 283-297 of the minutes of the hearing of July 10, 2024. The witness is an officer in the mobile forensic laboratory of the Forensic Division.  Through the witness, a photo CD from the scene (P/29), a report of an examination of the scene (P/64) and memoranda (P/63, P/99) were submitted.
171. In his testimony, the witness explained that the pictures on CD P/29 were taken by him. The P/64 report has fewer pictures than the disc, because for the summary report it chooses the main images that present the picture in a concise manner.  He also clarified that he had seized five cartridges at the scene and that the patrol officers had given him three more backpacks, so that a total of eight cartridges had been seized at the scene.
172. The witness referred to the tests he conducted to reconstruct the bullet tracks using rods, as it appears from the report P/64 and the memorandum P/63. In this context, he explained that in this way, it is possible to reconstruct the flight of the bullet in retrospect.  Two bullet entry holes were found in the deceased's car, one in the window of the left side trunk and the other in the frame of the left front door.  The witness noted that the two injuries were on the left side of the vehicle, which was the side facing the road.  According to the reconstruction of the bullet's flight, the lines of fire indicate that the firing was carried out from the back to the front and from left to right in relation to the sides of the vehicle.  The witness explained that it was not possible to determine from what distance the bullets were fired, since the reconstruction of the flight of a bullet is in the area and it is not possible to say only on the basis of the lines of fire that the witness stretches where along the line the shooter was standing in the area.  In other words, the shooter could stand at any of the parallel points along the line.  However, the witness clarified that since no bullet particles were found around the bullet's entrance hole in the examination to detect gunshot remnants, his conclusion was that the shooting was fired from a distance of more than 1.5 meters.  The witness qualified this by saying that this result of the absence of bullet particles is also possible in a situation where the bullet passed through another object before hitting the surface, in which case the first bullet particles are absorbed in that body.
173. Regarding the inspection of the Toyota and Mitsubishi vehicles, the witness explained that in general, and in the current arena, when he inspects a vehicle, he does not know what he will find. Therefore, it first conducts a visual search of the exterior of the vehicle and then a search of its interior, including moving seats if possible and searching under them, as well as searching the trunk.
174. In his cross-examination, the witness explained that although he did not explicitly state in the report P/64 that he had searched the vehicles, it appears from both the report and the photographs that he had examined the two vehicles and found findings. In addition, the work sheets prepared by the witness during the work at the scene indicate that a sapper inspected the victim's vehicle while a firing path was being checked.  In this context, the witness clarified that according to the work procedures, a police sapper inspects the vehicle, searches it for weapons, and acquits the vehicle.  In this case, it is inconceivable that the sapper would have found an assault weapon or other relevant finding in the vehicle, and not have informed the witness.  The witness referred to photos that indicate that the trunk was checked by the sapper, storage compartments were opened and various means of covering were moved.  The witness also referred to photos that show that the glove compartment and the storage compartment between the front seats were opened.  In this context, he clarified that in every compartment he opened in the vehicle, he searches for blood stains, weapons, assault weapons, or other finds.  The report lists only the relevant forensic findings that were found.  However, the witness noted in the report that a cell phone and a wallet were found in the deceased's car.  Since these were items that were taken out of the vehicle and handed over to the Investigation Unit, the witness documented this for the purpose of an exhibit chain.  The witness clarified that there was no need to state in the report that he had carried out a search because it was part of his work routine and it was clear that if he was inspecting the vehicle, he was searching it.
175. Referring to P/64, the witness clarified that he received the notice of the incident at 6:35 P.M. and arrived at the scene at 7:35 P.M., where he met with two investigators at the scene, Asher Dahan and Alon Shalev, who assisted him. Matan Graf and Adam Abu Razek arrived at the scene and joined him at 20:15.  According to the witness, when he arrived at the scene, there were already riots and disturbances at the scene, in which stones were thrown at the police officers and stun grenades were thrown at the crowd.  The riots continued while the witness was working at the scene, which was confined.
176. After finishing his work at the scene, the witness arrived at the police station and documented the defendant's physical condition. In this context, the witness was referred to the fact that he asked the investigators whether the defendant was being taken for a life test.  The witness explained that according to the forensic approach, in order to examine wounds, date them and determine their severity, a forensic examination is necessary.  Unlike a regular doctor, a forensic doctor also addresses the forensic aspect.  The witness explained that a life test is important because it only documents visual documentation of the wounds, but he cannot determine their severity, when they occurred, or whether there were injuries to internal organs.  Therefore, he always recommends a life test for the consideration of the investigating unit.  The witness denied that he knew how to determine whether the wounds he was documenting were defensive wounds, and clarified that this was the role of a forensic doctor.
177. In his cross-examination, the witness clarified that in the report P/64, it was noted that the mobile device and wallet were located on the front passenger seat of the Toyota and were handed over at the scene to Sergeant Itamar Sorek.

R.N. Shaul Wurmbrand:

178. See in this context pp. 363-367 of the minutes of the hearing of November 14, 2024. The witness served at the relevant time as an investigation coordinator at the Tavor station.  Through the witness, a memorandum (P/36) and a clarification report (P/37) were submitted.
179. In his cross-examination, the witness clarified that he was not involved in the handling of the case at all, and that as part of the interrogation he performed only one technical action of burning an interrogation disc that was conducted by the investigators of the Central Intelligence Unit. The camera was not operated by the witness and he only performed the technical action of burning the material into two discs.  It was later discovered that part of the investigation was missing.  The witness searched for the missing part of the camera, but did not find it.  The witness was referred to the fact that two weeks passed between the burning and the search for the missing part, and was asked whether the other parts of the interrogation were found on camera.  The witness replied that he did not remember.  The witness explained that during the filming process, the camera divides the footage into files, so that every certain period of time a file is saved.  In this case, two files were burned, while the third file was not found.  The witness noted that he did not know the length of the missing file and that it was the end of the investigation.

Leo Lenchevski:

180. See in this context pp. 368-385 of the minutes of the hearing of November 14, 2024. The witness is a security officer at Ituran.  Through the witness, documents were submitted, including a certificate regarding an institutional record regarding the location of the deceased's vehicle at the relevant time of the incident (P/108) as well as an email correspondence (P/108A).
181. In his testimony, the witness explained that as part of his role as Ituran's security officer, he serves, inter alia, as the liaison vis-à-vis the Israel Police and security agencies regarding orders for the realization and issuance of vehicle locations involved in criminal offenses. With regard to the documents P/108, he detailed that these include a supplementary letter that the witness attaches while issuing location data according to a court order, an institutional record and a file produced from Ituran computers that contains data collected about the vehicle according to the date and translated according to logarithms.
182. In his cross-examination, the witness was asked what the indication meant ECM=141 which appears in the data file in the vicinity of the vehicle speed reduction. The witness replied that this was an indicator whose purpose was to update that the vehicle's system was still working, and that it would be followed by an indication indicating a stop.  The witness explained that in practice, it is very difficult to learn what was in the car based solely on the data collected from the vehicle.  Thus, he explained that some of the indications appearing in file 108 are internal indications of the engineering department that are not related to the vehicle and the witness is unable to explain them.  The witness clarified that he did not even examine the data after it was produced and that he did not know what they were asked for, until he was called to testify in court.
183. The witness referred to the indication called Safety braking aggressive He explained that it is true that this is a containment, but he does not know its essence. Thus, it could be an emergency braking, a bumper that created a response with a specific sensor, or a sharp turn to the right or left.  According to the witness, the engineering department was not asked to examine what caused this indicator of braking.  It was argued before the witness that according to the route and the route of the road, there were no bumpers or sharp turns, and hence, this was an emergency brake, when the speed of travel dropped from 80 km/h to 8 km/h, according to the data.  The witness replied that it was an interpretation that he could not confirm or deny.  The witness clarified that his role is not to interpret these data, but rather that it is the job of an engineer at Ituran.  The witness was asked whether it was possible to learn about the way he was driving from the fact that there were changes in the speed of the vehicle, and he replied in this context that the engineering department can give an answer to this to a certain extent, but he is not familiar with it.
184. In his re-examination, the witness was referred to the email correspondence P/108A, which was sent to him by one of the police investigators, and was asked what he was asked for in this request. The witness replied that he had been asked to check whether the data regarding a certain time range testified to the manner of travel.  In this framework, the witness was asked to give an explanation regarding the subject of theECM And theSafety braking aggressive.  The witness made it clear to the interrogator in an oral conversation that he did not go into this subject and explained to him that it was not an indication of something specific.  It was argued before the witness that it appears from the aforesaid that, contrary to what he said in cross-examination, a request was made for the purpose of examining the causes of these testimonials.  The witness explained that although he was contacted in this context, to which the witness replied orally, but this question was not forwarded to the Engineering Department.  Similarly, no other request was made to the Engineering Department in this regard.  The witness clarified that every request made by investigators to Ituran was made through him.

Assa Gyari:

185. See in this context pp. 386-422 of the transcript of the hearing of November 14, 2024. The witness is an eyewitness to the incident.  Through the witness, a recording of the witness's conversation with the Chief of Security of the Yishuv (P/17), a CD of correspondence drawn up by the witness (P/18), a memorandum in the context of the disc (P/19) and a sketch he made (P/145) were submitted.
186. In his testimony, the witness said that at the time of the incident, he left his home in Gan Ner in the direction of Afula. As we exited the village towards the gas station, two vehicles drove in front of it, a white jeep driving on the right side of the opposite lane and a small dark vehicle driving in front of it, stopping and blocking the jeep.  Since the blocking vehicle was in the witness's lane, the witness stopped his vehicle.  A young man with long light hair gathered in a ponytail, wearing shorts and holding a pistol in his right hand jumped out of the blocking vehicle.  The guy got to the jeep when the driver of the jeep had already gotten out of his car.  The young man pointed a gun at the jeep driver's head and shot him near his ear.  The witness stated that he understood that this was not a terrorist incident but a fight, based on the course of events and the body language of those involved.  After the guy fired, the driver of the jeep leaned back toward his car and the witness was afraid that he would take a gun out of the jeep and start a gunfight.  Therefore, the witness turned around with his car in reverse.  As he turned around, he saw that there was a car behind him in which two men were sitting, and one of them was filming the incident with his phone.  The witness shouted at them to call the police and also shouted to the other vehicles that arrived at the scene to stop.  The witness returned to the community and drove to Afula from another exit.
187. The witness confirmed that the sketch that he drew up and attached to his statement to the police (P/145) faithfully describes what happened in the incident. He also watched the video of the incident and said that as of 8:00 P.M., he did not witness the incident because he drove away.  However, the witness heard quite a lot of gunshots, so when he called the police and the head of the community's security chief, he used the phrase "gunfight," believing that there was gunfire from both sides.  The witness stated that he witnessed the incident about 20 seconds before the video began.  The witness did not hear the exchange between the defendant and the deceased and noted that he had closed windows, an air conditioner and a radio.  When he turned, he opened the window to shout to the occupants of the car behind him to call the police.
188. The witness denied that he knew any of the parties to the incident. He also said that he contacted the police, the chief of security, his wife to warn her, and that he later spoke with other people about the incident.  The witness was referred to the fact that in his statement to the police, he stated that the car was orange, while in his main testimony he said that the car was dark in color.  The witness explained that his focus in the incident was on the people and the happening, not on the color of the vehicle.  According to the witness, the first guy attacked the guy who was standing outside the jeep and initiated the attack.  In this context, he said that he got out of his car with a pistol drawn and explained that he understood that it was not an attack because if the young man wanted to arrest a terrorist, he would stop and neutralize him from a distance, but instead he ran to make contact with him at point-blank range.  The witness said that the only assault weapon he saw in the incident was the gun in the shooter's hand and that the other was not holding a weapon.  According to the witness, he thought he had seen a girl in the shooter's car, who continued to drive the car after the young man got out of it and parked the car on the right side, but today he is not sure about that.  In this context, too, he explained that he focused on the incident itself and the fight between the two men.  However, he is confident in what he saw regarding the rest of the incident.
189. In his cross-examination, the witness confirmed that he now knows that there was no orange vehicle involved in the incident. The witness explained that he did not know the color of the car, but since the interrogator made it difficult for him in this context, he stated that he thought the color of the car was orange.  Again, he explained that he was focused on the incident itself and not on minor details such as the color of the car.  The witness was told that he also did not know how to give a description of the shooter in his first call to the police, beyond the fact that he had light hair, even though these were not minor details.  The witness clarified that he perceived the shooter's description, as he gave in his main interrogation, in real time.  It was further argued before the witness that, contrary to the description of the shooter, he gave a detailed description of the driver of the dark vehicle in his statement to the police, even though it did not exist at all.  The witness reiterated that he was focused on the incident itself.  In this context, it was argued before the witness that he did not give this explanation in his statement to the police, but said that he may have made a mistake in the details because he was under pressure.  The witness replied that his answers to HaMoked were instinctive, but then he processed the details in his head.
190. The witness was referred to the fact that in his statement to the police, he stated that when he arrived at the scene, the doors of the two vehicles were open and the two people involved were already outside their vehicles. The witness replied that when he arrived, the two were still driving, he did not know whether they were driving fast or slowly.  The witness described that the dark vehicle blocked the jeep by swerving slightly to the right and did not allow it to continue driving.  However, if the jeep driver wanted to avoid him, he could continue driving on the right curb.  Since they both stopped, the witness got the impression that they were both running into a fight.  Thus, he described that according to the jeep driver's body language, he too had a desire for a violent encounter.
191. The witness was shown that in the video, Tomer Haimovich is heard saying that the defendant took out a gun and then fired in the air, while the witness was already driving around with his car, which does not match what the witness said. In this context, the witness clarified that the shooter pulled out a gun even before the video began filming and that the first shot in the air was fired in front of the witness's eyes.  The witness insisted that the shooter got out of his car with a gun in his hand and that the witness saw the first shot.  However, the witness did not know how to explain the discrepancy between what he said in his statement and what he described in his testimony in court.
192. In his cross-examination, the witness clarified that when he arrived at the scene, the two young men were driving and the witness stopped his car. He also clarified that he saw the shooter get out of his car.

Rashat Noya Chelya Cherbo:

193. See in this context pp. 422-427 of the minutes of the hearing of November 14, 2024. At the time of the incident, the witness served as a police officer as part of her military service.  Through the witness, an action report (P/20), the witness's statement (P/20A) and a body camera disc (P/20B) were submitted.
194. In her cross-examination, the witness stated that after the incident there was a large gathering in the area, severe disturbances by the deceased's family began, and the entrance to the community was blocked. The witness feared that if the crowd knew that the defendant was with her in the patrol car, they would hurt him, and therefore, it was important to disconnect the defendant from the scene.  The witness confirmed that she supervised the defendant's sister after the incident and described that the nurse looked very upset, cried, stuttered, was stressed and trembling.  According to the witness, the nurse told her that the defendant came to her home, asked for something to come with him without telling her where and why, and drove with her to the scene.  The witness was referred to the fact that she did not mention these details in the action report, or in her statement.  In this context, the witness replied that she may have forgotten to write it down and that she was a new policewoman.
195. The witness stated that she had handed over the defendant to one of the investigators of the Central Intelligence Unit, whose name she did not remember. The witness was referred to the fact that in the action report it was noted that she had transferred the detainee to the investigator of the District Police Unit and to the municipal police officer, Natan Kassa, and replied that they might have been together.  It was claimed before the witness that she had transferred a murder suspect to a person she did not know, and the witness replied that he might have presented her with a certificate.  After handing over the defendant to them, the witness left the station and turned to deal with other incidents.  In connection with the video of her body camera, the witness confirmed that she did not activate the camera immediately after she began handling the incident, but at a later stage.  She also stated that she did not remember what was said there and that it was apparently at the stage when she asked the station commander, Yaniv, for permission to disengage with the detainee from the scene.

Sgt. Faten Hamati:

196. See in this context pp. 427-429 of the minutes of the hearing of November 14, 2024. The witness is a police officer in the Northern District.  Through the witness, an open intelligence examination report was submitted about the deceased (P/140).
197. In her testimony, the witness explained that one of her areas of practice is with regard to open information. The purpose of the examination she carried out in this case was to examine whether the deceased was a nationalist, according to the information on the open social networks.  The findings of the examination did not raise any real issue in this context.  The witness conducted a similar examination both with regard to the defendant and in his case, and found nothing unusual.
198. The witness was asked whether, in addition to the examination she carried out, she also contacted the Shin Bet coordinator in the area to check whether there was intelligence information, and replied that she did not check it. She also clarified that she had been asked to check only the open information.

Sgt. Hezi Ziv:

199. See in this context pp. 429-443 of the minutes of the hearing of November 14, 2024. The witness is a police officer in the Northern District Court.  Through the witness, a report was submitted on a drunkenness test using an owl device (P/14) and memoranda (P/19, P/130 - P/132).
200. In his cross-examination, the witness was referred to the first interrogation of Kristina, the defendant's sister, who, according to the visual documentation of the interrogation, was present. The witness could not say who was present at the interrogation in addition to him and the interrogator Gil Alon.  However, he identified another female investigator from the Afula police station in the video, but could not say what her role was, if any, in handling the incident.  The witness was asked why Kristina was summoned for further interrogation on 21 May 2023 and replied that every decision made regarding the summoning of witnesses was made by the veteran investigators in the case.  The witness did not remember why Kristina was summoned again, but noted that, to the best of his recollection, she was shown videos from the policemen's body cameras in order for her to explain details about what was seen in them, including what the defendant whispered in her ear.  The witness confirmed that he had likely read Kristina's first statement before she arrived for her second interrogation.
201. The witness was told that the main importance of Kristina's testimony was what she heard from the defendant about the incident, since she was not present at the event itself. The witness replied that everything was important, including what happened after the incident.  The witness was referred to Kristina's statement in her first statement, according to which the defendant told her that the deceased had dropped him to the ground and when the defendant saw that the deceased was not letting go of him, he fired first in the air and then shot the deceased.  In this context, it was argued before the witness that the video of the incident showed that there was no shooting in the air after the defendant and the deceased began to struggle on the floor.  The witness was also asked if there was another witness who stated that there had been gunfire in the air at that stage, and he replied that he did not know.  The witness was referred to the fact that the only one who made this claim was the defendant in his first interrogation, in which the witness was present.
202. The witness was referred to the fact that in her second statement of 21 May 2023, Kristina had stated, in contrast to her first, that the defendant had told her that when the deceased had knocked the defendant to the ground, the defendant had shot him, without mentioning that he had fired in the air earlier. The witness noted that he did not notice in real time this difference between Kristina's two versions, and therefore, apparently, she was not asked about it.  However, he stressed that the interrogator Sameh was the one who led the investigation.  The witness explained that Kristina's first interrogation was recorded on video, because it was conducted under warning, as opposed to her second interrogation, which was taken as open testimony.  In this context, the witness was referred to the fact that the interrogation was videotaped from the beginning, but turned into an interrogation under caution only in the middle of the interrogation.  The witness could not say why the interrogation was filmed from the beginning, noting that it may have been because the testimony was taken right around the time of the incident and the investigators wanted to find out more details.  He also clarified that at the time of the interrogation, he was a young and inexperienced investigator.

Sgt. David Mordechai:

203. See in this context pp. 447-463 of the minutes of the hearing of December 2, 2024. The witness is an investigator at the Northern District Court.  Through the witness, a request for a search warrant and penetration of computer material was filed (P/55), a findings report - an examination of the telephone of the witness Tomer Haimovich (P/114), a findings report - an examination of the defendant's telephone (P/118) and a memorandum prepared in connection therewith (P/117), a report from a small prosecution (P/119, CD P/120), memoranda (P/109 - P/111, P/121 - P/123,  P/129, P/138), Public Works Industry (P/124), Supplementary Form for Exhibits (P/125 - P/128).
204. In his cross-examination, the witness was referred to a report from a small prosecution (119) that was prepared in relation to the deceased's mobile phone. The witness was asked about the call received by the deceased at 5:36 P.M. and replied that he did not know from whom the call was received and that it is possible that they checked it, but did not find it.  The witness was presented to the witness that according to the Ituran report, at the time the call was received, the deceased was walking around the area of the soccer field in the village.  The witness did not know what the essence of the conversation was and whether its content angered, or stressed, the deceased.  The witness explained that when he prepares a report from the DCO, he checks the owners and users of the phones, and if he is unable to locate them, he does not write it down.  A place where the number from which the call was made to the deceased was not recorded, means that he tried to locate the deceased but was unsuccessful.  He also clarified that the owner may have been located and even summoned for questioning, but that the action was not carried out by him.  The witness explained that in the police systems and databases, it is possible to check the costs of telephone numbers, and therefore there is no need to issue an order and contact the communications company.  He does not know whether any of the other investigators in the case called the phone number and spoke with its owner.  He further commented that since this was a 17-second call, it is possible that we were dealing with an attempt to dial in and there was no actual call at all, and this should be checked against the report of the small claimant received from the cellular company.  The witness clarified that he was saying this based solely on his personal experience.
205. The witness confirmed that he contacted the Digital Vision Lab several times with a request to improve the video of the incident. The witness was asked whether, after receiving a pathological opinion according to which the deceased was shot from the front and not from behind, he again contacted the digital laboratory with a request to further improve the relevant part of the video, i.e., the stage in which the defendant and the deceased struggled on the floor.  The witness replied that since we were dealing with a short video anyway, the request was in advance to improve the entire video.  The witness clarified that the investigation team was interested in the entire video and that everything found in it constitutes evidence, whether it is for the suspect's benefit or against him.  Beyond that, he does not know whether the digital lab could have taken additional actions to improve the video even more, and this is a question that should be addressed to the relevant parties there.
206. The witness was referred to the fact that when he took the testimony of Dr. Yishai Ezra Levy, the doctor told him that in his examination of the deceased, two penetration wounds were found in the upper chest and an exit wound in the back. This was before the final pathologist was given the place to be heard.  The witness was asked and replied that he had informed the investigation team about this, as in any development in the investigation.  The witness emphasized that the question of whether the deceased was shot from the front or from behind is of no importance to him, and that at the end of the day, all the investigative materials are transferred to the State Attorney's Office, which decides whether to file an indictment.  He also emphasized that their goal as investigators is to reach the truth, and that all possible directions of investigation are being examined.  The witness confirmed that he had taken testimonies from people who worked with the defendant in order to find out whether he had a nationalist background.  Apparently, there was no security indication in the defendant's case at the end of the day.

Staff Sergeant Muhammad Grifat:

207. In this context, see pp. 463-469 of the minutes of the hearing of December 2, 2024. The witness serves at the Afula police station as a motorcycle patrolman.  Through the witness, an action report P/21 was submitted.
208. In his testimony, the witness stated that upon receiving the incident, he arrived with other police officers at the Gan Er junction, where there was already a crowd. On the radio, they were told that the suspect had been caught.  The witness and the other police officers closed the scene and removed people from the scene.  The commander of the Afula police station, Yaniv Suissa (referred to in the Afula 1 operation report), instructed the witness to put the suspect in a patrol car and take him away.
209. In his cross-examination, the witness confirmed that as stated in the action report, immediately upon receiving the detainee, he put him in the detainees' cell in a patrol car and supervised him until he received the instruction to take him to the station. The witness noted that it was only a few minutes.  The witness was referred to the body camera video of policeman Ali 'Abd al-Hadi (P/16), in which the witness is seen not in the vicinity of the defendant.  The witness was asked who had supervised the detainee at that stage and replied that he was locked in a patrol car.  He also explained in this context that at that time there was a large crowd, along with a shortage of police forces.  Therefore, the witness locked the detainee in the car and went to help the police.  When 'Ali, who was the commander of the incident, told him to go back to stop, the witness returned to the patrol car.  The witness was referred to the fact that he did not mention these details in the action report and replied that he obeyed the instructions of Ali, who managed the incident.  The witness confirmed that the commanders in the field wanted to disconnect the suspect from the scene in order to prevent contact between him and the crowd.  He made it clear that 'Ali did not instruct him to disconnect from the scene, but told him to stay next to the patrol car, and therefore, when it became a mess, he went to help the police.  As soon as he received instructions from Maniv to disconnect from the place, he did so.

Yaniv Ben Shimol:

210. See in this context pp. 473-501 of the minutes of the hearing of December 19, 2024. The witness is the Chief of Security of Gan Ner.  Through the witness, documents were submitted regarding the search that was conducted on the cameras of the entrance gate to the settlement of Gan Ner (P/51).
211. In his testimony, the witness stated that on the day of the incident he received a message that there had been gunfire and that there was an injured person. The witness had just gotten into his car to make a routine tour of the community and reached the entrance gate to the community within a few minutes.  The witness thought it was a terror attack, so he arrived with weapons and equipment, alerted the alert unit and informed the army that there had apparently been a shooting attack at the entrance to the community.  The witness explained that he thought it was an attack against the background of the security situation in the country at the time, as well as due to the geographical location of the community.  When he reached the entrance gate, he saw a young man lying on the floor, being treated by an MDA man and a member of United Hatzalah, both residents of the community.  The witness tried to extract details in order to understand what was happening, while military officials were securing the community at the time and closing the Shagan.  From what happened in the area, the witness understood that this was not a terror incident, but a local incident.
212. The witness described that he had identified a large white jeep that apparently belonged to the victim. While the witness was trying to extract details, a small black car came behind him.  A guy got out of the car, who was completely bruised, with a torn shirt.  The young man came to the witness's side and the witness grabbed his hand and asked him if he was connected to the incident.  The young man confirmed that he had fired and told the witness that they were fighting on the road and the victim blocked him.  The witness noted that the young man was very confused and upset.  The young man went on to tell the witness that he and the victim began to fight, the young man fell to the ground with the victim above him, and according to him, he had to shoot.  At this point, the witness took out a zip tie from his car, handcuffed the young man with it, and searched for police officers at the scene, as this was a criminal incident.  The witness emphasized that he was standing next to the car, watching the young man and did not allow anyone to approach the car, with the understanding that the weapon was apparently inside the vehicle.  The witness identified a policeman and a policewoman who were trying to drive away the crowd that had begun to arrive at the scene, told them it was the shooter and handed it over to them.  The officers removed the handcuff from the young man's hands, but after discovering that they did not have handcuffs, they asked the witness for another handcuff and handcuffed the young man again.  The police picked up the young man from the scene and the witness never saw him again.  The witness noted that the young man's sister was there, they gave her water to drink, and the witness returned to the community.  This was his part in the event.
213. In terms of the findings at the scene, the witness described that he had identified a 9 mm cartridge on the ground near the fence and informed the forensic officer who was at the scene. The witness stated that he did not touch the backpack and that it was collected by forensic police.  The witness stated that he knew the defendant's family, parents, brother and sister, but not the defendant himself.  However, the witness realized that they were related because he saw the sister crying at the scene.  According to the witness, the defendant and his sister arrived at the scene from the direction of the community, a few minutes after the witness arrived at the scene.  His conversation with the defendant took place immediately after the defendant got out of the vehicle.  At that time, police forces were at the scene trying to remove the people who had arrived at the scene, as well as trying to understand the details of the incident.  The witness stated that to the best of his recollection, while he was being treated by rescue forces at the scene, the deceased was dressed.  After refreshing his memory, the witness confirmed that when the defendant was taken for medical treatment and arrest by the police, he was read his rights.  The witness clarified that by virtue of his position as head of security, he has the authority to detain and detain civilians.
214. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that the police investigators came to his home in order to collect his statement about two weeks after the incident. At the same time, the camera footage was also taken.  He said he had not been contacted by the police beforehand.  The witness denied that he had spoken to others about the incident and made it clear that he did not talk to people about security issues, all the more so when it comes to a sensitive incident of this kind.  In this context, the witness was referred to the fact that the day after the incident, he was interviewed by the media about the incident.  The witness confirmed that he did not conceal details during the interview and that he recounted the events as they were, as engraved in his memory.  In light of this, the witness was asked why he did not tell in the interview about the things that the defendant had said to him, as he had now stated in his testimony.  The witness replied that he did not see fit to mention this and go into details.  However, he stressed that he had not invented anything and that everything he said was true.  He also denied that in his statement to the police, he was influenced by things he had seen and heard in the media in the time that had passed since the incident.
215. The witness described that the defendant told him what happened in short sentences and fragments of words, and not the sequence of events from beginning to end. Hence, the witness could not say exactly when the defendant shot the deceased, according to what he had told him.  The witness was referred to the fact that in his statement it was recorded that the deceased was wearing pants and a white shirt, and this sentence was deleted.  In this context, the witness stated that he did not remember whether he said this sentence and that he did not remember what the deceased was wearing.  The witness was also asked why he did not state in his statement that the defendant told him that he and the deceased fell on the road, as he stated in his testimony.  The witness replied that he had said so and that he did not know why it was not recorded.  The witness denied that he smelled alcohol from the defendant, even though he was standing close to him and holding his hand.
216. The witness stated that his car has a front camera and a rear camera, which film a period of about two hours ahead each time, in video and audio. The witness described that his vehicle was standing in the middle of the road, at the junction at the entrance to the industrial zone, near the entrance to the community, in order to carry out an obstruction.  The defendant's car entered between the witness's car and the fence and stood parallel to the witness's car.  The witness confirmed that the police did not ask to seize the witness's car camera and that he was contacted in this context only when his statement was collected.  The witness stated that when the defendant arrived at the scene, he approached the witness without trying to flee, confirmed that he was involved in the incident and said that he had carried out the shooting.  The witness denied that he had read his rights to the defendant before his conversation with the defendant at the scene, and explained in this context that he did not initially know who he was and whether he was connected to the incident.  As soon as he realized that he did, he looked for police officers to take the defendant.  The witness described that people from the village, military forces, and there was a lot of commotion.  However, he did not witness disturbances at that stage.  Later, there were fires near the community's fence, apparently related to the unrest that took place in the area following the incident.

Superintendent Uzi Butbul:

217. See in this context pp. 505-511 of the minutes of the hearing of January 26, 2025. At the time relevant to the indictment, the witness was the head of the homicide division in the Northern District Court.  Through the witness, a reference to the imprisonment (P/65) and a memorandum (P/66) were submitted.
218. In his testimony, the witness referred to memorandum P/66 and explained that on his way to the station, upon receiving the incident, he was told that the suspect was apparently driving under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, already during the trip, the witness spoke with the Afula police station in order to coordinate an owl test for the suspect.  When he arrived at the station, he was told that the owl device had been calibrated and that the test could be performed in the next few moments.  Therefore, the witness asked the police officers who supervised the defendant to make sure that he did not smoke, vomit or eat, as was required before an owl test.  The witness clarified that beyond that, he did not ask the defendant anything.
219. The witness was also asked to address the fact that the defendant's second interrogation was not recorded in full. The witness explained that this was due to a technical malfunction in the Inbal system.  He also noted that in the part that was not filmed he did not ask the defendant additional questions, although he may have instructed the interrogator Gil Alon to address these questions to the defendant.
220. In his cross-examination, the witness explained that on his way to the station to deal with the incident, he received dozens of phone calls and that he had promoted all the actions that could have been advanced during his trip. The witness was referred to the fact that in memorandum P/66 he stated that when he arrived at the station, he was told by Gil Alon that the suspect smelled of alcohol and that a few minutes later, the witness arranged for him an owl test.  This is in contrast to what he said in his main testimony.  In this context, the witness stated that according to his recollection, he had already coordinated the arrival of a police officer from the police station with Yanshuf at the station.  The witness could not explain why he did not mention it in the memorandum.  The witness denied that he knew before writing the memo about the defendant's claim that the witness spoke with him before his first interrogation.  When it was presented to him that at the beginning of the interrogation the defendant had told interrogator Gil Alon that the witness had spoken to him, the witness explained that he meant that he did not know the claim before the defendant's interrogation.  The witness emphasized that he was surprised by the defendant's claim that he had asked him questions before the interrogation, as is also evident from his response that appears in the interrogation documentation.  According to the witness, he did not draw up a memorandum in this regard immediately after the interrogation, because he did not see it as necessary at that point in time.  Memorandum P/66 was later edited at the request of the State Attorney's Office.  The witness denied that he had asked the defendant questions, or that the defendant had given him details about the incident.

Kristina Finkelstein:

221. See in this context pp. 512-519 of the minutes of the hearing of January 26, 2025. The witness is the sister of the accused.  Through the witness, her statements were submitted to the police on May 6, 2023 (P/153, CD P/153A) and on May 21, 2023 (P/154), after her main testimony.
222. In her cross-examination, the witness was asked why she did not ask to consult with an attorney at the stage when her first interrogation turned into an interrogation with a warning. The witness replied that she was told this only after she had already been asked all the questions and had nothing more to add.
223. As for the defendant's condition when he arrived home, the witness described that his hair was unkempt, his shirt was torn, he was full of scratches, agitated and frightened. She also said that the defendant asked her to take him to a gas station.  The witness asked the defendant what had happened and the defendant replied that someone had attacked him, that the defendant had shot him and that he had to return to the scene.  The witness drove with the defendant and on the way there, the defendant asked her to say that she was driving the car because it was negative and he didn't want them to know that he was driving the car.  The witness confirmed that all the details she gave in her first statement regarding what happened in the incident were heard from the defendant during their drive to the scene of the incident.
224. The witness described that she was very frightened and did not understand what was happening. She also described that she had an accelerated heartbeat and that the situation was frightening.  As for the defendant, she described that he was agitated, restless, frightened and frightened.  She also noted that she had never seen him like this before.
225. The witness was referred to the fact that in her first statement she stated that the defendant told her that he and the deceased had a quarrel, that they fell to the ground, that the defendant fired in the air and then fired at the deceased. On the other hand, in her second statement, the witness stated that the defendant told her that the deceased had dropped him on the ground and that the defendant had shot him, that the deceased had tried to kill the defendant and that if the defendant had not been released from him, he would have killed him.  The witness was asked to explain the difference between her statements in this context and replied that she assumes that during the two weeks that passed between her two statements, she was exposed to additional details.  Among other things, she saw the video of the incident, deduced things herself, heard things on the news, as well as from other people, and attended the detention hearings.  The witness confirmed that the details she gave in her first statement were more accurate than those she gave in her second statement, when her memory was fresher.

The Hafna Affair:

226. The defense case included the testimony of the defendant as well as the testimony of defense witness Marcus Daniel Finkelstein.

The defendant's testimony:

227. In this context, see pp. 522-558 of the minutes of the hearing of May 12, 2025, and pp. 561-644 of the minutes of the hearing of June 3, 2025.
228. During his main interrogation, the defendant said that he was 35 years old, the eldest of four brothers. The defendant served in his regular military service as a soldier in the Golani Brigade and as a reserve soldier in a commando unit.  The defendant noted that until his arrest he was on active reserve duty.  He also noted that since his mother is not Jewish, he underwent a conversion process at the beginning of his military service.  After his discharge from the army, the defendant worked in the construction field with his father, later established an independent business in the field, and in the period before his arrest he worked as a carpenter.
229. The defendant confirmed that he knew what he was accused of, but claimed that he did not murder the deceased. According to him, in retrospect he knows that the deceased died from a bullet ejection, when during their struggle on the floor, two bullets were fired, one of which apparently caused his death.  The defendant described it as follows (pp. 523-524 of the protégé):

"Adv. Y.  Singer : You say ejected, can you elaborate, explain to us how it happened?