Regarding the Bank Leumi video, Rabbi Peretz testified that the character documented in the video was "very similar to life," and identified him in the video with a level of 80% certainty, and later with a level of 90% certainty (p. 28 of the minutes of the hearing of December 22, 2024, line 8; p. 29, line 1). He explained that he identified the defendant by his facial features in this video because it was not possible to get an impression of the height of the man documented (p. 29 of the transcript of the hearing of December 22, 2024, line 3).
- I am under the impression that Rabbi Peretz's identification meets the two criteria set forth in case law - the credibility of the identifying witness and the reliability of the identification (Criminal Appeal 4524/11 Anonymous v. State of Israel, para. 9 (June 17, 2013); Criminal Appeal 8902/11 Haziza v. State of Israel, para. 48 (November 15, 2012); Criminal Appeal 9040/05 Ohayon v. State of Israel, para. 16 (December 7, 2006)
Rabbi Peretz gave reliable, cautious and responsible testimony. He refrained from identifying the defendant in videos in which he was not convinced that he recognized him. This distinction made by Rabbi Peretz between the segments in which he identified the defendant and the videos in which he did not identify the defendant testifies to the truth of his words.
As for the reliability of the identification, Rabbi Peretz identified the defendant based on his acquaintance with the defendant for a long time. He identified the defendant in the security camera footage after careful viewing, and only in the videos that were of good quality. The fact that both Rabbi Peretz and Shimon identified the defendant in the excerpt from the video of Jarrah's speech also strengthens the reliability of the identification made by Rabbi Peretz in this video - and in general.
As I will explain below (paragraph 69), the events of Mercantile Bank and the court took place shortly after the Bank Leumi incident, when the Bank Leumi incident and the Mercantile Bank incident were separated by only a few minutes. In view of the proximity of the times and the geographical proximity between the three arenas, the sequence of documentation and the similarity between the man documented in each of these videos, the fact that Rabbi Peretz identified the defendant in the Bank Leumi video also sheds light on the identification of the man in the Mercantile Bank video and the court.
- In his cross-examination, Rabbi Peretz confirmed that at the time of the initial identification of the defendant in the police security camera footage, he was asked by the investigators whether he knew the defendant and Shimon even before the security camera footage was shown, and in his own words (in response to the question: "... Did he ask you even if you knew Abrahamson? Is that what I'm asking?"): "Maybe, of course. Because I come from the yeshiva, they asked me if I knew him, I said yes, he studied in the yeshiva", and (in response to the question: "In other words, before they started showing you the videos, they asked you if you knew Abrahamson and Shimon Cohen?"): "Yes" (p. 36 of the minutes of the hearing of December 22, 2024, lines 10, 12-13, 16).
This means that the initial identification of the defendant by Rabbi Peretz during his interrogation by the police was made after a certain intention, after Rabbi Peretz spoke with the defendant Orot and Shimon even before the identification. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, I find it correct to attribute weight to the identification made by Rabbi Peretz, even though it is limited. This is especially so in light of Rabbi Peretz's honest and careful testimony in court, the targeted identification of excerpts from the videos of Sikh Jarrah and Bank Leumi after careful viewing of these videos, and the direct impression of the witness's credibility (compare - Criminal Appeal 3151/08 Davidov v. State of Israel, para. 15 (May 26, 2010)).
- Counsel for the defendant referred to Rabbi Peretz's statement to the police (which was not submitted), in which Rabbi Peretz was unable to identify the defendant in the postal and Mercantile videos, and identified the defendant with a level of 95% certainty in the videos of Bank Leumi and Sheikh Jarrah. He argued that this indicates that the identification is insufficient. However, it is precisely the consistency of Rabbi Peretz, who identified the defendant with a relatively high level of certainty in the two videos in question - Sheikh Jarrah and Bank Leumi - both in his police interrogation and in his testimony in court - that indicates the reliability of the identification. Even the caution of Rabbi Peretz, who identified the defendant in only two of the videos, refrained from identifying the character in the rest of the videos, indicates his responsibility and the reliability of his testimony.
Rabbi Peretz did not identify the defendant with a level of 100% certainty (p. 37 of the transcript of the hearing of December 22, 2024, lines 3-20), and his identification was accompanied by some degree of doubt, but as his words indicate, the identification was almost certain, based on all the characteristics detailed. In any event, even identification that is uncertain has evidentiary value, especially in circumstances where the identification of the accused is supported by additional evidence and his identification by other parties as in the present case (Criminal Appeal 343/00 Twash v. State of Israel, para. 9 (February 12, 2004); Criminal Appeal 492/02 Asal v. State of Israel, 56(6) 935, 944 (2002) (Asal case); Criminal Appeal 437/82 Abu v. State of Israel, 37(2) 85, 93 (1983) (the Abu case)).