To this, it should be added that Rinat's interrogation by the investigators was not carried out under optimal conditions, in a manner that could affect the reliability of the identification. Rinat's interrogation was carried out at her place of work - in the clothing store. As appears from the documentation of the interrogation, Rinat was interrogated by the police in the midst of her work as a saleswoman in the store, with the interrogation interrupted from time to time in order to respond to the customers in the store (see, for illustration, in the transcript of her interrogation with the police P/78, p. 1, lines 6, 8-9, 13; p. 2, lines 30-31, 33, 35; p. 8, lines 204, 206, 212; p. 9, lines 214, 218, 237). This casts doubt on the degree of concentration of Rinat at the time of the identification and, as a result, the reliability of the identification at this time.
- I find that the versions given by Uriel, Idan and Rinat in their police interrogations regarding the certainty of the identification of the defendant in the videos should be preferred to the versions given by the three in their interrogation in court.
These three witnesses testified that they knew the defendant. Uriel was the defendant's roommate and had known him for about a year and a half (transcript of his police interrogation P/50, p. 3, line 67 onwards; in his interrogation in court, p. 46 of the transcript of the hearing of December 22, 2024, lines 14, 21; p. 47, line 4). Idan stated in his interrogation with the police that he had known the defendant from their joint studies at the yeshiva (in the transcript of his interrogation with the police, P/79A, p. 7, line 156; and in his testimony in court, at p. 138 of the transcript of the hearing of July 9, 2025, lines 20-21). Rinat testified that she had a deep and prolonged acquaintance with the defendant for ten years due to the defendant's work in the store that she and her husband operate (p. 65 of the transcript of the hearing of March 20, 2025, line 24). She described that she had hosted the defendant in the past, that the defendant had stayed at her husband's parents' home during the Corona period for several months (transcript of her interrogation with the police P/78, p. 14, line 345, as well as in her testimony in court on p. 68 of the transcript of the hearing of March 20, 2025, lines 2-3, 7-8), that the defendant would come to her home from time to time (ibid., line 24), that the defendant's address was to receive letters at her house (transcript of her interrogation with the police P/78, p. 7, line 160), that in the recent period she had met with the defendant once a week (transcript of her interrogation with the police P/78, p. 7, line 179), and that even during the period when the defendant was in detention, her husband was in contact with the defendant's lawyer (p. 67 of the transcript of the hearing of March 20, 2025, lines 1-2).
- In view of the close acquaintance of the three with the defendant, and in view of the good quality of the documentation in some of the video clips, I am not convinced that none of them was able to identify the defendant in any of the video clips that were shown to them, including the segments in which the defendant was identified by Shimon and Rabbi Peretz.
The sweeping allegations made by these witnesses in their interrogations in court regarding the fact that the videos were blurry and unclear, with reference to all the clips of the videos that were shown to them, without distinguishing between the various segments, create the impression that no real attempt was made, and that on their part they identified the character documented in the videos.
- 00 It is also appropriate to take into account the demonstrated reservations that the witnesses have shown about the status of their interrogation in court. Idan did not appear for three evidentiary hearings, and finally came to testify only after subpoenas were issued against him. Rinat also did not appear for three evidentiary hearings. Idan admitted in his testimony in court that he was forced to come and testify, and that he did not believe that the defendant should be in prison (p. 144 of the transcript of the hearing of July 9, 2025, lines 12, 24; p. 145, lines 3-5, 7; p. 147, line 25). Uriel also made it clear at the beginning of his testimony that he did not want to testify against the defendant (p. 43 of the transcript of the hearing of December 22, 2024, line 8). This reservation may explain the reason why these witnesses chose to deny the original version they gave in order not to incriminate the defendant, and strengthens the conclusion that their original version should be preferred.
0