In the postal video, you can get the impression that the figure throwing the Molotov cocktails is wearing dark clothes and a hoodie. The face of the figure cannot be seen (at 03:54:15). Even in the Mercantile Bank video while throwing Molotov cocktails, the face of the figure cannot be seen. In the video of the court throwing Molotov cocktails, the face of the figure cannot be seen, but it can be seen that he is wearing dark clothes and a hoodie and carrying a backpack. White zippers can be obscured at the top of the front of the backpack (at 04:45:06).
In Bank Leumi's video while throwing Molotov cocktails, the figure is documented from a distance. She can be seen wearing dark clothes and a hoodie. You can also get the impression that the character is holding the backpack in her left hand. This footage continues the sequence of documentation in the previous section, where the figure was recorded holding the backpack in his right hand and then passing it to his left hand (04:01:39).
- It is also appropriate to take into account a common pattern of action for all Molotov cocktail throwing incidents. All events were carried out in a short period of 17 days. All the events took place almost the same time from 3:00 to 4:00 in the morning. The figure arrived at all the scenes on foot, alone, carrying the Molotov cocktails in a backpack. In all the scenes, the figure walked away from the scene. There is also a match in the number of Molotov cocktails that were confessed in most incidents. In four of the five incidents (Sheikh Jarrah, the post office, Bank Leumi, and Mercantile Bank) three Molotov cocktails were thrown (in the court incident, the figure threw six Molotov cocktails).
- The aggregate strength of the character's characteristics in all the videos - the similarity in the face and body structure, the dark clothing, the hoodie, as well as the jacket and backpack with unique characteristics, the continuous documentation of the character throughout the video segments and the shared body gestures, as well as the similarity in the pattern of action - all of these are the basis for the conviction that the character documented throughout the security camera footage is indeed the same character.
After this figure has been identified as the defendant by the various witnesses, and in view of the clear similarity between him and the defendant, the conclusion is necessary that the defendant is the character documented in all the videos (for the criteria for the court's identification by way of comparison with security camera footage, see Criminal Appeal 3834/20 Kalfon v. State of Israel, paragraphs 18-19 (July 29, 2021); Serious Crimes Case (Hai District) 42980-08-18 State of Israel v. Dadon, Paragraph 263 (April 25, 2023)