Conclusion - Identification of the Accused
- The defendant was identified by Shimon in excerpts from the video of Sheikh Jarrah and in the video of the gas station. The defendant was also identified by Rabbi Peretz in a clip from the video of Sikh Jarrah, as well as in a clip from the Bank Leumi video. The identification of the defendant by Rabbi Peretz in the Bank Leumi video is also capable of shedding light on the identity of the character documented in the videos of Mercantile Bank and the court, in view of the proximity of the time between the events of Bank Leumi, Mercantile Bank and the court, the geographical proximity between these scenes, the sequence of documentation and the similarity between the man documented in each of these videos. The defendant was also identified in excerpts from the rest of the security camera footage - documenting the additional scenes - the post office, Mercantile Bank and the court - by Uriel, Idan and Rinat, although the weight of this identification is limited.
This identification, combined with the version given by Shimon in his interrogations with the police, which linked the defendant to the incident in Sheikh Jarrah, the comparison of the figure identified in the aforementioned video clips with the rest of the video clips and the videos of the additional events, as well as the items found in the meeting - the backpack, jacket and basket with the beer bottles and pieces of cloth - leads to the conclusion that the defendant was sufficiently identified to substantiate his conviction.
The Defendant's Silence in His Interrogations in the Police and the Court
- The defendant chose to maintain his right to remain silent during his police interrogations, and to refrain from testifying in court.
The right to remain silent is a fundamental right of a defendant in a criminal proceeding, which is enshrined in the law, and stems from the foundational principle that every person is entitled to immunity from self-incrimination. Nor does the right to remain silent detract from the burden placed on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. At the same time, in the circumstances of the present case, against the background of the seemingly incriminating conclusion that arises from the prosecution's evidence, and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the defendant's silence, the defendant's silence establishes the impression that he does not respond to the prosecution's evidence. As such, the defendant's silence is of value that strengthens the incriminating evidence presented (Criminal Appeal 5136/22 Locker v. State of Israel, para. 391 (November 10, 2024); Criminal Appeal 6813/16 Nachmani v. State of Israel, paragraph 27 of the judgment of Justice N. Hendel (September 17, 2018); Criminal Appeal 2406/09 Albo v. State of Israel, paragraphs 21-22 (September 15, 2010); Criminal Appeals Authority 4142/04 Milstein v. Chief Military Prosecutor, paragraph 10 of the judgment of Judge A. Levy (December 14, 2006)).