Summary of the accuser's arguments
- According to the accuser's counsel, an evidentiary basis was presented beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's involvement in the events described in the indictment and the execution attributed to him. She referred to the security camera footage that tracks the figure who carried out the arson acts at each of the scenes that is the subject of the first and fourth charges. Witnesses who identified the defendant in the videos testified in court, and beyond that, the videos document clothing and items that can be tied to the defendant.
With regard to the first charge, the accuser's counsel referred to the versions given by the defendant's accomplice, Shimon Cohen, of the offense during his police interrogations and in the confrontation with the defendant. Shimon also confirmed the incident in full in the legal proceedings being conducted against him. Therefore, the version that Shimon gave to the police should be preferred to his testimony in court, during which he refused to speak while his trial was ongoing, in accordance with section 10A of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971. The accuser's counsel further referred to the fact that Shimon identified himself and the defendant in a video describing the incident in Sheikh Jarrah. The version that Shimon gave in his interrogations with the police amounts to a clear, detailed, coherent incrimination, which Shimon repeated more than once during his interrogations. There was no preliminary dispute or pressure that caused deliberate incrimination. Counsel for the accuser listed a series of corroborations for the version given by Shimon to the police - security camera footage, the testimony of another witness who was present at the gas station, fragments of a green glass bottle in which remnants of flammable material were found at the scene of the incident, details of outgoing calls from the defendant's phone to Shimon's phone, and the location of remnants of flammable material in a backpack seized at the meeting. Counsel for the accuser argued that Shimon should be seen as being interrogated in court, despite his choice to evade answering the questions he was asked, and that an interpretation that holds that he was not actually interrogated at all would render section 10A of the Evidence Ordinance meaningless.
- Counsel for the accuser referred to the identifiable testimonies of the defendant in the security camera footage - Rabbi Mordechai Peretz, Uriel Zioni, Rinat Hazan and Idan Meir. The latter three retracted the defendant's identification with the police, and counsel for the accuser argued that the change in the version stemmed from unpleasantness toward the defendant and a desire to avoid incriminating him, and that the version of these witnesses should be preferred in their interrogations by the police under section 10A of the Evidence Ordinance, provided that the required conditions are met. Counsel for the accuser rejected the argument that the witnesses who identified the defendant were aware of the purpose of their interrogation even before the identification, and argued that full weight should be given to the identification of the defendant with a high level of certainty by these witnesses.
The accuser's attorney also described items seized at the meeting - a backpack belonging to Uriel, which was identified by Uriel in his police interrogation and in his testimony in court, which contained remnants of gasoline. She referred to Shimon's testimony regarding the use of the backpack in the Sheikh Jarrah incident and to Uriel's testimony regarding the circumstances of locating the file. She also claimed that it was a backpack identical to the one documented in the security camera footage. The accuser's counsel also referred to the jacket that was seized in the defendant's room, which is identical to the jacket in the arson videos. These data are added to the overall evidentiary fabric. Counsel for the accuser also claimed that the defendant was identified in the videos by the appearance of his eyes due to his body type, description of his clothing and his walking. She also argued for the proximity of the various events (in particular three of them that took place that night), and for a similar pattern of action in all the events, which links the defendant to the acts.