Serious Crimes Case (Nazareth) 44182-03-16 State of Israel v. Anonymous

Present: On behalf of the accuser: Adv. Simona Ben-Haim-Levy

On behalf of the defendant: Adv. Zohar Arbel, Adv. Dana Ohana and Adv. Sivan Ohana                 

The defendant himself at the funeral  of his father

On behalf of the victim’s family: Attorney Eyal Menachem, the sister of the deceased Avital Siso, and the daughter of the deceased Vered

Verdict

Table of Contents: Paragraphs

1. Introduction - Introduction 1 - 9
2. The facts of the indictment 10 - 22
3. The Response to the Indictment 23 - 24
4. The Curtain of Controversy 25 - 28
5. Preliminary Notes 29 - 30
6. Reporting the incident 31 - 32
7. Investigators arrive at the scene, The beginning of the investigation and findings at the scene 33 - 42
8. The deceased's conduct and actions at the scene of the incident 43 - 50
9. The Defendant as a Suspect in the Murder and What Led to His Arrest             51 - 58
10. On the Confession to the Informants - Admissibility of the confession 59 - 76

            * The statutory test enshrined in the section 12 To the Ordinance The Evidence

            * The Classic Sculpting Factors

            * The Second Track for Examining the Admissibility of the Confession - The Doctrine of Judicial Invalidation

            *Investigative Tricks and the Use of Informants

            * The weight of the confession

            * The Consideration of the Severity of the Offense

            * Interrogation of minors - The Increased Risk of False Confessions and the Amendment of the Youth Law

11. From the general to the individual 77 - 78
12. "First dubbing" - Investigation exercise from the day 28.2.16 79 - 122
13. The course of the investigation after the first dubbing; The first day of interrogation 123 - 154
14. Continued interrogation of the defendant and the trip to the police station in Hadera- 155 - 170

            The Third Investigation

15. The dubbing in the detention cell at the Hadera police station - "The second dub" 171 - 260

            * The circumstances surrounding the moment the defendant entered the dubbing booth

            * The time of dubbing and why the dubbing could not be postponed the next day

            * Lack of visual documentation

            * The interrogator's note when the defendant was put in the cell

            * The dubbing itself - The conduct of the informants, Is a ploy legitimate??