A/176 T/177, Statements by two eyewitnesses who saw the vehicle on fire;
A/178, Duo"8 Operation of Rass"2 Abu 'Eid Rosh 6 - A/179, Experience"D of a firefighting expert who determines, Very likely, For we are concerned with an event of arson.
A/180, Duo"8 Assessor who determines, Because the vehicle is in a state of complete loss.
- According to the accuser, The additional evidence listed above, constitute a verifiable evidentiary addition to the defendant's confession and are "Something" Required according to The Evidence Ordinance For the purpose of convicting the defendant in a trial.
- In the framework of Criminal Appeal 7939/10 Zadorov v. State of Israel [Published in Nevo] (December 23, 2015), the Supreme Court referred to the additional evidence required to support a defendant's foreign confession, noting that:
"307. As is well known, according to case law, a conviction cannot be relied upon on a defendant's foreign confession, unless there is "something additional" to support it in the evidence. This is an external mechanism for the confession, the creation of case law, which requires that the confession be supported by a verifying evidentiary addition, which will confirm to some extent the content of the confession [Steckler, paragraph 20]. The requirement of "something" is therefore concerned with the confession according to the signs of truth external to it, which can shed light on its truth......
- The requirement for additional corroborating evidence, as opposed to complicating evidence, means that there is no need for it to prove the fact that the offense itself occurred or to identify the defendant as the perpetrator [see: Kedmi, pp. 142, 144..."
- Meaning, The Requirement"Something else" was satisfied with the presentation of a verifying addition to the confession that strengthens the conclusion that it is a true confession and that it does not need to"Tangle" The defendant in the commission of the offense.
More, In the context of this requirement: