In the framework of criminal appeal 4456/14 Kellner v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (December 29, 2015) (p. 769 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Amit), the court addressed the reasonable doubt, emphasizing as follows:
"What is that reasonable doubt?
It is difficult to define the term "reasonable doubt". It is not possible to find in case law a clear and uniform test for the characterization and demarcation of the definition of "reasonable doubt", despite the extensive use that has been made of it. There is no clear definition or guideline, and there is no scientific or precise formula. In the Demjanjuk case, it was held that the definition of reasonable doubt is examined "according to the rational criteria accepted by us" and that "this is not a matter of certainty [...] mathematical [...] and conclusions that are inconsistent with a rational assessment should not be drawn (The Demjanjuk case, at p. 652).
Reasonable doubt is part of the puzzle of the legal concept, according to which a person will be convicted if the court is convinced that the prosecution has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the intention is that not every doubt sprinkled with the evidence will lead to the acquittal of a defendant, but only a reasonable doubt (see Emanuel Gross and Michal). Arterial "beyond reasonable doubt" Kiryat Mishpat 1 229 (2001)). It seems that many attempts have been made to understand the nature and definition of doubt in criminal law, but the content of this concept remains ambiguous: "'Reasonable doubt' is a concept whose essence is in the realm of feeling, thought, reasonableness, common sense [...] In any case, it is not a concrete concept" (Micha Lindenstrauss on Reasonable Doubt - Selected Issues 9 (2004))".
- Admittedly, the "reasonable doubt" is not a tangible body and/or a creature of dimensions and weight that can be measured, palpable and/or observed in its clear features, shape, and boundaries. It is clear, therefore, that the defendant must present a real, logical, realistic and realistic line of defense that is reasonable. Mere claims and speculative explanations that have no anchor and/or support, will not suffice.
In the framework of Criminal Appeal 3372/11 Moshe Katzav v. State of Israel (published in Nevo, November 10, 2011), the Supreme Court reiterated that the defendant does not need to prove his defense. The burden of proving guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, is on the accuser. After all, the rule is that a defendant is not convicted of his lies. He is convicted on the basis of credible evidence against him. Evidence that does not exist, in the case that is the subject of discussion here.