Serious Crimes Case (Nazareth) 44182-03-16 State of Israel v. Anonymous - part 2

            * Was the confession obtained unlawfully in violation of the right to a fair trial?

            * The content of the confession and what is the difference between it and the truth

            * The Weight of the Saying

16. Examining the Existence of Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Guilt 261 - 282
17. The defendant's statements to the police, The right to remain silent 283 - 293
18. The Defendant's Attitude to the Investigators 294 - 297
19. The defendant's version before the court 298 - 309
20. The Defendant's Conduct After the Incident, Before his arrest 310 - 312
21. The defendant's cry for innocence 313
22. The Foundations of the Crime of Murder; The Question of the Existence of a Motive             314
23. Relevant Rulings in Relation to Informants  319-315
24. The Evidence to Prove the First Charge - The Offense of Arson 328-320
25. The Duties of the Law Enforcement Authorities 335-329
26. On the reasonable doubt                        336 -338
27. In conclusion 339 - 343

At the beginning of the judgment, we note that we have decided, unanimously, to acquit the defendant of the offenses attributed to him in the indictment that is the subject of this proceeding, in accordance with the provision  of section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Law [Consolidated Version], 5742-1982.

Judge Saeb Dabour

Introduction - Introduction

1. We are interested in a tragic event, During the process, the deceased found his death under mysterious circumstances; He was found lying on the floor late at night, On the corner of streets in the middle of the city of Afula, When an electric bicycle was placed between his legs.
2. Beginning, Report the incident as a car accident. Hall, It soon became clear that, Apparently, We are concerned with the incident of murder.  The police immediately began carrying out investigative activities.  She scanned the area, Collected testimonies and seized security cameras of neighbors in the vicinity.  The investigative activities revealed the identity of the deceased and the reason for his presence at the scene of the incident.  At the same time, It was unclear what the motive for the murder was.
3. Findings that emerged afterwards led the police to suspect the defendant, who is a born minor *****1998, As the person who committed the murder. Hence, Initiate a process of collecting evidence, When in the first stage the investigation was undercover, Everything is in accordance with the outline followed by a special investigation team that was established to solve the murder case.
4. The undercover investigation included a dubbing exercise that, As claimed by the state, During the course of the testimony, the defendant confessed, that the murder was committed by him due to "Mistaken identification". These words of the defendant, Brought to his arrest by the police.
5. On the first day of his arrest, After an initial interrogation, the defendant denied the suspicions attributed to him, While maintaining the right to remain silent, The defendant met with informants to whom he confessed, Thus on-According to the accuser's claim, of the murder and even confessed to another incident involving the arson of a car; An offense that occurred several months before the incident that was the subject of the murder, As claimed. This confession comes after 18 Minutes from the moment the defendant entered the cell with the informants.
6. Apart from this admission to the informants, The defendant maintained his right to remain silent throughout his statements to the police. Long investigations did not lead him to cooperate with the investigative authorities and/Or give a version.  Even after confronting (Ahead of his final interrogations) With his confession to the informants, He maintained his right to remain silent.  The defendant's first detailed version (Except for his words to the informants) Given during his testimony before us.  The defendant denied the facts of the indictment and claimed that his confessions to the informants were invalidated on the grounds, Inadmissible question.
7. From the findings in the file, Rising, that the kernel from which the suspicion of the defendant's involvement in the murder arose relates to the events as they were revealed to the police on the night of the murder (See - For example, the conduct of the defendant's mother on the night of the murder, When she went out in a panic to look for her son; Yes, See - Object Video/207, in which the defendant was seen running, Apparently after some figure at the scene of the murder, And more findings that will be detailed later). It should be emphasized, Because the facts of the indictment, They suckle and feed mainly, From the defendant's words, as expressed to the informants and as detailed below.
8. The questioner will ask, Are these confessions of the defendant admissible? If the answer to this question is yes, There will be a need to answer another question, And she - Is there additional evidence to support that confession?? Insofar as we reach the conclusion that the confessions are inadmissible and that a conviction should not be based on them, Then, The question will arise and arise - Whether the existence of circumstantial evidence and/or others that are sufficient to bring about the defendant's conviction?
9. These are the main questions that we will deal with in the framework of this judgment.

The facts of the indictment

10. We are interested in an indictment that was filed on the day 21.3.16, which includes two charges. As part of the first indictment, The defendant was charged with an offense Ignition, Accordingly To the section 448(A) Reisha 30Penal Law, The Devil"VII - 1977, This is against the background of an incident of arson in a car from the 27.11.15.  In the second charge, Offenses relating to the defendant were attributed to the defendant: Premeditated murder, Offense according to Section 300(A)(2) Law The Penalties and, Offense of Obstruction of justice, Offense according to Section 244 to the Penal Law.  This is due to the murder of the late Eviatar Kaitz Z"30, that occurred on the day 20.01.16 .
11. In accordance with the facts of the first indictment; Moving on to the date of filing the indictment, A dispute arose between the defendant and Y.' (Below: "J'"), who has prior acquaintance with the defendant, This is against the background of the defendant's financial debt to me'.
12. At an exact time unknown to the accuser, A car owned by the defendant's uncle was set on fire. Against the background of the following dispute"30 The defendant's opinion, For 10' He is responsible for setting fire to that vehicle.  In response, On Date 27.11.15, Near the hour 23:30, The defendant set fire to a car belonging to Y.'s father' Chevrolet Silverado.  As a result of the defendant's actions, The vehicle was taken off the road and the value of the damage was caused 180,000 ₪.
13. As for the second charge; In accordance with the facts of this indictment, Between the Defendant and Eviatar Kaitz (Below: "The deceased"), Resident of Afula, Native 31.8.1960, No previous acquaintance.
14. About three months pass until the date of filing the indictment, The deceased had a marital relationship with L..A. (Below: "30'") The woman who lives in Rahab' *** In Afula, Near the house where the defendant lives (Below: "L's House'").  On Date 14.1.16, Notified' For the deceased, Because she is not interested in continuing the relationship with him.  The deceased found it difficult to come to terms with the separation.
15. On Date 20.1.16 In the evening, The exact time is unknown to the accuser, The deceased arrived at the home of his friend Rotem Amar (Below: "Rotem"), and asked him to lend him a scooter to get around Afula. In reply, Rotem replied to the deceased, that he could not grant the request and instead, He offered to lend him his electric bicycle, And the deceased agreed.  In the same circumstances, The deceased asked to receive a helmet stating that, That he should not be seen.  Rotem offered to give the deceased a scarf to wrap his face, And so it was.
16. Up Next, And it goes to an hour 23:00, The deceased arrived riding the electric bicycle with his face masked, To the street *** In Afula, Near L's house'. In the meantime, The deceased rode along the streets near L's home', and to the home of the defendant who lives nearby, Back and forth several times.
17. At the same time, The defendant left his house and met his friend who. II.  (Below: "Q'") And the two sat together at the end of a street *** and smoke a cigarette.  After a few minutes, The two broke up.  Then, The defendant noticed the deceased riding the electric bicycle and believed, Because it's about me', He is at odds with him, And that the intention of Y' Hurt him.
18. In response, The defendant went home, Equip yourself with a kitchen knife, With the intention of hurting me', And he went back out of the house to a street axis *** Next to.
19. Near the hour 22:54 The defendant ran after the deceased, In Sobero, Because it's about me.', And when he could not reach it, he walked back towards the street ***. Up Next, Near the hour 23:20, While the deceased was riding in the street ***, The defendant surprised him from behind, When he still thinks, Because it's about me.', He stabbed him twice in the back and stabbed him in the head, With intent to cause his death.
20. As a result, The deceased fell to the ground, With the bicycle between his legs. The defendant left him bleeding and fled back to his home, which was located a few meters away.
21. Passersby who passed by called the police. The deceased was taken by ambulance to the hospital "The Valley" In Afula and there it was clarified, that he was stabbed in the back and head and after medical treatment he was pronounced dead.
22. In the meantime, The defendant changed his clothes, Washed them, He washed the knife with which he stabbed the deceased, She went back to the kitchen drawer and left the house for the night.

The Response to the Indictment

23. The defendant filed a detailed heresy (Heresy from the day 30.6.16) According to her, He denied committing the arson act. Regarding the incident that is the subject of the murder, Admit, Because during that evening he did sit with S.' and saw the deceased riding his bicycle.  At the same time, He denied it, that he was equipped with a knife or, Because he thought it was me.'.  More, The defendant denied that he stabbed the deceased and caused his death.  The defense did not dispute the facts relating to the description of the situation in which the deceased was found after he was stabbed and/or the cause of his death, As detailed in the indictment; This is based on the investigation material in the case and not on personal knowledge.
24. In addition to this, In a hearing from 12.9.16, Upload B"20 The defendant made a minor claim, When he said, Distracted, He did not discuss it in the framework of the detailed heresy as it was submitted to the court file. He elaborated as follows:: "During the interrogation of the defendant, he was brought into a cell with informants, who used improper means against him and extracted a confession from him using the same means.  In our opinion, the confession, even though it is a false confession, also according to external data, was made after the defendant was deprived of the ability to make free choices.  We do not deny the circumstances of death.  All the technical witnesses regarding the cause of death are in dispute.  Regarding the witnesses who evacuated the deceased, we will ask their interrogators(Transcript of September 12, 2016, p. 8, lines 13-18).

The Curtain of Controversy

25. Thus, the main dispute between the parties was about the admissibility of the defendant's confessions to the informants. According to the defendant, on February 28, 2016, a false confession was extracted from him, using the invalid fathers.  According to him, the informants acted improperly while taking prohibited means, including the use of threats and violence, infringement of the defendant's right not to self-incriminate, as well as infringement of a variety of rights established for the accused, such as; The right to remain silent and the right to a fair trial.  In addition, the investigative authority used flawed psychological tricks and more.  These measures impaired the defendant's autonomy and his ability to choose to avoid self-incrimination in relation to acts in which he had no hand or leg.

According to the defense, the activity of the informants in this case led the defendant to provide information that was inconsistent with the findings of the investigation, especially with prepared details that he was supposed to know, if and in fact he was the one who committed the act attributed to him.

26. According to the arguments of the learned defense counsel, the junior's argument should be accepted by virtue of the tests set out in the case law in relation to Section 12 to the Evidence Ordinance [New Version] 5731-1971 or, alternatively, by virtue of the doctrine of judicial invalidation.
27. On the other hand, according to the accuser, the defendant's confessions are admissible and are sufficient to prove the facts of the indictment. Where these confessions were made freely and voluntarily, while they contain many prepared details and are combined with the rest of the evidence that constitutes "something extra" (and even "assistance"), it would be justified to adopt the accuser's version and convict the defendant of committing the offenses attributed to him in the indictment.

The prosecution's evidence, which was submitted to the court file, includes the defendant's confessions to the informants, as well as many circumstantial evidence, all of which boil down to a single conclusion that the defendant committed the acts as attributed to him in the indictment.

28. Needless to say, the defense attorney did not deny the actual occurrence of the incident, nor did he deny the causal connection that exists between the occurrence of the incident and the death of the deceased. In accordance with the agreements reached by the parties, all the evidence to prove the actual occurrence of the incident and the death of the deceased was submitted to the court file.  Therefore, medical documents were submitted, including an autopsy report, which can indicate the causal connection between the stabbing and the death of the deceased.

Among other things, CDs documenting the conversations of the informants, both those that took place outside the detention cell and those inside the detention cell, were submitted as evidence, in addition to the transcripts of the conversations.  The informants, police investigators and other witnesses testified on behalf of the accuser, through whom the accuser sought to strengthen and support her evidence.  On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself testified and another witness named Yisrael Madar.