The learned defense attorney wanted to see the comments of the users of the article as evidence that strengthens the defense's approach, and especially the defendant's version, according to which the fact that the deceased died by stabbing was in the public domain that was exposed to the article in Ynet, so that this is certainly not a well-known individual.
Moreover, as it is claimed, the police investigators also misled the defendant in the context of the same article that is the subject of P/102, after presenting him with the article in a partial and misleading manner, stating that the contents of that article do not include any reference to the fact that the deceased was stabbed.
Hence, according to the defense attorney, the defendant's words when he stated that he learned about the stabbing act from the article on the Ynet website, are fed by pure truth. However, the defendant's statements, when he stated during the interrogation that he suspected that he was a terrorist, came against the background of the content of one of the responses, where there was reference to the possibility that this was an incident that was carried out with a nationalist background.
It is clear that I have examined the parties' attitude to exhibit P/102; A reference that originated from the decision of January 17, 2019.
- The foregoing does not exempt us from examining the significance and weight of the argument that the defendant said during his conversation with S., shortly after the murder, that the deceased had been stabbed. The article was published at 4:48 a.m., as appears on the article. In this context, we should refer to the testimony of S. before us. As may be recalled, this witness spent time with the defendant on the night of the murder. In connection with this witness, it was claimed that the defendant called him after the murder and stated to him that someone had been stabbed. This is what witness S. stated in his statements to the police (see his statement P/213, p. 48, lines 11-12 and also P/214, p. 14, lines 15-25). At the same time, when the witness took the witness stand, he retracted his statement regarding this fact and testified that the defendant had told him that someone had been "attacked" (p. 373, lines 30-32). Against this background, the accuser sought to declare the witness a hostile witness. Yes, in this context, she asked to give preference to his statements to the police over his testimony in court.
Needless to say, the same witness added in his testimony:... I was arrested a month later, I don't know where the stabbings came from, they didn't stab them, they've been stabbed for two days now, we've been living in Afula, not in Tel Aviv, they've already said, a person was stabbed this way and that, I don't know where it came from" (p. 374, lines 16-18).