I will also note that the accuser sought to refer to the findings of a computer examination belonging to the defendant and which were conducted by the witness Kobi Forleiter. The same witness dismantled the computer belonging to the defendant and on his behalf the exhibit was submitted as the subject of P/151, from which we learn about threats directed at a young man named Maor Edri due to a financial debt of NIS 500 (see P/151, beginning of page 3). It also emerges that on January 22, 2016, the defendant began browsing the Israel Police website, while searching for murdered persons, and it was stated on P/151, page 4 there: "Another interesting point that on January 22, 2016, the aforementioned "begins to take an interest in the Israel Police" and surfs to the Israel Police websites, including a search for murdered persons". The accuser sought to teach us that this evidence can also serve as a certain evidentiary addition that points to the involvement of the defendant, who is not clean, in the act of murder.
Conclusion of this chapter
- Is it possible to say that all the evidence drains into the same conclusion that can establish the defendant's guilt in the standard of proof required in criminal cases? Does the evidentiary mosaic that was presented lead to one and only reasonable result, which is inseparable, that justifies the conviction of the defendant in a trial?
Admittedly, there are many questions and doubts surrounding the defendant's conduct in relation to that murder night. However, it is certainly not possible to determine that this evidence is sufficient to guide us towards a single reasonable conclusion of conviction of the defendant.
I am of the opinion that the overall fabric of evidence does not necessarily lead to a single conclusion that indicates the guilt of the defendant, beyond any reasonable doubt. Admittedly, we are concerned with evidence that has the power to establish a reasonable suspicion and/or to serve as a certain support for evidence and/or other independent evidence that is not available. Again, many questions and perplexities surrounded the defendant's conduct. At the same time, this does not lead to a convictive conclusion.