The same is true in a criminal appeal 5386/05 Elhorti v. State of Israel [Published in Nevo] (18.05.06):
".... The appellant's testimony regarding the acts of extortion is suppressed, and such testimony is fundamentally of very little value and weight, unless the testimony provides a convincing explanation as to why it was conquered (J. Forward on the evidence, part 1 – The Law in the Perspective of the Case Law (5764 – 2003) 441;".
- The defendant's reference to the interrogators' claim regarding the contemptuous attitude he displayed towards them cannot be overlooked, for example, when he smoked a cigarette and made smoke circles in front of his interrogators, he answered: "In this interrogation they played me the informant for the first time, before I got to the point where I make circles in the interrogation that I no longer know what to do that they tell me that all the details I told the informant are true, I don't know where to put myself, where to put my head, because I know that I made up a story. And they Applauding themselves, He called on all the investigators who applauded, well done to the homicide division....".(pp' 524, Lines 13-8).
- II"The accuser continued to slap the defendant as follows:: "And I'm telling you that this story you're telling today is that you were disrespected"And they treated you badly, it's not true, and you're inventing it today to give the impression that you're a frightened minor.. And if you were indeed innocent and not afraid, you wouldn't have behaved like that for a long time."Because an innocent minor is crying out for his innocence, he cries so that they will believe him, but with your behavior, you showed them that you are not counting them correctly.?" (pp' 525, Lines 7-4).
- The defendant clung to his original answer, which he reiterated this time as well, Because he didn't cooperate because he didn't want to. "Proceed to a lawsuit" (pp' 525, Lines 12-8).
- And more, In his cross-examination, The defendant was asked about the assault that took place on the day 03.02.16, While the defendant was in S.'s store', There it is (Referring to the Defendant) Attacked by Y' . As detailed above, Beginning, The defendant denied that the incident in question had happened because of his fear "Proceed to a lawsuit" (See for example, pp' 526 For the record, Row 21 and' 530 For the record, Row 5). Only after he was promised by B."20 The Accuser, that his words will not be used in this context, He confirmed, Because on that day he was indeed attacked by' This is due to a dispute that exists between the defendant and Or, Against the background of financial debt. (pp' 530, Lines 27-23).
- The defendant further argued, Because in the framework of the story he invented and told to the informants, He noted (Falsely), Because the body structure of Y' Similar to that of the deceased. Yes, According to the defendant,; "...Lee' He has never had an electric bicycle in his life, he has a license and also Noor does not have an electric bicycle" (pp' 531, Lines 5-4). As mentioned above, We were not presented with any evidence, From which we can deduce, For 10' It is customary to use electric bicycles and/Or from them we can learn about the body structure of Y' Comparing it to the deceased's body shape.
- End of day, Berry, Because it is not possible to determine, that the defendant left the impression of a trustworthy and trustworthy person. On the contrary, In the circumstances that include, His answers raise questions and raise unanswered questions. However,, This does not change the result I have reached. After all,, Maximum, The defendant's conduct and lies can serve as an evidentiary addition to"Yes". Hall, A place where the foundation on which the accuser is trying to lean is not stable at all and remains cracked and full of holes, There is no escaping the conclusion, Because , The defendant's unreliability does not cure the flaws and cracks that I discussed above. From the fall of the"Yes" The Evidence, The defendant's lack of credibility does not support the evidence that is not available. It should be emphasized, Even when the defendant's lies are added to the overall fabric of circumstantial evidence, Even then, It is not possible to come to a conclusion, Because there is in the totality of the above evidence"30 to navigate towards a conviction.
- Given the above review, which includes reference to the variety of evidence in the accuser's possession, including the testimony of the defendant himself, In addition to his conduct during the interrogation when he clung to the right to remain silent, Similar, that the plethora of evidence raises suspicion regarding the defendant's involvement in the incident that is the subject of this proceeding. At the same time, The Evidentiary Ground, and that it had the power to give rise to this suspicion, is not sufficiently fruitful to give rise to a conviction in relation to those offenses attributed to the defendant.
The defendant's conduct after the incident, prior to his arrest
- All the witnesses as one, Testify, Because they did not notice any unusual behavior on the part of the defendant after the murder. For example,, Q', In his testimony before us, He noted that he did not notice any unusual behavior on the part of the defendant after the incident. According to him,, The defendant and he continued to meet with each other, On a daily basis,, The defendant worked for him and he did not notice anything unusual (pp' 418, Lines 21-9).
- Similar things arise from the testimony of A..VIII. and.Q, who drove the defendant to the defendant's uncle's house on the night of the murder; Both testified as one, that they did not notice anything unusual about the defendant that night.
In the course of his testimony, witness A stated.VIII., that the defendant behaved in a normal manner and that there was nothing unusual in his conduct. Yes, He doesn't seem nervous or frightened (pp' 238 Lines 13-10).