She said (2 May 2022, pp. 35, 30-31), "I did 'get out of here,' and I was injured in the hand, I don't even know why," and (p. 37, s. 2), "I didn't see what they stabbed with but they stabbed the fact that I was injured [...]."
She later did not remember anyone explicitly stabbed her, but said, "And I must have activated my left hand and she was injured." In response to the court's question, she clarified, "I wasn't focused, my husband was murdered in front of my eyes, at the end of this incident they tell me your hand is full of blood."
If so, it is possible to determine, with the required level of certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the blood on Ruthie's hand was the result of the stabbing and injury of the two people who stabbed the deceased.
The offense of threats is attributed to the defendant in light of the incident that occurred at his workplace, Moshe Einhorn's office. The witness called the police and even his nephew Yosef Mandel arrived at the scene, apparently feeling threatened. The witness described inflammatory behavior, including dropping a bookcase, but with regard to explicit threats, it was not sufficiently clarified what exactly was said and whether the conversation also included an explicit threat.
The offense of threats under section 192 of the Penal Law requires the existence of two elements, one factual and the other mental. In our case, it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant threatened Moshe Einhorn with unlawful harm to his body, liberty, property, good name or livelihood, his own or that of another person, with the intention of intimidating or teasing him. Since the factual basis of the offense has not been proven, it is sufficient to acquit the defendant of committing the offense of threats.
The offense of intentional sabotage is attributed to the defendant in light of the damage to the tire of the deceased's car.
There is a great deal of logic in the opinion that the defendant and the other damaged the tire, perhaps in order to prevent the deceased from being able to travel from the place if their mission was not immediately successful. At the same time, the late Eyal Tsafrir's son-in-law said that in the past, others had damaged the deceased's car in the same way, and even more severely. No one saw which of the killers hit the tire. In these circumstances, there remains reasonable doubt as to the identity of those who damaged the tire, and the defendant is entitled to benefit from this doubt. Therefore, we decided to acquit him, due to doubt, of committing this offense as well.