In addition, it was claimed that on the night after the murder, between 24 March 2021 and 25 March 2021, and between 25 March 2021 and 26 March 2021, the defendant was in Kiryat Yam at the home of a friend who also testified on behalf of the defense.
As proven, on March 25, 2021, the defendant took the Chevrolet car from Rafi Abdayev's business premises and did not make it disappear, as he had nothing to fear and had no reason to hide.
In the end, it was claimed that the investigators contaminated the proceedings in an irreparable manner, when they cooperated with a media outlet, and presented the full evidence in a long television program, while providing interpretation, all before the beginning of the evidence phase in court. Their action is intended to serve the accuser's theory, to outline a one-sided narrative and to disrupt public opinion, while severely harming the integrity of the legal process and fatally harming the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Discussion and Decision
The parties do not dispute that the death of the deceased was caused by stab wounds. There is also no dispute that there were two stabbers who came to the yard of the deceased's home wearing coats and surgical masks on their faces (corona masks). The main and central dispute in our case is rooted in the question of identifying the defendant as one of the murderers who stabbed the deceased, i.e., whether the defendant had a hand in the murder.
The evidence required by the defendant is mainly circumstantial evidence, and the dispute that arose between the parties deals with that evidence, its admissibility, its weight, its quantity and quality. Therefore, we will concentrate on examining them one by one, and later on as a whole. In the context of this evidence, the defense's version, its credibility and reliability will also be examined.
As noted in Criminal Appeal 502/24 Odeh v. State of Israel (November 4, 2024):
"As is well known, the power of circumstantial evidence is no less powerful than direct evidence, and these two types of evidence constitute valid means for establishing a criminal conviction. In order to deal with the possibility that there will be an error in the logical inference from the circumstantial evidence, for a fact that needs to be proven, a three-stage methodology for drawing an incriminating conclusion from evidence was established.