In her cross-examination, the complainant's wife stated that her husband had been shot in the incident, but refused to tell her what she knew about what had happened.  The witness reiterated that she had given everything in her interrogation to the police and that she had nothing to add.  She went on to say: "I wanted to come, I also wanted to testify, now I don't want to testify" (p.  330 of the protégé).  When the witness was asked by the court about her difficulties in answering the questions, she replied: "...  I am not against you, God forbid...  I'll tell you what my difficulty is, right now I'm in a place where I'm threatened, come on, the person is here, I don't want to be in his presence, I don't want to be in this hall, it's hard for me to be here, it's traumatic the very fact that I'm here, it's a trauma, it's hard for me to look and talk..." (p.  338 of Prut).  The witness stood firm in her refusal to answer questions.  At the end of her direct testimony, she looked at the judges and said: "You are doing holy work and thanksgiving" (p.  340 of Prut).

Statements of the complainant and his wife made outside the walls of court - admissibility and weight

19. Section 10A(a) The Evidence Ordinance states:

")a) A written statement given by an out-of-court witness will be admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding if the following are met: (1) the statement has been proven at trial; (2) The person giving the statement is a witness in the trial and the parties have been given an opportunity to cross-examine; (3) The testimony is different, in the opinion of the court, from the statement in a substantive detail, or the witness denies the content of the statement or claims that he does not remember its contents".

Section 10A(a) The Evidence Ordinance therefore establishes three cumulative conditions for a written statement that a witness gave outside the courtroom will be admissible as evidence of content, and can serve as a substitute for testimony in court.  In the preamble of a collective dispute (a) appears the requirement that the statement must be "Written", when the case law expanded the matter to include recording the witness's statements, or recording their contents in a memorandum of understanding.  This recording can be made even after the conversation with the witness, provided that the words are accurately reflected in the memory (see Criminal Appeal 4004/93 Yakubovitz v.  State of IsraelIsrSC 50(1) 133, 166; 1000: Another Hearing 23/85 State of Israel v.  TubulIsrSC 42(4) 309, 354-355).