However, the content of the conversation between Officer Aviv and the defendant's mother, as documented in the memorandum, constitutes hearsay testimony.  The memorandum was not accepted with the consent of the defense, and therefore it is not admissible as evidence of the truth of its contents, but rather as the very statement of the statement, based on the testimony of Officer Aviv.  The defendant's mother did not testify in court and was not cross-examined about the content of the statements attributed to her.  Admittedly, it has not escaped my notice that the prosecution's intention was to hear the testimony of the defendant's mother, and she was even summoned to the courtroom.  The accuser's attorney stated that she intended to testify with the defendant's mother, but the defense attorney announced: "I don't need his mother." Counsel for the accuser added: "Regarding a camera", and the defense attorney concluded: "The seizure of theDVR at home" (p.  139).  Thus, in view of the defense attorney's announcement that she was waiving the testimony of the defendant's mother, her testimony was also not heard regarding her calling the defendant "Yayo".  Thus, it turned out that the words of the defendant's mother to Officer Aviv, as documented in the memorandum on his behalf, were foreign statements.  Since the defendant's mother's statement to the police was not received, and she did not give testimony in court, it was not possible to examine the veracity of the content of her statement regarding the nickname "Yayo", despite the fact that there was an agreement between the parties that her testimony was not required regarding the camera and the seizure of theDVR At home.

Therefore, the testimony of Officer Aviv regarding the memorandum, which he prepared and in which he documented the conversation he had with the defendant's mother, Ms. Tilaya Tarkin (P/12), can establish factual findings about the very existence of the conversation and the things that the defendant's mother gave in response to Officer Aviv, since this is testimony about things that he perceived with his own senses.  However, this testimony is admissible only for the sake of the statement itself, and not for the purpose of proving the truth of its content.  Therefore, since there was no fault in the testimony of Officer Aviv, I am satisfied to determine that the defendant's mother did indeed answer the policeman's question about who "Yayo" was because he was her son, and from the sequence of events described, during which she called the defendant and he was caught and arrested by the police, it is clear that she was referring to Ashbir Tarkin.  However, the testimony of Officer Aviv, on its own, does not substantiate a determination that "Yayo" is the defendant's nickname.

32. Policeman Ziv Sardes, who serves as a detective, presented an action report that he filled out on the day of the shooting, July 20, 2022 at 1:30 p.m., which shows, among other things, that he arrived, together with police officers Emanuel Aviv and Aharon Cohen, at the defendant's residential address at 6 Saharon Street, Tel Aviv, Apartment 4. Officer Sardes noted that during a conversation that took place between Officer Aviv and the suspect's mother, he heard the noise of a metal door and noises from a warehouse on the ground floor of the building.  At the same time, the suspect's mother called the suspect on the phone, at the request of Officer Aviv, and at that very moment a phone rang from the warehouse area of the building.  As a result, the policemen went downstairs and met "a person who answers the suspect's description, and after he was asked, he answered that his details were: Ashbir Tarkin, ID card: xxxxxxxxx, but it is called 'Yayo'" (P/8).  In his testimony in court, Officer Sardes answered questions from the defendant's attorney, and clarified that the suspect had responded to the description of the person who was filmed in the video of the shooting, and that a bicycle, a bag and a helmet were seized in the warehouse, as was also documented in the video with the person who carried out the shooting (p.  136 of Prut).  It should be noted that despite the many questions that the ISA referred to the defendant Officer Sardes, he was not asked at all about the statement he heard from the defendant, about his full name, his ID number, and his nickname: "Yayo." Therefore, this discourse, as documented in the report, is not hidden.  In his testimony in court, the defendant confirmed that he had given Officer Sardes his full name and ID number, but denied that he had said the nickname "Yayo", and claimed that he did not have such a nickname (p.  557 of the protégé).  Officer Sardes testified that he heard directly from the defendant that the defendant introduced himself by the nickname: "Yayo," next to his name "Ashbir Tarkin."
33. From all the compilation, I am satisfied that the accuser has placed a sufficient evidentiary mass for the purpose of determining that the defendant, who goes by the name Ashbir Tarkin, was also known in his surroundings by the nickname "Yayo".

Possible motive

34. As explained, the mental element required to prove the offense of attempted murder includes the purpose of causing the death of a person ("purpose to kill"), which expresses awareness of the possibility of causing the fatal result and a desire for it to occur. After the reform of the offenses of manslaughter (Amendment 137 to the Penal Law), there is no longer a need to prove all the elements of "premeditated intent" (decision to kill, preparation, and lack of a cantor) as was required in the past, but it is sufficient to prove the purpose of the killing.
35. The motive is a factor that belongs to a person's inner world and the depths of his soul, that pushes, spurs, motivates or brings a person to take action. It expresses the inner "why" that led the person to commit the offense, and may consist of both intellectual and emotional considerations, such as ideological and political considerations, jealousy, revenge, fear, despair, and more.  On the other hand, the mental element (criminal thought) concerns the subjective attitude of the perpetrator of the offense, on the cognitive and voluntary level, to the factual elements of the offense, and includes awareness of the nature of the act, the existence of the circumstances, and the possibility of causing the consequences.  The motive, insofar as it exists, does not raise or lower the issue of criminal liability, because it does not form part of the elements of the offense we are dealing with.  However, if a motive is proven, this can be used as circumstantial evidence to prove the intention to kill.  Therefore, a motive in itself is not a necessary component of the offense, and there is no need to prove a specific motive.
36. In our case, as noted, the complainant told the police during his interrogation at the hospital that the defendant served as a "monkey" in a construction company and received a salary, and that he himself mediated for this purpose between the defendant and another person. The complainant said that about a year or a year and a half before the shooting, the defendant complained to him that he had received "letters."
37. To the reader's ear, I will note that the term "monkey" in criminal law usually describes a person who takes upon himself to present himself as a place manager or as an official in some criminal activity, even though he usually has no practical role in the management of the place or in the criminal activity. The "monkey" is intended to serve as a "straw man" or a "cover company", sometimes for a small fee, in order to protect and shield the main performers in this way in the event of exposure.
38. Policeman Israel Sionov, who was part of the police team that collected the statement from the complainant at the hospital, drew up a memorandum on July 28, 2022, in which he put in writing, inter alia, that as part of the complainant's interrogation at Wolfson Hospital, he gave a motive for committing the offense, in that he was an intermediary between the suspect and another person and served as a "monkey" in a certain company that did not succeed. He also noted that as a result of this, he checked Google and discovered that D.S.  Crops in a tax appeal are registered in the name of Ashbir Tarkin (P/88).  This fact was hurled at the defendant as a suspect in the course of his interrogation that day, and he replied that he had told a social worker and fraud investigations about it.  As a result, Officer Siyanov noted that an examination of the systems revealed that Ashbir Tarkin had indeed filed a complaint with the Tel Aviv Fraud Division on April 18, 2021, and even gave in his testimony a large number of documents, including a statement of claim in a summary proceeding, company documents on which his name and details as a shareholder in the company are mentioned, and bank statements.  It was noted that Ashbir Tarkin's testimony in the aforementioned fraud case revealed that there was another company named in his name, LEU 13.3 in a tax appeal (P/89), while he claimed that he did not know who signed it on the documents (P/87).

On August 1, 2022, Officer Siyanov wrote to the Registrar of Companies requesting information about the two companies (D.S.  Crops in Tax Appeal and LEU 13.3 in Tax Appeal - hereinafter: "The Friendship"), of which Ashbir Tarkin is registered as the owner, in order to confirm a motive for the attempted murder due to registration or false use of his details, to register the companies in his name, which he claimed had complicated him financially (P/93).