Testimony that itself needs additional evidentiary support may satisfy the requirement of "corroborating the statement" of another witness (see, for example: Criminal Appeal 6252/92 Saleh Hussein Bashir v. State of Israel (27.6.1994); Criminal Appeal 5015/98 Erez Akrishevsky v. State of Israel (29.11.1999); Criminal Appeal 804/95 Moshe Greenberg v. State of Israel, 49(4) 200; Criminal Appeal 4478/03 Portnoy v. State of Israel, para. 10 (August 11, 2004); Criminal Appeal 7758/04 Alqader v. State of Israel (19.7.2007); Criminal Appeal 11110/07 Abu Raqaiq v. State of Israel, para. 19 (March 8, 2010)). As the scholar Kedmi points out in his book About the Evidence, at p. 377:
"Therefore, there is no impediment to basing a conviction on two external written statements of 'just' witnesses, or of 'just' accomplices, and even of 'state witnesses'; As stated, the law of the statement is like the law of 'testimony' that gives a morality, and the requirement of the 'thing to strengthen' stands by it only when it constitutes 'main testimony,' as opposed to a situation in which it is nothing but an 'addition.'"
In a Criminal Appeal 949/80 David Shohami v. State of Israel, IsrSC 35(4) 62, 72, it is stated in connection with the required corroborating evidence, as follows:
"The reinforcement is therefore an addition of weight to credibility, as a kind of support, which is required because the things included in the statement did not meet the test of cross-examination. However, it is not a condition that there should be an identity or overlap in terms of content between any part of the statement and the proof of reinforcement, that is, that the evidence of reinforcement will relate to one of the concrete details included in the statement. The reinforcement comes to remove the fear of trusting the statement, and it can therefore take the form of reinforcement for the thesis that is raised in the statement, such as reinforcement for the accusation of committing an offense, the accusation that is raised against a certain accused."
- In the present case, I am of the opinion that it is found in the entirety of the evidentiary fabric laid before us, even more than the evidentiary requirement, as stated In section 10a(d) To the Evidence Ordinance, as support for the written external statements of the complainant and his wife, which, as stated, were accepted and found to be worthy of full credibility and evidentiary weight.
Below, I will address those supporting evidences.
Footage from security cameras and municipal cameras
- The prosecution presented in court footage from security cameras from various locations, where the shooter was observed and his trajectory of movement, as follows:
(a) Footage from the security cameras, owned by the defendant's family, installed above the door of their apartment in their residential building At 8 Saharon Street, Tel Aviv-Yafo (P/49). A request to back up and download video files at this address on July 20, 2022 between 08:00-16:00, and it was noted, inter alia, that: "The materials were produced as required without any modification or editing", together with an owner's consent form for downloading digital media files, signed by Sarah Tarkin and Policeman Avi Daniel (P/50); A report was submitted to watch the videos from the defendant's residential address, accompanied by pictures from the videos, conducted by Policewoman Nofar Yahya on July 26, 2022 (P/73).