photographs of the exhibits from inside the warehouse were presented (P/99); and a series of photographs of each of the exhibits, from every possible angle (P/43, P/25, P/4).
- A search of the defendant's room in his parents' apartment found the following items: a black short shirt with a symbol in the chest area on the left side (according to the testimony of Policeman Aharon Cohen, the shirt was found upside down when it smelled strongly of sweat) and long black pants with pockets (photos - P/39).
- Policeman Yogev Cohen Value On July 25, 2024 A comparison report between the photographs of the items seized in the searches and documented in the forensic investigation with the documentation from security cameras (P/39), According to which a symbol bearing the inscription "AGV" The helmet seized in the warehouse in the defendant's possession is similar to the symbol on the helmet worn by the defendant when it was recorded under the building at 22 Nardor Street at 1:04 p.m.; The straps of the shipment bag that was carried on the defendant's bicycle when it was documented under the building at 22 Nardor Street have white stripes that resemble the shoulders of the delivery bag seized in the warehouse; the seat seat of the electric bicycle that the defendant was riding on when it was documented under the building at 22 Nardor Street with a rivet decoration similar to the rivet decoration on the seat of the electric bicycle seized in the warehouse; Bright symbols on the defendant's shirt and pants when they were documented under the building at 22 Nardor Street match the symbols found on his shirt and pants seized in his room.
Policeman Yogev confirmed in his testimony in court that he had no forensic training and was not an expert in marks, and therefore he did not determine that the exhibits that were seized were the exhibits documented by the cameras, but only noted that they had the same characteristics (pp. 232-234 of the protégé).
- The court may examine for itself, based on the appearance of its eyes and its direct impression, whether the details documented are consistent with those observed on another, and this is also for the purpose of identifying a defendant by comparing it to objective evidence such as a photo or video. In principle, the court should not abstain from this direct impression, and there is nothing wrong with this method of obtaining evidence. However, this must be done with the necessary care.
After carefully examining the photographs of the objects seized in the warehouse in comparison to the photographed documentation, it is clear that the following identical marks emerge: