The defendant was asked why, during his interrogation, he told the police investigator the statement: "He who rises up to kill you, he rises up to kill him," and he replied: "It was about the subject we were talking about religion.  ...  He told me some verse, so I told him this sentence.  But what does this have to do with the investigation or I don't know what?" (p.  620 of the protégé).

When the defendant was told that during his interrogation with the police he had refrained from giving things that he had given in his testimony, he replied that he did not believe in the police (p.  586 of the protégé).

144. The defendant before me did not arouse any confidence, and my direct impression is that of a person whose version is not a true version, as one who buries his head in the sand and distances himself from all those incriminating testimonies and evidence that have been presented to the court. As stated, the defendant chose to remain silent during his interrogations with the police, and his version was heard for the first time in court, so that his version is considered a "suppressed version," testimony that came into existence only after the defendant was fully exposed to the prosecution's affair.  In such circumstances, the suppression of the version casts doubt on its reliability, in light of the concern that it was adapted to the prosecution's evidence that has been exposed so far.  The defendant has the burden of explaining reasonably and credibly the reason for suppressing his version, and his claim that he has lost trust in the police was heard as a convenient excuse that could be appropriate for anyone who refrained from publishing his version.
145. In fact, even in the defendant's testimony in court, the defendant expressed a general denial of the acts attributed to him, without confronting the many testimonies and evidence presented by the prosecution, some of which were objective, especially the videos and the presence of gunshot wounds at him, his clothes and his belongings, which pointed to him sharply and clearly. The defendant ignored all the evidence and denied any involvement in the shooting incident throughout his testimony, claiming that he did not shoot anyone, nor was he present in the vicinity of anyone else's shooting.  The defendant confirmed that he knew the place where he was filmed under the building at 22 Nardor Street, but denied that his image was captured in a video from security cameras at the same location.  The defendant denied that he had confirmed to the police that the items found in the warehouse (bicycle, helmet, and delivery bag) belonged to him.  The defendant claimed that he did not remember where he was on the day of the incident and that on that day he first worked at his work in rotation and then continued to work as a courier.  The defendant claimed that in his work as a courier he used the app and confirmed that it was possible to check whether he had made a delivery at the time of the incident, but claimed that during his interrogation he was not asked to present the investigators with information from the app, and when asked why he did not do so on his own initiative, he replied that he did not believe in the police.  The defendant did not even present data from that app, which could have allegedly indicated his location at the time of the shooting incident, and perhaps thus indicate his innocence, as part of the presentation of the defense's case in court.  The defendant's claim that at the time of the shooting incident he was working in deliveries is a suppressed version that came up for the first time in the trial, and which on the face of it could have been relatively easily verified in court.  As is well known, a defendant's refusal to bring evidence that is within his reach and that has the power to support his version of innocence acts in accordance with his duty and supports the accusing evidence.
146. The defendant's denial, as part of his suppressed testimony, of any involvement in the shooting incident contradicts the complainant's testimony, which was given about eight days after the shooting incident immediately after he woke up from a state of coma, in which he gave the defendant's name and many identifying details about him as the person who shot him, including a possible motive, related to the complaint of fraud filed by the defendant with the police. The defendant denied the nickname "Yayo" attributed to him, confirmed that he was acquainted with the complainant in the circumstances in which they lived in the same neighborhood, but denied that he had spoken with the complainant in the past and denied any dispute between them.  The defendant denied that the complainant was connected to a complaint of fraud he filed with the police, and later in his testimony he claimed that he did not know whether the complainant was connected to it.  As noted, the videos from the scene show that the defendant and the complainant spoke with each other, according to the complainant's version, before the shooting.
147. Therefore, I find it appropriate to reject the defendant's suppressed version, which was heard for the first time in the trial, without any support from external evidence, and to determine that his testimony is not trustworthy.

Identification of the defendant as the shooter based on the body of evidence

148. The accuser presented a solid, orderly and well-founded body of evidence that could establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the one who fired at the complainant in the playground, in the presence of his wife and toddler son, as was also documented on the security cameras near the scene.
149. The main evidence for determining the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the act described in the indictment, which is the cornerstone of the arc of evidence presented by the prosecution, was the identification of the defendant by the victim, the complainant, who provided a variety of identifying details about the defendant, including: his full name, surname, address, description, age, origin, the tragedy experienced by his family following the death of his brother, details of the conversation that took place between them - first at the entrance to the barbershop and later in the playground. The type of weapon with which the shooting was carried out, the distance between them during the shooting, the business relationship between them, and more.  This testimony was found admissible and was fully trusted for the reasons detailed at length.
150. However, in the circumstances here, the testimony of the complainant is not sufficient for the purpose of determining that the defendant committed the act, in view of the legislative injunction to corroborate the evidentiary support of an external statement. The accuser was able to present a variety of corroborating evidence, which constitutes more than the addition of corroborating evidence as required, and thus stood firmly in the burden of proof required in criminal proceedings.  The corroborating and corroborating evidence presented to the court, along with the complainant's testimony, was discussed at length above, including: a possible motive for the act; Photographic footage of the defendant both when he left and returned home and at the scene of the incident and in its vicinity; seizure of the defendant's clothing, bicycle, helmet and bag; the presence of gunshot wounds to the defendant's body, clothes and belongings; the beginning of confessions by the accused; His silence in his interrogations with the police and testimony that was found to be unreliable and evasive.
151. After examining each piece of evidence - direct and circumstantial - and determining its reliability to substantiate the factual finding that arose from it, I found that the combination of the evidence leads to a logical, reasonable and singular conclusion that the defendant is the perpetrator of the shooting at the complainant. The defense did not offer any alternative explanation to the clear conclusion that emerges from the body of evidence, which was also strengthened by the defendant's silence in his police interrogations, his incriminating behavior, and the statements that constitute the beginning of a confession.  In fact, since the identification of the defendant is not based on purely circumstantial evidence, and is preceded by the direct testimony of the complainant, as well as additional evidence, I will suffice to note that the additional fabric of evidence, which I have discussed in detail, which exists in his case is also very robust, and it seems that even if he had stood alone, which is not the case, it would have been sufficient to establish that the defendant fired Bullet of A live bullet in the complainant's body.

Investigative Failures

152. As you know "In order to cast doubt on the guilt of a defendant, it must be shown that there was a fundamental failure of investigation that deprives him of his defense and goes to the root of the matter (Criminal Appeal 8199/20 Ziadat v. State of Israel, para.  37 (April 30, 2023); Criminal Appeal 1682/22 Sabag v.  State of Israel, para.  33 (September 11, 2022); Reading Matter, paragraph 48).  In this context, it was emphasized that 'investigative failures from which the defendant is entitled to be constructed are a limited and limited list of serious omissions, the essence of which is the failure to take necessary investigative action in a manner that casts serious doubt on the evidence that would incriminate the defendant.'Criminal Appeal 9306/20 Bargot v.  State of Israel, para.  16 (April 29, 2021); emphasis in the original)" (Criminal Appeal 1969/22, 2228/22 Ben David et al.  v.  State of Israel, paragraph 17 (August 8, 2023)).

Like Yes, "It should be remembered that an 'investigative omission' does not in itself create a reasonable doubt where the guilt of a defendant is proven by the evidence that has been found (Criminal Appeal 5066/18 Rozkov v.  State of Israel, para.  56 (September 4, 2022))" (Criminal Appeal 8199/20 Ziadat v.  State of Israel, paragraph 37 (April 30, 2023)).

153. The defense argued for the following investigative failures: failure to investigate the parties involved in the defendant's registration as a shareholder in the companies for which he filed his complaint with the police, failure to investigate previous shooting incidents attributed to the weapon involved in the shooting, failure to investigate a person to whom an additional civil hearing was found in a sock cap found in the helmet, and failure to investigate a person whose fingerprints were found on the helmet.

After considering the alleged investigative failures, I did not find that these were flaws in the investigation process.  In any case, I did not find that the alleged investigative failures, each on its own and all together, deprived the defendant's defense or that they may cast a reasonable doubt against the solid fabric of evidence presented by the accuser, which establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant shot the complainant.

154. As for the findings of another civil hearing wearing a sock hat, the facts of the indictment and the evidence presented do not indicate that the shooter used a sock hat. As for the fingerprint findings of another person on the helmet, Officer Siyanov did confirm The Words Therefore, The same person identified His fingerprint was summoned for questioning and denied any connection to the incident and/or to the defendant (P/25; P/1; p.  442 of the protégé).  Policeman Scionov said that he did not see fit to go deeper into the investigation because it was a mobile object and there was a possibility that The helmet It was loaned (pp.  443-446 of the protégé).  After considering the explanations that were heard and reviewing the interrogation of the person with the fingerprint that was identified on the helmet, I am satisfied that this is not an investigative failure, since the matter was examined and investigated, and it did not undermine the evidentiary findings against the defendant.
155. As to the claim that the police failed to investigate the motive by not acting to reveal who was behind the defendant's registration as a shareholder in companies and did not investigate his complaint regarding the parties involved mentioned in the lawsuits filed against the defendant, I am of the opinion that this would not have been necessary, since the defendant himself denied any connection between him and the complainant, and between the complainant and those who allegedly harmed him. In addition, as explained, it is not necessary to prove the existence of a motive for the commission of the offense attributed to the defendant, and despite this, the accuser proved the existence of a possible motive.
156. As to the claim that the police did not investigate the connection between the weapon attributed to the defendant and another shooting incident in which the weapon was allegedly involved, as noted in an expert opinion from the weapons laboratory (P/79), the opinion indicates that this was still an "open incident", and in any event, as is well known, the same weapon was not found at all.
157. Needless to say, in criminal law, the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, which constitutes a high standard of proof and of a constitutional nature, but this is not an absolute certainty and there is no need to remove any theoretical or illogical doubt. In this case, I was not persuaded that there were material investigative failures in the work of the police.  The weight of an investigative failure is determined both by its nature and essence, and by the background of the totality of the evidence in the case.  And even if there were failures in the investigation, these were not failures of a degree that gave rise to the concern that the defendant's defense was deprived, in that he had difficulty properly dealing with the evidence against him, or by proving his own version, or by refraining from presenting a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

Existence of the Elements of the Offense of Attempted Murder

158. As for To the factual element, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant fired at the complainant using a firearm capable of firing live bullets, a caliber of 19X9 caliber that includes "modern Western" ammunition. The shooting took place this afternoon in a playground in front of his wife and toddler son.  The complainant was shot in the upper abdomen and rushed to the hospital, where two bullet inlets were identified and severe injuries to his body parts were diagnosed, and he required surgery, multiple tests, and a period of hospitalization and rehabilitation (P/32).  The defendant's actions clearly went beyond the scope of preparatory actions, and constitute links in the chain of acts that were intended to ultimately lead to the commission of the finished offense.  The defendant's actions were very close, in a tangible and dangerous manner, to the realization of the factual basis of the offense of murdering the complainant.
159. As for To the mental element of the offense of attempt, as explained in detail above, it is divided into two: the cognitive level, in which the defendant's awareness of the nature and circumstances of the act must be proven, and in consequential offenses the possibility of causing the result (as required In section 20(a) to the Penal Law); and the object plane - according to which it is necessary to prove both the object component required for the finished offense (in our case, the offense of murder), and that he acted "with the intention of committing it" (as stated) In section 25 to the Penal Law), i.e., that its purpose was to complete the finished offense (Criminal Appeal 6731/23 Strug v. State of Israel, (16.7.2024)).