Over the years, a number of auxiliary tests have been developed that help formulate a decision on the question of the existence of a presumption. Among the auxiliary tests are the manner in which the offense was committed; the means used to commit the offense; an exchange of words that were said before the act was committed; the location of the injury to the victim's body; The defendant's conduct before and after the commission of the act and more (Criminal Appeal 7090/15 Khalifa v. State of Israel (August 25, 2016) and the references therein; Criminal Appeal 3647/15 Al-Assem v. State of Israel (March 29, 2017); Criminal Appeal 7520/02 Hamati v. State of Israel, IsrSC 58(2) 710 (2004))".
Identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the shooting by the complainant
The complainant's statement taken at the hospital
- On July 28, 2022, police officers Israel Sionov (hereinafter: "Officer Sionov") and Nofar Yihya (hereinafter: "Policewoman Yihya") the defendant at Wolfson Hospital, upon learning that he had woken up from his sleep after eight days during which he was anesthetized and put on a ventilator in the hospital, and they asked for his version of the incident in which he was wounded by gunfire. The complainant's words were recorded by the police without his knowledge, and he was even told that the words were not recorded in light of his fears to answer questions about the incident. In addition, Policewoman Yahya documented in writing the main points of the matter (P/66).
It should be noted that the quality of the recording is poor due to background noise and frequent changes in the volume, and parts of it are not clear enough. Counsel for the parties did not present an agreed-upon transcript to be heard in the recording. The court listened, more than once, to a recording that lasted about two hours and twenty minutes (P/100).
The recording shows that at first the complainant refused to cooperate with the police and expressed concern about answering their questions. The police deliberately refrained from revealing to the complainant the fact of the arrest of a suspect, who later became the defendant, in carrying out the shooting, as long as the complainant did not provide details about his identity. Thus, for many minutes, a discussion took place, during which the complainant claimed that cooperation on his part would not heal the injuries he had suffered; For example, when he says: "They took a quarter of my liver off... Will they give me back my liver?", "I won't take a risk", "I don't want to be a complainer", "The way you came to me, you can reach him". The police, for their part, made it clear to the complainant for many minutes in plea, time after time, that he was the victim and was not to blame, and that his assistance in finding the perpetrator would contribute not only to the administration of justice, but also to the safety of himself and his family. Finally, the complainant agreed, told the police, "Write," and provided identifying details about the shooter, his name, nickname, description, details of his clothing, family members, address, their many years of acquaintance, and what happened on the day he was shot.