His testimony was heard in court (behind a partial curtain) at a hearing on 29 November 2022. In his initial interrogation, he said that he was 35 years old, worked as a gas station complex manager, and lived in his grandmother's house. His father, Shlomo z"l, died in 2016. According to him, on the day of the incident, at 05:00-03:00 A.M., he heard the back door of the house open, and therefore, when he woke up, he checked that Shaban was in the house, and saw him sleeping in the room. As to his identification of the defendant by the security camera (above) as someone walking around in the backyard, the witness replied that he recognized him with a level of 99-100% certainty, even by the movement of his hands. In his cross-examination, and to the defense attorney's question, he replied that he knew that Ben (the deceased) had used drugs, and that he had also been in prison for it. When asked whether he was surprised that a large amount of drugs had been found in his body, he answered in the affirmative, explaining that "in recent times he has been less afflicted" (p. 576, s. 16).
- A report of a visit to the scene for the ZIT investigator, edited by Sgt. Irina Zazmer, P/56 - Documentation of the download of security camera footage from the house of the neighbor, Y.A., in a house near the grandmother's house. It is noted that the date in the video corresponds to the day of the incident (23.03.2021), and that the time of the camera must be subtracted by 18 minutes in order to reach the real time. In one of the videos attached toP/49 (which will also be discussed later) - the defendant is seen walking around the yard of the grandmother's house - wearing a hat, a black "short" hat, a shirt and black "shorts", white socks and black shoes. You can also see the meeting with the grandmother, and his walking, not long afterwards, towards her home.
- An examination of the testimonies of the aforementioned family members, and its combination with the security camera footage (P/49), in which the defendant was seen walking behind the grandmother's house shortly before the incident, point to the facts and insights derived as follows:
- In the hours preceding the incident, the deceased and his cousins, Daniel and Eliran Sarahsher, were spending time together. During that night, the deceased consumed alcohol, and possibly drugs. He returned to his grandmother's house in the early hours of the morning (around 5:00 A.M.), and entered through the back door, which was open - according to the various testimonies. According to the defense, this supports the defendant's version regarding the possibility of others being in the house, and that they committed the offenses.
- On the morning of the incident, the defendant arrived at the backyard of the house, and met his grandmother, who had gone out to run errands after Mor left for work - at about 9:00 A.M. He continued to walk around (identified by most of the witnesses, with high certainty), until she moved away from the house and turned toward the backyard.
- While the accuser attributes to the defendant a sleepy walk, premeditated planning and an intention to commit the acts, in the moments preceding the incident (even if not at the level of proof that can be anchored as an aggravating factor for the purpose of the offense in the indictment), the defense is of the opinion that the opposite is true. According to the defense, the encounter between the defendant and his grandmother, which included a kiss and a short conversation, actually testifies to his calmness, calmness and calmness. His conduct at this stage, according to the defense, was stress-free and characterized by composure.
- The element of surprise, in the alleged encounter between the defendant and the deceased, is also in dispute between the parties. While the accuser is of the opinion that the defendant surprised the deceased at home, and took advantage of the opportunity that the two were alone, as a "fitting hour" to carry out his plot, the defense emphasizes the fact that the deceased was awake, according to the various testimonies, as one that neutralizes the element of surprise. According to their position, if the deceased had feared the defendant, due to previous threats on his part to his life, as evidenced by the mother, he would have been able to call for help, using the phone in his possession, when he heard that the defendant had entered the house. This thesis, according to the defense, supports his claim that the two were assaulted by others.
- Although most of the witnesses tried to convey "business as usual" with regard to the nature of the "internal" family relations, and the possibility of enmity between them and the defendant, and even more so - between the defendant and the deceased - a completely different picture emerges between the two statements. It should be said with caution that even though the two worked together, and despite their family closeness, it was known to all that the relationship between them was improper, and even toxic and murky. One of the witnesses described long-standing hatred and hostility between them, and the impression is that at the basis of the concealment of the full truth lies a certain fear of the other witnesses about the accused. The testimony of some of them, behind a curtain at their request, confirms a possible, subjective fear of the defendant's reaction to their testimony.
- As part of the "puzzle" of the preliminary signs, in retrospect, the deceased's mother described at least two occasions, in which the son shared with her his fear of the defendant and his persecution by him. This, according to the deceased, is the explicit threats that the deceased received from the defendant, leading up to the event. The defense, which claimed that this was "suppressed and outdated" hearsay testimony, as it put it, pointed to the lack of findings confirming the existence of threatening statements, as a basis for rejecting its entire version, as inadmissible.
- Even so, there remains a not-so-far-fetched possibility, which is not the hand of chance, that the event was timed precisely at the time. As stated, we were exposed, in general, to the criminal past of the defendant and the deceased. While the deceased had a criminal record in the field of drugs (which, according to the defense, attracted unknown assassins), the defendant's criminal record is intimately connected to family affairs, and to the family of the deceased in particular. The defendant was convicted, and even served a prison sentence for a considerable period, after stabbing the deceased's father during the days of the "shiva" on the uncle (Mor's father). To be precise, the birthday of that deceased uncle fell on the date of the event that is the subject of our discussion, and the accuser's version of this figure has implications, with regard to the possible planning of the act and its execution by the defendant.
- In the margins of the summary of the relevant data for the period of time preceding the incident, and only so that the sheet will not be missing, I will note that in the evidence before us, an additional document was submitted, which includes a reference to the defendant's conduct on the morning of the incident. This is a supplementary memorandum of Superintendent Ofir Ben Simon, Netivot Station (T.19), dated November 27, 2022, P/57A. As stated there, after the incident, the witness was approached by a neighbor, who lives to the right of the grandmother's house, and they shared that that morning "he saw Maor Dadoun in his arms, apparently holding two knives." The same neighbor went back into his house, and the witness instructed another policeman to interrogate him, assuming that this had been done. In his main testimony in court, which was heard at the hearing of December 12, 2022, the witness reiterated what was stated in the aforementioned supplementary memorandum, and in his cross-examination, he confirmed - that he put the matter in writing more than a year after the incident - when he understood that the neighbor, whose words he quoted in the same document, was not interrogated, and his version was not taken at all. We cannot give weight to this document, since the neighbor did not testify, and he was not confronted with its contents, and since the defense was not given an opportunity to interrogate him. It is possible that in this case significant evidence was missed.
- In conclusion - in light of the aforesaid, it is possible to formulate an insight regarding the existence of an ongoing enmity between the defendant and the deceased. The relationship between the two was, it seems, loaded with residues of the past, and the deceased was afraid of it. The enmity between the two can create a motive for harming the deceased - even though the existence of a motive is not an element required to be proved by the prosecution. The evidence regarding this passage also confirms the existence of an opportunity to carry out the assault - whether by the defendant or by others, as he claims, in light of the fact that the deceased was alone in the house, on a sabbatical morning, when the back door was not locked. The enmity described can explain a spontaneous ignition, as well as a planned and premeditated injury. The exact circumstances of the beginning of the incident have not been clarified and are not known to their effect.
The Second Segment - The Incident of Violence in the Two Bloody Scenes
- This passage deals, of course, with the critical and central stage of the indictment. Anything that preceded it, or that occurred after it, will be considered as "assistive tools" for deciphering what actually happened in the critical minutes. With regard to these minutes or seconds, we have "golden evidence" in the form of the testimony of two eyewitnesses, who have no interest, even though the temporality of what they saw in relation to what was happening on the ground is not agreed upon by the defense. There is no dispute that at the end of this segment of time, and as a result of what happened during it, the deceased was found bruised and stabbed, wallowing in his blood and breathing his last, while the defendant was only lightly injured, and suffered cuts to his hands.
- With regard to the first scene, which took place inside the house, forensic findings were presented, the actions of which could confirm or negate the narrative presented by the defense, regarding the presence of other people in the house, who, according to it, attacked both the defendant and the deceased, and fled the scene. This potential circumstantial evidence and its implications will be addressed at a later stage of the verdict. As for the second scene, we are dealing with the version of witnesses, eyewitnesses, who were present nearby, saw the incident, at least partially, and were able to testify to it firsthand. One of them was M.A., an air conditioning technician who was invited to the neighbor's house, and was standing on the roof of the house, together with his 13-year-old son, who drew his attention to the event in real time. Not only was this witness's presence at the scene completely random, but it was also a neutral and disinterested witness who did not know the defendant or the deceased. The second witness is the neighbor (and more precisely, the neighbor's son), Y.A., whose office was located in the backyard of the grandmother's house. This witness is familiar with the family of the defendant and the deceased, and he identifies them. According to his version (which will be presented in detail below) - after hearing voices rising from under his office, he went out to check if it was his mother, and when he saw that the sound was coming from the grandmother's yard, he turned his gaze there and saw what was happening. Immediately, and almost instinctively, he went to the office, took his phones, and called the rescue services - MDA and the police. These conversations were recorded, transcribed, and submitted as evidence on behalf of the accuser. During the conversation, the witness reported a stabbing incident, and in the process, shouted at the defendant, "Maor, leave him," and "I can't see that," and was heard begging the assailant to stop his actions.
- The weight of the testimony of the two eyewitnesses is very significant. These are witnesses who, as stated, were present near the second scene in the yard of the house, and watched, each from a different angle, parts of the incident that took place there. The main dispute between the parties with respect to the testimony of the two is the question of whether these testimonies complement each other, as the accuser claims, perhaps they contradict each other, and even suffer from internal contradictions, as the defense claims.
- Let us present, therefore, the main points of the versions and the evidence that accompanies them:
- The first eyewitness, M.A., A.T.3 - sketches of the scene drawn by the witness were submitted at the time of his statement to the police (P/50A-E. Both statements were not submitted); a recovery CD made with him, dated 24.03.21 (P/21); and the transcript of the reconstruction (P/21A).
The witness, about 54 years old, an air conditioning and refrigeration technician, came to his friend's business, Y.A. (The second witness below, whose mother's house borders his grandmother's house), together with his 13-year-old son. At the time of the incident at the second scene, he was taking care of the refrigeration unit's engine room, on the roof of the house. According to him, it was a very noisy place (as you could see from the recovery disk), and the first person who noticed the incident was his son, who drew his attention to what was happening downstairs, in the neighbors' yard. The distance between him and the people working was estimated by him to be about 10 meters. Immediately after he was exposed to the sights and heard his friend Y.A. Calling the rescue forces, he took the child and left the scene. The witness estimated the amount of time he watched what was happening, in only a few seconds, but agreed that there was nothing that separate, or interfered, with his field of vision from where he stood.