It should be clarified that the witness's minor son was not interrogated by the police, and no testimony was taken from him in relation to what he saw. This was due, inter alia, to the father's objection - in view of the child's emotional state, the details of which he shared with the panel during his testimony. This fact is at the basis of one of the defense's arguments, for an investigation failure.
- The second eyewitness, Y.A., A.T.9 - his statements were submitted to the police (after he was declared a hostile witness. According to the defense, they should not be used to prove the truth of the content, but only to prove contradictions in the witness's version, on the timeline. The submission was made in a separate binder, which was not marked) from 23.03.21, 24.03.21, 30.03.21 and 4.04.21; a reconstruction disc at the scene, dated 8.04.21 (P/22); the transcript of the reconstruction (P/22A); a scene diagram drawn up by the witness (AZ.1, P/51); and a photograph of the defendant signed by the witness (for the purpose of identification, A.Z.2, P/52).
This was a neighbor of the grandmother, about 56 years old, who was present in the house next door, and witnessed certain parts of the incident, which took place at the second scene outside the house. We will preface by clarifying that this witness did not cooperate fully - whether in police interrogations or in court testimony, and tried to avoid directly incriminating the defendant. His answers were characterized by laconic and it is clear that they were given in a cautious manner and out of some fear. As became clear at the beginning of his testimony in court (below), he refrained from attending a preparatory and refreshing meeting at the State Attorney's Office, citing a variety of pretexts, and the impression created was that he was talking about someone who had seen and heard, far beyond what he had gave. Another fact that came up in his interrogations concerned his reluctance to be involved, as much as possible, in a police investigation - apparently against the background of his previous encounters, or of any of his family members, and the lack of trust he felt toward the system. He knew and identified the defendant and the deceased, but defined himself as "closer to the deceased", who would pray with him as Mincha and Maariv on weekdays, and even sometimes helped him with the deliveries of the business. He never spoke to the defendant, even though by virtue of his family and social ties with his family, he participated in celebrations related to him.