It should be noted that during the collection of the statement, and it is possible that due to the emotional difficulty in giving his testimony, the defendant needed to take a pill to lower the sugar levels, and moving on to the description of the defendant, as someone who was present at the scene, he had difficulty speaking, and even cried (as can be seen, at the 42:05 minute onwards). During the collection of this statement, too, the interrogation retrial, Zephania Karbi, entered the interrogation room to assist in collecting it, as did another investigator of the Central Intelligence Unit.
In the reconstruction (which was carried out by the investigator Yossi Ben Gigi and another investigator from the Negev District Court, dated April 8, 2021), the witness repeated his version and pointed to the place where he was standing at the relevant time. The witness also pointed to the location of the deceased and the defendant at the time of the incident - with the interrogators Eyal Zeitoun and Elad Avraham serving as a kind of "extras" in reconstructing the position and position in which each of the two was located at the time.
His testimony was heard in court on 24 April 2022, 1 May 22, 3 May 2022, 8 September 2022, 15 September 2022 and 22 November 2022. In his main interrogation (24 April 2022), the witness said that he owns a business that sells fruit trays and flower arrangements, which he manages from his mother's house, which is adjacent to his grandmother's house. Most of the day he is there, and his office is located in the seam between the lots. In addition to many years of neighborliness and acquaintance with the Dadoun family, there is also a family connection between the families, as his brother is married to the neighbor's daughter. He also knows and identifies the grandchildren, and with some of them, such as the deceased, he has a good relationship. The latter used to pray with him every day, sat with him in his office and helped him with deliveries. When asked to define the relationship between them, he replied that he was "like my son" (p. 274, Q. 6). He knew the defendant less well, and when they saw each other, he greeted him. On the morning of the incident, his friend M.A. (the additional witness above) came to him along with his 13-year-old son, in order to repair the compressor on the roof of the cold room. He himself sat in the office and heard shouts and calls for help. When he went out to check on their source, he noticed a fight in the house next door, about 20 meters away, and called MDA and the police. The witness confirmed to the plaintiff, who told the police, that he recognized the voice of the caller for help, as a son, whom he had known from joint prayers. He described and demonstrated what he saw at the scene - a son covered in blood, from his neck to his thigh (p. 303), lying on the floor in the shape of an L., and without a shirt. In addition, he noticed a "figure" that was moving, which he did not see clearly, because he was diabetic, and also because of the laundry and the mourning tent that were there (p. 307). In response to the court's question in the cross-examination of November 22, 2022, the witness clarified, "I did not see any other person," p. 547, paras. 6 and 8). After refreshing his memory, and slamming himself to the fact that he had identified the defendant on the spot, he first replied that he felt trembling, saw blurred vision and remembered nothing, and then he confirmed to the court that he had seen the defendant moving from side to side "between the laundry" near the mourning tent (p. 312). He also confirmed that he may have seen the defendant arguing with the deceased who was on the floor, and at the court's request, demonstrated his squatting over the deceased's left shoulder, at a distance of 20-50 centimeters from him. He estimated that it was about 15 seconds, during which the defendant pressed his hands together, slightly raised, and his elbows above the deceased's knees (p. 341). Following the witness's shouts at him, "Maor, leave him," the defendant got up and began to move from side to side in the laundry area until he disappeared. In response to the court's question, the witness denied that he had seen other figures at the scene. He also denied that he had seen the defendant stab the deceased, and when he was told his conversation with MDA, during which he said that there were stabbings and blood at the scene, he replied that he had concluded that the blood was from the stabbings, but he did not see it clearly. The witness also stated that he had instructed the defendant to leave the deceased, because he was afraid that he would "continue to do something worse to him" (p. 363, para. 19). When he was shown a video of the security camera that was located above his office (P/49, Camera 2), he explained what he could see (the location of the parked vehicles, the arrival of the gas technician, and the mother's caregiver), and when he was asked about the hand movements (holding his head in his hands) that he made during the phone call, apparently to MDA, he explained that he was "talking with his hands" and demonstrated another movement to the court - a fist attached to his stomach over and over again (p. 400, para. 17). The witness clarified, after deliberations, that in his initial interrogations with the police, he did not share everything he saw, because he did not want to be "involved", but afterwards, on the advice of a lawyer, he told everything and "took it off his heart". In the continuation of his main interrogation (1 May 2022), the witness insisted that he had identified, with 100% certainty (pp. 444, 25 and 445 Q. 18), that the defendant was leaning over the deceased, as soon as he saw him, and that he knew Ms. Dadon's grandchildren, and knew how to differentiate between them. In this context, he confirmed his signature on a photocopy of the defendant's photograph, which was presented to him during his interrogation by the police (P/52). After deliberations, during which the defense removed his objection, the witness was declared a hostile witness, and his further interrogation by the prosecutor was conducted by way of cross-examination. When he was shown the security camera video No. 3, he explained conduct that took place about 20 minutes after the incident, during which an employee named W. arrived, and he told her what he had heard from a friend named S., who saw the deceased after the incident and reported to him about the places where he had been stabbed. During his description to him, the witness made use of hand gestures, which simulated stabbings. The witness was also confronted with the words of his friend M.A. (the witness above), who saw a figure leaning over the deceased and making stabbing movements, while the witness shouted at him to stop. He explained in response that they were not in the same line of sight - the witness was about 20 meters away from the scene, while M.A. was standing above the storeroom, close to the scene about 6 meters from the witness (p. 473). Even so, he confirmed that there was nothing that hid his field of vision, and that he did see the deceased lying with the defendant leaning over him, but denied that he had seen a stabbing action. When asked why he shouted at the defendant begging him to "leave him," he replied, "Don't do anything worse" (pp. 474, 30-29, 475 Q. 30-31, 477 Q. 15). The calls to the defendant were made, according to him, in order to frighten him and make him leave the place, as indeed happened about 15 seconds later. The witness confirmed that in his "consciousness" he assumed that there had been stabbings, because he had heard (as he also told in the third statement to the police) that in the same place the defendant was suspected of stabbing the deceased's father, a few years earlier, at the "shiva" of the late Uncle Shlomo. When the witness was heard hearing his first call to MDA, and he was asked why he was heard saying that there were "stabbings with knives" at the place, he replied that this was what came to his mind, because of the "history" with the father, to which he had referred earlier (pp. 502, paras. 15 and 19). He denied that already close to the incident he had decided not to tell what he had actually seen, and to try to conceal the identity of the defendant in his version - as implied by his second conversation with MDA, in which he said that he had seen nothing and that he should be left alone, and from his first interrogations with the police. According to him, this did not stem from fear of the defendant, but rather from his unwillingness to be "involved" in the incident, and from his "traumatic" experience with the police in the past. He confirmed that he saw movements made by the defendant, as he demonstrated in his interrogation with the police, on April 4, 2021, of fists clenched together, near the deceased's chest, with a slight movement back and forth of the upper body (pp. 512-513). To the question of whether the defendant was holding anything in his hand, he answered in the negative, explaining that he could not see clearly, because of the position in which he was placed, and he could not rule out that he was holding something (p. 521). Further in his main interrogation (on the opposite road, 3 May 2022) - when security camera video No. 2 was shown to the witness, he explained its location in relation to the grandmother's house, and confirmed that at 08:43 (camera time) a car arrived and unloaded merchandise, and that at 08:52 the air conditioning technician, M.A., arrived at the scene with his son. Later, the witness's employee arrives with coffee, and the witness moves his car and parks it behind the office. At 09:02 (camera time), the grandmother is seen coming out of the direction of her yard, with a shopping cart, and someone approaches her, accompanies her a little and returns towards the house. At 09:18 M.A.'s son. He goes to the car, and immediately afterwards, at 09:23, a guy with a hat is seen walking in the grandmother's yard, and the witness identifies that it is the defendant (p. 453, Q. 6), based on the walk and the hat (ibid., Q. 28). At 9:33 A.M., the caregiver T.Z. arrives at the scene and walks towards the house of the witness's mother. Later, the witness can be seen raising his hands on his head, and he confirmed to the prosecutor that this was apparently the time when he saw the defendant leaning over the deceased and shouting at him. At 09:36, the witness recognized M.A. He got into his car and left the scene. At 9:41 A.M., he entered the business again and went out to see what was happening with the rescue forces, who arrived, as can be seen in the video, at 9:46 A.M. on camera. At 09:50 the witness moved the car and immediately afterwards Ruthie and the police arrived, after which the witness spoke to the employee V., and entered the business with her at 09:56. The plaintiff turns to show the witness the video produced by camera No. 3. In it, too, the technician M.A. arrives at the scene with his son, and later, at 09:35, he comes down from the roof. At 09:57 we see the employee V. She goes in to get water to the witness and talks to him. At 09:33 (camera time) you can see the "critical" phone, as the plaintiff defines it, of the witness, and his demonstration, at 09:58 (p. 489). Referring to the witness's version in the police, according to which laundry was hanging in close proximity to the defendant and the deceased, the plaintiff showed the witness the body camera video of the policeman Yehuda Ratsabi (A.T. 4, P/24). He confirmed that at 6:40 a.m., the deceased could be seen lying on the floor, but there was no laundry hanging in the place (p. 497). He confirmed the absence of laundry again, at p. 501, para. 8 and at p. 503, para. 29). According to him, when the defendant got up from the deceased, following the witness's shouts at him, he began to walk from side to side in the shed, back and forth, 5-6 times, and grabbed something in his hand, perhaps a rag. The witness was also referred to the reconstruction video at the scene, and explained where he was physically standing, and what he was standing in front of his eyes when he saw what was happening. He clarified that the visible chemical toilets, as well as the mourning tent, chairs and tables, which were there at the time of the reconstruction filming, were not there at the time of the incident, and were brought for the purpose of shiva. He also insisted on his version, regarding the manner and position in which the deceased was lying, even when he was slammed in the face, that the officers' body cameras indicated a different position (p. 527). The witness denied that he saw that the deceased was holding something in his hand (p. 531, paras. 27, 29). In his cross-examination, from that day (3 May 2022), the witness was asked about his criminal record, and shared that according to his version, in 2011 the police "planted" evidence against him, and he was arrested and put on trial for drug possession. Since then, he said, he has lost faith in the police, and has tried not to come into any contact with them. Later in his cross-examination (8 September 2022), he confirmed that he was diabetic, and the answers he gave in his interrogations with the police, according to which - ostensibly due to his illness - he did not remember what he had seen at the scene. The witness replied that, as he had already explained, at first he did not want to go into the details he had seen "in the garden", and at a later stage he told them. He confirmed that he had told the police incorrect things, such as his sugar index that day, but that this was against the background of his unwillingness to share with them what he saw outside the house. He denied that he began to tell what he saw only after he was warned that he would be arrested, or that he would be interrogated on suspicion of obstruction of justice, and that the trigger that led to cooperation and exposure, as far as he was concerned, was the conversation with the lawyer, who recommended that he tell what he saw, and to take it off his heart - and so he did. In response to the court's question, he denied that he had told the police in order to "please" the policemen, after he had had a bad experience with them in the past (p. 492), and sought to clarify the matter by saying: "I am not afraid of anyone, I said everything I had to say, and everything I said in the interrogation is true, and I sit on it. I said what is recorded" (p. 493, paras. 25-26). Regarding his acquaintance with the defendant, the witness replied that he had known him since childhood, and especially his family, because his grandmother was his mother's neighbor, and he also got to see him on Facebook. As for his statement in the interrogation that he saw people "quarrelling," he replied that he saw the defendant moving around, and explained: "I saw people, I saw I told you Maor leaning over him, that's what I saw" (p. 519, para. 6), and clarified: "I didn't see people fighting. People, I didn't see them" (ibid., s. 16). As for a man named S., who, according to his version, he saw shortly after the incident, the witness replied that it was a neighbor who was riding his bicycle and saw, according to him, the defendant sitting on the floor in the street asking for water, and then saw that he had been evacuated by ambulance. To the scene itself, S., according to the witness (p. 521). At another meeting in which the witness was cross-examined by the defense attorney (15 September 2022), he was asked about his consultation with an attorney in one of the police interrogations, after which he shared his version with the investigators. According to him, it was a short consultation, which took place in the station corridor in the afternoon. The lawyer told him that he had nothing to fear, and advised him to tell the investigators what he had seen. When the defense attorney slammed him that he had not said anything about the defendant at that time, but only after he had been warned that he would be arrested, the witness replied that he did not remember what he said and when, because he had been interrogated for many hours. He noted that in addition to that meeting with the attorney, he also had a telephone consultation with him, and confirmed that he was afraid of the police in this sense, that after his past involvement in criminal matters, he did not want to reach a state of interrogation, and certainly not arrest (p. 459). To the defense attorney's question as to why he began to talk about the defendant, accidentally or not, after the retrial The interrogation entered the interrogation room and after a few minutes later, the investigation officer escorted him to the bathroom - the witness replied that he did not remember being spoken to outside the interrogation, and insisted that he decided to tell us that he had seen the defendant at the scene, following the legal advice he received. To the defense attorney's perplexity, he replied, "Retrial or not, I don't know them and I never saw these people, only during the interrogation that day, and that's it, they didn't let me and they didn't tell me" (p. 472, paras. 13-14). With regard to the version itself, he was asked whether he saw other people at the scene, and he replied that he told what he saw. When asked why he testified in court, that he saw "figures" (in the plural) at the scene, he replied, "No, not figures. I saw shadows, that is, Maor moving from side to side, that's the figures, that is, I saw Maor moving like that, that's what I meant" (p. 274, paras. 29-30). He explained that the first sight he saw was of the deceased lying on the floor, trying to lift himself up with his arm, and the defendant leaning in his direction. As soon as he saw the witness, and heard him shouting at him, the defendant got up from the deceased, moved from side to side and left the scene. In response to the defense attorney's question as to why he said to the police that the first thing he saw was the defendant standing over the deceased, he replied that he did not remember, explained that that standing was in fact a kneeling, and demonstrated to the court the position in which the two were standing, as soon as he noticed them (p. 491). Immediately afterwards, he spoke with MDA and the police, and at the same time shouted at the defendant, who was moving from side to side with a rag in his hand (p. 498, para. 30, p. 507). In this context, and by virtue of habit, he initially claimed that there was laundry hanging at the site, when in fact he confirmed that the officers' body cameras did not show that there was laundry hanging on the balcony on the day of the incident. Similarly, the mourning tent was also included in his version, following the reconstruction. There is no dispute, and this is also emphasized by the witness in his testimony, that the mourning tent was not erected at the site of the incident itself. With regard to the witness's statement, to the police and to the court, that he saw the two "quarrelling", he explained that he did not actually see them quarrelling (p. 508 s. 28, p. 510 s. 24, p. 511 s. 10), but rather the defendant leaned towards the deceased and "clung to him" (p. 509 s. 17, p. 513 s. 6). He denied that he saw contact or a fight between them, except for the touch of the defendant's knee on the deceased (p. 514 s. 24), as well as that he saw stabs (p. 511 s. 14, p. 512 s. 27), and in fact because of the distance, he did not see a knife (p. 512 s. 29). The witness again demonstrated to the court the movement of the defendant's hands on the deceased's back, with his hands close to each other close to the deceased's chest (p. 516). In his cross-examination (22 November 2022) he added a few details. When he spoke of a figure between the laundry, he did not follow the defendant to make sure that it was the same figure that was leaning over the deceased. In other words, he did not see him get up because of the shouting at him (p. 549), and that he was afraid of making mistakes and lying (p. 551, para. 15). Regarding the screams he heard from the direction of the scene, the witness explained that at first he heard a hoarse and "gurgling" sound, which he recognized as the deceased's voice, and went out to see where it was coming from. At a later stage, when he spoke to MDA, cries of "E.E." could be heard in the background, but the witness could not say whether it was the deceased, or someone else (pp. 553-554). In his re-examination of the plaintiff from that date (22 November 2022), the witness confirmed that when he described a figure moving from side to side, when she might have been holding a rag in her hand, he was referring to the defendant (pp. 557-558), and ended by saying: "I didn't see any more people" (p. 558, para. 10).
- The Witness Calls Y.A. To the 100 Hotline and MDA - Y.A.'s calls were submitted; to the Police 100 hotline (P/18 and their transcription P/18A); as well as his calls to the MDA hotline (P/19 and their transcript P/19A and P/19B); In addition, an IPS was filed on March 24, 2021 (P/18B, identical to P/70), prepared by Sgt. Eshat Aisa (T.29), who testified in court on January 23, 2023, regarding the examination of the witness's phone subscription number, the issuance of his calls to the 100 hotline from the day of the incident, and their transfer (8 in number) to investigator Meir Hadida of the Police Department.
During the interrogations of the witness Y.A. at the police, and during his testimony in court, he was played the calls he made from his phone to the various call centers, and he confirmed that he was the speaker in them. These are agitated conversations, from a very long time ago, in which the witness can be heard calling to the scene, shouting loudly, "police and ambulance urgent", "Hurry up ambulance and police quickly", and explain that: "There are stabbings here" (in a call to MDA), and "There are stabbings... stabbings with knives" (in a call to the police's 100 hotline). At the same time as the report of the incident, the witness was heard screaming, in the first call to the MDA hotline, shouting to an external party to the call, whom he apparently saw physically, in front of his eyes - with broken cries accompanied by pleas - "Leave him alone, oh come on, leave him, no no, leave him from the light of atonement for you, from the light of atonement for you, from the light of atonement for you, from the light of atonement for you, from the light of the Oh God", and yes - "Maor, Maor, Maor, Maor, oh I can't see this".