There is no dispute that following these calls, on the part of the witness Y.A. towards the defendant - the latter got up above the deceased, walked so and so, in the area of the pergola, and left the place in the direction of the front of the street. The dispute between the parties is rooted in what the witness saw, in those few seconds, and what the defendant did to them, in practice. As noted above, while the accuser claims that the witness saw the defendant stab the deceased, the defense holds to the argument that the defendant knelt in the direction of the deceased, only to check his condition, which was caused by the actions of those others inside the house.
- Security Camera Videos CD, P/49 - Compilation of 4 videos, which were produced from the security cameras that were located in the yard of the house near the grandmother's house, and were seized after the incident. The first - documenting the interior of the witness Y.A.'s business; the second - the parking lot and the backyard area, which borders the grandmother's house; the third - the yard of the witness Y.A.'s mother's house; and the fourth - the area around his warehouse. According to what was stated in the viewing report prepared by the investigator Elad Avraham (P/49A), and in the report on the seizure of the cameras prepared by the ZIT investigator Irina Zazmer (P/56) - 18 minutes should be subtracted from the time stated on each of the videos, in order to reach the real time in which the filmed content took place.
The most relevant, and cardinal, part of the current time segment takes place on camera No. 2, at camera time 09:34 (09:16 real time). There, the witness Y.A. is seen. Standing next to a car and looking at the yard of the grandmother's house. While talking on the mobile phone in his hand, he raises his hands and places them on his head, opens them to the sides, and makes several movements with his hands, simulating repeated stabbings. Additional details from the video can be found in a review of Y.A.'s testimony, during which he was asked to relate to each and every one of them, and to give his version to the viewer there. In addition to the observation reports (P/49A-C) above, the interrogator Elad Avraham, P.A. 41, also prepared a supplementary report, dated April 11, 2022 (P/89), which relates to a later point in time, and as it turns out, no less important. According to what is said there, starting at 09:57:54, Y.A. and another woman (employee W.) are talking, and in the course of the conversation, Y.A. It seems, as the interrogator describes: "Slamming his hand on his body looks angry. The two are seen talking to each other. At a certain point, Y.A. is seen He points to his chest and stomach with his hand, and then shows stabbing movements with his hand, when he raises his right hand, which he is holding a cell phone several times, quickly lowers the same hand, and appears to be showing stabbing. Afterwards, Y.A. makes the same movements of stabbing on the neck, the right side of his head, and then the same movement on his stomach." According to Damashima, the time segments described should be seen as an imitation of the witness, about what his eyes saw, in real time and in retrospect.
- All of the evidence detailed above, in relation to the second segment of time, which constitutes the core of the event that is the subject of our discussion, points to the following data:
- Beginning with Y.A. MDA's second conversation, and throughout most of his interrogations with the police, the witness's attempt was evident - not only not to incriminate the defendant, but also to try and avoid telling what he saw, and certainly not to include the defendant in his version, in any way. This attempt was repeated at the beginning of his testimony in court, which was characterized by his lack of cooperation - to describe and detail what he saw as acting. These attempts were expressed in various ways, and included a number of claims, ranging from the witness's medical condition, his continued difficulties in remembering what he saw due to the trauma he had experienced, and ending with his fear of saying things inaccurately, or incorrectly. This approach led the police investigators to hurl harsh things at him, and even to his interrogators with a warning at a certain point, and to ask the prosecutor, time after time, to declare him a hostile witness, and to allow her to interrogate him by cross-examination. The understanding was that the witness knew more than he was willing to tell, as explained by Deputy Superintendent Zephaniah Karbi (T. 44), in his testimony in court, dated July 2, 2023: "In this case we had findings even before his interrogation, that we saw that he knew a lot of things, and that he was lying, for example that he was standing at the scene of the murder at the time of the incident, for example that he saw the murder in front of his eyes, why he called MDA and I hear him shouting the name of the suspect in that conversation, so any reasonable person who sees the cameras together with the name of the phone call, come and explain to me what you understand from it" (p. 892, paras. 2-6), as well as the interrogator Elad Avraham (p. 41), in his testimony of June 26, 2023 (p. 913, paras. 24-25): "We knew that he knew much more than he was telling us. We knew that there were things he didn't tell us because he was afraid." This is a result of the witness's conduct in concealing vital information, the disclosure of which could have harmed the defendant and linked him to the incident, as an active participant and as a prime suspect. And to be precise. In his fourth interrogation with the police, and after he was formally declared a hostile witness in court, when it was clear that he was not cooperating, deliberately - there was a real change in his version. At this point, it seems that the witness has decided to answer the interrogators' questions in a more open manner, and to tell as they are - and still to a certain extent - the details of the incident to which he was a witness.
- The reason for Y.A.'s lack of cooperation With his interrogators, and later with the prosecutor, the defense attributes it to the witness's criminal past, and his desire not to be involved in a police investigation, in any way. According to her, the change in his version was made in order to appease the interrogators, and to distance him, in any way, from the incident. On this point, my opinion is different. The impression from Y.A.'s testimony, and in particular from what he said to his interrogators, ostensibly incidentally and unofficially, is clear and unequivocal. The witness's fear was about the defendant and not about the police. Again and again, Y.A. approached him. to his interrogators, and shared with them his daughter's fears of the defendant, and his own fears - lest his words reach the defendant's ears and he would take revenge on him and harm his children, even if only for many years to come (when the interrogator would retire and the defendant would be released from prison). In such a case, he said, his life would be ruined, and everything he had built up in his 60 years would go down the drain. Throughout his interrogations, the witness felt unwell, and even broke down and cried, from time to time. He refrained from taking the risk of such a possibility, as long as the decision was in his hands. However, once the conversations with MDA were played to him, and he was shown the videos that documented him in real time, as well as M.A.'s version, also in relation to him - he had no choice, and he changed his mind.
- The defense's arguments regarding the change in Y.A.'s approach are varied. The source of the change, according to Y.A., and as aforesaid, was the massive pressure exerted on him by the investigative unit, which included threats, intimidation, denial of medical treatment, and the use of improper interrogation tools (including a "discursive conversation", as it defined it, with the investigation officer, during the witness's stay in the bathroom). The defense also argued that the details of his testimony were a clear product of "cognitive bias", which originated in his subconscious, and was based on past events that were the lot of the family of the deceased and the defendant. For these reasons, we were asked to prefer Y.A.'s earlier version over the later version, which he submitted, at the end of the day, in court. In other words, the defense is of the opinion that the witness Y.A.'s version should be preferred. In his first interrogations with the police, and at the beginning of his testimony in court, on the one hand, and to disqualify the other part, for the reasons detailed, on the other. I will preface my conclusion that I did not find anything in the defense's arguments about improper investigative actions, or threats, as a factor in changing Y.A.'s version. The witness clarified that the trigger for that change, and the decision to deviate from the way of concealment, came against the background of his consultation with an attorney, and his decision to clear his conscience and "take a stone off his heart." Various elements of his original version, such as the use of the words "shadows", "figures", "quarrels", "laundry", etc., were explained by him in detail, and they are consistent with the logic of things. I found his later and current version to be reliable and his explanations of the development of the ovary are convincing. The application of the defense's approach to adopting the witness's initial version leads to his first conversation with the rescue forces - which, as we will immediately see, should be preferred over his later version - as it is spontaneous, neutral and authentic.
- The first conversation with MDA (above) - this is evidence that, according to the accuser's approach, satisfies the conditions set out in the law, for the application of the "res gesta" exception to the rule prohibiting hearsay testimony. This rule states that when the conditions set forth in the law are met, it is possible to rely on an external statement of a witness, which was made as "part of an event", as evidence of the veracity of its content, and therefore to give it excessive credibility. During that emotional conversation, described above, Y.A. MDA reported on the incident, in real time. As noted, during that conversation, the witness shouted in the direction of the defendant, "Maor, leave him," and said, in a heartbreaking voice, that he could no longer see the scenes he had reported. The simultaneity of the conversation, together with the witness's shouting, which led the defendant to leave the scene, show that he saw and saw even more than what he testified about. His answer, that he shouted at the defendant, out of a desire not to continue to do "worse," also supports this conclusion.
- Witnesses Y.A. and M.A. confirmed that their field of vision, in relation to the scene, was not limited or disturbed in any way, and that they saw what was happening clearly. Although each of them observed what was happening from a different angle, and from a different distance, they both saw what was happening, as could be understood from their version. Even so, the two refrained from describing clearly and decisively what they saw with their own eyes in the critical seconds of the event. Witness Y.A., who identified the defendant at the scene leaning toward the deceased, insisted on his version that he did not see a knife in the hands of either party, and that he did not see the defendant stab the deceased. Witness M.A. Although he did not see a knife, he also confirmed that he noticed the opening movement of a knife, and immediately afterwards, the repeated stabbing of the deceased by the figure who was leaning towards him. A. testimony It closely resembled what the witness Y.A. described at the time of his telephone conversation with MDA, and from this it can be deduced, with a high degree of certainty, that the stabber saw by M.A. He was the defendant, whom Y.A. shouted at when he reported the incident to the MDA hotline. In other words, cross-checking the versions of the two witnesses, and combining them with Y.A.'s phone calls. MDA and its documentation in the security camera footage create a complete, coherent and convincing picture that the witness Y.A. saw the defendant, whom he called by his name in real time, stab the deceased in the yard of the grandmother's house. It is clear, therefore, that this conclusion, which is based on direct evidence, is far from merely a "gut feeling", as the defense sought to argue in its summaries.
- The defense's arguments regarding the possibility that M.A.'s testimony were influenced by a conversation he had with his brother, who is a police officer, as well as by an alleged investigative failure, which stemmed from the waiver of the interrogation of M.A.'s minor son. They do not change the picture. I am satisfied that this did not have an effect, or a material impairment of the defendant's defense. With regard to the second point - indeed, it may have been right to make an additional effort to collect testimony from the son, but it must be remembered - that he immediately drew his father's attention, so that the "bottom line" - it is highly doubtful whether he saw, alone, in the few seconds before being contacted, another significant event of great evidentiary weight.
My unequivocal impression is regarding the preference for Y.A.'s later testimony over his "vague" versions, to which a very understandable and plausible explanation has been given, since his more recent testimony is well reconciled, both with the recording of his words (his cries) in real time, and with the core of the testimony of the additional eyewitness.
- Alongside these insights, there is, of course, the defendant's version (which will be discussed at length later) according to which he was present at the time and place, alongside the deceased, but this was not in order to harm him and stab him, but rather to check his condition, following his stabbing inside the house by others. The defendant's bowing towards the deceased was intended, according to him, to improve and improve the latter's posture, and not the other way around. This narrative will be examined, as stated, below. It will be considered whether this version instills reasonable doubt in our hearts, in relation to the evidence to the contrary.
The third segment - the defendant fleeing the scene and evacuating the wounded for medical treatment
- In this segment of time, which took place shortly after the incident itself, and apparently, following Y.A.'s shouting. In his direction, the defendant leaves the yard of the house and turns, bleeding from his hands, to the front of the street. His gait, which was described by two random witnesses who were at the scene, was swift, and his purpose was to move away from the scene. However, he was unable to do so, and he was delayed by a medic who arrived at the scene, upon receiving the call from "United Hatzalah". He sat the defendant on the edge of the sidewalk, took care of his bleeding hands and bandaged them. The defendant's initial explanation to the same source was that he had fallen and was injured, while the police officers who arrived shortly afterwards, when he was put in the ambulance, had told him that his relative, Ben Dadon, had stabbed him, against the background of an "old" family dispute with his father, and that he had defended himself and had been cut in his hands. In addition, at that stage, the defendant noted that Daniel Sarhasher (the cousin of the two, who was nicknamed "Dandan") was also present at the scene (a claim that the defendant retracted, during the hearing of the evidence in the case). The stabbed deceased, who was wallowing in his blood in the yard of the house, was discovered only after long and expensive minutes. Although he was treated immediately by rescue forces, and rushed to the hospital without delay, this did not help him, and his death was pronounced shortly after his arrival there.
- The main evidence, which sheds light on this stage, focuses on the police officers at the scene (including the body cameras they were wearing), the medical and rescue personnel who arrived at the scene, and civilian witnesses. We will review the main points of them:
- Scene police:
- Netivot Station Police Officer, Sgt. Almog Yehuda Ratsabi, T.4 - a video of his body camera (P/24); a viewing report, edited by Sgt. Meir Hadida (P/24A); and an action report (P/24B).
In the video (P/24), the defendant is seen being treated by the paramedic Netanel Attias (below), and transferred to the MDA ambulance for further treatment. To the witness's question, the defendant, whose name is "Maor", answers him, corrects him that his last name is "Dadon" and not "Dadosh", and when he is put in the ambulance - he gives his ID number in its entirety. In addition, there is documentation of the witness tracing the traces of blood stains on the road, arriving at the various scenes at the grandmother's house and joining policeman Nuriel Aharon (below). MDA forces are called to the scene and the area of the scenes is closed by the SASL.