The medical treatment given to the defendant and the deceased
- The Defendant's Treatment:
We will recall P /92 - a memorandum dated April 18, 2021, in which the interrogator Elad Avraham transcribs a telephone conversation between him and the Legal Institute for Life Examination. As stated there, he spoke with a female examiner, and asked whether it was possible to conduct a life test for a person who refused to do so, and he answered in the negative. He received an identical answer regarding the possibility of examining pictures of the wounds and cuts, without his consent, and the Institute's clarification, according to which "if he maintains his right to remain silent and if he does not respond to the request to conduct a life test, it means that he does not approve and requires his approval and nothing else, and therefore cannot conduct a life test on a suspect at all" (paragraph 4 of the aforementioned memorandum). On the content of what was stated in which the investigator Elad Avraham testified in court, on June 25, 2023, at p. 898). Failure to perform this examination also stands, as the defense claims for an investigation failure. In light of the aforesaid, this should not be regarded as an omission.
Exhibit 8 was filed - a summary of the defendant's medical discharge from the plastic surgery department at Soroka Hospital, dated April 5, 2021 at 09:48, after undergoing surgery to repair bent tendons in his fingers (Dr. Alexander Cohen).
Medical summary letter - discharge from the emergency room (P/9), dated 23.03.21 at 14:44. He was admitted to the trauma room at 10:02 a.m., and was transferred to the surgical emergency room for further treatment, due to multiple cuts to his hands.
According to these medical documents, the defendant suffered cuts to both of his hands.
- Physician from Soroka Hospital, Dr. Roman Streltsov, A.T. 36 - A letter of release was submitted by the defendant from the hospital (P/9), signed by the witness, in lieu of his main testimony.
He testified in court at the hearing on February 14, 2023. This is a doctor who treated the defendant shortly after the incident, as he specialized in the surgical emergency room. In response to the defense attorney's question, the witness ruled out the need for an oxygen mask to treat the defendant, explaining that according to the assessment made in the trauma room, his position was normal and he did not suffer from respiratory distress. According to him, insofar as the defendant was treated with an oxygen mask, this was done at the discretion of the treating trauma nurse for respiratory support, as opposed to respiration (which is done by means of an "intubation tube" inserted into the trachea), but this was not necessary. The treatment he ordered was to administer morphine intravenously, and to seek further treatment by a plastic surgeon, due to the cuts in the palms of the hands. In the context of morphine treatment, the witness replied that it can rarely cause dizziness or dizziness, as opposed to confusion (p. 601).