The second relates to the interaction between the defendant and the deceased, at the two main scenes of the offense - inside the house and in the yard. In this context, we will examine the various pieces of evidence that can shed light on these critical minutes - including the security cameras, eyewitnesses, and forensic evidence collected from the scene. Formulating a picture of what happened at the scene is necessary in order to draw conclusions regarding the stabbings, and to attribute their perpetration to the defendant or others.
The third relates to the defendant's conduct shortly after the incident, including in the encounter with the rescue forces who were called to the scene. Within the framework of these, the neighbor's versions, who saw him fleeing, anyway - moving away from the scene, and that of the medic who treated him, and heard from him, even in the presence of a police officer, a preliminary explanation of the incident. As we shall see below, at this stage, and strangely, the defendant refrained from sharing with the person he met, that the deceased was at the scene, bleeding to death, and moreover, he did not share his suppressed version - that it was the perpetrators of the offense, the external, who harmed both him and the deceased. Another great perplexity can be found in the initial version that he gave - regarding his assault by the deceased, and his alleged defense against him, using his hands, and hence, as it were, the cuts in his hands. We will try to understand what was behind the deceased's choice, not to reveal to the rescue and police personnel a "acquittal" version, which could benefit him, regarding the presence of others in the arena - which he was expected to participate in - in real time and at the first opportunity.
It will be argued, already now, that the initial version of his assault by the deceased was abandoned and is not his line of defense later in the trial, and in the summaries. He insists that these are completely unknown strangers.
- These three points of time will be detailed and analyzed, as far as possible, with a "self-warning", regarding the weight that should be given to the relevant versions that are not without interest, one way or another, as aforesaid, and with a focus on the facts that are important for deciding the case.
The first section - the background to the event and the events that preceded it
- According to what is stated in the indictment, the background to the incident is not known to the accuser. However, the evidence that was brought before us - although some of it, as stated, is not necessarily objective and neutral - points to a possible motive, and it is also possible that a "warning light" that was lit by some of them leads to the incident. With the necessary caution, we say that the evidence shows that the defendant was involved in another stabbing incident, four years prior to the incident in question, when the object of the stabbing at the time was the father of the deceased. The defendant stood trial, and even served a prison sentence of several years. He was released only a few months before the case before us. Let us clarify and make it clear that the criminal record of the defendant, as well as that of the deceased, was intertwined, in a number of appearances, in the various testimonies and in the investigative materials to which we were exposed. This, of course, is not desirable - in principle. However, in retrospect - and from these years were brought before us, also by the defense, and at the initiative of the defendant himself - we will clarify that this did not instill a prior position regarding him, but it could and did in order to shed light on the understanding of the conduct of the parties concerned and their state of mind, during the critical minutes in question, and only that is relevant.
- We will review, therefore, the versions of family members, most of which relate to the present section. Regarding the collection of the notices from close family members, and in particular from the defendant's parents and grandmother, a memorandum was submitted by Sgt. Lawrence Basel (P/73T). A similar memorandum was prepared by Sgt. Niv Copperly, N/2, documenting similar investigative activities.
- The grandmother, Aisha Dadon, A.T.1 - This is the grandmother of the defendant and the deceased, in whose home, but not in her presence, the incident took place. Her statement to the police, as well as the reconstruction that was conducted with her, were not submitted for our review.
She testified in court (behind a curtain), at a hearing on November 28, 2021. The witness, about 81 years old, has 7 children - 4 girls and 3 sons (it turns out, from the testimony of the daughter Ruthie, that there are actually 8 children, since there is another son, named Itzik, whom the grandmother did not mention in her testimony). One of the sons died - the late Shlomo, and his son (grandson) Mor lives with her, with his brother Kobi (occasionally). The other two sons - Binyamin and Shimon - are the fathers of the defendant and the deceased, respectively. One of the daughters is married to the neighbor's son (the brother of the neighboring eyewitness, Y.A.). In this regard, a diagram relating to "family ties" was submitted, prepared by Policeman Niv Copperly, P/54). According to her, on the morning of the incident, Mor left for work at about 7:45 A.M., and shortly thereafter, she spoke with Ben, who was "playing" with the phone in his room, on the bed, and went out to errands with a shopping cart, through the back door. She explained that the house has two entrances - front and back. At the front entrance, facing the main street, the key lock is broken, and therefore the door is locked from the upper latch most of the time. In addition, since there are stairs on this side of the house, she goes in and out through the back door, due to medical problems in her eyes (p. 26, para. 11). When she came out, as stated, through the same back door, she closed it, but did not get up, and saw Maor (the defendant) coming from the direction of the main street, through the side path of her house, in her direction. He kissed her on the head, asked how she was doing, and said he would wait for her until she returned. When she returned, she saw police cars, and was informed that Ben was dead. When the prosecutor showed her the second video on the security cameras (P/49), camera time 09:22-09:25 - the witness recognized the figure seen in her, as her granddaughter Maor, and said that he could be seen "walking and coming back". In her cross-examination with the defense attorney, she denied seeing the defendant enter her home, and did not even know what clothes he was wearing, saying, "I didn't turn around or look or anything... I didn't see anything" (pp. 56, 7 and 9). At the time, she said, she recognized the defendant, who was standing next to her, both by his voice and by the way he kissed her head.
- The mother of the deceased, Riki Dadon, A.T.15 - her statement was submitted to the police on April 5, 2021 (P/35); the transcript of the interrogation (P/35A); and the CD documenting it (P/35B).
At the beginning of her statement, the mother, who had witnessed a threatening message, along the lines of "I will still kill you," said that her deceased son had received from the defendant about a month and a half before the incident. She herself warned her son about the defendant, but he reassured her and said that he had nothing to do with him. She described the background to her deceased son's residence with the grandmother for about 7 months (the cancellation of a wedding and his anger at the witness, in the context of his spouse). When asked to point out a possible motive for the act, she said that the defendant objected to him living in the grandmother's house, and mentioned the "first incident" (as she put it, which she will refer to later). According to her, the defendant was the one who identified the body of her brother-in-law, his late uncle Shlomo, and since the "shiva" on him, "he freaked out and would say that Shlomo told me to do it, even when he stabbed him, he said that Shlomo told him" (Q. 44-45). To the question of whether, in her opinion, there is a connection between the date of the murder and the fact that Shlomo z"l died on that day (i.e., apparently, to his birthday. A.W.), replied that she thinks about it a lot, and believes that it is a "revenge" of a "psychopath" (Q. 48). She also said that when she heard what the defendant had done to the people in Netivot, a "red light" went on, and she told her ex-husband to issue a restraining order against him, so that he would not go near the grandmother's house. When she was shown a video of the security cameras of the neighbor Y.A. (P/49), she identified "with certainty", as she put it, the defendant, at 09:23, as someone who had arrived in the yard of the grandmother's house before the incident - by the hat he used to wear, his walking, his cheekbones and his beard (Q. 76-88. This was also repeated in her testimony in court). When the defendant saw the video in the video, she said to the interrogator, "Atonement, he checked the area properly before" (Q. 314 of the transcript). At 32:02 P.M., the witness noted to him, "He was looking for him. The grandmother saw him enter the house and she left her son in bed. She spoke to him one last time. Who was in the house? Only Maor and Ben. He came in. It's the same thing as he did to my ex-wife. The same thing. He came with a knife, put the knife under his sleeve and pulled it out. He surprised him there" (paras. 248-250 of the transcript). At the end of the statement, the witness recalled another detail, when she said that her deceased son was afraid that the defendant would put something in the car for him, because he threatened him, and therefore he left it with her for a certain period of time (paras. 444-445 of the transcript).