These cries of distress are not intended to be testimony, but rather are an integral part of the event, and they themselves are part of the body of the act. Beyond the fact that the cries indicate deep distress, and on the face of it, they are intended to achieve two physical consequences in the reality that is taking place. The message to the call center was to call for urgent help: the police - to stop the stabbings that were taking place in front of the eyes, and an ambulance - to treat the wounded. At the same time, there is also a message to the stabber - urging him to stop the act he was doing.
While begging, neighbor Y.A. addresses the stabber several times by his name - "Maor".
The neighbor testified, and my colleague analyzed his complex testimony with great sensitivity. However, according to the rules set out inCriminal Appeal 7293/97 Jafar Amer v. State of Israel , IsrSC 52(5) 460 (1998), the list of exceptions to the rule that disqualifies hearing testimony is not closed. Cries of truth from time to time speak for themselves, and the court's ears will always be open to hearing the truth.
In other words, even without the need to address the question of the reliability of the witnesses, the recording proves that the neighbor Y.A. saw the defendant stab the deceased. This evidence, the institutional recording, proves very well the identity of the murderer.
Testimony of the technician on the roof
This is evidence of the type of testimony. The technician is an objective and reliable witness. The technician saw a person near the deceased, making a knife or knife opening motion, and saw him leaning over the wounded man, and making stab and slashing movements. The time he saw the stabbing actions parallel to the neighbor's screams. The technician testified that the neighbor shouted a certain name that begins with the letter M (Mori or Maori), and called on him to stop. The defendant confirmed that the neighbor Y.A. shouted his name "Maor" at him while he was leaning over the deceased (Prot. 11 July 2023, p. 880). The combination of the technician's words on the roof regarding the time when he saw the person leaning over the stabbing, and the defendant's confession about the time he leaned over the deceased, prove that the defendant's leaning and the stabbing are the same. In any event, the technician's testimony proves that the defendant is the murderer.