Later, in the framework of P/187, Shadi was asked about the types of Volkswagen vehicles that he was familiar with, and he said that he was familiar with Passat and Golf, and that he did not know that the Volkswagen company had a Jetta car (Q. 34-39).
I do not find room to give weight to these words in relation to the type of vehicle, since on the one hand he says that it is the same car that Adi had arrived at last time, when it may have been the defendant's car, the Volkswagen Jetta, on the other hand he is not familiar with the types of vehicles of the Volkswagen company, and does not know at all about the type of vehicle Volkswagen Jetta.
Claim of investigative failure in the absence of an identification lineup
- Regarding Shadi's testimony, an argument was raised on behalf of the"20. The defendant in the fact that no identification order was carried out for Shadi in connection with his acquaintance with the defendant, This constitutes an investigative failure and could damage both Shadi's credibility and the defendant's connection to the affair.
In this regard, A.A. 13, who was asked and replied that since the defendant at a certain stage in his interrogation admitted that he knew Shadi, the need for an identification lineup disappeared, since its essence was to establish acquaintance between unknown persons, and given the acquaintance between the parties, the proceeding was redundant (Par. of April 18, 2017, p. 238, paras. 14-22).
See P/172 B, p. 44, questions 14-15, where the defendant was asked whether Shadi knew him, and he answered , "Of course."
With regard to the failure to perform the identification order, it should be added, more than necessary, that the rule is that sufficient evidence is sufficient, and there is no rule that requires us to show the maximum evidence that can be obtained, "...The state provided the trial court with a sufficient evidentiary basis for convicting the appellant of the offenses attributed to him, and "the law is that 'sufficient' evidence is sufficient and there is no rule that obligates the prosecution to present the 'maximum' evidence that can be obtained" (Criminal Appeal 4844/09 Mas'ad v. MI (May 31, 2010).