See Criminal Appeal 6679/04 Steckler v. M.I. (May 11, 2006) - "According to this test, an additional evidentiary addition of the type of 'something else', external to the defendant's confession, is required in order to convict him. ... According to the halakha, this is a verifying evidentiary addition, which is sufficient to allow the content of the confession to a certain extent, and not a complicating evidentiary addition of the type of assistance, and therefore there is no need for it to relate to the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the offense... There are reciprocal connections between the internal weight of the confession and its external weight."
See Criminal Appeal 1094/07 Dadoun v. MI (July 3, 2008) - "There is a reciprocal relationship between the internal weight of the confession and its external weight".
See Criminal Appeal 2073/04, 6196/04 Amdursky v. MI (September 4, 2006) - "There is a kind of 'swing' in which the greater the weight of the 'supported' evidence, the less the weight of the supporting evidence."
In his case, there is a series of independent and objective external evidence that exceeds the requirement for the said evidentiary addition, but in any event, it is certain that they meet this requirement.
Starting with Lieutenant Shadi's confessions, and ending with the series of locations of the defendant's phone, and the data of Route 6 that locate the defendant at the exact time and time of the incident, and the transfer of the weapons, in addition to the security footage. All of these fit in terms of place and time into the factual basis that was formed from all the testimonies.
This, in addition to the compositional weight that must be given to the defendant's notices in our case, in the circumstances of their delivery as detailed above, of good will and freely.
Therefore, it must be determined that the evidentiary addition requirement of something in addition to the defendant's confessions is met.
Conclusion
- In light of all the above,, Proved to me, It is beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed everything attributed to him in the indictment.
The petty argument raised by the defendant, in all its parts, should not be accepted from the factual and legal reasons detailed above.