• news

• News in Israel

• Criminal news and law

Over seven hours: The Supreme Court discusses at length Zadorov's request for a retrial

Zadorov's defense attorney, who was convicted of the 2006 murder of Tair Rada, raised allegations in the extraordinary hearing regarding shoe prints found at the scene and other blood stains.

Representatives of the prosecution argued on the other hand that the evidence and issues presented by the defense are "not very significant and decisive in the case and have no potential to influence the outcome of the trial."

Tags

• Roman Zdorov

• Tair Rada

Daniel Dolev

Tuesday, 10 November 2020, 18:21

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

• The cost of food loss in Israel is NIS 23.5 billion ...

• Netanyahu at the Corona Laboratory at Ben Gurion Airport: If there is no improvement, ...

• Biden: "Work on the vaccine must be transparent in order to ...

• Peruvian President Martin Viscara was fired on suspicion of ...

• Armenia: Angry mob bursts into government buildings after announcing ...

• Netanyahu discusses peace agreement with Bahrain: The peace circle ...

• The detention of Or Akiva Mayor Yaakov Edri, the suspect ...

• At the time of the announcement of Biden's victory: President Trump played ...

• Netanyahu welcomes Pfizer's achievement in developing an effective vaccine ...

• An event to mark the 82nd anniversary of the "Kristallnacht" events at home ...

In the video: The Supreme Court discusses Roman Zadorov's request for a retrial (Photo: Roni Knafo)

The Supreme Court today (Tuesday) discussed for more than seven hours the request for a retrial filed by Roman Zadorov, who was convicted of the murder of Tair Rada.

This is a rare procedure, as requests for a retrial are usually decided solely on the basis of written materials, and without a hearing in the courtroom.

Judge Hanan Meltzer, who is retiring in April, said last week that he would make an effort to decide the application until his retirement, including three months in which he can publish rulings after the retirement date.

Rada from Katzrin was murdered in 2006 and was found dead in the services of the Nofei Golan school where she studied.

A week after the murder, police arrested Zadorov, a 29-year-old Ukrainian construction worker who worked at the school.

He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Through his lawyers, Zadorov appealed the decision, but the Supreme Court convicted him again.

Zdorov submitted a request for further hearing, but his request was denied.

In October last year, Zadorov applied to the Supreme Court for a retrial, which has now been heard.

More on Walla!

NEWS

• Supreme Court hearing on Roman Zadorov's request for a retrial: The ombudsman opposes Kugel's testimony

• Public Defender's Supreme Court: Allow the head of the Institute of Forensic Medicine to testify on behalf of Zadorov

• State at Zdorov's request: Recording of a lecture - not admissible as evidence

• Istanbul is open - this is the time for a natural and permanent solution to male pattern baldness

Zdorov in court, today (Photo: Yonatan Zindel, Flash 90)

Zdorov's defense attorney, Adv. Yarom Halevi, first focused on evidence regarding the shoe prints found in the cell and on Tair Rada's pants, and determined that they did not belong to Zdorov. However, Halevy called this statement a "spin". According to him, the evidence indicates that the traces do belong to the killer, who is not Zadorov.

Thus, for example, one of the traces was partially covered in Rada's blood stain. The defense's claim is that Rada's blood could only drip from her body. Shortly after the murder, while the rescuers arrived at the scene after it was found, hours later. Hence, according to Adv.

To reinforce this point, Halevy asked to present what the head of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Dr. Chen Kugel, said about the possibility that blood would continue to drip from her body, but Judge Meltzer arrested him because he had not yet decided whether to accept the same lecture as admissible evidence. Submit an opinion on behalf of the defense.

Another piece of evidence presented by Halevy is a small blood stain found in the toilet cubicle next to the one where Rada was murdered.

Halevy refers to the testimonies of girls at the school who said they saw blood in the nearby cell, as well as to the testimony of a cleaner who says he cleaned that cell that afternoon on the day of the murder.

The claim is that the killer who allegedly left the three shoe prints may have left traces in the third cell as well, but they were cleaned before Rada's body was found.

Zdorov in court, today (Photo: Yonatan Zindel, Flash 90)

Another issue presented by Zadorov concerns two red spots found near the lock house on the cell door where Rada was murdered.

He claims that these are not blood stains, but paint stains, hence that the cell door was closed at the time of the murder - which allegedly contradicts parts of the reconstruction that Zadorov performed.

Halevy also referred to AK, the girl who claims to be the real killer. He says there is dozens of pieces of evidence that point to her, including her hair found on Rada's belly, and her mitochondrial DNA (DNA that provides a much lower probability of matching "nuclear" DNA - d "D) Corresponds to that of AK's spouse at the time.

He also mentioned a peace symbol engraved on the inside of the cell door, and according to him a manuscript comparison expert found that with an 85% probability he was engraved by AK.

More on Walla!

NEWS

What is the new evidence and what is the chance of a retrial?

All details on Zadorov's request

To the full article

The State Attorney's Office: There is no reason for a retrial

Representatives of the Criminal Department of the State Attorney's Office, who sought to deny the request, divided their response into three.

The first to argue was Advocate Tamar Bornstein, who addressed the request in general, arguing that “the new arguments and evidence presented to the court do not have the required specific weight or potential to influence the outcome of the trial, and therefore have no cause for retrial.

There are issues that received a great deal of weight in the application, but in light of the overall conviction, they are not issues of great and decisive importance in the case. "

Adv

.

Bornstein added that" the test is whether facts or evidence were presented to the court, by themselves or in combination with the evidence Most of the arguments heard here are a re-appeal, a kind of improvement, and not a retrial. It is not intended to re-examine difficult questions, which may have remained open, because if that was the case then in any case with a majority and a minority We would start over. "

Judge Meltzer harshly asked, "What happens if during the retrial it is doubtful whether he committed the offense. It is clear that if new evidence shows that someone else committed the act - then it is clear. But what happens when the new evidence raises doubts whether he did it or not? ".

There was someone in the courtroom who saw a waiter's hint that he tended to accept the request for a retrial.

Bornstein replied, "The burden is to bring evidence that has the potential to change the outcome of the trial."

Murdered in 2006 in Katzrin.

Tair Rada (Reproduction photo: Ginny)

Advocate Itamar Gelbfish referred in more detail to the new opinion presented by Zadorov, and began by referring to the opinion from which it appears that the toilet door was closed at the time of the murder. "The purpose of the opinion is to erode the credibility of the reconstruction performed by Zadorov.

Yanai Uziel (the forensic expert who testified on behalf of the prosecution in the original trial and has since died - D.D.) submitted an opinion on the matter, was questioned about it at trial, and testified that the door was open or half open.

A defense expert, Mr. Peleg, who was himself the head of the forensic lab for many years, did not disagree. So what is here is a further improvement. We had an expert who visited the arena and testified in the district court. And say that because now there is an expert who looked at pictures and after "14 years of thinking differently, in our eyes it is neither serious nor justifies a retrial."

As for the allegations concerning the three unidentified shoe footprints, which are visible on the route out of the toilet cubicle, Gelbfish emphasized that this question has also been discussed in the district court and especially in Zadorov's appeal to the Supreme Court - and has been decided.

"I was here six years ago, and that was the discussion," said Gelbfish, who also represented the state on appeal.

"On the meaning of the shoe prints, and that is also what disturbed the honor of Judge Danziger. If this is the doubt in the heart of the court, then it is not a new doubt. It has already been decided by the court."

To the substance of the matter, Gelbfish replied that the allegations regarding the shoe prints must be examined in the context of the fact that apart from them, shoe prints were also found on Rada's trousers, which matched Zadorov's shoe type.

As for the claim that the shoe prints coming out of the cell may not belong to any of the policemen or searchers who arrived at the scene, the representative of the prosecution replied that "this answer was given in the verdict by the majority opinion. "That there are things for which we have no answer, because reality is not a movie."

Judge Meltzer at an earlier hearing in the case, September (Photo: Reuven Castro)

The last to argue on behalf of the prosecution was Advocate Idit Farjun, who argued regarding Zadorov's claims that the killer was AK.

"Someone has been paying a price for this conspiracy for eight years," she said.

"It should be remembered that the basis for the whole theory against AK is the complaint of AK (AK's ex-partner - D.D.). It should be known to him, his abilities, that he is a cruel and unstoppable man."

Attorney Farjon added that from the testimony of A.H., given after the decision in the Zadorov trial, it emerged that he was well acquainted with the verdict.

"We wonder what suddenly in his testimony A.H. emphasized that AK knew how to use both hands. The answer is of course that in the original verdict there was a preoccupation with the question of whether the killer was right or left."

At the end of her arguments, Adv. Farjun referred to the hair that was found in the arena and carried the mitochondrial DNA of A.H.

"In our opinion there is no evidential importance that some of the hypotheses in the arena are not of the deceased or of the killer," she said.

She explained that the assumption that appeared in the request for a retrial, according to which only half a percent of the population in Israel carry the same mitochondrial DNA, could not stand on its own two feet with the certainty needed for a criminal trial.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments