Screams at the State Attorney's Office and defense assistance packages: the horror show of the Chief Justice in the Zadorov trial

The Zadorov trial breaks records in breaking the rules of the game and looks like a shrill theater scene.

The judge allows the defense what he does not allow for the lawsuit, raises impossible demands and answers witnesses instead.

Even if the request has no chance, the prosecution should have asked for the disqualification of Asher Kola - even to express her protest

Welcome read

14/04/2022

Thursday, April 14, 2022, 6 p.m.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

• Share on general

• Comments

  Comments

In the video: Dr. Chen Kugel who led to Zadorov's retrial returns to the witness stand (Photo: Eli Ashkenazi and the YouTube channel Murder of Tair Rada)

Let's start with the bottom line: the prosecution team in the Zadorov case had to seek the disqualification of the head of the panel of judges, whose voice.

If I had any doubt on this matter, in the last discussion my doubts ended.

In a broken law there are endless rules of fair trial, of the appearance of justice and of adherence to the rules of criminal procedure.

Judge Cola finds it difficult to hide his personal hostility to the attorneys who claim in front of him, frequently raising his voice over them, while demonstrating calmness, smiling and conciliation towards the wild behavior of the learned defense attorney in the courtroom.

I have written here before that acquittal on the grounds of reasonable doubt is a sacred act in my eyes.

The Nazareth District Court received approval from the minority judge in the appeal heard in the Supreme Court (Yoram Danziger), and from the Supreme Court judge who ordered a retrial (Hanan Meltzer), so it is clear that there is no argument here that the decision to acquit Zadorov is unreasonable.

Judges in the Zadorov panel are allowed to be the most extreme markers on a scale that ranges from a prosecution concept to a defense concept.

Someone has to mark the end, as long as he acts in a clean mind and under fair trial rules.

Does this happen in the Zadorov trial?

Let's start with the events of the last discussion:

More on Walla!

What happens when a judge answers in place of the defendant: the strange story about Zadorov's retrial

To the full article

More on Walla!

• Zdorov trial - the prosecutor's office blabbered on in Kugel Square and failed the test

• Conflict in the Zadorov trial: the judges intervened, the plaintiff was forced to interrupt the investigation

• A smart test detects an increased risk of stroke - now in a special operation

Breaking endless rules of fair trial.

Judge Asher Kola in Zadorov's trial (Photo: Flash 90, David Cohen)

The discussion actually began in relative silence.

The defense attorney, Adv. Yarom Halevi, summoned former police officer Nir Mariash as a defense witness and asked for a document to be submitted through him. Since he had not signed the document in question, the prosecution objected to its submission. , And Advocate Viam Kablavi, a senior member of the prosecution team, reminded the judges that just recently they ruled the exact opposite, when the prosecution sought to file an undescribed document by the witness who was standing on the witness stand at the time.

At that moment Judge Cola's fuse jumped with joy very loudly at Kablavi's attempts to claim discrimination at trial, and Kablavi, who had already suffered some humiliation throughout the trial, replied: "My lord will not scream at me."

Upon hearing this, Judge Cola raised his voice even more, and shouted at Qablawi: "You are cheeky."

Kablavi tried to tell the judge that throughout the trial, he ignores blunt and harsh remarks directed at him by the defense attorney, as well as at other relevant legal factors.

Thus, for example, very recently, inside the courtroom, Halevy referred to the previous panel of judges who convicted Zadorov, as "the panel that did the Karhana trial," and the court did not even comment on that.

"When my friend (Adv. Yarom Halevi, BK), said these things, my lord ignored him," Kablavi slammed Judge Cola, who turned red with rage.

"Sit quietly," he screamed at him.

"you are rude".

Adv. Kablavi talks to a witness at trial (Photo: Eli Ashkenazi)

It cost Kablavi dearly.

A few days earlier, he had requested that no hearing be held on May 1 due to the Feast of Eid al-Fitr - the holiday of the end of Ramadan fasting.

The judges begged him to give up and have his colleagues fill his place.

"We will respect your every decision, but we will be happy if the hearing takes place anyway," Judge Cola told him, and the Frenchman added: "We will bring you a baklava," and thought it very funny.

Kablavi also insisted on celebrating his holiday and as a senior member of staff not to miss a discussion.

A few days later, after the screaming hearing, when the judge did not agree to the plaintiff's request to extend the shoe-stamping expert's cross-examination by ten minutes, he ordered the witness to appear for another hearing day as far as Nazareth.

Principle.

When Kablavi tried to make his voice heard again, Judge Cola waved it.

There was someone who heard him filter towards him: "We've heard you enough today."

Well, this time he has already less respected the Muslim religion.

The judge ruled that the hearing would take place on the holiday, and that Kabbalawi would get along.

This ugly incident is one of many expressions of Judge Cola's hostility towards the prosecution team.

Of course, the real pawls are not in screams and other similar atmospheric events, but in substantive matters.

Judge Cola stated in previous hearings, over and over again, that doubts should not remain after this trial, and that the truth clarification process in the retrial should not be left stone-to-stone.

Therefore, he explained, sometimes it is necessary to deviate from the criminal procedure, all for the purpose of clarifying the truth.

"This trial," he said frankly before several hearings, "will not be taught at a university in a criminal law course."

The judge does not actually show hostility towards him.

Yarom Halevi, Zadorov's attorney (Photo: Flash 90, David Cohen)

This statement, it must be said, is a little strange.

Does this imply that the accepted Israeli legal system is a method in which the truth is not really clear, and therefore he works in another method that he has developed?

One way or another, if the thing is true and all the judge wants is to reach a clarification of the truth, why is he repeatedly interrupting cross-examinations of the prosecution?

Why did he put answers in the mouths of witnesses even before they answered?

Why he urges plaintiffs to finish when they plead with him that they have only a few more questions that are important for the purpose of clarifying the same truth;

Why does it sometimes seem to actually work in the defense service, as in the following case:

During the cross-examination of the shoe imprint expert, Inspector Aviad Levy, it was apparent that Judge Cola had already formulated a position.

Not only did he formulate a position, he actually assisted Adv. Halevy in the craft. When Halevy tried to question the witness about the 12 potential traces found on the toilet floor, Judge Cola told him: , 4.

You do not need more. "Traces 6,5,4 are the traces between which there is some match to each other, and some match between them to the trace found on the toilet.

It was clear that Judge Cola had already formulated a position.

Roman Zadorov during his trial (Photo: Eli Ashkenazi)

What Judge Cola tried to say in other words to Halevy is: What are you trying to do, you have already proved that there are four traces in the cell that are not Zadorov's, that seem to match each other.

The judge's statement was puzzling.

It sounded decisive while these facts were still controversial, mainly due to the fact that the expert himself insisted that he could not give a serious opinion on these traces when he did not have the original shoe for comparison.

At one point Judge Cola recognized that one of the footprints was facing the flush tank (Niagara), "the flank was facing the flush tank," he said, looking at Advocate Halevi. This reinforces the defense's contention that the killer's exit route from the cell did not match that described by Zadorov in the reconstruction of the murder. .

In a previous hearing, Dr. Maya Furman of the Institute of Forensic Medicine appeared as a defense witness. Prosecutor Sharon Har Zion presented the opinions of two international prosecution experts from abroad who state that contrary to her position, the murder could not be determined with a serrated knife.

At this point Judge Cola burst in to help the defense.

"Your experts do not say the murder was carried out with a smooth knife," he suddenly said during the cross-examination.

"But they say there is no indication that the murder was committed with a serrated knife," Har Zion replied.

"But they are not saying the murder was carried out with a smooth knife," Judge Cola insisted.

Erupted to the aid of the defense in testimony.

Dr. Maya Furman from the Institute of Forensic Medicine in court (Photo: Eli Ashkenazi)

This discussion, I must admit, was bizarre to say the least.

First, if the knife is not serrated, is it not clear that it is smooth?

But leave it at that;

Let's return to the basic facts: Zadorov says in his confession (the one he later retracted) that he committed the murder with a Japanese knife.

First, there are serrated Japanese knives (as the Supreme Court also notes in the appeal);

But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that if the knife is Japanese then it is smooth.

Zdorov, as mentioned, said Japanese.

Prosecution experts say that unlike Forman's opinion, there is no indication that the murder was committed with a serrated knife.

What is the meaning of the burden that Judge Cola now imposes on the prosecution, and even during the cross-examination, that its experts will positively determine a finding that will strengthen what Zadorov said in his confession?

The opposite is correct.

If two of the world's top experts, whose books Foreman studied when she was trained to be a forensic doctor, state that her opinion is incorrect, is that not enough?

After all, there is a confession by Zadorov regarding the Japanese knife - a confession that the defense attorney also does not claim was collected by force.

If this confession had been obscured by an unequivocal opinion that is undisputed, fine;

But in our case the same opinion, which we assume and contradicts Zadorov's confession, is obscured by two of the world's top experts.

These bizarre demands of the judges join additional demands that are not acceptable in criminal law.

At some point in the trial, the judges told the prosecution: "If you do not find the people whose footprints in the toilet are theirs, you are in trouble."

Is this the standard of criminal justice in Israel, after a defendant admitted to Medvedev that he committed the murder and provided precarious details?

Because if so, responsibly, it is possible to immediately evacuate half of the prison residents.

Requirements that are not acceptable in criminal law.

Zdorov during his trial (Photo: Shlomi Gabay)

To this conduct add what we have published here before: how Justices Cola and French put words in Zadorov's mouth in his cross-examination to the plaintiffs' protests, as well as the bizarre story that occurred at the beginning of the trial when Judge Cola asked the prosecution to consider withdrawing the indictment.

This trial is regularly accompanied by two supportive bands, both of which support Zadorov's acquittal.

The first band is the one that accompanies Zadorov, and the second, in contrast, is the one that accompanies Ilana Rada.

The reactions in the audience are very supportive of any statement made by the judge against the prosecution and in favor of the defense team.

Rada, one can understand, receives a special status in the hall;

More than once she makes interjections during the testimony of one of the witnesses and the judge does not really bother her to do so.

Even in the testimony of A.H. (Adir Habani) and AK (Ola Kravchenko), which took place behind closed doors, the judge allowed her to be present.

The retrial will not put an end to conspiracy theories.

Tair Rada (Photo: Ginny)

The two bands, which represent groups of hundreds of people on Facebook, are very pleased with the judging panel, and Rada is repeatedly interviewed and says that unlike the first panel of judges, these judges are doing justice.

In light of things I have written and broadcast in the past, she slapped me because I was not in the previous trial and I do not know how it was conducted.

She's right, I was not there, but even if her words are true, is the way to correct one legal injustice another injustice?

One thing can be clearly said: tragically, Zadorov's retrial will not, once and for all, put an end to all conspiracy theories.

The trial is likely to end in acquittal, and it is likely that the prosecution will no longer appeal that acquittal.

If another killer is later discovered, this whole article and my previous articles will probably become irrelevant;

If no other killer is found (and I admit guilt in my opinion there is no such person), again, those who follow this trial will be divided into two: the first group will delve into the failures of the current trial, and the second group will claim that the authorities do nothing to find the real killer.

Judge Cola could have prevented this situation.

Any of his verdicts could have been proper, even if many would think he was wrong, as long as he conducted this trial according to the criminal procedure and not as a shrill theater scene while breaking the rules of criminal procedure.

Had a request been made for the disqualification of Judge Cola by the prosecution, it would probably have been denied.

The Supreme Court is in no hurry, and rightly so, to accept dismissal requests.

Despite this, due to the anomalies, the State Attorney's Office had to submit this request, if only to express its opinion on what is happening in the courtroom in Nazareth.

• news

• Opinions and interpretations

Tags

• Roman Zdorov

• Tair Rada