Accused of burglary and acquitted due to mistaken identity Israel today

M. was sitting comfortably on a bench with a cup of coffee in his hand, he had just finished looking for a job in a vegetable store in the Givataim area.

40 minutes after a burglary occurred on Katznelson Street in the city, he was accidentally identified by one of the two roommates as the one who broke into her.

M. was charged with breaking into a residence, and according to the indictment, he entered the apartment on the fourth floor through the kitchen window.

During the trial it became clear that the complainant was not so sure about her identification.

When she talked to her partner, they matched the burglar's appearance and contaminated the evidence.

In the end, it was not possible to rely on the complainant's testimony.

The complainant saw the burglar for only 5-10 seconds, and was in a state of shock, but testified to himself that in such situations he tends to remember better.

In a photo identification session held two days after the incident, he stated that he identified M. as a burglar and was sure of his words, but the description of the burglar given to the call center and the description given in the police investigation were different.

From the trial it emerged - the suspect was in the area, but has nothing to do with the incident (for illustration), photo: GettyImages

Attorney Fadi Asad represented the accused on behalf of the public defender, and claimed that in addition to the arrest being biased - the police officers' testimonies regarding the manner of the arrest were riddled with inaccuracies and contradictions compared to the testimonies of the complainants.

At the police headquarters, a general description was received: "a man in jeans and a white shirt."

There were others on the street who matched this description, but the policeman only approached M.

From the policeman's testimony recorded in the action report, it emerged that he approached M. because he was wearing light jeans, but the things recorded were different from the words of the complainant who did not mention the color of the jeans to a police officer, but only after M.'s arrest. He told about his actions That day, which was recorded on security cameras, and he was in contact and met with other people, but the police hardly checked his version. 

Attorney Asad emphasized that M's behavior did not arouse any slight suspicion: "He stayed at the place and drove a car of ordinary people - he talked on the phone and drank a drink, as can be seen on the security camera." Also, at the trial it became clear that the shoe print found in the apartment did not match the shoe of m.

The court ordered his acquittal, in light of the difficulty of basing it on the identification of one eyewitness which constitutes the only evidence.

"I found that there is real doubt about the identification of the accused as the one who broke into the complainants' apartment," the judge wrote.

were we wrong

We will fix it!

If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us