On video: Ilana Rada at the summation stage in the Zadorov trial: there is more than one murderer (Photo: Eli Ashkenazi)
The retrial that took place in the last two years and examined again the question of Roman Zdorov's guilt in the murder of Tair Rada in 2006 will come to an end tomorrow with the publication of the verdict in the District Court in Nazareth.
The Zadorov trial is one of the most extreme expressions in the history of Israeli law of the distance between legal truth and factual truth.
The order for this retrial, which was ordered by former Supreme Court Judge Hanan Meltzer, is in the minority opinion of former Supreme Court Judge Yoram Danziger, who believed that Zadorov should be acquitted.
From the Tair Rada murder to the retrial: Roman Zdorov's trial will reach the moment of decision
Danziger wrote the following in his ruling at the time: "I will admit that I hesitated over the question of whether the doubt arising from the case is a 'mere' doubt, or one that amounts to a 'reasonable doubt.' In my opinion, the occurrence of a rare series of coincidences requires the occurrence of a rare series of coincidences. In other words, the probability that the appellant (Zadorov) is innocent is not high, but under the circumstances of the case, in my opinion, this cannot be sufficient in order to leave the conviction intact. Even though the evidentiary infrastructure links the appellant (Zadorov ) in a pious relationship as mentioned, it is not possible to 'round off' the doubts that float and arise from it, which should be attributed to him... The high standard of proof in crimes expresses his fundamental ambition to avoid convicting the innocent, and this also at the cost of releasing the guilty."
Then came Danziger's crushing sentence: "In this sense, a proper application of the criminal law may sometimes lead to a legal result, which may or may not be fully consistent with the factual truth."
It is not impossible that Danziger's spirit, even if written in other words, will serve tomorrow in the judgment of Judge Asher Kola, the head of the retrial panel.
The affair will not end even after tomorrow.
Zadorov at a hearing in the District Court in Nazareth, September (Photo: Flash 90, David Cohen)
Danziger's minority opinion was based primarily on the bloodstains found at the murder scene, identified by the defense as traces that certainly did not belong to either Rada or Zdorov.
Judge Yitzhak Amit, who led the majority opinion, stated that there could be different explanations for these traces, and that, for example, they could and did belong to an "unknown rescuer."
The principle-legal debate between Danziger and Amit in their decision was based on the question of "yes" versus "no".
Danziger actually admitted that there is strong evidence that justifies Zadorov's conviction, but in front of it there is an evidentiary gap - "none" - that establishes reasonable doubt.
This "no" is the lack of explanations as to who the hell these traces belong to.
The theoretical possibility that this might be an "unknown rescuer" did not satisfy him.
On the other hand, Amit's position was that this visible space cannot stand up to the strong and stable "yes" - a line of confessions by Zadorov in the act, while giving reliable details - in front of the police, in the reconstruction, and especially in front of the dubbing.
More in Walla!
Zadorov had a suspicious conversation after the murder of Tair Rada.
The police hardly questioned her
To the full article
Her murder continues to fascinate the country.
Tair Rada (photo: screenshot, reproduction)
It is this pair of words that became a common phrase in the sentence - "unknown rescuer" - that in practice, without intention, created the platform for the future recurring sentence.
In the request for the retrial, the defense presented an opinion according to which no more blood can flow from the corpse within an hour of the deceased's death.
Hence the defense argued that since the first rescuers allegedly arrived at the body only about five hours after the murder, it is impossible that the unidentified blood traces belong to him, but only to a person who was at the scene much earlier, perhaps at the time of the murder itself.
This issue will undoubtedly be at the center of the judges' decision tomorrow.
The court also examined the new "evidence" in the case known at the time as the AK case - the testimony of a violent rapist who goes by the name of Adir Habani (who for some reason is still on the loose), who told the police about six years after the murder that his ex-partner Ola Kravchenko (a "K"), she who murdered Radha while wearing his coat.
Later, a mitochondrial test done on the hairs found at the scene did not rule out the possibility that these hairs belonged to Habani.
As time passed, it became clear that the weight of these statistical findings seemed very weak, so I would be very surprised if any of the judges attributed real meaning to these data in the decision;
This despite the fact that Zadorov's lawyer went among the various media and firmly stated that she, Karavchenko, murdered Rada.
More than that, he also unhesitatingly called her a "serial killer."
The "is" versus the "isn't"
Zadorov's retrial was intense, very direct, and conducted in a scandalous manner.
There is not even a hint of a preliminary claim against the integrity of the judges and their presiding judge, Judge Kola, in this criticism, which was extended here a lot during the trial.
Furthermore, along with the capriciousness, the strange comments, the extreme confrontations with the prosecutor's office that reached a climax when he requested from its representatives a request for his disqualification, or alternatively a request for a kind of puzzling public statement that they trust him, her voice and the two judges beside him showed an amazing knowledge of the case that went down to details.
Zadorov's trial consists of endless details, but in the end he converged on the same issue that was the basis of the debate between Danziger and Amit - the "yes" (the strong confessions with the prepared details) versus the "no" (the lack of explanations for the shoe prints).
At the end of the retrial, the question is asked: Did the new evidence presented by Zadorov's defense strengthen the "no" claim?
As far as I understand the material taught, I think not, but I am quite convinced that the judges think differently and that is of course what counts.
This is the explanation: in front of the defense's opinion regarding the spill of blood, presented by no less than the head of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Dr. Chen Kogel, international experts of the prosecution presented opposing opinions. One of them stated that the blood could have soaked into Tair's clothes and from there, later A few hours, to spill. This opinion is very suitable for the position of Rada's body, as it was found, in relation to the blood stains. If the court does not kill the professionalism of this opinion, then there is still the possibility that the famous traces are of the same "unknown rescuer", or similar , and if so we are back to the starting point - to the dispute between Danziger and Amit.
A problematic precedent
This is exactly the place to clarify that a retrial is an independent trial.
Although in order to order its existence the defense must present new evidence, but from the moment the trial began the judges are free to rule as they see fit, regardless of the weight of the new evidence.
However, you will agree with me that it would be rather strange to think that at the end of the day, at the end of a trial, the evidence that led to Zadorov's retrial will have little, if any, weight in the verdict that will be handed down tomorrow.
If my analysis is correct, and in practice the new evidence presented in the retrial will not have tremendous weight, it is not impossible that the decision of the Kola vehicle tomorrow will in fact be a renewed decision between Danziger and Amit.
As strange as it may seem, three district judges, as important as they are, will decide between the two approaches of senior judges among them, the judges of the Supreme Court.
Those who sat in on the central and important hearings in the retrial will be very surprised if Zadorov is convicted tomorrow.
One of the key sentences of her voice in the hearings was when she slammed the prosecution that if they do not reach the people to whom the traces belong, Zadorov will be acquitted.
On the spot, the attorney's office then informed Kula that there was no chance that they would be found.
If Kola continued to stick to his comment, then the result is known in advance, a result that is an extreme adoption of Danziger's approach, the approach according to which the "nothing" - the evidentiary void - is stronger than strong evidence.
Adopting this kind of defense approach in criminal law is of course legitimate, but it must not be used selectively.
I have already written here in the past that according to this approach if Zadorov is acquitted, many murder trials I have covered that ended in conviction should have ended in acquittal.
Therefore, if this happens, as much as everyone is already tired of dealing with this case, it will be the duty of the attorney's office to request permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, not, God forbid, to persecute Zadorov, but simply so that there is a guiding rule regarding the status of the reasonable doubt in Israel.
Baruch Kara is the legal affairs commentator on News 13.
news
News in Israel
Criminal and legal news
Tags
Roman Zdorov
Tair Rada