The district court’s decision to acquit Roman Zadorov in the murder case of Tair Rada is a clear indictment against the law enforcement system. The 700-page verdict, unlike previous ones, answers many difficult questions that were ignored by those who believed in Zadorov’s guilt. The judges in Nazareth did not accept the prosecution’s position as there were several unexplained elements in the case. They did not rely solely on the appearance and impression of the defendant. The retrial focused on Dr. Chen Kugel’s opinion, who claimed that the shoe print found at the scene belonged to someone who was in the bathroom at the time of the murder, not an anonymous rescuer. The judges dismantled all the foundations upon which the previous convictions were based, including Zadorov’s confession, which they found unconnected to the investigation. Evidential failure was also a significant issue, including the destruction of DNA samples and fabricating evidence to pressure Zadorov into giving a false confession. The verdict concludes with a powerful quote from a judge who was reminded that one must never deviate from the rule of law. While there are victims of crime, it is crucial to ensure that the system doesn’t convict the wrong person, thus leaving the actual perpetrator free. This is not about supporting criminals, but about protecting the innocent and ensuring justice for all.
The verdict of the district court in Nazareth, which acquitted Roman Zadorov by a majority of two to one in the retrial in the case of the murder of the late Tair Rada, is an indictment against the law enforcement system.
16 years after the murder, the important verdict, on its 700 pages, unlike its predecessors, did not leave unanswered the difficult questions that bothered me and many others who claimed Zadorov’s innocence for many years. Contrary to past rulings of the district and the Supreme Court, in which those who still claim Roman’s guilt are currently clinging, the district judges in Nazareth, in the opinion of the majority, did not accept the prosecution’s position because there are things that simply cannot be explained in the case (the anonymous rescuer, the contradictions between the confessions and the reconstruction, the throwing of the pants and the lack of evidence at the scene) And they did not rely only on the appearance and impression of the defendant, as hinted in the past by Chief Justice Yoram Danziger. I do not have the capacity here to detail all the failures, as determined by the judges, that led us to this place, but I recommend to everyone, whether you are sure of Zadorov’s guilt or innocence, to read the verdict, which is available online, and get an impression for yourself.
Zadorov’s retrial was supposed to focus on the opinion of Dr. Chen Kugel, the head of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, who claimed that the shoe print with the blood of the deceased, found at the scene, was made by someone who was in the bathroom at the time of the murder or near it, and not by “a rescuer An unknown unknown,” as the prosecution claimed. This is how the theater of the absurd opens before us all: the prosecution in Israel, which receives daily opinions from the Institute of Forensic Medicine in various cases, claims in court that the head of the institute is a liar, unprofessional, only because his professional opinion (which was also received by retired Chief Justice Hanan Meltzer) does not match the theory of the murder. The evidence interferes with the story, so it is easiest to get rid of the evidence. What Dr. Kugel claimed, as a forensic expert, is that the person who left the shoe print could not have done so while the body was found, But only near the murder. The shoe print, it should be noted, does not belong to Zadorov.
To my great joy, although in my opinion this is an exculpatory view, the honorable judges Asher Cola and Dani Sfarfati were not satisfied with this and completely dismantled all the foundations on which the previous convictions were based. A good word also goes to Zadorov’s lawyer, Yarom Halevi, who brought to light the serious failures.
As I mentioned, I will list only a part and briefly, but I urge you to read the entire judgment. The judges in the majority opinion examine Zadorov’s confession to the dubbing Arthur, the confession to the investigators and the reconstruction, and emphasize that there is no connection between them. Even worse, the dubbed Arthur asked the police for details to plant in Zadorov’s words, and as the majority of the judges in the case determined, this was also done in his investigations. “The defendant is the defendant who makes excuses, who explains, who tries to please his investigators and give an answer to every question,” Kola wrote in the verdict.
But beyond the admission, the biggest failure is evidential, and there is no shortage. DNA samples taken from under the late Tair’s fingernails after the murder, which were destroyed after no match to male DNA was found; Zadorov’s work pants, which he claims he threw away – the police found several pairs but since they found no blood on them they did not bother to check if they were indeed Belonging to him; the false accusations that he is a pedophile and the search for snuff videos – which was completely refuted by the prosecution’s own witnesses in the current trial (the police expert confirmed that he was looking for music files); fabricating evidence in order to pressure him into giving a false confession, and the worst in my view, the use of a voiceover to Convince Zadorov not to meet a lawyer, because according to him they will “sell him”. Did we say Kafka?
At the end of the verdict, Judge Kola noted a sentence that never leaves me, “The judge will never see himself as one who has a sword placed between his thighs and hell is open beneath him, if he deviates from the rule of law” (Sanhedrin page 7 11). “That’s how I felt, that’s how I acted, And all in order not to deviate from the rule of law,” added the judge. One can only hope that this is how all those who deal with human rights law, those who hold in their hands the power to rob a person of his freedom and dignity. And a final word, many attacked me because, according to them, I support criminals “D. During an investigation, a constitution with emphasis on the rights of a suspect and other ideas for reform that will strengthen our power as citizens within the system). But it is important for me to point out, this is not about supporting the criminals, apart from them there are also victims of crime, and when the system is caught on the wrong person, it only means that the person who hurt is still free. I’m not doing it for the perpetrators, I’m doing it for the victims of the crime who remain unanswered, so that there will be no more Ilana Rada.